PetersSmith Works for Juggle

I'll begin this round by citing a quote by airmax that he provided: " If it [an insult] isn't justified, though, then it becomes a mere insult. Mere insult of ideas is allowed--mere insult of people is not... Con wasn't factual with the attributes that he assigned to Peters Smith. Her own comment on this debate testifies to that: "Wylted, the vast majority of your "arguments" are incorrect (or just poorly researched) and she said no personal attacks. I've been on this site for two years (just look at my profile and I just hit this marker), which means I joined at almost 18. You call me annoying. You claim I'm "more mature" by default because the polls is filled with a "younger audience" (which you have no evidence of, and considering the general demographic on this site is < 17-20). I also moderate the spam in the forums and occasionally deal with member conflicts. You also call it dumb luck and say that it was "out of my control". I became the poll mod in March of 2015 (joined in around August of of 2014), so that's 7 months I was on the site before becoming the mod. Airmax appointed me as mod because he didn't focus on the section, and believed I was "by far the most prolific user of the polls section." I understood the section, cared for the section, and agreed to it out of the kindness of my heart. You also then insult me based on my family life, proclaiming my behavior is "obviously" because I'm an "only child" and that I'm "bad at making friends". Come on. You could at least try to be nice and accurate." Con did not did not insult her ideas, he attacked her character by saying she was more likely "an only child that always got her way," than a juggle employee, and implied this may be why she's bad at making friends. I was embarrassed when I read his R2, because I was expecting an argument that had substance, not a cheap shot to explain why she seemed authoritative on threads at times. When I previously confronted her because of the heir of authority that I perceived she had, it was because I thought that she worked for juggle and was parading her authority in front of regular members. It annoyed me, not because she was direct and assertive with her opinions, but because I thought she held an important PAID position, to use DDO members for research. It was that I thought deception was involved that annoyed me, not her assertiveness that I only perceived as authoritative when I thought her motives were profit or research driven. I was going to concede my argument that Smith works for Juggle, until I trolled her on a post last night, joking that I still thinks she works for Juggle, because again her tone was authoritative on a post about Juggle. I did so because I wanted to see her reaction to me pointing out how her authoritative tone can be perceived as someone who works for the company that they are making strong claims on behalf of. Her response, and Airmax’s as well, is what made me to decide to continue this debate, that she works for Juggle. [http://www.debate.org...] and [http://www.debate.org...] This was my attempt to troll her,”Alright, here we go again. I had thought that we established that you don't work for Juggle, and I believed you until I read posts like this. It's the way you word things, I guess: "...., there's no way the swear filter can be removed."How do you know there's "no way the swear filter can be removed"?I may continue the debate - lol, but I will not personally attack you, and I will refute the way that Wylted has attempted to paint you. Like I said before, I have nothing against you, unless have inside information about Juggle, and somehow represent Juggle while pretending to be a member. In that case it is probably just a "gig" for you. The thing is, there are members on this site who socially interact here. Many members may not be excessively social to me or you for that matter, but they deserve to not be deceived, if indeed they are being deceived by you or anyone else.” Smith’s responce, “You got me. I can't hide it anymore. I revealed it in this thread [http://www.debate.org...] ... because I just had to get it out. I do work for Juggle. I'm a freelance writer for them getting paid 5 cents for every forum post and poll I remove. It's not great, but it's work.” I realize that this was an attempt at sarcasm, but as we continued the dialog, and airmax commented as well, I realized that her use of sarcasm was an attempt to confuse what the truth actually is. She evaded responding to my inquiry about, “What is truth?” when I questioned her about using the word truth while simultaneously being sarcastic. [http://www.debate.org...] [http://www.debate.org...] PetersSmith: “I know the truth is hard to accept now, but soon your conspiracy will be that I don't work for Juggle.Emmarie: “What is truth?”Petersmsith: “That I work for Juggle. Airmax even clarified.” She evaded my next response about using truth in congruence with sarcasm, but answered my about quoting her for this debate.[http://www.debate.org...] Emmarie: “Your words, may I quote them in my debate? or if I do, will you then claim sarcasm?I didn't ask what is the truth anyway, I asked what is truth? My point is not to use the word truth unless it is accurate. It's a word that doesn't pair well with the use of sarcasm.” PetersSmith: “You can do what you like. I'm not following that debate anymore.” Why would she use sarcasm after I revealed that I trolled her about working for Juggle? To hide truth, and discredit my theory, that she does work for Juggle. Age Con brings up her age as evidence that she would have been too young to work as a freelance writer, but then goes on to notice her maturity level from her activity on the polls. IT IS THE INTERNET! Unless anyone has even viewed her on the hangouts, live with the camera ON, there is no reason to believe she is the age she says she is. She admits that she lied about her gender when she first became a member., why not age as well? Moderation Smith herself, (if we can believe anything she says) discredits my opponents theory about what led to her becoming a polls moderator. What I did find interesting is the time frame of changing the voting standards (not needing 3 debates) for voting in Presidential elections, and the subsequent change in moderation on DDO. Once voters in elections were not made up of members who completed the debate requirement, standards on the site changed across the board on DDO. An employee of Juggle would know how to place herself in a position of protest, to effect other changes on the website! The Linda Problem I appreciate con’s insights about conjunction fallacy, and it could apply to my theory about PetersSmith being an employee, or freelancer of Juggle via OneSpace or Write.Org, but Smith’s evasiveness when asked direct questions, and use of sarcasm to confuse truth, makes me continue to believe that my theory is relevant and not a conjunction fallacy. Con mentions that technically a freelancer is not an employee, but a sub-contractor. May I remind con that the resolution of this debate, is that PetersSmith works for Juggle, and being a freelancer is still considered working for the company in which you receive a contract. I already briefly addressed con’s arguments in R3 about whether or not he attacked Smith in R2. Smith definitely is skilled at the art of deceptions as demonstrated by her responses to me many times on threads. I will leave it up to the voters to decide if I convinced them that Smith’s deception is due to working for Juggle. Here is a photo of Samantha PETERS a freelance writer for Write.org, another company owned by Juggle, alongside a previous profile pic of PetersSmith. Does anyone else see a resemblance?