jamotide: Ok, maybe it is fun for "them" (who you think is me), but I would imagine it to be like factory work. Writing is much more relaxing and entertaining than somehow making 3 accounts per minute.
Which has nothing at all to do with whether someone would do it or not. A lot of people find going to clubs to be fun. To me, they are a borefest. I find programming fun. To most, that is a borefest.
You saying "but I wouldn't find that fun" has nothing to do with whether you are guilty of doing it (you could just be lying for all I know) and even less to do with whether anyone else would find it fun.
This is an argument from personal incredulity. How you feel about the effort it would take has absolutely zero bearing on how everyone else feels about it.
xyem: Even the bare minimum of
reading what I wrote, you claim to have not provided:
jamotide: Oh I just did that to avoid what I am showing you now, a multiquote fest where nobody except you and me will read anything, which I suppose would be in your interest.
Heh, but if people don't read multiquote posts, how would they know they disagreed with me to downrate my posts?
jamotide: Oh help me sweet Demeter, here come the semantics again, if you want to warm that up, just reply in the other thread. Oh hold on, you stopped the debate with your debate stopping tactics, which consist of refusing to reply altogether. Very effective, I grant you that.
How do you stop a debate that is already stopped? You admitted you would simply dismiss any evidence brought against you by post #347, I refused to speak with you further at post #404, more than 50 posts later,
while we were discussing something else entirely,
<span class="bold">for not reading what I wrote</span> no less.
It is not semantics.
You said that my theory that someone would create 100 accounts to downrep someone is crazy.
You said that anyone who creates 100 accounts to downrep someone is crazy.
You said that "a crazy person to prove your crazy theory" is not very convincing.
To prove you wrong, I would have to find someone you regarded as non-crazy who created 100 accounts to downrep someone.. but you would immediately begin regarding them as crazy for doing it once you found out they had and dismiss it as evidence.
It is impossible to prove you wrong, not because you are right (as soon as
any person does it, you are proven wrong), but because you will accept
no evidence at all.
This is "moving the goalposts" where evidence presented ("I would do it") in response to a specific claim ("no-one would do it") is dismissed and greater evidence is demanded ("someone none-crazy must do it").
The name of the fallacy for the "but anyone who does it is crazy" part escapes me right now. Anyone know it?
jamotide: And here come the false conclusions, there are other possibilities of why this was the first time you got downrated for stuff rather than making up another crazy theory. "Weee I can't possibly have posted something wrong, it must be crazy jamotide with his multiple accounts or one of his crazy nonexistant friends!"
I didn't even suspect you until I was looking at the RepLog data and found your posting activity matched the rep loss (within the granularity of the forum timestamps at the time). I intially thought it was just the people disagreeing with me downrating and the people who agreed with me not uprating (it's easier to earn a downrate than a uprate!).
The manner in which the posts were going low-rated was also very weird. It trailed by 2 days. That doesn't sound like much.. except in RepLog, that's about
100 posts. If people were just disagreeing with me, I should have been seeing my recent posts getting low-rated too.. but it was always seemed to be posts several pages back (even on 50 posts per page..). In fact, one of the reasons why I thought it may be happening here was because the same behaviour seemed to be occuring.
And yes, I'm well aware it might just be the way the rating system naturally works... I've just never observed it doing that before, so it looks suspicious to me as though they were avoiding low-rating new, visible posts to prevent them being seen and "corrected". Whenever I've seen posts get low-rated, it's either been within hours of it being posted, or much later as part of an attack (again, like what happened to Ubivis).
Your repeated comments about how you are "nobody" vs "public darling Xyem" could be taken as an "Appeal to Pity".
xyem: It was an easy battle because, as I said, you made it impossible for me to win.
jamotide: Another false conclusion, maybe you were just wrong? Maybe you were right, but unable of making a solid point? Maybe nobody was right, but you are just not very good at argueing?
There is, logically, no way I was wrong.
My claim was that
someone would be willing to create 100 account to downrep someone.
Your claim is that
no-one would do that.
How can I be certain that I wasn't wrong?
Because I am that 'someone'.
All I needed was someone's permission to do it to them (which I eventually got, thus the testing of the ratings system effect on rep!).
The biggest issue with your position is that you regard my claims as crazy.. but never successfully justify why.
Is it the time? No, it only takes 30 minutes to set up the accounts and a few minutes a day to do the damage.
Is it because it is pointless? No, people do pointless crap all the time.
xyem: No, you only need multiple proxies to protect yourself against GOG and.. they haven't shown any action yet.
jamotide: Yeah well, if I wanted to abuse something, the first thing I'd worry about is precations not to get caught. I doubt your imaginary friend is as careless as you. In other words, you are once again WRONG, can't do that with 100 accounts in 30 minutes.
Hehe, you only need one proxy to protect yourself against GOG (i.e. to separate your real account from the alternatives) and once you have set that, there is no difference to account creation time.
Don't worry, I'm just amused because I knew you were going to latch onto that because it "makes me wrong", even though if you thought about it for even a moment, you would have realised that it doesn't. Just like you did with the information that only 5 accounts is needed!
-----
This post will probably become low-rated, but you know what? It doesn't matter if it does. I have earned a degree of trust here that I am
very proud of. Several days of frustration alleviated in a moment by reading someone I have not only barely spoken to, but the times I have spoken to them have likely been against them in a debate, simply say "Xyem is worth listening to".
Those are my credentials for being "good at arguing". I can argue against someone and at the end of it, they still consider me worth listening to.
Perhaps one day, we will convince each other of the same. One can hope!
