I disproved your position

I don't see that our disagreement about how to interpret a complex discussion amounts to "disproof". I stated how I would judge a similar case, and it's meaningless to "disprove" another person's statement of intent or thought or state of mind. De gustibus.

Yes, at the right time God will strike down Facebook if it remains evil and we don't do it as his agents first. We are to occupy until he comes and he is to do the finishing that we can't. If you're saying that position decreases likelihood that we'll get done what we need, when applied back here I've learned that I focus on what is local to me and everyone else does the same and God ensures it's sufficient. Since he hasn't revealed to me a War Plan to Right Great Wrongs at Conspiracies, I don't. What he did reveal to me at Christianity has borne much fruit.

If you're saying that infiltrators' power of outlasting good mods is an unexpected tactic, I already have that as their tactic if I decide to declare war of some kind. Sticking around at Christianity for 5 years with the same people might count for something like successful prosecution of a particular campaign. Once I recognized how Scored worked overall, 4 years ago I made a nice post at ConPro Defining The Relationship and emphasizing the statement (now nuked), "My boss taught Sun Tzu the art of war. Speculate as you please, my statement stands, if I declare war it will be epic and unnoticed." So I am very comfortable with the wars I've planned, and prosecuted. I'm a Swamp Ranger. If you don't like my victories you're not who I won them for.

Now then, you refer to a "question" without elaboration. Presumably you mean how the mod(s) should moderate to win some war and carry out some community vision. If I haven't answered, then ask directly.

I'll disprove you every time.

I merely analyzed to help you understand my impression. You decline it, I have nothing more to argue with you about an unimportant interpretation that is a bete noire in your bonnet. Non est disputandum.

I bet that every time you are caught in a lie, you use this argument.

If a brother in Christ charges me with lying and refuses to negotiate with my explanation, I suggest that he hasn't learned much about Matthew 18:15-17 yet. Why should I waste time trying to defend myself against your charges when I gain nothing from it?

Your ego betrays you. Do you know how I know this? Because it did the same to me.

If some admission of wrong agrees with my conscience and is helpful to the other person, I offer it. Clearly I am generically in the wrong somewhere because you are unsatisfied. I can guarantee you I will work with your reasonable appeals to me about my alleged wrong and any reparation, but I cannot guarantee that you will be satisfied by your own standard, only by the commonsense standard.

Then tell me of another user, who upvotes a post that they clearly don't agree with. I will wait.

That's a wonderful dare! Votes being so public and all. Okay, let's play face value. Yep, there's one or more users here, Christian, who has/have admitted to upvoting posts though disagreed with, whether it's because of affirming the right to speak, affirming the person and not the content, or for other reasons. Both for privacy reasons and because searching said comments would be prohibitively time-eating, I refuse to elaborate further.

I can nitpick all your points,