Used by who?
The Freespace wiki, among other things.
...
Dave Baranec is human just like the rest of us. Just because he coded for the engine does not make him God; what he says is not automatically universal truths. If he wants to offer his opinion as a professional game developer, he's more than welcome to do so.
Those canon failures are due to ensuring forced mission outcomes and advancing the rails of the story.
No, they aren't. Both missions could've addressed the questions without altering the outcome.
I'm pointing out deficiencies in your analytical style and argumentation skills, rather than an ad hominem
"I'm borrowing it for an indefinite period of time rather than stealing it", eh?
that you are an objectionable or ill-tempered person who takes personal slights too easily and thus can't make a correct argument. You were the one who made a questionable argument about circumstantial evidence, which as any lawyer will tell you is a valid method of analytical reasoning.
Well, I don't think my temper is quite notable enough to make it into the wiki.
As for lawyers, I'm not trying to demonstrate any particular method of reasoning; assuming that one thing happens because of another just because they happen at around the same time is wrong.
Good design would include (a) managing the defending forces so that neither side is overwhelmend and (b) creating plausible scenarios where both sides have reinforcements enroute, but waiting risks the other side having the overwhelming force.
Good design also recognizes that if you always come at things with the same set of design techniques, you'll always get similar things. If you are a monk in a Chinese monastery practicing martial arts, repeating things over and over may be the correct thing to do to master those techniques. If you're producing entertainment for a large audience, you can do the same things over and over, but you have to have obvious variation or the audience will get bored. Having groups of four ships jump in at a time in every campaign vastly stretches the realism of it all, no matter what you say.
Now YOU are making the ad hominem attack, by directly arguing that my argument is wrong because I'm advocating it...and well, I'm a bad person so anything I support can't be endorsed by the wiki.
You wouldn't have to summarize my argument if you weren't twisting it around like that. I didn't say you're a bad person. Your argument doesn't fall under the wiki's definition of canon, so it's not up for automatic inclusion. Your claims aren't objective facts that we can prove or disprove, although it's related to Freespace, so it doesn't merit inclusion on that basis, either. As such the only thing we can say is that it's either your opinion or the opinion of others - so it mostly falls under the same category as the "Veteran comments" in the wiki.
This set of guidelines has been established through discussion on this board over the last year or two.
While you might be a competent programmer, perhaps I should reveal that I'm a more than competent lawyer and debater. Q.E.D.
Actually, that's kind of flattering. I would've expected a professional lawyer to have me soundly beaten by now, whether I was right or not. It's good to know that I can fare so well against someone who prides themselves on their debating skills.