i don't owe you squat, l4v.r0v :-)

don't expect any coyns from me. and there are no "victims" any more. there you go, "self-righteous avenger of the disinherited". or rather "bye bye bully".

PS: my event will not be a tournament. :-)
news to come. soon enough. mystify! stay tuned.

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen, there you have it!
How double standarts ruin one's reputation!

"My only viable path is transparency"
"I never talk behind the backs of people. neither good, nor bad"
"hatred and insults are coming from you"

after all that you spent hald an hour slandering everyone in ex-TSFH in global chat.
I'm afraid, I need to refresh your memory: you also were a member of TSFH.
Now you need to decide: whether I "defend" one member of my ex-group and "attack" another ex-member, or would you maybe notice, that I'm a member of Discovery for several weeks already.
But that's how you gain public opinion on your side: by presenting the facts partially.

Name one insult that you heard from me. I was trying to open your eyes on the problematics of public-shaming. I wasn't attacking you, but strongly opposing your methods. You chose to present it as a personal attack.
And that's how you gain public opinion on your side: presenting yourself as a victim.

P.S. about Stalin's pants:
we were discussing public shame as a part of a penal system. I made a direct connection to the USSR where it was used.
Your mentioning of Stalin's pants correlate fantastically with you complaints about being ridiculed.
But that's how you gain public opinion on your side: double standarts!

On 08/30/2021 at 09:12:56 AM, you joined a 5-coin Free Cache raffle with nonolet and unoturbo; I was 1 of the other 10 entrants.
On 08/30/2021 at 12:25:57 PM, you joined a 5-coin Supercharge Army Camp power with nonolet and unoturbo; I was 1 of the other 8 entrants.
On 08/30/2021 at 10:26:01 PM, you joined a 58-coin Time Warp raffle with nonolet and unoturbo. I was 1 of the other 12 entrants.
On 09/01/2021 at 10:10:14 AM, you joined a 4-coin Time Warp raffle with nonolet and unoturbo. I was 1 of the other 9 entrants.
On 09/17/2021 at 10:20:31 AM, you joined a 5-coin raffle with #Uno and nonolet. I was 1 of the other 8 entrants.
On 09/18/2021 at 09:11:42 AM, you joined a 62-coin raffle with #Uno and nonolet. I was 1 of the other 10 entrants.
On 09/22/2021 at 12:47:16 PM, you joined a 5-coin Supercharge Mine raffle with #Uno and nonolet. I was 1 of the other 10 entrants. You won this raffle on nonolet, netting a value of 30 coins (20 from the power).

By the expected value method, you cost me ~4 coins. If we instead divide your double-raffle winnings by the number of other players, we get 3 coins. I'm being generous and rounding down. This is how much you owe me, one of at least 141 players affected by your raffle cheating.

Thank you in advance for the repayment.

after all that you spent hald an hour slandering everyone in ex-TSFH in global chat.

1) If it's in print, it's libel, not slander
2) Slander/libel/defamation generally require you to make untrue purportedly factual statements or similar statements with a reckless disregard for the truth. My 'slander' against TSFH was a structural analysis of how online social spaces create incentives for compromising one's ethics. Unfavorable analyses, especially ones grounded in fact, do not constitute slander (except maybe in India- I think you'll really like their laws).
3) Truth is (generally) an absolute defense against claims of defamation. The factual statements I did make are not only true but verifiably so: you, nonolet, and Ursus are using this forum post as an opportunity to make (poorly-reasoned) attacks on my character, while anyone with access to TSFH chat logs can confirm that at least some subset of TSFH has made character attacks on me behind my back.
4) global chat is a public space; if I were speaking about you behind your back, you would not have immediately seen it
5) I was not attacking ex-TSFH members. I think you misread my statements, which seems to be another pattern here.

But that's how you gain public opinion on your side: by presenting the facts partially.

Last I checked, I'm being thorough to the point of people noticing how long my posts get as a result.

Name one insult that you heard from me

Sure, just search this forum thread for posts by Parsifal. In the span of a few short posts, you've accused me of manipulation, deception, and some conspiracy to social engineer public opinion in my favor (clearly not my forte), all fantastical attacks on my character without any serious attempt at corroboration. You've further insulted me by your poor grasp of the facts and misunderstanding of basic logical fallacies like playing the Soviet card (which you don't even seem to have noticed has no connection with your argument; the Soviets regularly used many things, like factories and electricity- their incidental usage doesn't make those things bad). Per the point about Soviet justice, surely you must realize that the zero-transparency system you advocate for- one where we trust authorities and don't challenge- is directly connected to the witch hunts you're so concerned about. The public phase of the Great Terror, for example, stammed from a Stalin-backed conspiracy about the Moscow Center collaborating with fascists (in response to the Kirov assassination). The casual chain here traces back to an authority shielded from public scrutiny- through norms like the ones you seek to promote- which led to a perversion of the Soviet justice system. If only the Soviet justice system had people with the ability to publicly share evidence and make well-reasoned arguments instead of deferring to authorities and unaccountable "official" processes! Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, could have escaped arbitrary rule, executions, and starvation. Instead, people who were compiling and presenting facts about crimes by the authorities and failures of the Soviet system had to work in the shadows and publish underground manuscripts (like Medvedev's classic Let History Judge).

Ceterum censeo: Anti-Fizzer is pro-Warlight. Pro-Warlight is anti-Fizzer.

Edited 10/14/2021 22:15:50

Get Knyted!

well l4v.r0v sorry to inform you, but rafflebot has chosen differently. no coins for you, no no.

but ... maybe you'll be granted a chance at my upcoming indemnification event.

nonolet, if I thought there was even a chance you were going to respond differently, I wouldn't have asked. Just wanted to make obvious the sincerity of your offer of restitution. Before you accuse me of manipulation, I even outright said as much when making the request. Kudos to you for staying on script!:

Of course, you probably disagree with the accounting there. You could go by actual damages: JennyA won at least 222 coins during your double-raffles, and another 1130 coins' worth of non-coin rewards. Of course, you probably disagree with that too, because you'd rather keep those gains and not part with that many coins. Do you have an alternative model in mind?

I doubt you do, because the plan was clearly to just make the offer and never seriously follow through on it. A token gesture for a token apology, in which you can bury character attacks against those who caught you.

The only part I missed was the "maybe you'll get a chance," so nice creative flair to break up the monotony of such predictable entertainment.

Ceterum censeo: Anti-Fizzer is pro-Warlight. Pro-Warlight is anti-Fizzer.

Edited 10/14/2021 22:18:52

I got a feeling this discussion is not about the raffle anymore


This topic is about winning online argument and proving who is right xD



knyte, my advice: You don't have to explain yourself. xd What's the point? This thing can go on forever

I got a feeling this discussion is not about the raffle anymore

It was never about the raffle. The worst-case plausible accounting of damages, with some generous margins of error, from nonolet's double-joining is about $20-25. If I wanted to argue over $25 (of which my share is 4 cents), I could go to the local city council budget meeting.

What's the point? This thing can go on forever

And then I can make graphs about it!

Edited 10/14/2021 23:33:26

I do not know why, but this feels like more of a comparison of ideals than a argument of who is right and wrong.

Knyte wins, move on. :D

wow, so PARsifal rly is a CLOWN lol. i have nothing decent to contribute? i stated facts. like how he was caught way before he 'came clean' as some call it lol, and apoligize, what is that of good if he doesnt return ALL THE GOOD he still stole? also, he didnt steal? what is manipulating odds then? u blame lv4 for showing us the results? xD migod what blind man
bruh, plz indeed, stay silent if u have nothing good to say.
i agree with you, public shaming is unfair, i never said it was fair, i said it wasnt public shaming if you have proof, and the godamn thief denied it until he was proven to be caught, not even caught the first time, but simply the first time he could no longer pretend it was 'none of his business' even tho obvious to many, including HIM, already lol. defend him all you want, you just losing any value on ur biased opinion either way, srsly, sometiems better to shut up. this has nothing to do with lv4, he simply showed facts, nono made those fact come true, not lv4. how is that so hard to understand? it isnt, so stop acting braindead and trying to appeal to the masses or whatever.
also, is apologizing even good in any situation unless you redeem your bad-doing? and i mean honestly. tell me how. so if i kill some1, if i apoligize im ok? if i steal, i dont need to give money back, just apoligize? show regret? whbat regret did he show while he kept stealing and ignorgin ppl who told him he should stop cuz it was clean already of what he was doing? o.o plz... just let him talk for himself, there's no reason for u to come make up shitty arguments about him, if he already said sorry, at least let him 'have the decency o saying 'alright what i did had no excuse at all, im a fker and that's it' why are you fking evne defending him as if he was some victim? you just wanting to prove yourself to be an even bigger CLOWN that he is tbh. cuz at least he had a plan to at some point, admit all guilt, you're still somehow BLIND to the fact lol.

Edited 10/15/2021 00:56:58

©investment

what a charming use of language, respect!
you probably have some sort of a problem understanding simple texts: I wasn't defending anyone, just expressing my concern about using public shame as a method.
but you made that typical banal point of: "you are either with us or against us".
you also made that logical fallacy by comparing murder to playing WZ from two accounts, which is so ridiculous that It should be framed and sent to a museum of human stupidity.
if you carefully read your post, you'll find there mostly aggression. and that is exactly what public-shaming does and ever did: just more violence. that's not how you solve problems

you also made that logical fallacy by comparing murder to playing WZ from two accounts

What you're describing is simply called an "analogy": a comparison between two or more things that are like in some ways but typically unlike in many others.

investment used an analogy as a rhetorical device (this is called an "argument from analogy"), which requires the things compared to be similar in ways relevant to the conclusion. Let us take another look at his argument:

so if i kill some1, if i apoligize im ok? if i steal, i dont need to give money back, just apoligize?

Breaking it down into the structure of an argument from analogy, here it is rewritten with some implicit reasoning made explicit:

P1: Warzone Global Chat raffle cheating, murder, and stealing are all transgressions which cause some form of harm to occur to innocent parties
P2: Allowing someone to commit murder, apologize, and gain forgiveness without restitution would be ridiculous
P3: Allowing someone to steal, apologize, and gain forgiveness without restitution would be ridiculous
C: Therefore, inductively, allowing someone to cheat on the Warzone Global Chat raffle would also be ridiculous

In this case, investment made an analogy between Warzone raffle cheating and violent crime in the real world as part of a game-theoretic reductio ad absurdum pointing out undesirable outcomes of a forgive-and-forget-no-consequences approach to transgressions, akin to the arguments made around excessively forgiving strategies in evolutionary biology or the iterated prisoner's dilemma (https://heritage.umich.edu/stories/the-prisoners-dilemma/). In general, his conclusion matches academic consensus in these recurring discussions around handling cheating: the repercussions for cheating have to reflect the probability of getting caught and the benefits reaped from cheating, or otherwise it becomes a rational (net-beneficial) decision to cheat. For example, if I can get away with murder by just saying sorry, then it's a rational decision that a majority of people would make because the consequences they face multiplied by the odds of facing those consequences are outweighed by whatever reward they would reap from murder. Similarly, if one can cheat on the raffle and keep the coins, the calculus shifts in favor of rational decision-makers cheating: the cost of consequences multiplied by their probability is arguably easily outweighed by the net benefit of cheating (although there's a stronger deterrent in that nonolet's cheating got him ~$20 over ~180 hours, so the opportunity cost of allocating his time on Warzone cheating is pretty high).

In order for arguments from analogy to work, the two things being compared simply have to be meaningfully similar in relation to the argument being made. In this case, the argument investment is making does not require the two things being compared to be like in magnitude; his analogy about accountability still works even though cheating on Warzone Global Chat is obviously a far, far worse crime than murder.

if you carefully read your post, you'll find there mostly aggression. and that is exactly what public-shaming does and ever did: just more violence. that's not how you solve problems

This is an example of a false analogy, which is simply an argument for analogy that does not satisfy the similarity requirements.

To see why, let's state it out:
P1: Angry forum posts like investment's are akin to violence because they contain aggression.
P2: Violence (presumably physical violence) is very bad (presumably because it causes great harm to others, creating massive economic inefficiencies)
C: Therefore, angry forum posts like investment's are very bad and a reason to avoid "public shaming"

Clearly, the flaw here is that angry forum posts are not like violence in a way relevant to the conclusion. As you seem to have recognized when you responded to investment's posts with primarily a series of insults, angry forum posts inflict little to no harm upon people. The comparison to a witch hunt is similar a repeated false analogy you make throughout this thread, because of key missing similarities relevant to your conclusions about the harm associated with witch hunts.

You also seem to understand that you can formulate an argument from analogy that compares two things vastly unlike in seriousness, since you formulated an argument from analogy that compared my behavior to state crimes committed by the Soviet Union, when of course my behavior on this thread causes significantly more harm than the sum of Stalin's actions.

What's your degree in? I thought they cover analogies at some point in a humanities curriculum. If not, what else do they do with the time they get back from not teaching math?

Edited 10/15/2021 01:49:14

knyte is just extremely online.

knyte is just extremely online.

What tipped you off? Was it the pamphlet-length overkill post proving nonolet was #Uno (https://www.warzone.com/Forum/579556-global-chat-raffle-analysis?Offset=18) when I could've just said: "He plays from an i████████ in ████████, Austria, from the IP address ███.██.███.███. No, it wasn't the mail thing; those were ordinary mails as distractions. Here's what my source, ██████████, who's much smarter about this stuff than I am, did: https://bit.ly/██████████. Here is a photo my source snagged off his webcam when he was on the toilet raffling from JennyA. Here is how you can catch people like this yourself: https://bit.ly/███-█████-███, and here's a technical explanation of the flaws in Warzone's device fingerprinting: https://bit.ly/████████-████████-███████-███████"?

(disclaimer: no, that photo doesn't exist.)

Ceterum censeo: Anti-Fizzer is pro-Warlight. Pro-Warlight is anti-Fizzer.

Edited 10/15/2021 02:10:47

Edited 10/15/2021 05:13:14

I appreciate your concern. However, in your streams, I've seen your life and how it compares to mine; I would not trade for yours, and I believe, given the option, you would trade for mine.

Your time would be more efficiently allocated on worrying about the sakes of those other than me. Let me derive my enjoyment from inefficiently allocating my own.

Edited 10/15/2021 05:13:04

you should both sleep unless you are mentally-unstable 40 yo. which i assume you are not.

I tell you

Californians have a really high opinion of themselves and are very condescending (that means they talk down to people)