Just from the posts I made before reaching this one, you get to add an answer to the uninformative "appearances" question and a defence I presented to Hobo just above, which almost doubles my score according to your listing. Adding this post, I have done just that.

Now, I would use this to point out the unreliable basis of your accusation, but then you'll just claim that I suddenly started posting in reaction to this accusation and this "change" in behaviour demonstrates that I am scrambling for a defence and have therefore validated your position.

Indeed, it is my unhappy position that, without a strong objective basis for your suspicion, I have nothing to refute and cannot really defend myself. Any attempts to do so will only serve to maintain my role as "suspect" in this arrangement. In truth, the best defence is a good offence, and I should be trying to cast off suspicion by accusing someone else, specifically you, as that would also cast doubt on your suspicions of me. Unfortunately, I am loathe to attack people for trying to get things going on Day 1 because it's actually behaviour I want to reinforce overall. So unfortunately I cannot employ my best tool in this situation. Attacking someone else remains a viable option, should the situation arise, but right now would likely be seen as the transparent attempt to deflect suspicion that it would be.

So I think I'll just attack your methodology and focus on the questionable results of your statistics. Joke votes apparently count as "contributing". My post where I answer ranagrande's appearances question, even now after enough people have answered that the "correct" response is easily obvious and my post is therefore pretty much entirely worthless, counts for as much "contribution" as when I answered Isaac's question first and therefore unknowing that everybody else would have the same answers as I did. And then there's that time when Yunalesca said "actually, I'm back" and Praziquantel answered "Whoops, missed that, sorry" and everyone gets contribution points. In fact, since both Yunalesca and Fox and Ravens informed Praziquantel, and he apologised for his mistake both times and gets contribution points for each, that was a very worthwhile error. Beetnemesis got a contribution point for saying "Sorry I didn't have anything new to add...", which is basically a contribution through admission of inability to contribute. Seriously.

Now, far be it from me to suggest that you're deliberately manipulating a subjective definition of "contribution" to draw suspicion away from certain players (namely Taiga, who switched places with me on your ranking), because I suspect this is merely an incidental consequence of an inherently flawed methodology and see no reason to ascribe to evil intent what can be easily explained by lack of thorough examination, but it seems pretty clear that your conclusion are on extremely shaky ground with regards to objective foundations. Your entire narrative is that, whilst I have been participating about as much as the average player with regards to objective posting, there is a discrepancy with my worthwhile contributions according to your subjective evaluation. Now here's the important question, why should I - or anyone else - place any importance in this evaluation?

It seems likely to me that you've got other players strung along for the ride because they were impressed by your numbers, without bothering to look at where those numbers come from. Posts such as those I've highlighted above are hardly furthering the town's interests. They are not, as I would put it, useful contributions. And since that is what you claim to have been measuring, I cannot do anything but dismiss the accuracy of your evaluation.