Disappointed –Ch. 130 Spoilers-

You're calling everything you don't like about the story a plot hole? This arc isn't even over yet, so how can you know the reasons for Agni's death won't be explained and fake!Ciel pretending to be the real Ciel doesn't have a good reason behind it? Same goes for Madame Red. How do you know she didn't have a reason for not mentioning the twins? These characters are three dimensional, not plot device cutouts. They have motivations and feelings. Give Yana some credit for that at least.
And you say it was a completely obvious plot twist, but many people still didn't believe it until this chapter came out. I think you're just disappointed about certain outcomes in the story, and that's fine. Everyone has their preferences and tastes. But it's quite shallow to project faults with the plot when the plot isn't even completed yet.

But the twin theory isn't awesome or cool as kuroshitsuji its more like pll(pretty little lair) or gossip girl theory....which kinds off a the off....its true we all have a say in this as individuals have their own taste but it does have a dissatisfied outcome for long time readers

Not really. Many long time readers are perfectly happy with how things turned out. I've been reading from the release of the first chapter over a decade ago and the twin thing doesn't seem out of place at all. The whole "twin is cliche" argument is a bit silly because it is a plot device or trope: it perfectly fine to use it, as long as it's done well. Yana did it well, imo, and I don't feel it's out of place at all, especially when Yana made it explicit (in Japanese, a lot was lost in translation) but subtle enough to leave doubt. It wasn't so much of a twist than a revelation: not a case of whodunnit, but a why or howdunnit. We knew there was a twin, but we don't know how he's still alive, why !Ciel stole his identity, or why he's apparently evil. There's a lot left to reveal. So, I say let's reserve our judgement until the end.

Please read my post properly before you reply. Half of what you wrote was never mentioned by me.

I did read your post (which is why I replied, obviously) and you did mention everything I mentioned: the reason for Agni's death, Madame Red not mentioning the twins, Ciel taking his brother's identity, etc. What did I mention that was irrelevant to your OP?

You: "You're calling everything you don't like about the story a plot hole?"
No, I called nobody ever mentioning the twin a plot-hole and nothing else.

You: "so how can you know the reasons for Agni's death won't be explained"
Me: "Followed by the death of Agni which probably only happened to create (annoying) Soma-Ciel-drama"
I didn't write anything about the explanation for Agni's death and I've never claimed that there won't be one or that what I think is definitely going to happen, I only wrote about what I think the purpose of his death PORBABLY was.

You: "fake!Ciel pretending to be the real Ciel doesn't have a good reason behind it?"
Again, I've never claimed that she won't provide us with a reason, I only wrote that it was unnecessary for the plot and that he would've been the heir anyway.

You: "But it's quite shallow to project faults with the plot when the plot isn't even completed yet."
I know the plot isn't finished that's why I wrote
"I don’t see what Yana’s trying to achieve with this or how she could write herself out of this mess."
"So part of the reason why I wrote this is because I’m a little bit superstitious and I want the series to be good again"

*Quote to point #3:
I mean this: "It was also completely unnecessary to hide the fact that he had a twin brother. The plot wouldn’t have changed if we’d known about his brother from the start"
Meaning it was unnecessary to hide it from us.

You were speaking about the inadaquicies of those plot points. An ineffective plot point is a plot hole. With the acception of Agni's death, you were/are implying the other subjects were plot holes. I suppose I didn't phrase that right in my first comment however. I should have said that just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's a plot hole.

Also, your comment about "half the things I mentioned" not even being in your OP has been left unaddressed. One quote does not equal half of my comment.

No, a plot-hole is something that makes no sense like in it doesn't fit to what we saw. Something being ineffective isn't a plot-hole, it's just pointless thing to do.
I wrote that post and I can guarantee you that I didn't imply anything. I always used the singular of it and I always made it clear that I was talking about the twin plot-twist whenever I used the word plot-hole.

Are you kidding me?
"You: "You're calling everything you don't like about the story a plot hole?"
No, I called nobody ever mentioning the twin a plot-hole and nothing else.

You: "so how can you know the reasons for Agni's death won't be explained"
Me: "Followed by the death of Agni which probably only happened to create (annoying) Soma-Ciel-drama"
I didn't write anything about the explanation for Agni's death and I've never claimed that there won't be one or that what I think is definitely going to happen, I only wrote about what I think the purpose of his death PORBABLY was.

You: "fake!Ciel pretending to be the real Ciel doesn't have a good reason behind it?"
Again, I've never claimed that she won't provide us with a reason, I only wrote that it was unnecessary for the plot and that he would've been the heir anyway.

You: "But it's quite shallow to project faults with the plot when the plot isn't even completed yet."
I know the plot isn't finished that's why I wrote
"I don’t see what Yana’s trying to achieve with this or how she could write herself out of this mess."
"So part of the reason why I wrote this is because I’m a little bit superstitious and I want the series to be good again" "

Then I posted
"*Quote to point #3:
I mean this: "It was also completely unnecessary to hide the fact that he had a twin brother. The plot wouldn’t have changed if we’d known about his brother from the start"
Meaning it was unnecessary to hide it from us."
Because I forgot to add that.
And your reaction to my long-ass post is ""half the things I mentioned" not even being in your OP has been left unaddressed".

Your behaviour is insulting af. I tried to explain to you what I meant and all you do is ignoring everything you don't like, replacing it with made up stuff and even telling ME what I wanted to say instead of listening to me when I tell you what it was I wanted to say.

You seem a little hostile, and I'm not sure where this perceived miscommunication is coming from. I understood you just fine and didn't ignore anything you said. I addressed your OP with my own initial reply. You then said more than half of what I said in my reply was irrelevant, to which I then asked how that was the case. I must have missed your "long ass" reply amidst your other replies, so I'll address them now.

1) "...which probably only happened to create (annoying) Soma-Ciel-drama." You are directly stating your opinion that you believe Agni's death was ONLY to create annoying drama. "Only annoying drama" is synonymous with pointless drama in this case. I think we can both agree on that. Also, whether or not you use "probably" is irrelevant. You stated an opinion on the purpose of Agni's death, plain and simple. Therefore, my comment addressing that still remains relevant.

2) You made the claim it's "unnecessary" for the plot. Therefore, you are making a judgement about how relevant the twin situation is to the plot. To make this judgement, you would have to presuppose the purpose (or in this case, a lack of one) of Yana creating the twin situation. So, again, my original comment still stands.

3) You said Yana's plot is a mess, I said it was shallow to make that assumption when the plot is still ongoing. Again, a perfectly relevant response.

4) You again claim it is unnecessary for Yana to hide the fact !Ciel had a twin. You are again making a judgement.

5) "I always made it clear that I was talking about the twin plot-twist whenever I used the word plot-hole."
I disagree. The subject of what you described as a plot hole was unclear because of the way you constructed some of your sentences. For example:
"...A horrible arc that won’t end anytime soon, an anticlimactic, unnecessary plot-twist Yana decided to do about 10 years ago and which still created an insultingly big plot-hole..." In this case, I can assume you are referring to the twin plot-twist (even though the grammar is improper which makes the sentence a little confusing).
However:
"Even Madame Red didn’t when she wanted to kill him and ranted about the past and she was there when they were born. Am I supposed to ignore this gigantic plot-hole because of some hints in the drawings?!"
In this sentence, the subject you are modifying with "this" is unclear. I assumed (understandably) that "this" was modifying the subject of the previous sentence: Madame Red. Or more specifically, her actions/behaviour. This is why I thought you were referring to more than one thing as a plot hole.

All that said, my OP still stands. However, I won't bother you further. I hope you can love the series again (if it is worthy of love and admiration, of course).

1) You said in your OP "so how can you know the reasons for Agni's death won't be explained " not that it was pointless. Two different things
2) In your first post you wrote "fake!Ciel pretending to be the real Ciel doesn't have a good reason behind it" in your last post you talked about how necessary it was for the plot. Again, two different things.
3) I said the current situation is a mess
4)Yes, of course it was. If WE'd known about his twin from the start it wouldn't have changed anything.
5)Maybe you should read the whole argument then:
"They weren’t even secret twins. The Phantomhives didn’t try to hide that they had twins (unless Yana decided to ignore what she drew in earlier chapters) so all the people who knew the Phantomhives before the fire should have known about the twins but nobody’s ever mentioned them. Even Madame Red didn’t when she wanted to kill him and ranted about the past and she was there when they were born. Am I supposed to ignore this gigantic plot-hole because of some hints in the drawings?!"
When you read a sentence that starts with the word "even" you should know that it's connected to what I wrote before.

That's incorrect. I'm an editor and an English teacher. I would have given you a generous C- on an English exam. Your OP is littered with grammatical errors, making your meaning difficult to determine in several places. And you did not say "the current situation was a mess", you again used "this" as the subject of the sentence in question. Clear language principles state you should always state your subject clearly in every sentence and clause to avoid ambiguity. However, if you do use "this" as the sentence's subject, it is always assumed that "this" refers to the subject in the previous sentence, not the subject of a sentence several sentences back.
Anyway, I've said all I've wanted to say. There's no point beating this dead horse. I'll be muting this thread, so please don't expect further responses.

I stated it clearly, you just didn't understand it and then you wrote you didn't understand my OP because it's "full of grammatical errors" when you made several errors in the same post.
And you claim to be a English teacher and an editor. Yeah, sure -_-