Largely, I was providing examples in which merit could be given, and that does not even signify that I make merit allocations in that kind of way, even if it might happen from time to time.  I am not completely pulling the examples out of the air, but just because they are used as examples does not mean that they are wide-spread or even were happening in this particular case, and in the end, like I said several times, I don't need to justify why I sent an smerit in one case or not in another for any given post or even if the post was meritorious. 

Of course, if you can figure out some bad motive, that might be another story... but I do not have to prove a good motive.. yes, I recognize that you are suggesting that if a good motive does not exist, and if I cannot justify a good motive, then therefore, we can reasonably conclude that a bad motive exists... Usually, the standard is the opposite from what I have heard, and that is that the burden is on the accuser to both show a bad motive and to provide some evidence of such before a good motive might need to be shown, and surely you have not even come close to showing any bad motive, you just want to throw out accusations that a bad motive must exist if a good motive is not proven... .

I understand that some people might not understand the difference between alleging that I have a bad motive and trying to show such motive as compared with my NOT having to show a good motive.. and maybe it is ridiculous for me to even be discussing such principles with someone like you who just seems to want to twist ideas and principles and just make shit up in order that you can outline some standard that is ONLY understood by yourself and just ongoingly muddies the waters.  For example, my NOT showing a good motive, does not even mean that my motives were not good, so you can read all kinds of bad motives into purported merit sending based on allegations of lacking of good motive, and those are two different standards, and confuses the matter to be attempting to equate them and to convolute them on a regular basis.



That is true.  We have already discussed such hypothesis more than it deserves to be discussed.  I am just entertaining your nonsense on a regular basis, which is surely not winning me any popularity contests, if anyone were to want to hold one in the near future.



Hm..? at least, we might be making some progress towards some semblance of agreement, and it could be that either I am describing this badly or you are mischaracterizing what I said.

I think that I was trying to suggest that sometimes if I get the sense that you are leading me down bad paths and stretches of logic, then I lose confidence with you.  So technically you might be correct that the information that you provided is not false, but instead it is striving to reach stretches for conclusions, and then I feel deceived because you insisted that I reach certain conclusions based on insufficient evidence or even logic that does not support such conclusions or mixing up of standards, so yeah, technically you might be correct that the information is not false, but I might get the sense that I was duped because you assigned too much weight to certain kinds of information that I believe did not deserve anything close to that level of weight.    And, sure, also if I perceive that you are purposefully withholding certain kinds of information that I believe is pertinent and relevant, too, then that is going to cause me a considerable amount of skepticism, even if technically you have not stated anything that is actually false... so yeah, my description of "false" might not have been the right word choice or way of framing what I was attempting to say.



Of course, we can assert that certain kinds of information is relevant, including the biasness of the accuser, but the alleged biasness of the accuser would be less relevant and a stretch... so yeah, there are ways that you can proclaim that biasness of the accuser is relevant, but there are burdens of proof in claiming those kinds of purported dynamics, and the actual allegations are the most relevant.  We can battle for days on this, and surely we are probably talking about matter of degree rather than absolutes, but I still think that dealing with the actual allegations is way the fuck more relevant... Let's get past that part first, and if later, we need to figure out if biasness matters then maybe that could be a topic, but it still seems like way more of a divergence that might be 1% relevant rather than 90% relevant.. so I am largely saying let's try to get through the more relevant stuff first.. and if we make progress on the more relevant stuff then maybe we can address that tangential stuff at some later point.



Yes.. abstractly these are good principles.



All kinds of ways to talk about this. You are saying talking about a topic of punishment and advocating punishment is punishment?  Sending smerits is punishment or not sending them? red tagging is punishment?  Members are going to decide their involvement in the same kinds of ways that I had described about sending smerits, so are you describing something that I need to do, again?  ultimately you are becoming quite vague.




I am not sure I am saying that.  I am saying that whatever I did has enough context.



I have read some things that nullius says and some evidence and logic that he provides for his points.  I suppose if people do not believe him or believe that he has provided bad evidence, then he might sometimes supplement what he had provided.  I don't think that there is anything notorious about what nullius is saying in this thread, but of course, he started this thread, and I found out about this thread from the hacker thread, so yeah there has been some assertions in this thread that nullius has not backed up some of his claims enough, or that he is not really saying anything new, so that is part of the ongoing discussion.

Most posters are going to attempt to provide some context for what they are asserting, whether nullius or otherwise, and the context that is relevant to nullius and to you would likely be different ways of posting or emphasizing evidence or logic, so then we would still get into questions regarding what the evidence is, what is the logic and what is being proposed as the action.., including maybe some invitation for others who disagree with the content to attempt to state their disagreements to the evidence that was provided or maybe to attempt to clarify some points in regards to the evidence, logic or even if the proposed action is reasonable given the evidence. 

It seems to me that I don't need to go study into nullius in order to either send smerits in this thread or to post or even to respond to you, so I am not sure what benefit is going to provide for me to study nullius's posts more than I have already done.