I understand a lot of you kids have never gone to college or studied any form of logical thinking, so maybe you think this is actually a reasonble argument. I mean the motivation for someone posting is imporatant right? They are bad so they complain about something. You think because they have motivation to post something that invalidates their opinon.
NO. Just no. Their motivation is irrelevant to the argument they use. It is the evidence that they present that matters. So even if you could prove they are the worst player on the planet; IT STILL WOULD NOT MATTER. It is the evidence they present in their argument that matters, you have to deal with that: not "if they are bad or not".
In logic this is what we call argument ad hominem, or "attack of the person". I know politicians do it all the time, I know in grade 6 school yard they do it, it is used all the time, but in LOGIC it is a fallacy.
Any time you use it: You FAIL.
Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.
The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personem argument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.
The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.