There's no pressure. There's nothing out there forcing a major change. Unless you're speaking for everyone who unvoted, you're not qualified to make that statement. Given that this contradicts information

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 sure you'd want to find out who is colluding to pressure voters into

We haven't said that in any capacity. We've made the following claims: witness voters that were voting for noblewitness changed their vote, and, when asked, they cited social pressure for political reasons

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 that this is happening for some of them, as was discovered from

To be fair, when mentioning "your last post" it's helpful to specify which "you" was being referenced. As for this being grandstanding of some kind or stoking the fire, a very clear,

You're the one who shared this information. You, not third parties. You went out of scope of the agreement you suggested yourself. This does take credibility away from you. We are a third party. The

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 last post we made involved exposing a breach of contract. Is

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 not a worthy goal. As mentioned earlier, we had that reasoning

I gave explicit limited permission to share with your mod team. Once again, our reasoning is sound and based in a common understanding that stretches back hundreds of years. The common law tradition, which

Given that more than one voter we've spoken to has explicitly stated that social pressure for political reasons motivated changing their vote, there is clearly more to this than simply "well I don't

Our rationalization is based on common-law traditions regarding whether communications made explicitly in the presence of or shared with third parties, either spontaneously or by agreement, are considered

As mentioned in the response to both aggro and acidyo, once information is shared to third parties, there is no longer any expectation of privacy. This is true the world over. This is especially true regarding

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 voters is introduced as a possibility, it becomes difficult to discern

Once the information was shared outside of the conversation between Aggroed and Gmuxx, that information was shared with the public. While the original sharing of information was limited in scope, neither

You did not have my permission to share beyond your mod pit, and you are acting dishonestly suggesting otherwise. Once you release information to any group, your control over that information is moot.

Well we appreciate you clarifying your position. As was mentioned in the post, given that other voters have cited this as a reason, it tends to cast doubt on the reasoning behind all the rest. This is

Permission was given by both parties to both parties to share the text of the conversation, provided it was shared verbatim.

That's not relevant to anything. Why can't you honor a contract you made with another party? You're a professional, correct? Surely you understand the importance of honoring contracts and the obligations

I'm surprised you didn't even try to muster a defense. So far, all you've said was "well I broke the contract because I found another buyer after I already agreed to sell it to Gmuxx." This doesn't

"such a bully witness" Says the man who violated his own contractual obligations because he had "no interest in waiting for pennies every week." I didn't know that was a valid excuse