Is it because it would also depend on what that person's definition of "scaling" is?
I'll have to agree with vjudeu's definition of scaling, even though I'd endorse a block size increase which is based on a studied rationale.
It is just a pure, linear growth.
Sure, but why is linear growth necessarily bad? You need a linearly grown basis to base your compression model later on.
But because they were rejected as a soft-fork, I am trying to create something else.
What was the reasoning of this rejection? And by whom were they rejected?