[Shelved] Liberate Arcem (SCUT)

[Indo-Malaysia]

102 out of how many delegates? Exactly.

102 out of 106, despite three counter-campaigns, one of which you ran, which clearly show that your attempt to stifle support failed. I may have failed to reach quorum, but I have demonstrated I have considerable, strong, and continuous support across submissions.

Hahahahaha, good one.

Wait.. Your being serious right?

We posted plenty of hard evidence disproving you, and you tried to brush it off by saying 'well I said it's evil so that's the way it is'.
You have consistently failed to provide evidence, and I doubt any of the GCR's want to attack an anti-Fascist region.
Give me a call when Liberate ANTIFA, Liberate The MT Army and Liberate North Korea pop up because they seen a Nazi somewhere.

Bring up new points then, and stop trying to get me to go through all of my old points again. We're looking for solutions, not conflicts.

Good. Link me to it.

You know the point of writing a resolution is to debate things, right?

Yes, except when you're running out of points to debate and try to get me to get all of my links for you so that you can go through them all over again.

[
At least 95% of the people in this thread oppose this resolution.

Whatever players in this thread that you're referencing are not representative of all the Delegates in the WA, nor of all of the Members, either.

1. False. 102 out of 1'769 delegates supported this offensive liberation. Seriously how hard is it to use SC terminology.

2. Why should I be arsed bringing up new points when you failed to answer the ones I already given. Me and Kaboom pulled lots of evidence disproving you, and you tried to pull the fake news card even though most of the posts were yours.

3. The only person running out of points is you. Now, you run from any piece of evidence or criticism.

4. Err... It's the SC forum.

[La Navasse]

102 out of 106, despite three counter-campaigns, one of which you ran, which clearly show that your attempt to stifle support failed. I may have failed to reach quorum, but I have demonstrated I have considerable, strong, and continuous support across submissions.Bring up new points then, and stop trying to get me to go through all of my old points again. We're looking for solutions, not conflicts.Yes, except when you're running out of points to debate and try to get me to get all of my links for you so that you can go through them all over again.
Whatever players in this thread that you're referencing are not representative of all the Delegates in the WA, nor of all of the Members, either.

1. False. 102 out of 1'769 delegates supported this offensive liberation. Seriously how hard is it to use SC terminology.

2. Why should I be arsed bringing up new points when you failed to answer the ones I already given. Me and Kaboom pulled lots of evidence disproving you, and you tried to pull the fake news card even though most of the posts were yours.

3. The only person running out of points is you. Now, you run from any piece of evidence or criticism.

4. Err... It's the SC forum.

1. 102 out of the 106 needed Delegates for quorum. Makes your counter-campaign a lot less effective, eh?
2. I have answered your points to the fullest extent, and attempting to disregard my points by means of accusing me of "the fake news card" doesn't even make sense in this case.
3. Who was asking for whom to bring up all of their points via links, IM? Sure, sure. Don't talk like I'm running when I'm running after you.
4. See 3.

[Scottish Socialists]

1. False. 102 out of 1'769 delegates supported this offensive liberation. Seriously how hard is it to use SC terminology.

2. Why should I be arsed bringing up new points when you failed to answer the ones I already given. Me and Kaboom pulled lots of evidence disproving you, and you tried to pull the fake news card even though most of the posts were yours.

3. The only person running out of points is you. Now, you run from any piece of evidence or criticism.

4. Err... It's the SC forum.

1. 102 out of the 106 needed Delegates for quorum. Makes your counter-campaign a lot less effective, eh?
2. I have answered your points to the fullest extent, and attempting to disregard my points by means of accusing me of "the fake news card" doesn't even make sense in this case.
3. Who was asking for whom to bring up all of their points via links, IM? Sure, sure. Don't talk like I'm running when I'm running after you.
4. See 3.

You realise that we supported you until you drafted “Liberate USSD”?
That was a bad idea.
You have all the communists, all the fascists and even some of the democratic nations against you.
Face it, pal.
This ain’t working.

[La Navasse]

1. 102 out of the 106 needed Delegates for quorum. Makes your counter-campaign a lot less effective, eh?
2. I have answered your points to the fullest extent, and attempting to disregard my points by means of accusing me of "the fake news card" doesn't even make sense in this case.
3. Who was asking for whom to bring up all of their points via links, IM? Sure, sure. Don't talk like I'm running when I'm running after you.
4. See 3.

You realise that we supported you until you drafted “Liberate USSD”?
That was a bad idea.
You have all the communists, all the fascists and even some of the democratic nations against you.
Face it, pal.
This ain’t working.

USSD, quite honestly, isn't part of the mainstream group of socialist regions on NS - it's an isolated, pseudo-socialist, and dictatorial region led by Vetelo. Further discussion about Liberate USSD should go in the appropriate thread.

"all the communists" - no. There were definitely some communist Delegates that approved, as I remember. Additionally, all Delegates are essentially democratically elected - if their nations don't like them, they don't endorse them. So, your point about democratic nations is absolutely moot. I don't care about how fascist Delegates vote.

[Indo-Malaysia]

1. False. 102 out of 1'769 delegates supported this offensive liberation. Seriously how hard is it to use SC terminology.

2. Why should I be arsed bringing up new points when you failed to answer the ones I already given. Me and Kaboom pulled lots of evidence disproving you, and you tried to pull the fake news card even though most of the posts were yours.

3. The only person running out of points is you. Now, you run from any piece of evidence or criticism.

4. Err... It's the SC forum.

1. 102 out of the 106 needed Delegates for quorum. Makes your counter-campaign a lot less effective, eh?
2. I have answered your points to the fullest extent, and attempting to disregard my points by means of accusing me of "the fake news card" doesn't even make sense in this case.
3. Who was asking for whom to bring up all of their points via links, IM? Sure, sure. Don't talk like I'm running when I'm running after you.
4. See 3.

1. That isn't even 10% of the voting population. Deserving resolutions such as Commend Wintony easily got the required support. Offensive Liberations have always been controversial since their usage 3-2 years ago and are considered a bastardisation of game mechanics. Even if this does make it to quorum, it is likely you will be stomped out by the super-delegates.

2. You havent. Please don't make me fish out the links again...

3. When you were pressed for evidence, you continued your shady tactics by answering a question with a question. I delivered.

4. That is not relevant to my third point at all.

[La Navasse]

1. 102 out of the 106 needed Delegates for quorum. Makes your counter-campaign a lot less effective, eh?
2. I have answered your points to the fullest extent, and attempting to disregard my points by means of accusing me of "the fake news card" doesn't even make sense in this case.
3. Who was asking for whom to bring up all of their points via links, IM? Sure, sure. Don't talk like I'm running when I'm running after you.
4. See 3.

1. That isn't even 10% of the voting population. Deserving resolutions such as Commend Wintony easily got the required support. Offensive Liberations have always been controversial since their usage 3-2 years ago and are considered a bastardisation of game mechanics. Even if this does make it to quorum, it is likely you will be stomped out by the super-delegates.

2. You havent. Please don't make me fish out the links again...

3. When you were pressed for evidence, you continued your shady tactics by answering a question with a question. I delivered.

4. That is not relevant to my third point at all.

1. "Deserving resolutions" in your definition are resolutions that you didn't run counter-campaigns against. Three counter-campaigns was definitely overkill. It appeared that you were afraid of the proposal reaching quorum, in fact. Furthermore, Neoliberations have been a known function of Liberations from the very beginning - Admin knew that Liberations would've been double-edged swords. Neoliberations are no bastardization of any game mechanics, and if there is no settlement, I'll make every effort towards having the Superdelegates approve my proposal.
2. I haven't. I shouldn't. I wouldn't. Sure. Go fish out your links if you wish, but they'll make no difference, nor will I address them when I already have. You don't win arguments by posting your points over and over again.
3/4. You didn't "deliver" at all - you simply hammered your point again, making no difference.

[Indo-Malaysia]

There are no critiques because the evidence is completely and utterly unfounded and has no substance in supporting vicious lies that have already been cleared by newer info. The Co-Author/Insider already voiced his concerns to me on Discord, and I had altered the draft accordingly, but the lack of his posting in this thread doesn't validate any point IM makes.

Alright, enough of this. I'm going through the entire thread, linking as much stuff as I can find on both sides. No cherry-picking or doctoring involved. Here's what I found:

Evidence to support your proposal:
- FGGR propaganda images, except SCUR hasn't worked with FGGR for months on end. Also that argument is debunked here. Anti-communism =/= fascism. Either way this evidence doesn't hold water since SCUT isn't actually connected to this region anymore.
- One guy who defected. His points aren't responded to in this thread, so meh. I'll let that one go either way since I don't care enough to investigate further into them.
- Another guy who defected. Later debunked because he left so long ago that the region is no longer the same as it was when he left. Same goes for your "insider".

Evidence against your proposal:
- Screenshots proving that your "inside source" had no idea what was going on
- The leader of SCUT happily revealed tons of information to clear the region, including Discord DM screenshots which are verifiable and real, an open invite to the region's Discord channel, links to the region's forum, and more.
- The leader of a former member of SCUR called bullshit.
- More evidence that SCUT doesn't work with fascists.
- Even more evidence detailing SCUT's opposition to fascism, and revealing that the "treaty" signed with TIO was an unconditional surrender.
- Actual fascists declaring war on SCUT for not being fascist.
- SCUT threatens to take out actual fascist region.

If I missed anything that is actual evidence, feel free to post it. I'm not trying to cherry-pick information here, just calling it as I see it.

The only evidence to support your proposal that hasn't been conclusively debunked is the testimony of one former member, Algermaine. What he said may or may not have been true. I'm not going to go down a massive rabbit hole to investigate him because that's beside the point.

The only post you have made in this thread at all to provide any sort of justification involved anti-communist images in a region that SCUT doesn't even work with anymore. That is not enough evidence to justify this liberation of SCUT. On the other hand, there have been mountains of links, screenshots, and telegram/DM conversations posted in this thread alone to conclusively debunk your entire argument. Morriband has been entirely cooperative in this thread, essentially opening up SCUT's entire public forum, Discord channel, and even posting logs of conversations. They aren't fascist, nor are they fascist sympathizers. They have no reason to lie.

There is hard evidence in opposition of your proposal, and it is not edited, doctored, or cherry-picked. Give it up.

I am completely disregarding future posts in this thread by you, Kaboom, simply because you've literally refused to even consider all of the other strong points I had referenced. If you're incapable of even reading the other side's actual evidence, then why even bother?

Your legitimacy, Kaboom, has melted away in my eyes. I couldn't have believed that only a shadow of your once brilliant WA career remains.

Here ya go:

viewtopic.php?p=33682929#p33682929
viewtopic.php?p=33683275#p33683275
viewtopic.php?p=33696119#p33696119
viewtopic.php?p=33704233#p33704233
viewtopic.php?p=33704817#p33704817 This proves this 'insider' is fake
viewtopic.php?p=33721176#p33721176
viewtopic.php?p=33726059#p33726059
viewtopic.php?p=33732504#p33732504
viewtopic.php?p=33733036#p33733036
viewtopic.php?p=33733214#p33733214
viewtopic.php?p=33734982#p33734982
viewtopic.php?p=33746210#p33746210
viewtopic.php?p=33818472#p33818472 MY FAVOURITE ONE
viewtopic.php?p=33818869#p33818869
viewtopic.php?p=33819026#p33819026
viewtopic.php?p=33824505#p33824505

what a trustworthy author

Quite frankly, posting a link to nearly random posts and trying to value quantity under quality is extremely saddening in this debate. Why, you don't even give your own justifications, and even then, posts are for the reader to interpret, not for monkeys who could have doctored this just as easily, but without any merit nor detail.

You had no argument for the hard evidence. Stop trying to bend the truth.

[La Navasse]

Alright, enough of this. I'm going through the entire thread, linking as much stuff as I can find on both sides. No cherry-picking or doctoring involved. Here's what I found:

Evidence to support your proposal:
- FGGR propaganda images, except SCUR hasn't worked with FGGR for months on end. Also that argument is debunked here. Anti-communism =/= fascism. Either way this evidence doesn't hold water since SCUT isn't actually connected to this region anymore.
- One guy who defected. His points aren't responded to in this thread, so meh. I'll let that one go either way since I don't care enough to investigate further into them.
- Another guy who defected. Later debunked because he left so long ago that the region is no longer the same as it was when he left. Same goes for your "insider".

Evidence against your proposal:
- Screenshots proving that your "inside source" had no idea what was going on
- The leader of SCUT happily revealed tons of information to clear the region, including Discord DM screenshots which are verifiable and real, an open invite to the region's Discord channel, links to the region's forum, and more.
- The leader of a former member of SCUR called bullshit.
- More evidence that SCUT doesn't work with fascists.
- Even more evidence detailing SCUT's opposition to fascism, and revealing that the "treaty" signed with TIO was an unconditional surrender.
- Actual fascists declaring war on SCUT for not being fascist.
- SCUT threatens to take out actual fascist region.

If I missed anything that is actual evidence, feel free to post it. I'm not trying to cherry-pick information here, just calling it as I see it.

The only evidence to support your proposal that hasn't been conclusively debunked is the testimony of one former member, Algermaine. What he said may or may not have been true. I'm not going to go down a massive rabbit hole to investigate him because that's beside the point.

The only post you have made in this thread at all to provide any sort of justification involved anti-communist images in a region that SCUT doesn't even work with anymore. That is not enough evidence to justify this liberation of SCUT. On the other hand, there have been mountains of links, screenshots, and telegram/DM conversations posted in this thread alone to conclusively debunk your entire argument. Morriband has been entirely cooperative in this thread, essentially opening up SCUT's entire public forum, Discord channel, and even posting logs of conversations. They aren't fascist, nor are they fascist sympathizers. They have no reason to lie.

There is hard evidence in opposition of your proposal, and it is not edited, doctored, or cherry-picked. Give it up.

I am completely disregarding future posts in this thread by you, Kaboom, simply because you've literally refused to even consider all of the other strong points I had referenced. If you're incapable of even reading the other side's actual evidence, then why even bother?

Your legitimacy, Kaboom, has melted away in my eyes. I couldn't have believed that only a shadow of your once brilliant WA career remains.

Here ya go:

viewtopic.php?p=33682929#p33682929
viewtopic.php?p=33683275#p33683275
viewtopic.php?p=33696119#p33696119
viewtopic.php?p=33704233#p33704233
viewtopic.php?p=33704817#p33704817 This proves this 'insider' is fake
viewtopic.php?p=33721176#p33721176
viewtopic.php?p=33726059#p33726059
viewtopic.php?p=33732504#p33732504
viewtopic.php?p=33733036#p33733036
viewtopic.php?p=33733214#p33733214
viewtopic.php?p=33734982#p33734982
viewtopic.php?p=33746210#p33746210
viewtopic.php?p=33818472#p33818472 MY FAVOURITE ONE
viewtopic.php?p=33818869#p33818869
viewtopic.php?p=33819026#p33819026
viewtopic.php?p=33824505#p33824505

what a trustworthy author

Quite frankly, posting a link to nearly random posts and trying to value quantity under quality is extremely saddening in this debate. Why, you don't even give your own justifications, and even then, posts are for the reader to interpret, not for monkeys who could have doctored this just as easily, but without any merit nor detail.

You had no argument for the hard evidence. Stop trying to bend the truth.

In running out of points to make, you go forth and recycle all of those links in an effort to make them visible again. You're basically just bumping all of these, and worse yet, you expect it to be debated about all over again like this was new evidence.

Evidence is only new once, IM. You're not getting anywhere by frantically trying to prove your point with repeated quotes and increasingly incoherent posts.

[Indo-Malaysia]

It's not recycling. It's proving a point.

You make it out like you have posted hard evidence consistently (debunked in the links) and have debated the links prior (again debunked).
Here in the SC, typically we debate stuff.

Your failure to provide evidence, or acknowledge the vast evidence against you, has caused a debate about your authenticity.
To me this looks like your trying to liberate an anti-fascist region.

[La Navasse]

It's not recycling. It's proving a point.

You make it out like you have posted hard evidence consistently (debunked in the links) and have debated the links prior (again debunked).
Here in the SC, typically we debate stuff.

Your failure to provide evidence, or acknowledge the vast evidence against you, has caused a debate about your authenticity.
To me this looks like your trying to liberate an anti-fascist region.

Your shameful failure in being anywhere close to proving a point is intolerably horrendous. Providing no reasoning whatsoever, you simply post lists and lists of links and call it a day, believing that a list of links will be enough to convince the masses. However, your inability to actually explain your evidence, unlike I have, and actually show how it counteracts your opposition's argument, literally sums up your "points" with a couple of claims along with lists of links that aren't linked with the claims with any reasoning whatsoever.

The only debate about authenticity going on is only with you, and no others, as my points are very well solid. Trying to take the crazy step of saying that Arcem/SCUT is an anti-fascist region is belly-aching. Why, it's literally the premise of a joke proposal.

[Indo-Malaysia]

It's not recycling. It's proving a point.

You make it out like you have posted hard evidence consistently (debunked in the links) and have debated the links prior (again debunked).
Here in the SC, typically we debate stuff.

Your failure to provide evidence, or acknowledge the vast evidence against you, has caused a debate about your authenticity.
To me this looks like your trying to liberate an anti-fascist region.

Your shameful failure in being anywhere close to proving a point is intolerably horrendous. Providing no reasoning whatsoever, you simply post lists and lists of links and call it a day, believing that a list of links will be enough to convince the masses. However, your inability to actually explain your evidence, unlike I have, and actually show how it counteracts your opposition's argument, literally sums up your "points" with a couple of claims along with lists of links that aren't linked with the claims with any reasoning whatsoever.

The only debate about authenticity going on is only with you, and no others, as my points are very well solid. Trying to take the crazy step of saying that Arcem/SCUT is an anti-fascist region is belly-aching. Why, it's literally the premise of a joke proposal.

I don't suppose you have any evidence, no?

Of course, with this hard evidence you obviously fear, it proves you lack evidence at all. The context of my links was explained in a previous post, detailing how it shown you dodging facts.

Nobody but you has questioned the links. So don't pull that card either. Your just embarrassing yourself even more.

On the Anti-fascist bit, if you checked the thread, SCUT forced The Iron Order to surrender after a war, threatened to destroy the remnants in Farkasfalka, and had war declared on them by Fascists for not being fascist.
Of course, you fear the truth tarnishing your name.

[La Navasse]

Your shameful failure in being anywhere close to proving a point is intolerably horrendous. Providing no reasoning whatsoever, you simply post lists and lists of links and call it a day, believing that a list of links will be enough to convince the masses. However, your inability to actually explain your evidence, unlike I have, and actually show how it counteracts your opposition's argument, literally sums up your "points" with a couple of claims along with lists of links that aren't linked with the claims with any reasoning whatsoever.

The only debate about authenticity going on is only with you, and no others, as my points are very well solid. Trying to take the crazy step of saying that Arcem/SCUT is an anti-fascist region is belly-aching. Why, it's literally the premise of a joke proposal.

I don't suppose you have any evidence, no?

Of course, with this hard evidence you obviously fear, it proves you lack evidence at all. The context of my links was explained in a previous post, detailing how it shown you dodging facts.

Nobody but you has questioned the links. So don't pull that card either. Your just embarrassing yourself even more.

On the Anti-fascist bit, if you checked the thread, SCUT forced The Iron Order to surrender after a war, threatened to destroy the remnants in Farkasfalka, and had war declared on them by Fascists for not being fascist.
Of course, you fear the truth tarnishing your name.

I have not dodged facts at all. No, no - instead, I have been calmly answering all of your points, and will continue to do so for the rest of tonight, and striking down all of your misconceptions regarding your imaginary "lack of evidence" and attempting to make a ludicrous assumption that not measuring how long my list of links are relative to yours means that I lack evidence, which is the most illogical presumption I've ever heard - I'd consider it the strawman fallacy, but stretched way into the extreme.

Your random, illogical, and incoherent assertions that attacking your argument will "embarrass" me even more and will cause "tarnishing" to my name is absolutely hysterical. I'm not sure if you're simply trying to prevent me from making a point without having you deem everything a self-victory. Plus, trying to deem the fascist rivalry between SCUT and TIO as anything but an anti-fascist crusade would have been realistic. If you haven't forgotten, SCUT is a fascist sympathizer whose fascist allies are FGGR and THRB, and they don't want their potential audience swiped away by TIO, you know.

[Indo-Malaysia]

I don't suppose you have any evidence, no?

Of course, with this hard evidence you obviously fear, it proves you lack evidence at all. The context of my links was explained in a previous post, detailing how it shown you dodging facts.

Nobody but you has questioned the links. So don't pull that card either. Your just embarrassing yourself even more.

On the Anti-fascist bit, if you checked the thread, SCUT forced The Iron Order to surrender after a war, threatened to destroy the remnants in Farkasfalka, and had war declared on them by Fascists for not being fascist.
Of course, you fear the truth tarnishing your name.

I have not dodged facts at all. No, no - instead, I have been calmly answering all of your points, and will continue to do so for the rest of tonight, and striking down all of your misconceptions regarding your imaginary "lack of evidence" and attempting to make a ludicrous assumption that not measuring how long my list of links are relative to yours means that I lack evidence, which is the most illogical presumption I've ever heard - I'd consider it the strawman fallacy, but stretched way into the extreme.

Your random, illogical, and incoherent assertions that attacking your argument will "embarrass" me even more and will cause "tarnishing" to my name is absolutely hysterical. I'm not sure if you're simply trying to prevent me from making a point without having you deem everything a self-victory. Plus, trying to deem the fascist rivalry between SCUT and TIO as anything but an anti-fascist crusade would have been realistic. If you haven't forgotten, SCUT is a fascist sympathizer whose fascist allies are FGGR and THRB, and they don't want their potential audience swiped away by TIO, you know.

We have sourced our claims with links.

As long as you fail to do so, we have no reason to believe this proposal is anything but a hoax.

[La Navasse]

I have not dodged facts at all. No, no - instead, I have been calmly answering all of your points, and will continue to do so for the rest of tonight, and striking down all of your misconceptions regarding your imaginary "lack of evidence" and attempting to make a ludicrous assumption that not measuring how long my list of links are relative to yours means that I lack evidence, which is the most illogical presumption I've ever heard - I'd consider it the strawman fallacy, but stretched way into the extreme.

Your random, illogical, and incoherent assertions that attacking your argument will "embarrass" me even more and will cause "tarnishing" to my name is absolutely hysterical. I'm not sure if you're simply trying to prevent me from making a point without having you deem everything a self-victory. Plus, trying to deem the fascist rivalry between SCUT and TIO as anything but an anti-fascist crusade would have been realistic. If you haven't forgotten, SCUT is a fascist sympathizer whose fascist allies are FGGR and THRB, and they don't want their potential audience swiped away by TIO, you know.

We have sourced our claims with links.

As long as you fail to do so, we have no reason to believe this proposal is anything but a hoax.

Having ignored every one of my links, I can't help but wonder if your opposition simply cannot face the truth, instead calling things it dislikes "hoaxes," "tarnishing," and "embarrassing" its opponents.

[Indo-Malaysia]

We have sourced our claims with links.

As long as you fail to do so, we have no reason to believe this proposal is anything but a hoax.

Having ignored every one of my links, I can't help but wonder if your opposition simply cannot face the truth, instead calling things it dislikes "hoaxes," "tarnishing," and "embarrassing" its opponents.

I call bullshit.

That huge wall of links proved your failure to provide links. HARD EVIDENCE that contradicts your makebelieve.
Why don't you do yourself a favour and show us these seemingly nonexistent links?

Or are we going to hear the classic "no I can't be bothered because your hard evidence means nothing because I said so"

[Devi Vytherin]

You had no argument for the hard evidence. Stop trying to bend the truth.

In running out of points to make, you go forth and recycle all of those links in an effort to make them visible again. You're basically just bumping all of these, and worse yet, you expect it to be debated about all over again like this was new evidence.

Evidence is only new once, IM. You're not getting anywhere by frantically trying to prove your point with repeated quotes and increasingly incoherent posts.

Okay, humour me for a bit, Lanav. How exactly is old evidence inferior to new evidence, or in any way inadmissible? Last I heard, the veracity of evidence was the important part, not its age.

[La Navasse]

Having ignored every one of my links, I can't help but wonder if your opposition simply cannot face the truth, instead calling things it dislikes "hoaxes," "tarnishing," and "embarrassing" its opponents.

I call bullshit.

That huge wall of links proved your failure to provide links. HARD EVIDENCE that contradicts your makebelieve.
Why don't you do yourself a favour and show us these seemingly nonexistent links?

Or are we going to hear the classic "no I can't be bothered because your hard evidence means nothing because I said so"

Quite honestly, I cannot find any reason to join in on your revolting method of measuring evidence by the length of the list of your links. Your wall of links only proves that you value quantity over quality, everything but an explanation, nonsense interpretations of "hard evidence," a resistance to anything but links, and a complete rejection of explanations and any links posted by the opposition when not in a list. Ghastly.

In running out of points to make, you go forth and recycle all of those links in an effort to make them visible again. You're basically just bumping all of these, and worse yet, you expect it to be debated about all over again like this was new evidence.

Evidence is only new once, IM. You're not getting anywhere by frantically trying to prove your point with repeated quotes and increasingly incoherent posts.

Okay, humour me for a bit, Lanav. How exactly is old evidence inferior to new evidence, or in any way inadmissible? Last I heard, the veracity of evidence was the important part, not its age.

It has been addressed countless times, and at this point, it has nearly become link spam. It does nothing to move the conversation forward, instead constantly shoving it back into conflict, and preventing conflict resolution and an actual solution to this madness.

[Devi Vytherin]

I call bullshit.

That huge wall of links proved your failure to provide links. HARD EVIDENCE that contradicts your makebelieve.
Why don't you do yourself a favour and show us these seemingly nonexistent links?

Or are we going to hear the classic "no I can't be bothered because your hard evidence means nothing because I said so"

Quite honestly, I cannot find any reason to join in on your revolting method of measuring evidence by the length of the list of your links. Your wall of links only proves that you value quantity over quality, everything but an explanation, nonsense interpretations of "hard evidence," a resistance to anything but links, and a complete rejection of explanations and any links posted by the opposition when not in a list. Ghastly.

"I don't want to provide a summarised version of my own argument so I'm instead going to call compilations of evidence revolting, and use that as an excuse to avoid justifying myself in full"
Okay, gotcha.

[Indo-Malaysia]

As I though, baseless claims with no evidence. Truly trustworthy.

[La Navasse]

As I though, baseless claims with no evidence. Truly trustworthy.

That's truly revolutionary, especially considering that you essentially made a random, meaningless statement and didn't even have any reasoning. It's as if you're avoiding logic.

Quite honestly, I cannot find any reason to join in on your revolting method of measuring evidence by the length of the list of your links. Your wall of links only proves that you value quantity over quality, everything but an explanation, nonsense interpretations of "hard evidence," a resistance to anything but links, and a complete rejection of explanations and any links posted by the opposition when not in a list. Ghastly.

"I don't want to provide a summarised version of my own argument so I'm instead going to call compilations of evidence revolting, and use that as an excuse to avoid justifying myself in full"
Okay, gotcha.

We're looking for a solution, Derps. We're not looking for more salt.

[Devi Vytherin]

It has been addressed countless times, and at this point, it has nearly become link spam. It does nothing to move the conversation forward, instead constantly shoving it back into conflict, and preventing conflict resolution and an actual solution to this madness.

I wonder if that's because a certain person has dismissed anything remotely detrimental to his case out of hand.

As I though, baseless claims with no evidence. Truly trustworthy.

That's truly revolutionary, especially considering that you essentially made a random, meaningless statement and didn't even have any reasoning. It's as if you're avoiding logic.

"I don't want to provide a summarised version of my own argument so I'm instead going to call compilations of evidence revolting, and use that as an excuse to avoid justifying myself in full"
Okay, gotcha.

We're looking for a solution, Derps. We're not looking for more salt.

The solution would be to back up assertions with evidence, take the time to respond to the evidence provided, and to do so constructively, without veering into purple prose and fallacy. I wonder what's holding that back.

[La Navasse]

It has been addressed countless times, and at this point, it has nearly become link spam. It does nothing to move the conversation forward, instead constantly shoving it back into conflict, and preventing conflict resolution and an actual solution to this madness.

I wonder if that's because a certain person has dismissed anything remotely detrimental to his case out of hand.

I don't see how this is helping the case in any way.

That's truly revolutionary, especially considering that you essentially made a random, meaningless statement and didn't even have any reasoning. It's as if you're avoiding logic.We're looking for a solution, Derps. We're not looking for more salt.

The solution would be to back up assertions with evidence, take the time to respond to the evidence provided, and to do so constructively, without veering into purple prose and fallacy. I wonder what's holding that back.

I'm not playing the opposition's game of throwing as many long lists of links as I can at my opposition and judging who's lists are longer - I know I've already laid out my evidence, and I'm not in any urgent need to repeatedly quote and requote lists of irrelevant links in an attempt for legitimacy. The opposition is refusing to accept the evidence, and I don't think, Derps, that claiming there's fallacy in my reasoning (not that you've specified any) or trying to covertly allude to some meaningless end helps at all.

[Indo-Malaysia]

I wonder if that's because a certain person has dismissed anything remotely detrimental to his case out of hand.

I don't see how this is helping the case in any way.

The solution would be to back up assertions with evidence, take the time to respond to the evidence provided, and to do so constructively, without veering into purple prose and fallacy. I wonder what's holding that back.

I'm not playing the opposition's game of throwing as many long lists of links as I can at my opposition and judging who's lists are longer - I know I've already laid out my evidence, and I'm not in any urgent need to repeatedly quote and requote lists of irrelevant links in an attempt for legitimacy. The opposition is refusing to accept the evidence, and I don't think, Derps, that claiming there's fallacy in my reasoning (not that you've specified any) or trying to covertly allude to some meaningless end helps at all.

How can we refuse to accept evidence that doesn't exist?

Like it or not, those lots were big because you claimed to have evidence but never linked it. It's no wonder you are widely considered untrustworthy.

[La Navasse]

I don't see how this is helping the case in any way.
I'm not playing the opposition's game of throwing as many long lists of links as I can at my opposition and judging who's lists are longer - I know I've already laid out my evidence, and I'm not in any urgent need to repeatedly quote and requote lists of irrelevant links in an attempt for legitimacy. The opposition is refusing to accept the evidence, and I don't think, Derps, that claiming there's fallacy in my reasoning (not that you've specified any) or trying to covertly allude to some meaningless end helps at all.

How can we refuse to accept evidence that doesn't exist?

Like it or not, those lots were big because you claimed to have evidence but never linked it. It's no wonder you are widely considered untrustworthy.

I'd consider someone who refuses to actually notice their opponent's evidence links needing to actually look back and click on those links, not just look over them and say, "you claimed to have evidence but never linked it."

Ad hominem fallacy at the end, IM.

[Devi Vytherin]

I wonder if that's because a certain person has dismissed anything remotely detrimental to his case out of hand.

I don't see how this is helping the case in any way.

The solution would be to back up assertions with evidence, take the time to respond to the evidence provided, and to do so constructively, without veering into purple prose and fallacy. I wonder what's holding that back.

I'm not playing the opposition's game of throwing as many long lists of links as I can at my opposition and judging who's lists are longer - I know I've already laid out my evidence, and I'm not in any urgent need to repeatedly quote and requote lists of irrelevant links in an attempt for legitimacy. The opposition is refusing to accept the evidence, and I don't think, Derps, that claiming there's fallacy in my reasoning (not that you've specified any) or trying to covertly allude to some meaningless end helps at all.

Ah yes, the 'force the reader to trawl through the entirety of a lengthy thread to see the nuances of my stance' gambit. Works every time.
Let's start simple, then. Boomer went out of his way to provide a list of links that *support* your case. In what way is that section incomplete or inadequate?