First, I know that this is a wall of text, but I think it’s interesting, and I need to present my evidence. After all, anything that can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. However, I will provide a TLDR for those who don’t want to read a wall of text.
TLDR:
Drac frequently employs certain argumentative fallacies, including tone policing and the Motte and Bailey Fallacy (which is when you argue one position, but when challenged on it, instead assert that you were actually arguing a similar, but more defensible position). In fact, this is the reason why multiple people have gotten frustrated with Drac’s seeming inability to clarify his position -its because he’s doing it on purpose. He want’s to argue his actual position, but also wants to leave himself an out. That way, if he feels like he’s losing the debate, he can suddenly start to argue the more defensible position while accusing you of using a straw man attack against him.
@Io_Koval @Etch_Masuka @Destiny_Corrupted
(iirc, all of you have have encountered this tactic, so that’s why I’m tagging you.)
Now, I can’t tell you if he’s a troll, believes in his position, but is intentionally using argumentative fallacies, an olympic level mental gymnast, or a hunter sock puppet who is trying to undermine the other side’s position with terrible arguments. So, I can’t tell you his nature or intent, but I can explain what he’s doing.
One of Drac’s commonly used tactics is the Motte and Bailey argumentative fallacy. It’s when you argue one position, but when challenged on it, instead assert that you were actually arguing a similar, but more defensible position. It’s kind of like a reverse straw man. Instead of misrepresenting your opponent’s argument as something that is more easily attacked, you misrepresent your own argument as something more easily defended. And, as Drac has frequently demonstrated, this also has the benefit of allowing you to accuse the other person of committing a straw man fallacy it they attack your actual position.
Let’s take a loot at how that works in action.
- In this thread, Dracvlad’s bailey is: the mechanic is unbalanced
- And his motte is: I don’t like the mechanic
The first argument is objective in nature, and can be argued against. The second is subjective in nature, can not be attacked, and need not be defended.
Now for the evidence.
The Bailey- Drac repeatedly saying things that insinuated that he thought that the map providing intel to hunters was unbalanced.
Moreover, he was arguing with people who’s arguments essentially boiled down to them arguing that the mechanic was balanced, as was hunting as a whole. So, he had multiple opportunities to clarify his position before this point, and failed to do so. Thus, it is extremely suspect that after all of that, he’s suddenly accusing me misrepresenting his position and making straw man attacks.
The Motte- Drac asserts that he never said that the mechanic is unbalanced; he just said that he didn't like it.
Note that he edited the second post before I could quote it. IIRC, he was originally more explicit in saying that he “didn’t like the mechanic,” and didn’t include the tone policing. But he might dispute this assertion, and it doesn’t change the crux of my argument. So, I don’t want to get distracted by quibbling over the exact wording he originally used.
But what about those who want to give Drac the benefit of the doubt, and say that this all comes down to a communication error? Well, it’s possible, but consider this. Another position that he has disputed having was that some players were designed to be victims. However, he has both, insinuated it, and explicitly said it.
Drac saying that players are designed to be victims.
So, is this also a communication error? Or did he make the mistake of making his actual argument too specific, and fail to consider that someone would be able to throw some quotes back in his face.
Oh, and Drac’s response to this will be either to ignore it, or to insist that he actually never disputed saying this. He was actually only disputing the first thing, and not the second. And this will be in spite of an initial response that made it look like he was disputing both, and a failure to clarify his position on victimhood by design when I challenged him on it (sorry if that sentence seemed confusing. Perhaps the chain of replies would make what happened more clear, but this post is already long enough).
In summation, Drac loves himself some Motte and Bailey Fallacy. This is why people so frequently get frustrated with his seeming inability to clarify his positions -it’s because he’s doing it on purpose. He wants to argue his actual position, but also wants to leave himself an out if he starts losing the debate.