Not really, because despite him proving you wrong, you still later called him:
And even if what you imagined was correct:
That still does not lead to your conclusion that āevery good musket player must be an aimbot.ā
So do you have any evidence for reaching that conclusion? Iāll wait.
Musket still playble. not imbalanced hitscan with over dmg
we have literally best musket in the world in guild and he sayd still playble , just need more moves
Didnāt prove me wrong as I just asked a question.
That was a question that for some reason you keep asserting it was a statement.
Which he clarified. As Iāve explained to you many times now. 
Musket was nerfed a little bit too hard imo. Just a little.
That is not a question, as you made a conclusion without waiting for an answer. We both know that, so you donāt need to pretend otherwise.
Then he replied, simply:
Despite this, you kept going:
So despite him proving you wrong multiple times, you kept going with your false conclusion because you wanted to keep trying to argue.
That is a question. See the question mark at the end? Like this one to the left here.
What is your obsession with saying he proved me wrong? Its cringe.
Iāll admit when Iām wrong like I did when I missed his answer. But no my interpretation of his barri aimbot response was a reasonable interpretation and thus why I asked the question. Which he clarified.
You are just simply picking fights at this point.
Iām on, EASILY, one of the most competitive servers on the game, with a few of the best companies on the game. (On Castle of Steel, anyone that thinks different, feel free to come and prove me wrong, be funny watching another company region swap, just to get farmed)
Some of the best musket players in the game are on it. Everyone mutually agrees, musket is dead. Grats, you can get a couple kills here and there, from bad players. Anyone with half a brain, youāre not killing. RNG shots arenāt the way to fix the musket. Being forced to stay still for 2 seconds, trying to hit someone else that will stand still for 2 seconds, is near impossible. Especially if a bow sees you trying to stand still, theyāll have you dead (from 100m) with zero effort, while youāre trying to get max accuracy on them. May not be too bad if they would fix it to where moving your cross hair, wouldnāt reset the bloom. Also doesnāt help that zoom is bugged (a dev openly admitted this, and never fixed it before putting it in live)
Musket is not fine. Anyone that says different, is delusional and is hitting the copium HARD.
Itās not a question if you donāt wait for an answer, but rather immediately interject with your own conclusion. Again, we both know this 
It is a textbook fallacy.
If you genuinely donāt realize that, your interpersonal skills might need some work.
Ok 
No, itās still a question.
The little ā?ā signifies that
Why did you say āGot itā immediately afterwards, despite not having yet received an answer, if it was a legitimate question and not an obvious strawman?
Because his aimbot response was pretty telling of what his intention was. But he clarified it later. Still a question.
Had he said in his first response what he said later I never would have asked the question.
But he hadnāt responded, you reached that conclusion on your own.
So your āquestionā was really a fallacious restatement of what he initially said with your own alterations, with the built-in presupposition that he had both said āall good musket users are aimbotsā and also agreed with it, despite having done neither.
Elementary school tactic
I hadnāt reached a conclusion. Thus why I put a question mark at the end instead of a period.
The āgot itā was to emphasize how ridiculous I thought his response was to the previous post.
Like talking to a wall.
But you did reach a conclusion by saying āGot it.ā
And you doubled down many times on it:
A wall canāt call you out on your entirely fallacious style of argumentation
No, the got it was to emphasis how ridiculous I thought the aimbot response was to the previous posts account of the musket user on their server.
If I had reached a conclusion, I wouldnāt have used a question mark.
Let me know when that starts.
But he had not responded.
You had, hence your use of a strawman fallacy and also why you doubled down many times on your false conclusion, as I just proved.
So? I have to wait for a response before I express my initial thoughts of his response? Are you for real? I asked a question looking for his response. Which I got. Not sure why I have to explain such a simple exchange in such detail.
Yes, that is how actual questions work. You wait for the other party to respond before you can comment on their response
You do know that people can ask questions, then express their opinions, then wait for their response? And it doesnāt eliminate the initial question. Donāt you?
I feel like I entered the twilight zone talking with you.
You didnāt express an opinion, but rather reached a conclusion that presupposed an affirmative answer to your question. Thus, the very obvious strawman.