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

Mirza urges readers to apply the arguments from his other debate to this one. DO NOT DO THIS. He can't save character space be referencing 8,000 characters of arguments in another debate, just like I can't post my response on a blog and provide the hyperlink in order to save characters. I'll only debate what he posts in this debate. == Rebuttal == R1) I misinterpret everything? This is just hyperbole (and ad hominem) from my opponent. I admit that I blew innomen's involvement in this affair way out of proportion. I have personally apologized to innomen, and I am prosecuting the izbo case as a favor to him. He and I have reconciled. Mirza claims I have "attacked" other people. I would have mirza bring formal charges against me if he wants me to refute these allegations. But my character is not at issue here. As a judge on this debate, it doesn't matter if you dislike me or if you love Mirza. At the end of the day, regardless of your feelings towards either of us, you can still agree that he engaged in strategic voting behavior on my debate. All mirza's character attacks do is urge judge bias: he's asking you to ignore his behavior if you supposedly don't like mine. R2) No RFD Left Mirza admits here that he voted at the last possible second. That's really the only takeaway that matters. I was using the lack of an RFD to show that Mirza had literally no time between when he left his vote and when I was notified by DDO that I'd lost (a debate I had been leading by 9 points when I had last checked 3 minutes earlier). I posted my complaints about Mirza in the forums as soon as being notified. Thus, mirza had "no time" to leave an RFD because there WAS "no time" between when he voted and when I was notified I'd lost the debate. R3) Mirza "forgot" about Gileandos' vote Most people lie when they are caught doing something they shouldn't have done; the most obvious lie for Mirza to use in his defense is, of course, that he forgot about Gileandos' vote. So I'm not surprised that Mirza would use this tactic, and I don't begrudge it to him since I see it done in criminal trials all the time. However, this simply does not hold water. Mirza claims he went OUT OF HIS WAY to contact both Gileandos and ApostateAbe. He claims that he was so upset by their behavior that he wanted to block both users. And yet suddenly he forgets all the drama surrounding this debate? Whenever someone counter-vote bombs, he or she should obviously always check that the original vote bomb was removed before changing their votes. That is the standard operating procedure and the only ethical course of action. If Mirza did check before re-voting, then he KNEW Gileandos was still vote-bombing me. If he DID NOT check, then he should have ASSUMED that there was still a vote-bomb against me. He admits he still knew he was "counter-votebombing." What did he think he was countering? When mirza went to vote a second time, the website would have displayed his previous vote and his previous RFD, which read: "counter-vote bombing." {I don't know if any of you have tried to change your votes, but try it – you *can't* miss your previous RFD; you'd literally have to delete your previous RFD in order to write a new one, which Mirza did} It's impossible to believe that Mirza didn't see his RFD and previous vote, both of which would have told him that he was countering someone. If he "forgot" who he was countering, he would have checked. If Mirza checked his original vote on the "votes" tab before re-voting to see WHY he'd written "counter-vote bombing", he would have seen Gildeanos' vote bomb since it was right above Mirza's original vote. It was impossible to miss. Mirza tries to portray his vote as a determined last-minute rush to vote on the debate. However, his decision of when to vote was clearly very calculated. When he voted, I checked his activity log, and he was online for hours before he voted. He started arguing against i-am-panda on innomen's political debate an hour and a half before voting. If Mirza had computer trouble and suddenly rushed to some computer just to vote on this debate, you wouldn't have seen him log onto DDO and take his leisurely time doing other things. It's hard to believe that Mirza was paying SO MUCH attention to the debate that he knew EXACTLY when the voting period ended (there's no notifications for when a debate is an hour from finishing). Mirza must have been checking in constantly to know this. It's hard to believe he was following the debate to such an extent as to know the exact hour it ended but forgot MAJOR details about why his 7 points had been cast in my favor in the first place. R4) Highly improbable engineering First of all, I don't need to prove that Mirza engineered any vote but his own or that he premeditated this strategy three days in advance. In criminal law, we look at whether someone had motive and opportunity to commit a crime. The opportunity arose two hours before the voting period was about to end, when Zetsubou voted 5 points to innomen, lowering my lead from 14 points to 9 points. At this point, Mirza's 10-point swing could actually affect the outcome of the debate. It's obvious why Mirza didn't bother changing his vote before that point: because even if he gave 5 points to innomen (resulting in a 12 point swing towards innomen), I would have still been winning by two points. For a 14-point swing, Mirza would have had to vote innomen all seven points, and he obviously calculated that his strategic voting behavior would be FAR too obvious in that case. And without Zetsubou's vote, even Mirza vote bombing 7 points to innomen would have only resulted in a tie. Mirza carefully bided his time until his vote became not only decisive, but also un-counter-able. Zetsubou's late vote created the opportunity; now let's discuss motive. The motive should be clear both from this debate and Mirza's comments that I quoted from the forums: Mirza dislikes me a great deal. He also wanted to help innomen, who is a close friend and confidant of Mirza's, albeit doing so in a completely misguided way. But even innomen thinks mirza engaged in strategic voting behavior. Innomen said to me, in an apology about mirza's behavior, "i think he was just trying to help me in his own way, but didn't realize the turmoil he was going to create." R5) Did not read the debate? This was a pretty big double bind: either mirza was so rushed that he did not LEGITIMATELY have time to read the debate (and voted without reading, which is a vote bomb) OR he finished reading the debate days earlier and bided his time to vote at a more strategic opportunity. Mirza asks if people typically vote right after they read a debate. Typically they do, so as not to forget the arguments. I *never* read a debate in full and then wait two days to vote. Mirza says, "Why not say that I read the debate and had 5-10 minutes to judge properly?" Any psychologist would have a FIELD DAY with this statement. When someone is lying but uncomfortable doing so, they will often ask hypothetical questions rather than making explicit statements. [1] Someone telling the truth would say, "I finished reading the debate with 5 to 10 minutes left, pondered my decision for 8 to 9 minutes, then voted." A liar would say, "well, it's reasonable to think that I had 5 to 10 minutes to ponder the debate before voting." Notably, Mirza's short RFD (the one attached to his vote) does not mention a single argument that either I or innomen made in the debate. It's two lines of "fluff," with Mirza equivocating on the meaning of certain words in the resolution. It's precisely the sort of RFD you'd expect from someone who didn't read the debate but needed to write something in a hurry. R6) Knowing his vote would be "decisive" Every argument Mirza makes here assumes that you believe that he "forgot" he was countering a vote bomb. It should have been patently obvious, however, given that Mirza admits he saw the score was "39-48" prior to voting. Any sane person would question why his vote could result in such a large point swing and would check why he had counter-vote bombed in the first place. Gileandos' vote bomb was IMMEDIATELY above Mirza's old vote. It's not as if Mirza had so many things going on that he could get confused. Prior to this incident, he hadn't debated on this site for 4 months. His previous vote had been a week earlier, but that was only to counter a vote bomb against RoyLatham. Mirza rarely posted to the forums anymore, until this incident, which is why many of you likely don't know him. The ONLY thing he was doing on DDO at this time was voting on my debate with innomen. It's really hard to believe that a big detail, like why his counter-vote bomb was still there, would just "slip his mind." R7) Admission of guilt Mirza contemptuously posts a link to an English grammar forum. He provides no other real response. His words speak for themselves, "I also 'knew' if my votebomb-counter in your favor did not get switched, you'd not care. You'd celebrate your win. You were grateful for all the votes on you. Hurray." Sarcasm. Contempt. Hatred. Joy at my misery. Misery at the thought of my joy. This statement alone is a 100% admission of guilt. Vote pro. There is absolutely no way that you could construe the above quote to mean "innomen would not react this way if he lost," as Mirza suggests. [1] Mark Bouton, How to Spot Lies Like the FBI