Cultafia: Game over

[Norinel]

Hjallti has requested replacement. Still looking for one for Occult. Prodding aioqwe, stark, and Yosarian2

Vote Count

Hjallti- 1 (Skruffs)

Not voting (12): Everyone else

7 to lynch

[Yosarian2]

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.

[armlx]

Explain how I'm not making sense, then.
At least you are confirming that I *was* making sense to you before - even though you were saying I didn't make sense, then, too.

Way to twist what I'm saying.

[vollkan]

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.

I disagree. Criticising somebody else DOES show your reasoning in a very important way, as well as potentially correcting deep errors/finding scum.

Not doing so leads to a game of entropic destabilization.

Slippery slope argument, my friend. But, moreover, a string of criticisms and counter-criticisms is often an excellent way to play this game.

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.

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.

[Hjallti]

My demand for replacement has nothing to do with anything inside this particular game. I explained the mod why i wanted replacement.

[vollkan]

My demand for replacement has nothing to do with anything inside this particular game. I explained the mod why i wanted replacement.

Is this to do with Open 48?

[curiouskarmadog]

Hjallti has requested replacement.

[Norinel]

Beep! Beep! replaces Occult, springlullaby replaces Hjallti.

[curiouskarmadog]

of course, Beep Beep replaces Occult, seems I cant get away from DGB anywhere.

[Skruffs]

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.

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?

Armlx:
Way to avoid the entire rest of my post.

Vollkan:
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.

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.

Beep! Beep! - Oh hi, this will be fun.
springlullaby - Oh hi, this will be fun.

Two of my still-alive players from Contagion. These two lovely ladies know how to go the distance in forum games.

[Skruffs]

EBWOP: "I am not necessarily *saying* that I have"

[springlullaby]

Hullo, I'm back.

Need to catch up, please try to not get me lynched before I get a chance.

Also, OMG skruff, I puzzled for a good 5 minutes trying to figure out the meaning of the quote in your avatar, before noticing that it just spells

phier

ch

e

tiger

in greek letters.

[Beep! Beep!]

Hi, I picked up my role PM, thanks for the welcome. I have a long day today, I'll catch up tomorrow. I understand there is no deadline ATM.

[vollkan]

Vollkan:
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.

Don't try and be clever. He called you out asking you to

present reasons

and you declined. In effect, you insulated yourself from criticism. Asking me to show where he criticised your reasons is

prima facie

a disingenuous question. You weren't arguing about each other's

reasons

- you were arguing about your

lack of

reasons.

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.

[vollkan]

EBWOP:
I missed this one

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.

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.

If I were to implant myself as one of the three, for instance: If it dawned on me that somebody was not pulling their weight, then I would pounce on them.

The thing is, Skruffs, I consider criticism to be evidence of reasoning and scumhunting in itself. Armlx's arguments against you show how he is treating your play, and give me information as to what is going on in his head. A player should trawl the thread for evidence, but I think that criticism is not to be totally dismissed as a valid means of play. It depends upon the individual.

[aioqwe]

quick prod-pick up... still reading...

[Beep! Beep!]

What's the deal with the mnowax breakdown?

[aioqwe]

Is anyone else finding it hard to understand the back-and-forth between skruffs/volkan/armlx? Or atleast hard to inject points?

[armlx]

I'm finding Skruff's side hard to understand from a logical perspective...

[Skruffs]

Vollkan:
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.

Don't try and be clever. He called you out asking you to

present reasons

and you declined. In effect, you insulated yourself from criticism. Asking me to show where he criticised your reasons is

prima facie

a disingenuous question. You weren't arguing about each other's

reasons

- you were arguing about your

lack of

reasons.

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.

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?

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.

I do'nt know if that was in this game though, because in basically all of my games I have simultaneously had people use a basic "Skruffs makes no sense" default argument against anything I say - I even changed my location to reflect that, a week or two. I do'nt know why, because I *am* earnestly doing my best in all of my games, and yet it seems that word is getting around that a quick and easy way to discredit me is just to say I don't make sense.

Anyways, that aside...

Vollkan, you said you could see Armlx's reasoning in his criticism of me and when I Asked you to prove it you got snippy. I'm going to ask again to explain armlx's reasoning based on the posts he had that led you to say that in the first place. And if you want to say I am getting clever, then remember that YOU are the one who introduced that as a form of defense for Armlx.


Also: I am criticizing Armlx for not trawling the thread for evidence, and he is criticizing me for not trawling the thread WELL enough.

and

"If I were to implant myself as one of the three, for instance: If it dawned on me that somebody was not pulling their weight, then I would pounce on them. "

So you think I am not pulling my weight, but he is, right? Because you are focusing on me and not him. Please explain where he pulled enough weight for you to take his side against me.

[Skruffs]

Beep! Beep! - It's just business as usual.Me vs da woild. It's a cult game, I was hoping to replace in as a cult recruitor, I wound up not. My personality is going to scare away any hopes of being recruited, so I expect to be SK'd, Vig'd, or microwaved tonight or tomorrow night. But at least I'm leaving a niec public trail for investigation into later! Trying to out the scum.

[armlx]

Also: I am criticizing Armlx for not trawling the thread for evidence, and he is criticizing me for not trawling the thread WELL enough.

I would hardly call voting someone for a weak comment made on the current page trawling the thread.

And, as for me not trawling, you act like my saying I have no clue who are cult leaders means I haven't. I simply don't find anything really case worthy at this point in time, and am waiting for something to catch my eye more so from one of those who I find more case worthy.

[Skruffs]

Except you aren't waiting for something to catch your eye, or you would encourage even the weak leads that I am presenting. You would be cultivating discussion, not slashing it's hamstrings. Do you understand why I am suspicious of you?

[armlx]

I won't encourage weak leads if I think they are dumb and unfounded arguments. That only leads to bad lynches.

[vollkan]

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?

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.

The reason I said "don't be clever" is because you seem to be trying to present this as a battle of armlx's logic against yours when, in fact, this is a case of armlx criticising your

lack of reasons

. By virtue of that fact, it is disingenuous to ask for me to present his 'reasoning' per se.

His reasoning is that your evidence was insubstantial:

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.

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.

From there, it branches into things like this:

So, what you are saying is people who shoot down crap logic should offer up some of their own if they have nothing solid?

In response to your responses.

This is showing the reason why armlx is demanding reasons from you very clearly. He thinks (and I agree) that the Hjallti point is wholly insufficient. Of course he is not constructing an in-depth argument here. There is no set of extensive reasoning behind armlx's point other than that what you've presented against Hjallti is not convincing. He's said why - because it is a singular point which would is not at all vote-worthy this far into the game.

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.

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.

Your point about lynching the "scumhunter" is pure conspiracy. That scenario can only happen if absolutely nobody else posts anything.