I don't know why you're being so hostile towards GendoIkari. I happen to agree with him, that's why I suggested new wordings for the Credit event.
It seems like you're always hostile towards anyone who doesn't follow your flawed logic to arrive at the exact interpretation you do or that you intended.
I am not hostile towards Gendo. This is not about persons but principles.
I dislike rule-lawyering in general BEFORE you settle on how to implement a mechanic well. Very often folks post ideas here and the first or even only reactions are question about rule ambiguities and funky combos that rarely happen. I think that you should first consider whether the rough idea is good and what should be changed mechanically before you make a card watertight and perfectly worded. It makes little sense to fine-tune a card when the basics are not even settled yet.
Of course in the latter stages folks who are savvy about the rules and fine wording are useful (not that it is that relevant, most cards are only used by the folks who designed them anyway so they could easily explain any rule ambiguities to the folks they play with). But initially cards should be analyzed technically, especially in a case like this where the card includes a novel idea that could very well be total crap.
About "flawed logic", no idea about what you refer to. This card is about a new mechanism and naturally implies some rule changes. Folks who have an issue with that might wanna stick to more conservative cards instead of accusing fan card designers who do not care that deeply about staying within set parameters of using a "flawed logic".