The Bridgeplay Thread: When Open Source Criticism Becomes an Attack
Part 3 of the series on Raymond Chin's Bridgeplay. Issue #79 began as a principled objection and ended with a block, a demand to delete the project, a personal attack and a pasted AI-detector score. This part maps that escalation and argues for one rule: criticise the code, test the claim, respect the person.
RAHMAT WIBOWO | 24 OCTOBER 2026
Bridgeplay, by Raymond Chin (GitHub: raymondchins), runs Windows Steam games on Apple silicon Macs and is a GPL-3.0 fork of NotProton. By 23 October 2026 the NotProton maintainer had blocked Raymond Chin, who had already admitted several mistakes and withdrawn a 32-bit fix claim. Part 2 covers how the thread got there.
When criticism becomes an attack
The first three steps can still be answered with code and data. The fourth, a block and a demand to delete the project, ends the conversation. The last one attacks the person. I do not repeat those sentences here.
An AI-detector score was also pasted into the thread with a "ignore previous instructions" joke. AI detectors are often wrong, and whatever they say, they do not answer whether an argument is right. Raymond Chin had already been open about using AI. What deserved testing was the claim, and the 32-bit claim was indeed wrong and was withdrawn. That is the healthy route.
The principle I hold. Criticise the code, test the claim, respect the person. Understandable anger still does not give permission to demean.
What a healthy answer looks like at each step
| Step | What it targets | An answer that keeps the conversation alive |
|---|---|---|
| Polite note | Gaps in the work | Fix what you can, say why you decline the rest, leave the door open |
| Principled objection | Impact on upstream | Acknowledge the impact, separate what the licence allows from what upstream wants |
| "Slop" label | Quality | Answer with a reproducible test or withdraw the claim, as happened with the 32-bit fix |
| Block and delete | The relationship | Respect the block; keep credit and the invitation to support upstream visible |
| Personal attack | The person | Do not reply in kind; record it and return to the code |
Bridgeplay's side of the thread mostly followed the right-hand column: Raymond Chin fixed gaps, admitted mistakes, withdrew an untested claim and answered the block once. That does not settle whether the fork was wise. It does show that a dispute about a fork can stay a dispute about code.
Limits and right of reply
Evidence is public screenshots as of 24 October 2026, with dates estimated from relative times. I am not a neutral party: I opened issue #2. This is not legal advice and does not judge anyone's character. The full list of limits is in the overview.
Right of reply. Raymond Chin, the NotProton maintainer and anyone quoted can send corrections to [email protected].
Raymond Chin and Bridgeplay: the series
- Overview: timeline and six conclusions
- Part 1: Issue #2, the early attribution review
- Part 2: Issue #79, the upstream objection
- Part 3: When criticism becomes an attack (this page)
- Part 4: Ten fork manners
#Bridgeplay #RaymondChin #OpenSource #CodeReview