Comments by noblewitness - Honouree

noblewitness

@noblewitness 49

about 8 years ago

There's no pressure. There's nothing out there forcing a major change. Unless you're speaking for everyone who unvoted, you're not qualif

1

0

0.024

@noblewitness 49

about 8 years ago

We haven't pressured anyone into changing their witness votes. Clearly, someone has done that with regards to us. If it isn't you, I'm sur

0

0

0.000

@noblewitness 49

about 8 years ago

We haven't said that in any capacity. We've made the following claims: witness voters that were voting for noblewitness changed their vot

0

0

0.000

@noblewitness 49

about 8 years ago

It's not based on any assumption. As was mentioned in the post, it may not be all of the people who unvoted, but it is clearly the case tha

0

0

0.000

@noblewitness 49

about 8 years ago

To be fair, when mentioning "your last post" it's helpful to specify which "you" was being referenced. As for this being grandstanding of s

0

0

0.000

@noblewitness 49

about 8 years ago

You're the one who shared this information. You, not third parties. You went out of scope of the agreement you suggested yourself. This do

0

0

0.000

@noblewitness 49

about 8 years ago

Can you provide a link to the post you're referencing? Our last posts don't have many comments at all on them, aside from this one, and the

0

0

0.000

@noblewitness 49

about 8 years ago

What is to be gained by this? I'm surprised you don't think that exposing possible coercion or undue influence against witness voters is

1

0

0.000

@noblewitness 49

about 8 years ago

I gave explicit limited permission to share with your mod team. Once again, our reasoning is sound and based in a common understanding th

0

0

0.000

@noblewitness 49

about 8 years ago

Given that more than one voter we've spoken to has explicitly stated that social pressure for political reasons motivated changing their vot

1

0

0.000

@noblewitness 49

about 8 years ago

Our rationalization is based on common-law traditions regarding whether communications made explicitly in the presence of or shared with thi

0

0

0.000

@noblewitness 49

about 8 years ago

As mentioned in the response to both aggro and acidyo, once information is shared to third parties, there is no longer any expectation of pr

0

0

0.000

@noblewitness 49

about 8 years ago

Thank you for taking the time to reply to this post. As was mentioned earlier in a reply to acidyo's post, once collusion to pressure voter

1

0

0.000

@noblewitness 49

about 8 years ago

Once the information was shared outside of the conversation between Aggroed and Gmuxx, that information was shared with the public. While t

0

0

0.000

@noblewitness 49

about 8 years ago

You did not have my permission to share beyond your mod pit, and you are acting dishonestly suggesting otherwise. Once you release inform

0

0

0.000