I do not believe that "park" ever represented any such thing to you about "Renegade Soul" (that it was another identity). We all understand that Brannock removed all of his support from all camps as Brannock and re-registered as Renegade Soul, himself, to remove any open association of his name Brannock with the Canonizer as best he could due to your pattern of misrepresentations that he got tired of.
I further believe that he actually told you in an email that he would do this (use an alternate pseudonym)
I understand that it was his desire to remove the profile "Brannock" from the Canonizer, altogether, but did not know how to do this without disrupting camp statements already published under that name. So, as a courtesy to the continuity of the Canonizer, he managed this the way he did and simply stopped using "Brannock" when he started using "Renegade Soul".
No intent to deceive was part of this exercise. And no redundancy of support counts has occurred. He simply tried to make a profile name change for privacy which, at the time, he thought that was the best way to do. His public profile page as Renegade can be seen here: https://renegade.insite21.com.
I do not share the arbitrary interpretation of that as a "sock puppet". Such was never his intent or purpose or understanding. Nor do I believe it bears any type of criticism for dishonesty.
Given my understanding on the basis of what I consider to be your unethical behavior, I believe meeting with you, if at all, would be best postponed until after you actually act on the malicious and unjustified threats and accusations that you have subjected Brannock to.... on the basis of the presumed evidence you claim you have.
Then, once you have committed yourself to your choices.... we will consider the meeting, or, perhaps meet with others, who contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org, to expose the truth.
OK, I hear you, and understand you, and many others, think I am a terrible person.
You said: "I am willing to make a brief appearance."
Is this still a possibility? And you seem to be confirming that "Renegade Soul" who park lead us to believe was a different individual, is, in fact a sock puppet controlled by the same user as "Brannock"? Or am I misunderstand what you are saying?
@Brent, in re: your message to me, below
It is not my motivation to talk others out of the arbitrary beliefs upon which they justify their accusations and injustices, but rather to see for myself the extent of the hypocrisy, duplicity, and irrationality that their accusations and injustices manifest.
The lies that one actually participates in, promotes, and overlooks, and the paranoia that one actually manifests in their choices, is the relevant and useful context within which the unwarranted condemnations of our dear friend (Brannock aka Renegade Soul) and others, on the basis of unproven presumptions, can be fairly assessed.
I and others (who include mental health professionals) know the truth of the matters upon which you and your associates presume to justify your choices, accusations, and judgments. Knowing the truth of such matters, I and others are in a better position than your feigned sincerity permits, for you and your associates, to evaluate the “evidences” upon which you want the world to believe your contrived condemnations and judgments justify the actuality of the cancel culture that you exhibit,while denying.
You manufacture arbitrary excuses to silence and discredit your critics and their legitimate objections, while promoting yourselves as the moral arbitrators from higher ground. Your hubris is astounding. The hypocrisy of your published responses, choices, condemnations and judgments of others is known now to many, not just a few.
Brannock (aka Renegade Soul) was the most credible voice of reason in this forum. He has our respect and admiration. And you could not abide the truths that he told and his insight that you lack. In my view, you, and the Canonizer, are unworthy of his further participation and ours.
It makes little difference who one attributes the articulation of truth to, for those who seek to justify the trampling of the truths they fear, on any grounds.
I have nothing further to say to you, sir. And no use for a forum such as this one, and the moral character that will never rise above the demonstrated insight of the majority stockholders who chase from amongst them the brightest lights associated with the views they fear.
I own these thoughts as my own, and have offered to tell you so to your face. Your disrespect for the truth is acknowledged. And my research about you and the Canonizer is sufficient for my needs.
Canonizer is intended to be, and advertised as, a voting platform, for individuals, not for organizations or groups of people. When people select something like a “one person one vote” canonizer algorithm, people tend to assume it is only individuals, not groups that are being counted as one person. The lack of trust comes in when people create multiple identities, which most people understand as cheating, since one person can get more than one vote by doing this. That I know of, all people working on canonizer are completely open, and not afraid of people knowing who we are.
To date, organizations have asked if they could join and vote and such, they recognized that there could be problems with this, so are polite enough to ask before doing this. We informed them that we don’t currently have the ability to support that, but that we may in the future, so they did not engage in this kind of activity which destroys this trust. I guess we need to make it more clear in the terms of service, that currently only individuals, not organizations or groups of people are supported as identities on Canonizer.com, and that doing so is a violation of the terms of service, in order to preserve the trust and understanding we once had.
This is great news. Thanks for being willing to do this. If you’d prefer to set this up someplace other than this public forum, feel free to e-mail me at brent dot allsop at canonizer dot com. But it is kind of unfortunate that, since you seem to have joined, after this request has been made, not everyone will accept this as proof that other identities are not sock puppets. But at least it will be some valuable evidence to have at least someone verified.
Hello, Brent. I am the one referred to in Maria's message below. I share the views of Maria and TBM, however, I am willing to make a brief appearance. Let's discuss a skype appointment.
How does one "not trust" an anonymous identity? We have made no representations about who we are? How does one "not trust" no representations? We heard rumors about you people at the Canonizer. Increasingly, you are certainly demonstrating those rumors to have merit. You are quite the odd group!
Like TBM, we agree that the more relevant question is .... Is this profile representative of a single user not otherwise registered on the Canonizer under a different name or represented in a similar group? No. It is not. It is representative of a collaborative group of 7 individual people who are not otherwise registered or represented on the Canonizer. (Not part of TBM's group, although we do collaborate with them too on some things)
Like the TBM group, we came to see for ourselves, after hearing rumors of management's abuse of critics and other unethical conduct including reckless misrepresentation of other people's statements, actions, and views, in efforts to discredit others. Like the TBM group, we are pretty uncomfortable (to put it mildly) with what we are learning and seeing.
Are any of us willing to appear in a face to face meeting with you .... supposedly to settle doubts? Well, given what we have heard (reports that we consider to be credible) about management's abusive unfounded accusations and threats against a contributor to many of our projects that we have a great deal of respect for, I'm gonna have to say... that's a hard "no" from me, and likely every one in our group, except one, I understand, who might make a limited appearance.... probably to tell you off on behalf of everybody else. I'll leave that to her and leave her to identify herself, if she wants to.
Hello folks. Eventually we will have a KYC service that will eventually be required for people’s votes to be counted on Canonizer. But in the meantime, would any of you be willing to jump on a face-to-face meeting to do this by hand? Also, there are some people that don’t trust some of the identities on Canonizer. I’d like to prove their doubts wrong. So, could I make a personal request for this from any of you, for this and other important to me reasons?