incidentally, it seems to me that you wish to have your cake and eat it too. On one hand, if someone criticizes the quality of the work of one of your 'friends', you flag them because they must have ulterior motives.
OTOH, if someone questions the motives behind your own vote, you attack them as well.
WHat it really seems like is that you don't want any standards at all. Which i suppose is a reaosnable position.
I specifically stated in the comments to this post that this was an alt account for my main account @sigmajin. link to comment .. so I guess this account is more of a prop player than a shill. I had originally intended to mention it in the post, but i inadvertently cut it out on an edit and forgot to put it back in. (though now that you mention it ill do it now)
I used an alt account because i thought it was very likely this post would be flagged into oblivion (surprise surprise, i was right) and because i felt it was at least possible that my main account might not get nuked as well (though, before you start making cryptic threats i don't really care that much)
I never claimed to be attempting to "solve a case", just to be presenting information relevant to people voting on this user. Information which, btw, both you and he misrepresented in his and dans thread about downvoting.
Him being a friend is one possible interpretation of that information. Him being an alt-account is another. There is nothing to "solve" only information that apparently many feel is relevant to the question -- information you wish to hide.
It is, of course, your right to hide this information (to the extent that your SP allows you to). But the fact that you wish to do so is, well, even more information.
@kushed belongs to @berniesanders? This is news to me, and it would be particularly interesting to me if you could prove it.
I suspect you overstate the strength of your claims.
EDIT:
I was talking about the comment
Okay I misundertood. Nevertheless, it still appears to me you making overly-strong factual claims in your original post. That is not a good sign for witch-hunt post. It is a questionable game to play to begin with but if you are going to play you damn well better check and recheck your facts. If it were not already flagged to oblivion I would like have flagged it.
however, there were no lies in my comment. Everything i said was absolutely provably true.
@kushed belongs to @berniesanders? This is news to me, and it would be particularly interesting to me if you could prove it.
I thought that was an acknowledged, out in the open fact. like @nextgencrypto belonged to @berniesanders (or the other way around). I assumed it based on comments made in chat and in posts, but perhaps i misinterpreted.
However there were no lies in my comment. Everything i said was absolutely provably true. Including the fact that him being an alt account was a possible interpretation of the information available.
Even if we take it as a given that your statement about him not being one is an absolute gosepl fact, it does not change the fact that some people will interpret the available information incorrectly.
incidentally, it seems to me that you wish to have your cake and eat it too. On one hand, if someone criticizes the quality of the work of one of your 'friends', you flag them because they must have ulterior motives.
OTOH, if someone questions the motives behind your own vote, you attack them as well.
WHat it really seems like is that you don't want any standards at all. Which i suppose is a reaosnable position.
Aaah, nice shill account @sigmajin!!!
I specifically stated in the comments to this post that this was an alt account for my main account @sigmajin. link to comment .. so I guess this account is more of a prop player than a shill. I had originally intended to mention it in the post, but i inadvertently cut it out on an edit and forgot to put it back in. (though now that you mention it ill do it now)
I used an alt account because i thought it was very likely this post would be flagged into oblivion (surprise surprise, i was right) and because i felt it was at least possible that my main account might not get nuked as well (though, before you start making cryptic threats i don't really care that much)
I never claimed to be attempting to "solve a case", just to be presenting information relevant to people voting on this user. Information which, btw, both you and he misrepresented in his and dans thread about downvoting.
Him being a friend is one possible interpretation of that information. Him being an alt-account is another. There is nothing to "solve" only information that apparently many feel is relevant to the question -- information you wish to hide.
It is, of course, your right to hide this information (to the extent that your SP allows you to). But the fact that you wish to do so is, well, even more information.
From OP:
@kushed belongs to @berniesanders? This is news to me, and it would be particularly interesting to me if you could prove it.
I suspect you overstate the strength of your claims.
EDIT:
Okay I misundertood. Nevertheless, it still appears to me you making overly-strong factual claims in your original post. That is not a good sign for witch-hunt post. It is a questionable game to play to begin with but if you are going to play you damn well better check and recheck your facts. If it were not already flagged to oblivion I would like have flagged it.
I was talking about the comment @berniesanders flagged.
I said
I thought that was an acknowledged, out in the open fact. like @nextgencrypto belonged to @berniesanders (or the other way around). I assumed it based on comments made in chat and in posts, but perhaps i misinterpreted.
He's not an alt account. If you wish to continue spreading these lies I will continue to downvote your comments.
Of course, that is your right.
However there were no lies in my comment. Everything i said was absolutely provably true. Including the fact that him being an alt account was a possible interpretation of the information available.
Even if we take it as a given that your statement about him not being one is an absolute gosepl fact, it does not change the fact that some people will interpret the available information incorrectly.