Mirza engaged in strategic voting behavior on bluesteel's debate against innomen

I agree with the definitions above. I'd like to add that in order for my vote to have been strategic, I must've intended it to be that way. Otherwise every complex coincidence can seem strategic. I will argue that I had absolutely no intention to make Innomen win, and that there is zero evidence for that.Because I have to do many rebuttals in this debate, consider reading my other debate on this issue to see my full reasons for not being able to vote early on the day, and how my PM exchange with Innomen proves that I had no bias against Bluesteel, nor any intention to vote against him merely for the purpose of making Innomen win. See: http://www.debate.org... -- Rebuttals --R1: Pro misinterprets everythingIn his first sentence, Pro claims that I called him a coward for not accepting my earlier debate challenge. That's not true. I'd call him a liar if anything, but I think he does believe in all the nonsense he utters. Nonetheless, what I said was that he cowered from the debate challenge. Is that an attack on his character? Not at all. Consider the following statement: "Josh told one lie in his life, about nine years ago. Therefore, Josh is a liar." This apparently is not very sound. The act of doing something does not mean it is part of your personality. Pro cowering from a debate challenge does not mean he's a coward.Additionally, Pro claims that I 'attacked his character' in my other debate of same sort. The reason why I have two same debates in a row is because my character was attacked. To claim that I was not the first victim of Bluesteel's rage because I voted against him is a fact. To claim that Bluesteel could have resolved this issue in an easier, more mature, and less arrogant way is a fact. Notice how Pro's entire case consists of attacking me with lies. Nowhere does he defend himself, yet he claimed the right to do so in this debate. Additionally, he claims that I did not allow him to post comments on my other debate. Everyone can go read the comments and see for themselves whether I claimed that Bluesteel should not post arguments in the comments section rather than just comment on the debate. I'll get back to Pro's exceptional ability at misinterpretation.R2: No RFD leftPro is right in that I did not leave an elaborated RFD in the comments section, contrary to what I said in the voting section. However, this is merely due to the fact that Pro and a handful of his supporters took all my focus away from the debate, and I saw no point in writing an RFD when I had a thread against me where people came with almost nothing but personal attacks. Put yourself in my shoes. Would you spend time on writing an RFD rather than explaining that your vote was honest and non-strategic? I can leave an RFD anytime if needed (in fact, I did in a PM to Innomen to explain why I think he won by a very little shot), but that's completely unnecessary. I reserve the right to prioritize.R3: My counter-votebombPro is once again right in that I attempted to counter what I considered to be a blatant votebomb against Bluesteel himself. I voted on another debate the same way, quite some time before I gained interest in Bluesteel's debate against Innomen. I thought a 7-0 vote for Innomen was unfair, and I got the user who gave that vote to give 1 point less, resulting in 6-1 to Innomen.Unfortunately, what happened was that the user Gileandos countered my vote, which itself was a counter to another vote! I told both Gileandos and ApostateAbe (to whom I gave the counter-vote) that I would rather not engage in any further discussions with them. I would not want to say this to anyone in order for Innomen (or anyone else, including myself) to win a debate. Furthermore, what happened was that during the time I judged the debate, I completely forgot that Gileandos did not change his 7-0 vote to Innomen, meaning that my vote should technically have remained the same. But, since I said I would eventually come back and vote for real, I kept the promise, and I had no bad intentions. Gileandos' vote was out of my head.R4: Highly improbable engineering Bluesteel often claimed that I engineered the voting, which resulted in Innomen's victory. I think this is completely ridiculous. To repeat what I said in my other debate: "One can claim that I should not have voted at all, or that I should not have countered anything I considered a votebomb, but that is not equivalent to claiming that my 3-point-vote was systematic. I could never have predicted how a handful of other people would vote, and that way keep a 7-point vote ongoing for about three days before finally switching it to 3 points, i.e., the final vote. To think I could predict that several other people would vote in such a way that my vote would give Innomen the lead of only one point and thus make him win is utterly ridiculous."R5: Reading debate in full Pro claims that it is unlikely that I had enough time to read the debate in full. He claimed either of the following are true: a) I read the debate beforehand and thus should have voted a long time ago, or b) I must have logged on without enough time to read the entire debate fully, thus my vote was by definition a votebomb and strategic.Pro is entirely mistaken. Let's look at the first option. Could I have read the debate earlier, since I had enough time to vote just about in the last minute? I skimmed a few points, but that's irrelevant. As for the second option, did I log so late that I could not read the debate entirely?Neither of these are sound. Why does Pro even remotely think that you vote right after you read a debate? What about re-reading a few points you were confused about? What about considering whose arguments fit best to the resolution? Pro thinks that I simply read the debate all until the last minute, and thus gave a vote. That's nonsensical. Why not say that I read the debate and had 5-10 minutes to judge properly? And, because it happened that I voted in the last minute tells nothing about strategic work. As I said, Gileandos' vote was out of my mind, and I voted because I simply kept my promise.R6: Knowing the winner beforehand"Mirza admits to knowing that his vote would result in innomen winning (because of Gileandos' un-counter-able vote bomb). Mirza: 'I knew my vote would determine the outcome.'"Here, Pro yet again misinterprets what I said. It is completely true that I knew my vote would determine the outcome. The outcome I am speaking of was not that Innomen would win (during my judgement of the debate), but that my vote would be a determining factor in who - of any of the debaters - would win. I knew because the score was 39-48, and if I voted on Innomen, it would be 42-41 (as it was in the end), but if I voted on Bluesteel, he'd have 44.In other words, I did not know, prior to judging the debate, that my vote would result in Innomen winning, but that I could determine which of the debaters would win, since there was little time left for others to vote.R7: Admission of guiltPro claimed that I "pictured his face when he won and couldn't bear the thought." That's rubbish. There is no way one can even paraphrase my words to mean what Bluesteel said. I urge Pro to visit http://www.english4today.com... and ask what my sentence means.Nonetheless, what I meant with Bluesteel celebrating his win was that if he were in Innomen's shoes, and the exact same thing happened to Innomen, then I doubt Pro would act negatively in any way in order to remove an "unjustified" vote for himself. In order words, I think he raged because he lost, not because he deemed my vote specially unfair/strategic. 100% admission of guilt? I think not.