[crimony]

I can't help being amused by this comment, which seems to to be arguing:

"This isn't a One-True-Scotsman fallacy, a true One-True-Scotsman fallacy would be <insert narrower definition>, your claim about this fallacy is fallacious"

I'm pretty sure Agile, Scrum and Retrospectives have multiple published definitions, both broad and narrow.

[jdlshore]

Sure, I can see the irony. On the other hand, your interpretation of my argument is absolutely correct. I'm saying that people in this thread have gotten two things wrong:

1) They don't understand Agile, Scrum, or retrospectives, each of which have authoritative definitions (which can be found at agilemanifesto.org, scrum.org, and in the Agile Retrospectives book).¹

2) Furthermore, they don't understand the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Correcting a misunderstanding is not "No True Scotsman." If somebody called a car a "horse," and you said, "that's not a horse—a horse has hooves, not wheels," would that be No True Scotsman?

¹You could argue that those definitions are overly broad, or fuzzy, or many other things. But that's not what people in this thread are doing. They're saying horses have wheels, then saying it means horses can't jump.