My premise may be incorrect -- although I stated from the beginning that it's my opinion that when you give scores you lay claim to an objective review (I even said "feel free to disagree" about my premise) -- but my logic is perfectly sound because it's formal logic. Your mistake was trying to find internal contradictions in my position, when you should've just denied my premise and you would've done fine.
That's
not any premise of the argument. That's a premise that you introduced straight after you confused causation with correlation and straight from a fallacy. Yes, most reviewers use scores as well, but scores aren't reviews and therefore the presence of scores does not imply a reviewer or review. The premises are the facts about the CRPG Addict as well as the meaning of scores and reviews, which unfortunately proved to be unclear to at least one participant. The facts about the CRPG Addict being all important, and they were clearly that he:
1) Writes reviews for games.
2) Attributes scores to games.
By making the immediate jump to scores being the causation of his reviewer status instead of the review texts themselves, you've opened yourself up for questioning. By mentioning that a site like Rock Paper Shotgun doesn't include review scores yet clearly write reviews, I was pointing out, though admittedly not very clearly, that the existence of the review text is the only thing that causes a review and not the numerical scores. In other words, I was merely pointing out a premise that invalidates your logical leap (assuming you agreed with the premise in the first place) and not making out that you said something you didn't say, hence why "So apparently Rock Paper Shotgun don't do game reviews because they refuse to give scores? Interesting!" is clearly a
rhetorical question. Having said that, this is
only valid if you shared the premise that all reviews have review texts, which seems to be something that you at least didn't agree with at the time. You're right in that if reviews didn't need to include review text then not having scores does not necessarily imply not being a review, because it could be assumed that scores
themselves are a type of review and thus Skyway's list of game scores (the infamous screenshot) is a list of reviews.
The logic is simple given what I assumed
should be a shared premise.
A = Review Text
B = Review Score.
C = Review.
Premise: A equals C (review text is the same thing as a review). A does not imply B (review text does not imply a score). B does not imply A (score does not imply review text).
Your fallacy: B implies C is incorrect because A equals C and thus B would imply A, which cannot hold because B is assumed to not imply C, as stated in the premise, as review text and review scores are independent (Rock Paper Shotgun's scoreless reviews and YouTube's text-less like/dislike score system (which I assumed you would agree is not a review system)).
Having said that, if your premise was as follows: A implies C and B implies C (reviews can be textual descriptions/opinions or a simple numerical score) then your logic starting on this page does hold up.
But as I picked on something you said based on what I believed was a shared premise before you picked on my picking for what you believe was a shared premise then I don't see how I can be at fault for anything other than not discussing the parameters of the discussion beforehand, which you are equally guilty of.
Furthermore, I do believe you were the first one to be turn downright rude with the whole "cannot into logic" stuff and "embarrassing yourself" stuff just because you started introducing actual logical notation before I did (conveniently after your own mistakes too, which formed a basis for your logic anyhow). That's not something you want to read at 7:00AM when you've been up all night and are desperate to go to sleep.