Mirza did not engage in strategic voting behavior on bluesteel's debate against innomen

The correct reference above is: http://tinyurl.com... Thanks to Chthonian for pointing that out. I'll go straight to the arguments.C1: Not the first victimOnce I saw the thread made by Bluesteel and my name mentioned in it, I was already fully aware that it was not the first time Bluesteel had a problem with someone who voted against him, or specifically made him lose. In the debate "The News Media Is Biased Against the Positive Aspects of Gun Ownership," [1] bluesteel said the following to RoyLatham when he saw his vote: "lol, withstood endless attacks? I love you roy, but you can be a really biased judge." I'm sure we're all biased when it comes to voting against someone who arrogantly believes he wins every debate. A year ago he had the same judgement toward voters on the site. "wow, F this site. I can't believe this many people are docking me for citing a book. Most people consider books more legitimate. It also takes significantly longer to read a book than to pull a bunch of studies off of one website. I should have cited the secondary sources on the studies Goldman cites - that I admit, in retrospect. But this is seriously ridiculous." [2] When someone has such a history of intolerance toward losing a debate, it is only logical to accept that his claims against me are doubtful.C2: My first vote was honest and unplannedOn the Innomen/Bluesteel debate, I gave 7 points to Bluesteel without reading the debate. My intention was to counter a vote (7 full points) by the user ApostateAbe, which I thought was a votebomb. Later on, Gileandos changed his vote to 7-0 and ApostateAbe changed his to 6-1 for Innomen's favor. I responded to both of these users that I would rather not engage in discussions with them anytime again. If I had wanted Innomen to win, I'd be happy with two people responding to my votebomb-counter, since that got Innomen ahead. I disregarded that entirely.Moreover, it is not the first time I vote to counter a votebomb without reading the debate. On RoyLatham's recent debate, [3] which ended before I knew anything about Innomen's debate as far as I'm aware, I gave Roy 7 points to counter someone's votebomb. I did not read the debate, and my vote is still counting. This proves that I do counter votebombing without the alleged intention to later change it for the sake of making someone lose on purpose. Additionally, the RFD I left was not a real one - I merely explained why I gave 7 points to Bluesteel. Innomen had nothing to do with it. I thereby also made it very clear that I would definitely read the debate and give my real vote. I kept the promise.C3: Pain without gainI wonder why people cannot see through the fog. Why would I want to create all this mess in order to vote for Innomen? I've never struggled to make anyone get many votes, not even myself in any of my debates. Innomen and I are good friends, but I would not want to vote for him simply because it is him. There are many instances where I discussed certain hot issues with him, and we have vast political and personal differences. There's no evidence to tell that I would go through all this mess without gaining anything good out of it.C4: No personal issues with the debatersThere's no proper reason to believe that I would votebomb and determine the loss for Bluesteel with negative intentions. I have no issues - aside from the latest problem - with Bluesteel, and I have good proof for that. For instance, in a PM exchange with Innomen (which I will refer to quite a lot throughout the debate), I wrote a list of suggestions for the Vice President who should run with Innomen. Among some, Bluesteel was one of them. My opinion about the user Kinesis was as follows: "My pick would perhaps be Kinesis. He is active and very interesting, so I think you should see what he says. My suggestion points toward him, certainly."I then said, "And lastly, Bluesteel. I think I'd pick him for the same reasons as Kinesis." The reasons for picking Kinesis were positive, and I gave even others later on that were more positive. Innomen later clarified that although Bluesteel would be a good pick, he already ran with another candidate. If nobody believes that I wrote this in any Personal Message conversation, either ask Innomen to witness or ask for images, which I can sort out if needed. To conclude on this point, it is exceptionally clear that I had no reason whatsoever to be biased against Bluesteel.C5: The presidency is completely irrelevantIn the thread I linked, many a times it was mentioned either directly or indirectly that I tried to get some support for Innomen by doing all this. If anyone wonders, there are elections around the corner which will determine who should become the site's representative and moderator. Nonetheless, this is yet another completely unsupported assertion. I have no interest in becoming the Vice President, and any other role would be of no bigger significance for me personally than my already good relations with Innomen. Whether or not he wins does not change anything for me personally, and he being mature means that he'd handle a defeat well too.C6: Personal reasons and Internet issues delayed my responseThis is my main point regarding all of this. People ask why I did not vote earlier, and they create this conspiracy that I deliberately voted in the last moment in order to make Innomen win. A few clarifications have to be made.1: The late habitI have a history of postponing voting and debate rounds. For instance, in the debate "Construction of Islam," [4] in all rounds I had less than one, or even half (an) hour to respond to my opponent's arguments. This is just one among many such instances. If I were late responding to a debate that is about one of the most important things in my life (i.e., my religion), why doubt that I was honestly late for reading the debate and withal judging it? I ask Con to name a single good reason why I would want to do this for anyone on the site. For all I care, remove my current vote. I had the former owner, Phil, remove votes from one account from one of my old debates. Instead of acting as arrogantly and childishly as Con, Bluesteel, and Co., did, I waited for months without saying a word, and once I realized I deserved to win a debate instead of having it a tie due to votebomb, I simply contacted the site administrator and got it sorted out.Common sense.2: Internet issueI had an Internet shutdown for several hours the day I voted. On the PM with Innomen, I told him: "Phew! I came home and there were issues connecting to the Internet, and I fixed it. I thought I could not make it to vote on your debate, and the 7 points would make me feel bad." The day before I said that, I also wrote: "... I gave him [bluesteel] 7 points temporarily because I thought ApostateAbe votebombed, and I clearly dislike votebombing. I'm sorry, really sorry, for the inconvenience, I didn't have a bad intention. I will fix it and he'll obviously get 7 points less, though I will see which one of you won in my opinion and if he did, I might give him 3 points or whatever, but I am not sure at all! Again, sorry for what seemed to be dumb voting." This is all fact.-- Conclusion --There's no doubt that the allegations against me do not hold water. They are based on blind faith and arrogance. The solution to my vote would be to kindly ask a moderator to remove it. I would be fine with that. I've proved that I had no reasons to specifically vote for Innomen other than the fact that I believed he won, and that I had no intention whatsoever to strategically vote against Bluesteel. I've never done that before, nor would I do it now. My counter-votebomb was not part of any plan either.Resolution affirmed.References:[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://www.debate.org...[4] http://tinyurl.com...