The actual point I was making there, behind the sarcasm, is that no definite formula or algorithm for the alleged so-called ‘MMR’ has been presented to the general public, as far as I’m aware.
Thus, as your words would also imply, in my view (please correct me if I misunderstood), ‘MMR believers’ (or ‘Blizzard shills’, as you put it) are no better (or worse) than ‘conspiracy nuts’ in this regard — these are both just theories.
It’s got nothing to do with establishing the ‘truth’ — we’re not in court, after all. What counts is arguments in favour of either theory.
That is more from the ‘motive’ part of the scheme I proposed above (the other two being the means and the suspicion of the ‘crime’ actually having happened). And yes, it’s a valid argument, although it might or might not be actually true.