But you've flipped the analogy because he didn't note contradiction. He made an assumption about something and then promoted something based off of that. The correct analogy looks like...dimaba wrote:I understand the rhetorics involed and yet I still disagree. There's a difference between your examples and the sentence used by warriormode. Warriormode used a two-part phrase: "If ..., then why...". This structure is used to signal a percieved contradiction, regardless of wether the person using it is personally affected by the answer. Had he just said "why don't you go vote for needle" things would have been different.Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote:If I "ask" you "Why don't you go jump in a lake?" I'm not really asking a question I'm telling you off. If I "asked" you "Do you still beat your wife?" I'm not looking for one answer or another but instead to tar your reputation. Don't get confused by a rhetorical device just because it features a question mark at the end.
Compare:
Suggestion - Why don't you become a vegan?
Signalled contradiction - If you're a vegan, then why do you have your fridge filled with meat?
The signalled contradiction could be used by anyone who opens that fridge and is surprised at seeing meat, regardless of wether that person thinks the meat should be removed.
"If your fridge doesn't have any meat anyways, why don't you become a vegan?"
Which takes a (informed or in warriormode's case uninformed) fact and from there makes a suggestion based off that information.
Actually it’s exactly a complaint about playstyle, David's point is that I'm not playing as aggressively as he thinks I should. This makes a faulty assumption that there is only one way to play (as a town IC) when part of the beauty of the IC role is that it exposes players to all different sort of veteran players and their ideas, some extremely aggressive, some who explain every single detail and some who simply throw you in the deep end and say "start swimming".This is certainly not merely bellyaching about your playing style, it is about wether the most experienced player around is trying to help the town forward or not and about wether that is possible under a town agenda.DavidParker wrote: Now, end of page 2. THe part i dont like about DDDP is he isn't getting things moving and some proper discussion moving! I feel he should be encouraging people to vote.. less than half of the players have used their vote at this point.. RVS is a great way to get some early weak bandwagons (that will usually fall later) and good discussion and wagon analysis happening. But he has put down a vote then been happy with the way noone else has voted.. Doesn't seem to be working under a town agenda to me!
Agreed in part that it is related to my playing style, but I disagree with the idea that tone has to be more than a single point. I've caught scum before based on a single strange wording and I once busted a whole scum team based on a single information slip (though personally I didn't follow up on it correctly). Now the argument regarding tone in this case isn't nearly as strong as those two cases, but I disagree with your assertion that it is only valid if there's more than one occurrence. If the standard required more than one awkward phrasing or more than one slip then I wouldn't have been able to deduce those previous cases as scum which I was based on just single observations.I will also count the question I asked you about warriormode's tone as unrelated to your playing style, as it applied directly to the strength of your case against warriormode.
