I think you are the one dying on a hill. I asked 1 yes or no question. It shouldn't have turned into whatever this is even if that information was clearly in one of your previous posts. It should have been a quick yes or no and move on. Why you stubbed up on that one question I will never know. The only reason I can assume is that you felt the question was in bad faith, but let me assure you - it was not.
Now, that said I agree there's a point when someone is making unreasonable demands on another and you don't need to engage with those demands - but a single yes or no question doesn't cross that line - especially when someone is telling you they want to understand your position better.
I think going around and around on this isn't beneficial for us or the forum and so let's drop it. I know nothing you have said is going to convince me that someone refusing to answer a single yes or no question like the one I asked was justified. I doubt I'm going to convince you that it wasn't. I doubt anyone else wants to hear anymore about it. So let's agree to disagree?
If it were one yes/no question, but you had, up to that point, asked me why I used f=6, which was clearly explained in the post you quoted and which I answered. You then asked if I accounted for the extra attack from GWM, which was clearly stated in the post that you quoted and which I also answered. When you then asked what builds I tested, which was also clearly stated in the post you had quoted, I still answered you question, only this time I pointed you to the post where all of the answers to all three of your questions were clearly explained. At this point, you accused me of not being willing to discuss, and, indeed, of literally being unwilling to answer any questions (oops, right?) because I pointed to my post, which you had just recently quoted, as the source of the answer. I even told you that I did this because you were asking many questions that were clearly stated in that post and I felt that discussion would be better if you re-read it and answered all of those questions yourself rather than having a back and forth while you continue to ask already answered questions.
Now we're here, where you state that I am acting in an unjustified manner, but that you'll be willing to move forward (presumably continuing to ask questions already answered) if I agree to drop the matter entirely after you get in the last word about how poorly I've behaved. I mean, really?
Sure, I'm willing to jump in and start discussing from this point
So there's 3 portions of GWM
1. -5/+10
2. Bonus action attack on a crit
3. Bonus action attack when you kill in an enemy.
Point 2 alone is about a 10% increase in DPR for a 2 attack fighter. Of note is that point 3 is ignored in nearly all GWM DPR discussions. Then there's the overkill part of the discussion.
(Note: I'm thinking through the problem here and you probably have already calculated some of these values)
So we need to establish what the DPR overkill effect is without GWM
We need need to establish what the DPR is with each portion of the feat both with and without overkill
The also need to factor in any diminishing returns or increasing returns when combining the parts of the feat together (also with overkill)
If I understand you correctly you are taking the -5/+10 part of the feat and applying all overkill damage towards that portion of the feat and then applying the bonus action attack on kill portion independently. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I am suggesting we apply overkill against the bonus action when you kill an enemy part of the feat. Overkill and that effect both happen at the same time and that effect more than offsets overkill and also provide some extra damage. In which case overkill doesn't impact GWM because it has a point never factored into DPR discussions that actually more than fully negates it.
I guess it would matter if your looking at a GWM fighter that uses -5/+10 and one that has the feat but doesn't. That's another part of the reason I was trying to establish what you were talking about.
This betrays a fundamental failure to understand the method I used. And, you reasked the same question about builds at the end. Honestly, just read my previous post and then come up with questions. If you can't be bothered to scroll up and read what I've already said so that you can critique it, the problem is yours, not mine for failing to link for you.