If you disagree with my 1v1 argument, why are you taking part? You clearly are taking joth's side over mine, so you have chosen in the 1v1. To be clear, that's absolutely fine with me. It was my suggestion in the first place. Just stop saying you disagree with the 1v1 or whatever, because you are clearly playing along.
Your defense of glooble is sound, and while I've listed glooble in my suspicions, it's definitely more because of his tie to joth than his statements. I've clearly been focused on joth here, not glooble. I still think he made a strong statement of fact that there are 2 non-town per timeline given his own words. He then adds the unless as a hedge. It's like "I'm positive I left my keys on the table...unless I'm misremembering." The first half of that is an objective statement, not a subjective one. Same with glooble's thing.
As for humoring you? If I was trolling (by which I assume you mean purposefully doing annoying things for the sake of annoyance?), I would assume it would have to be for laughs? I mean, why do trolls troll anyway?
If you mean that I am purposefully continuing an argument that I actually know to be flawed/wrong/weak/useless/whatever you think for some reason other than the actual argument I'm making, then I guess others have mentioned that it could be to force reactions from players, gain information by seeing how players perform under pressures or in response to specific claims, etc.
It's none of that though. If anything, I'd say the closest thing you might recognize would be MiXing. I know I'm town, I know I'm right, and I won't stop until you believe me or exile me.
The funny thing is, this is so incredibly easy to solve. Agree to the 1v1. That's all it takes. Even if joth doesn't, if everyone else does, we can ensure the exile is him or me.