Enforcement policy review

For technical issues, problems, bugs, suggestions on improving these forums, discussion of the rules, etc.
Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Enforcement policy review

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:07 pm

It has been sixteen and one half months since I launched this forum and outlined the rules, and fifteen and one half months since I put up the current enforcement policy. We very nearly made it to 2009 without any bans.

I have now issued the first temporary ban to Thanatos in accordance with that enforcement policy, which means this thread is a good time to review and discuss the policies as well as this specific case.

consequences
Redshirt
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:39 pm

Re: Enforcement policy review

Post by consequences » Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:34 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote:We very nearly made it to 2009 without any bans.
Darn, that year went by incredibly fast.

Opecoiler
Padawan
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:46 am

Post by Opecoiler » Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 am

I'll start: Why are you so obsessed with "civilized discourse" anyway? This isn't exactly the most mature subject matter.

Cpl Kendall
Jedi Knight
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
Contact:

Post by Cpl Kendall » Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:09 am

What did he do?

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:41 am

Cpl Kendall wrote:What did he do?
He was being rude. For the record, his temp ban is already over, and he probably hasn't noticed it yet, but if he continues to be rude, current policy dictates that the length of temporary ban increase in a roughly exponential fashion.
Opecoiler wrote:I'll start: Why are you so obsessed with "civilized discourse" anyway? This isn't exactly the most mature subject matter.
Obsessed may be a strong word to describe it, given the amount of time I actually spend enforcing civilized discourse on these forums. Several reasons apply.

First, uncivilized discourse is far less productive than civilized discourse. I'm not interested in wasting my time in reading and replying to material posted by others when little to no actual information will be transmitted, nor am I interested in wasting the time of others in such fashion.

Second, while not a particularly important subject, the examples shown and the habits developed discussing Star Trek and Star Wars will inevitably spread to other facets of life. Other habits external to fan discussions reflect in turn on the VS debate. As in life, so in fanalysis; as in fanalysis, so in life.

Granted, we have relatively few impressionable youth here, but in every way in which I communicate, and which I will encourage others to communicate, is designed to reduce the amount of vitriol and increase the amount of reason.

I'm a big fan of actual conversation. I'm not a fan of partisan hacks who use hate, fear, and vitriol as substitutes for logical reasoning. Ann Coulter, for example, is spectacularly vitriolic, but I don't believe she contributes positively to the American political discourse. In fact, I would say she contributes negatively; her efforts mostly distract and inflame rather than inform.

Third, I was curious if it was actually possible for the current VS community to learn how to talk to each other politely. A social experiment, in other words.

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:55 am

[mock scoffing]

8-{}

We're just your lab rats?!

[kicks dirt lightly over home base]

;-P

Cpl Kendall
Jedi Knight
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
Contact:

Post by Cpl Kendall » Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:59 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote: He was being rude. For the record, his temp ban is already over, and he probably hasn't noticed it yet, but if he continues to be rude, current policy dictates that the length of temporary ban increase in a roughly exponential fashion.
Can you point to the thread where he did it?

First, uncivilized discourse is far less productive than civilized discourse. I'm not interested in wasting my time in reading and replying to material posted by others when little to no actual information will be transmitted, nor am I interested in wasting the time of others in such fashion.
What's uncivilised? What standard are you basing this on?

Second, while not a particularly important subject, the examples shown and the habits developed discussing Star Trek and Star Wars will inevitably spread to other facets of life. Other habits external to fan discussions reflect in turn on the VS debate. As in life, so in fanalysis; as in fanalysis, so in life.
Expecting that peoples internet behaviour will carry over into in person behaviour is unfounded. People are perfectly able to maintain two sets of behaviour and values based on the situation.
Granted, we have relatively few impressionable youth here, but in every way in which I communicate, and which I will encourage others to communicate, is designed to reduce the amount of vitriol and increase the amount of reason.
I don't understand how calling a spade a spade or swearing decreases the amount of "reason".
I'm a big fan of actual conversation. I'm not a fan of partisan hacks who use hate, fear, and vitriol as substitutes for logical reasoning. Ann Coulter, for example, is spectacularly vitriolic, but I don't believe she contributes positively to the American political discourse. In fact, I would say she contributes negatively; her efforts mostly distract and inflame rather than inform.
There's a big difference between Coulter and the participants of the VS debate. For one the VS participants aren't promoting the invasion of Canada or preaching xtian dominance.
Third, I was curious if it was actually possible for the current VS community to learn how to talk to each other politely. A social experiment, in other words.
It didn't work on the other two boards, why would it work here?

Kane Starkiller
Jedi Knight
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am

Post by Kane Starkiller » Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:40 pm

The "no swearing" policy would work a lot better if mods on this forum would clamp down on dishonest and fallacious debating tactics as forcefully as on naughty words.
For example in this thread GStone claimed that Worf destroying remote drones from Insurrection was an example of his strength. When I asked him to provide information on how strong the remotes are he tried to shift the burden of proof on me by demanding that I come up with evidence.
This is a clear debating fallacy and yet JMS didn't react but will react if you call someone an "idiot". What you need to understand is there will be no intelligent discourse here until you raise your criterion for HONEST debating rather than superficially polite debating.
Of course this will inevitably lead to admission that Federation fares much worse in comparison to Empire but you really have no choice if you are interested in your active member count actually going over 15.

User avatar
l33telboi
Starship Captain
Posts: 910
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:15 am
Location: Finland

Post by l33telboi » Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:24 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote:The "no swearing" policy would work a lot better if mods on this forum would clamp down on dishonest and fallacious debating tactics as forcefully as on naughty words.
Why not just point out the fallacy instead? The other people reading the thread do have eyes.

Personally I don't really see the problem with having a no flaming rule. Most forums do. And really, what good does flaming do in a debate? Is there some advantage to flaming?

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:35 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote:What you need to understand is there will be no intelligent discourse here until you raise your criterion for HONEST debating rather than superficially polite debating.
Honesty, yes, it is always good.
But honesty according to who?
Just because someone doesn't agree with what I would post, for example, and doesn't interprete visual references the same way, doesn't make that person dishonest.
It may make that person thick-headed, perhaps, but not necessarily dishonest... :)
Of course this will inevitably lead to admission that Federation fares much worse in comparison to Empire
See, this is where you lose me.
Although I too agree that in the case of the Feds vs the Empire, the Empire would win (as has been debated in other threads on this very board), I do not agree with the so-called absolute superiority of all things Wars when compared to Trek.
That doesn't make me dishonest, just thick-headed... But in a good way... :)

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:40 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote:The "no swearing" policy would work a lot better if mods on this forum would clamp down on dishonest and fallacious debating tactics as forcefully as on naughty words.
There isn't a "no swearing" policy, actually, and I have let some relatively appropriate swearing slide without even tsking the slightest bit. However, there's very little swearing you can do that contributes constructively to discussion, so I would discourage you from swearing. Usually, when you're swearing, you are posting in anger; take a deep breath, wait five minutes, and then rewrite.

At best, when you call someone an idiot, you're making an unsourced assertion of dubious truthfulness. Were I to strictly and literally enforce truthfulness and adequate sourcing for statements, calling someone an idiot would be a bannable offense on those grounds.

Any policy on fallacious debate techniques would ultimately be subjective in its application, as seen on SDN, strek-v-swars, SB, et cetera. While I may actually know precisely what I'm talking about when I speak of fallacy and logic, I'm sure that at the least, the same people who allow fallacious arguments to fly and claim solid ones to be fallacious elsewhere would complain most loudly about my refereeing. As I've also pointed out, many of the bones of contention are not actually issues of hard logic, but of judgment calls from inconclusive evidence.

Think someone is making a fallacious argument? Say so, and explain without vitriol precisely why you think it's fallacious. That's much more convincing than calling for a moderator or simply making the blanket claim that your opponent has no idea what s/he is talking about.
Kane Starkiller wrote:Of course this will inevitably lead to admission that Federation fares much worse in comparison to Empire
IMO, it would not. Those making that claim engage in a lot of fallacious reasoning to support that conclusion.
Cpl Kendall wrote:Can you point to the thread where he did it?
Sure:
Thanatos wrote:The fact that its utterly retarded and wouldn't even remotely work. It would be in the ST side's best interest if you just shut up.
This, of course, as I explained in reply in that thread, compounds with his several prior offenses, as he had not had a week of active good posting behavior to bring him down a warning level, as outlined in the policy. If you don't think that's clear, enough, I could potentially install a warning level plug in, or put up a tracking thread, to make this more transparent (and less subject, incidentally, to my simply forgetting prior offenses after some time of inactivity).

The post Thanatos made is pretty clearly rude and crosses the line. There's nothing wrong with saying you don't like the idea (several others did so) but Thanatos is clearly not reasonable, polite, or informative when he tells GStone to "just shut up" and that what he's said is "utterly retarded." There is no constructive function to that post, unlike other posts in that thread criticizing GStone's attempts to explain why widebeam mode isn't seen in, say, the battle of AR-558.
Cpl Kendall wrote:Expecting that peoples internet behaviour will carry over into in person behaviour is unfounded.
Actually, it's perfectly well founded. Habits act independently of their source, and the line between internet life and real life is very frequently found to be fuzzy. Some people can do a very good job of compartmentalizing their lives and pretending to be entirely different people with wholly different habits, speech patterns, et cetera.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:18 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote:The "no swearing" policy would work a lot better if mods on this forum would clamp down on dishonest and fallacious debating tactics as forcefully as on naughty words.
For example in this thread GStone claimed that Worf destroying remote drones from Insurrection was an example of his strength. When I asked him to provide information on how strong the remotes are he tried to shift the burden of proof on me by demanding that I come up with evidence.
This is a clear debating fallacy and yet JMS didn't react but will react if you call someone an "idiot". What you need to understand is there will be no intelligent discourse here until you raise your criterion for HONEST debating rather than superficially polite debating.
Of course this will inevitably lead to admission that Federation fares much worse in comparison to Empire but you really have no choice if you are interested in your active member count actually going over 15.
That is absurd. The honesty is subjective in that case. On such a basis, you could get banned just because one considers you don't debate honestly. Depending on where it happens, who does the ban and who gets banned, we'd see that sometimes it's fair - well, sort of - and sometimes it's not.

At least, the insults is something universal and objective anyone can recognize.

Kane Starkiller
Jedi Knight
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am

Post by Kane Starkiller » Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:19 pm

There is nothing subjective about it. Read GStone's posts. He clearly states that Worf destroying remotes points to his strength and then when asked for evidence he suggests that I should do his homework for him.
Classic shifting the burden of proof.
That is NOT honest debating and there is nothing subjective about that assessment.
Naturally he shouldn't be banned. He should be warned however and this should be considered a greater transgression than calling someone an idiot for example.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:22 pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:I don't understand how calling a spade a spade or swearing decreases the amount of "reason".
You might want to review the credentials discussion threads for examples of how gratuitous ad hominems - one example of rude behavior - shift the focus of discussion and distract from the original content.

And is it "calling a spade a spade" that we're talking about? Not really. It's screaming and cursing at the spade, calling it a misbegotten illegitimate cousin of a backhoe. Or an overgrown second cousin to a pair of chopsticks. Then we wind up arguing about whether it's better to use chopsticks or a fork for eating noodles, whether or not a backhoe is really necessary for yard work when you live on a 10 acre "ranch" style dwelling, and whether the spade is the progenitor of the spoon, the descendant of the spoon, or simply happens to look roughly similar by convergent design.

I think this board has so far demonstrated quite well the improvement of signal to noise ratio that comes in a more civil environment, frankly, but you could try to attribute that to other factors, such as the size.

I've noticed even on this board, that an increase in apparent tension tends to go hand in hand with a "stall" of substantive discussion. You could, of course, say that correlation is not causation, but it's worth reducing one to see if it reduces the other.
There's a big difference between Coulter and the participants of the VS debate. For one the VS participants aren't promoting the invasion of Canada or preaching xtian dominance.
I.e., specific ideology (and the degree to which she is published, of course.)

The methods she uses in her "arguments" are otherwise quite similar to VS debaters at their more vitriolic.
It didn't work on the other two boards, why would it work here?
Did any of the boards you're thinking of take enforcing civility seriously? I think not.

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:45 pm

Kane Starkiller wrote:There is nothing subjective about it. Read GStone's posts. He clearly states that Worf destroying remotes points to his strength...
Yes, it's evidence.
...and then when asked for evidence he suggests that I should do his homework for him.
No, I already did my homework. You also took a stance, but when I show examples for mine, you say you want me to do all your leg work for you by saying you wanted me to quantify the durability of both without providing your own analysis. That is what I objected to.
Classic shifting the burden of proof.
Not when you look at the situations involved for those places I cited. I told you what part of the canon to look at and what to look for. I have not seen you put up your own analysis of Son'a or borg drone durability in relation to your stance that klingons are no stronger than humans.

I have not changed any proof burden. If you wish to be specific about proof burdens, you are required to show how both things are consistent with your stance.

Post Reply