You have some persecution complex, because people aren't saying those things anywhere in this thread. And I don't understand who you think is trolling here, honestly. You've falsely assumed some random garbage about people responding to you and taken a massively defensive posture about the things you've assumed. Pretty easy to feel any way you want to feel when you're making up what others are saying. If anyone's trolling, it's you trolling yourself.

There is a standard to which people expect posts about decks that have no history, and it's way higher than the standard of the post you made. As per the sidebar, if you're bringing a rogue deck, you should expect scrutiny and be able to describe the matchups in testing, and what you think its strong and weak points are. Your post does/did almost none of that -- I mean you have the GW% against GW at 40-70%, which for almost any deck is basically no information, because that's the entire range of expected win-loss for any T1 deck matchup ever. You basically say "the deck is above average" with zero basis for that and are unable to hold any scrutiny. "It's won a lot at my FNM" is not sufficient justification for a deck that seems mediocre on paper but, according to you, SHOULD be above average.

And one tournament won does not prove much of anything. Decks outside of the metagame that attack from a strange angle might take other metagame decks (like your Jeskai deck) by surprise, but that does not mean it is a worthy deck. If it started becoming more popular, it feels like a deck that could easily get hated out due to the presence of Virulent Plague and the commonly mainboarded Anger/Drown because of the dominance of RDW. Why do you feel otherwise?