Ecto wrote: We see things quite differently Vollkan, and I see you trying to use a time loop to use my later judgement of your defense to criticize my early statements. You see a problem with me being convinced by your arguements? Why do you argue if you dont expect to be able to sway players to your line of reasoning.
I don't have a problem with a person changing their mind (in fact, I consider it a
mild
towntell).
My problem here is essentially that you opened with an absolutist attack on my self-vote. The fact that I rebutted it very easily and you didn't mount any defence of it being "inherently bad" suggests you were going for big, strong words without any reasoning behind them. In turn, that suggests you were largely going for an appeal to emotion or, alternatively, were simply parroting an attack on self-voting that you heard elsewhere.
Ecto wrote: Asking you to justify your vote is based upon exactly the same reasoning as your self-vote in the first place. Generating discussion. You dont own a monopoly on that tactic you know.
The "discussion" justification isn't a universal cop-out.
When you specifically targeted me, it showed you were drawing a distinction on me specifically, because you didn't ask a general question for people to justify themselves (this was affirmed in your subsequent attacks on the self-vote)
Ecto wrote:
By rhetorically asking yourself why you placed that vote, you did differentiate yourself from the other random votes. It's not a 'weak' statement. I'm right, your wrong.
My asking myself that is a form of baiting - to see who jumps on the self-vote (as in, it's to make things as tempting as possible for a potential parrot). Don't tell me that my own rhetorical question warrants you drawing a distinction.
Ecto wrote:
Whether you think pressure voting is stupid is as irrelevant as my opinion that self-voting is stupid. K?
You're taking things out of context here. You made an analogy between the two which I refuted. Thus, it was relevant because it was another example of a weak attack by you.
Ecto wrote:
There is no strawman. I've found that scum tend to fall into that "you cant prove your case, so you cant vote me attitude'. That's called experience. You can argue with the position if you like, but my experience tells me Im right.
Duh, of course scum will pull on the "you can't prove it" attitude - a presumption of innocence can form a protective shield for them. Smart town will do that too, however. As I have already said, there are strong pro-town reasons for such a presumption and the mere fact that scum can benefit doesn't refute it (after all, if an uninformed town is permitted to lynch without good reasons then mislynches are more likely to occur than scum lynches, just on probability alone)
Ecto wrote:
Players can play by gut. They dont have to follow your "prove it!" gameplay if they dont wish to. You can vote them if you like, but you cant make them do anything. This is also not a strawman, as it directly contradicts your 'groundrules' that you posted.
I've already addressed this. I KNOW that I cannot force people. That's not what the rules do. The rules make my positions clear up front. The plays I identify I consider anti-town and, so, by proscribing them immediately I can deter certain sorts of behaviour.
Ecto wrote:
Another counter opinion to yours Vollkan. The onus is on the prosecutor to present a case, the onus is on the defender to point out the flaws in the case.
By repeatedly saying that the onus is on the prosecutor, what you seem to be purporting is that you dont have to defend yourself, because the prosecutor has to prove 'he got you'. Accusations are as much about generating discussion, or getting specific people to talk, as they are about lynching people.
Strawman.
I never said that there is no responsibility to rebut (that responsibility doesn't just lie on the defence though - every pro-town player should shoot down crappy arguments). My onus point was simply saying that the prosecution has to present a case.
(Proof here:
vollkan wrote: The "you have no proof" is a staple of my play philosophy as town and scum (Just see my policy list). For me, the crucial element in this game is forcing people to give reasons to justify suspicions (I feel I have ranted on that point enough, so I won't elaborate on reasons which I have already given). Thus, I always place the onus squarely on the accuser.
)
Thus, I never said that the prosecutor has to prove somebody is scum before making accusations. But they have to give objective reasons for their accusations (unless they are simply stirring the pot, but that's different since there is no "suspicion" as such in those cases)
Ecto wrote:
You didn't like that I was swayed by your arguments regarding your self-vote. So tell me what conclusion you had come to if I had dug my feet in and refused to budge? Stubborn townie or scum?
The premise of your question is wrong (see above)
But, had you been stubbornly adherent to a crap argument I would have probably voted you. Stubborn adherence to the indefensible suggests the player is not prepared to give any ground on a point, which town has absolutely no rational basis for doing.
Ecto wrote:
Because you realize that if you say scum, then you simply setup a catch 22 situation in which either way a person responded, they would be scum, and this situation was derived from a self-vote on page 1, to which either town or scum might equally react towards.
Not true. See above.
Spring wrote:
Vollkan, before I answer you, please clarify something for me: do you seriously believe that acumen in theoretical standing is in anyway indicative of alignment?
I may not understand your question properly, but I will try and answer based on what I think you mean.
I certainly do not think that theoretical accuracy has any link to alignment. Townies can be, and very often are, wrong on theory.
I do, however, think that the way somebody argues a theory point in a game can be relevant to their alignment. In terms of general use of craplogic and stubborness and so on.
In other words, the debate is substantively irrelevant (or tangentially relevant) but procedurally is directly relevant.
), which means it provides a lovely springboard for discussion//