Hjallti- 1 (Skruffs)
Not voting (12): Everyone else
7 to lynch
I disagree. Criticising somebody else DOES show your reasoning in a very important way, as well as potentially correcting deep errors/finding scum.Skruffs wrote: I think that people, if they are going to criticize the 'quality' of other player's probings and cases, should at the very least offer their own in return.
Slippery slope argument, my friend. But, moreover, a string of criticisms and counter-criticisms is often an excellent way to play this game.Skruffs wrote: Not doing so leads to a game of entropic destabilization.
No. If the player who gets rejected by the other three has a legitimate point she should be willing to argue in its defence - and, additionally, may be able to criticise the other 3 for being wrong and try to examine their reasoning. If the point was not good, and gets crushed by the other three, that can only be a good thing.Skruffs wrote: IF one person is pushing a case, and three people hop in and say "Your reasoning is not good enough to continue pushing this case", then that player either pushes MORE, at risk of becoming an easy counter wagon, OR, they drop the case.
If the three people who say "Your reasoning is not good enough" do not offer cases of their own, then in effect, all they are doing is prohibiting the discovery of more information. they don't *know* that the lead is bad; by discouraging it, they are in fact potentially trying to protect the person that the first person is probing at.
I agree with you, to a point. Perhaps my vote on Hjaltill isn't the strongest case in the world. Perhaps it *is* flimsy - I am not necessarily that I have a true-blue case on him. However, I do not see what gives Armlx the right to think that he can tell other people their cases suck while conveniently not contributing any of his own. What is the end result of a playstyle like that?Yosarian2 wrote:This debate is a bit silly. Skruffs, if you make a bad argument, people can, will, and should point out that it's a bad argument. That's one of the things pro-town people should pretty much always do. If you think it's bad that someone else isn't making cases of their own, and want to attack them for it, that's fine; but the fact that someone else isn't making cases is NOT a defense against you making an illogical case.
Don't try and be clever. He called you out asking you toVollkan:
Please show where armlx's criticizing of me reveals his reasoning. I am not saying you are wrong, I am just calling your bluff and asking you to show by example what you are saying.
I also agree that criticisms and counter criticisms are an excellent way to play the game - which is why I am pointing out that Armlx is intentionally avoiding leaving himself up to criticism by only relying on other players to provide the basis of his opinions.
Well, no. If any one of the three is a half-decent player they would not either delay until lynching the crap-case player was necessary, or simply lynch the crap-case player. A reasonable player will file away the crap case as evidence and proceed on foot.Skruffs wrote: Lastly: If the point is not strong and is crushed, but iut was right regardless, is it still a good thing? Because now you have three players who are not contributing of their own, and one player who no longer wants to contribute, and, presumably, there winds up being a nolynch. Or, since only one player has offered an opinion, the other three would eventually wind up lynching that player - since there is no reason to lynch one of their own. I'm just extrapolating your "it's all good" scenario.
No, he said my reasons weren't good enough. So I Asked him where his reasons were and pointed out that he has been tailcoating on other people the entire game. You defended him by saying that people criticizing other people shows their reasons.vollkan wrote:Don't try and be clever. He called you out asking you toVollkan:
Please show where armlx's criticizing of me reveals his reasoning. I am not saying you are wrong, I am just calling your bluff and asking you to show by example what you are saying.
I also agree that criticisms and counter criticisms are an excellent way to play the game - which is why I am pointing out that Armlx is intentionally avoiding leaving himself up to criticism by only relying on other players to provide the basis of his opinions.present reasonsand you declined. In effect, you insulated yourself from criticism. Asking me to show where he criticised your reasons isprima faciea disingenuous question. You weren't arguing about each other'sreasons- you were arguing about yourlack ofreasons.
But, of course, don't get me wrong. If armlx plagiarised your reasons I would take him to task for it. If he criticised your reasons in a dodgy manner - that too I would take him to task for.
I would hardly call voting someone for a weak comment made on the current page trawling the thread.Skruffs wrote:Also: I am criticizing Armlx for not trawling the thread for evidence, and he is criticizing me for not trawling the thread WELL enough.
He said your "reason" was not good enough, saying that: "Maybe at the start of day one its worth a vote, but afterwards its merely one piece to add to a full case". As I have already said, he demanded that you present reasons. All you had presented was a shoddy single piece of non-evidence and then, once he challenged the substance of your case, you came out with your attacks on criticism.Skruffs wrote: No, he said my reasons weren't good enough. So I Asked him where his reasons were and pointed out that he has been tailcoating on other people the entire game. You defended him by saying that people criticizing other people shows their reasons.
I then asked to prove by example, showing me where Armlx's reasonings were, and you admitted he had none by saying "Don't try to be clever.' I looked at Armlx and tried to find his reasons in the way you said I Would, I Couldn't, I asked you to, calling your bluff, and now I'm 'trying to be clever'. But it seems to me that you used an empty excuse to defend him with.
ANd, no, actually... HE was arguing with the QUALLITY of my reasons for attacking Hjlltill, but I at least presented mine. If you want to call them flawed, that's fine. But Armlx is hte one with his own reasons for doing things, and you still haven't asked my questions; instead you just reacted with a (I think) very defensive blustery post.
So again: Please, vollkan, show me where you can see Armlx's reasoning?
Armlx wrote:
You also suggest I should auto know thats your only reason, which is pretty stray to vote off of. Maybe at the start of day one its worth a vote, but afterwards its merely one piece to add to a full case. I assumed you had more than just that.
Skruffs, I am unimpressed with the effort you are putting into this game. You really need to step up your reading and analysis before I consider anything you have said. I quite frankly ignored your posts yesterday as you were commenting on 7 page old content out of current context.
From there, it branches into things like this:Armlx wrote:
I figured any comment he made in response was all I needed to hear about it. Like I said, its not a vote worthy thing at this stage in the game, and I'm suprised you find it that way.
In response to your responses.Armlx wrote: So, what you are saying is people who shoot down crap logic should offer up some of their own if they have nothing solid?
A crap case is also useless for scumhunting. Your single point on Hjallti makes him not at all more scummy in my opinion. Having armlx raise its inadequacy is good because it shows that you, a potential scum, are making dodgy arguments. It also promotes further argument (ie. this) which can spur new discussion.Skruffs wrote: You also say that his criticism can help find scum: When one person tells another their case is flawed, it only makes the original player look bad for attempting to scumhunt. If nobody else is trying to scum hunt, then the original player winds up getting lynched for 'flawed scum hunting', like I mentioned earlier.