Enforcement policy review

[Cpl Kendall]

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.

Anyone can employ compartmentalization. It's not a difficult concept and often happens without thought. It's not a method of pretending to be someone else, it's a survival trait that just happens to be applicable to other things. I'd like to see some evidence of your claim that because your rude on the net, you will be rude in person.

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.

People need to be able to focus on what's being said, not how it's said. There's nothing wrong with calling a person an idiot if he is in fact an idiot. People choose to focus on the insults to the detriment of the argument. That is a failing on the part of the person bieng insulted.

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.

See above.

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.

That might be the case if you actually cracked down on the practice of employing dishonest tactics by the members. So far everything's gone round in circles because of that.

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.

See my second response.

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.

The only thing similarity to Coulter found in the VS debate is the fanatics.

Did any of the boards you're thinking of take enforcing civility seriously? I think not.

No and neither are you. And once again that's only part of the issue, there is the dishonesty to take into account.

[l33telboi]

People need to be able to focus on what's being said, not how it's said.

The best way to do this is undoubtedly to snip everything that doesn't have anything to do with the actual arguments. Like, say, flaming. Stick to the basics and the facts, drop everything else. Ad hominens are called logical fallacies for a reason.

[Cpl Kendall]

The best way to do this is undoubtedly to snip everything that doesn't have anything to do with the actual arguments. Like, say, flaming. Stick to the basics and the facts, drop everything else. Ad hominens are called logical fallacies for a reason.

An ad hominen is a warrentless personal attack. If you call someone a name while passing on information at the same time, it's not an Ad Hominen.

[l33telboi]

An ad hominen is a warrentless personal attack.

Not unless you have a different definition of it compared to the rest of the world. An ad hominen is to simply attack a person rather then an argument, in hopes to discredit said argument.

The fallacy itself is quite simple, not to mention effective, which I suppose is why it's so popular.

To quote the wiki:

Ad hominem abusive
Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions. This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent's.

Even if your arguments were true and the one you are debating is an 'idiot', you're still performing a logical fallacy.

If you call someone a name while passing on information at the same time, it's not an Ad Hominen.

All attempts to bias the onlookers against the person you're debating is considered ad hominen fallacies. Or 'poisoning the well'.

The bottom line is that insults have no benefits at all when it comes to arguing, ergo they're quite pointless. Unless of course you're trying to win a debate the dishonest way, in which case they're effective, but still dishonest.

[Cpl Kendall]

So essentially all that's been done on this board is create an enviroment where one kind of fallacy is forbidden but every other fallacy has free reign. Along with assorted other kinds of behaviour. In addition, ad hominens are only disallowed here if your obvious about it. Calling someone obtuse gets a free pass but stupid (which essentially means the same thing) does not.

[l33telboi]

So essentially all that's been done on this board is create an enviroment where one kind of fallacy is forbidden but every other fallacy has free reign.

I doubt every other fallacy has free reign, because all it takes is one person to point out said fallacy and that's it.

And I believe the reason why insults is looked down upon is because it's generally considered impolite and immature (oddly enough not only on this board but in real life too). Not because it's a logical fallacy.

In addition, ad hominens are only disallowed here if your obvious about it. Calling someone obtuse gets a free pass but stupid (which essentially means the same thing) does not.

First you complain about the rules that say you have to conduct yourself in at least a somewhat mature fashion, and now you're complaining about the rules not being rigid enough? So which is it, more rigid rules or less? Or are you complaining just for the sake of complaning?

[Cpl Kendall]

I doubt every other fallacy has free reign, because all it takes is one person to point out said fallacy and that's it.

Consistant use of dishonest debating should be punished officially but if this "experiment" is only concerned with politeness rather than creating a better enviroment for the VS debate than it's a moot point. At the very least some frankness on the subject would be nice.

And I believe the reason why insults is looked down upon is because it's generally considered impolite and immature (oddly enough not only on this board but in real life too). Not because it's a logical fallacy.

That depends on which subculture your part of in the real-world. There are plenty of different groups of people that don't care about insults or pay them little heed.

First you complain about the rules that say you have to conduct yourself in at least a somewhat mature fashion, and now you're complaining about the rules not being rigid enough? So which is it, more rigid rules or less? Or are you complaining just for the sake of complaning?

My point is that if your going to enforce one, you should enforce all. There's little point in enforcing one rule to create "honest" (insert other JMSpock reason here) debating if your not going to enforce the rest of the them or selectively enforce the one rule you have.

[l33telboi]

Consistant use of dishonest debating should be punished officially but if this "experiment" is only concerned with politeness rather than creating a better enviroment for the VS debate than it's a moot point.

If you disagree that clamping down on insults somehow hinders rather betters the debating environment, then it's ok. I can't bring myself to agree with that notion though.

At the very least some frankness on the subject would be nice.

Being frank and being inpolite are two different things. I'm pretty frank for the most part, but generally stay away from direct flaming when board rules are against it (though no one's perfect, and even I have received warnings for it).

And don't tell me you just said "At the very least some insults (aka, logical fallacies) on the subject would be nice." in a roundabout way.

That depends on which subculture your part of in the real-world. There are plenty of different groups of people that don't care about insults or pay them little heed.

Oh, I'm sure. During the breaks between classes in school for instance. That's a hotspot for namecalling and insults even in modern western culture.

But generally speaking. I don't find that scientists going about their buisness or lawyers presenting their case in a courtroom go "lol, you're a fucking retard." all that often. And neither would they expect to be taken seriously if they did.

My point is that if your going to enforce one, you should enforce all. There's little point in enforcing one rule to create "honest" (insert other JMSpock reason here) debating if your not going to enforce the rest of the them or selectively enforce the one rule you have.

You have a saying on SDN, don't you? Something like "It's Mike's board, he can do whatever he wants", right? So why aren't other people allowed to have their boards and their rules? Don't you think it's a bit silly to first say the above and then turn around and act differently on another board?

If JMS wants to enforce the civility issue, then fine. There's no harm in it. Though I can easily see why someone often resulting to flames would feel threatned by it.

And I've seen him give out warnings to everyone ranging from GStone, to Oraghan to Me, when it comes to the civility issue, so I don't really see the selective enforcement bit either.

[Cpl Kendall]

If you disagree that clamping down on insults somehow hinders rather betters the debating environment, then it's ok. I can't bring myself to agree with that notion though.

All right.

Being frank and being inpolite are two different things. I'm pretty frank for the most part, but generally stay away from direct flaming when board rules are against it (though no one's perfect, and even I have received warnings for it).

And don't tell me you just said "At the very least some insults (aka, logical fallacies) on the subject would be nice." in a roundabout way.

No, I'm saying that there should be frankness on the reasons why he is doing this. Having rules on flaming to create rational discourse is one thing but when you don't enforce anything else that creates the same problems then your just shooting yourself in the foot (and looking bad at the same time).

Oh, I'm sure. During the breaks between classes in school for instance. That's a hotspot for namecalling and insults even in modern western culture.

Yes, and some subcultures IE: the military, police and similar occupations have a lot of this.

But generally speaking. I don't find that scientists going about their buisness or lawyers presenting their case in a courtroom go "lol, you're a fucking retard." all that often. And neither would they expect to be taken seriously if they did.

They don't in public, what do you think their like amongst their own in private? Besides are there scientists and lawyers amongst us, and are we in a professional setting?

You have a saying on SDN, don't you? Something like "It's Mike's board, he can do whatever he wants", right? So why aren't other people allowed to have their boards and their rules? Don't you think it's a bit silly to first say the above and then turn around and act differently on another board?

As I've said, JMSpocks purpose is to create a board where rational discourse can happen. By only enforcing one issue in that he's not accomplishing his goal beyond the minimum.

If JMS wants to enforce the civility issue, then fine. There's no harm in it. Though I can easily see why someone often resulting to flames would feel threatned by it.

You can easily circumvent it, so it's not a threat. It's just pointless given the lact of attention to other issues.

And I've seen him give out warnings to everyone ranging from GStone, to Oraghan to Me, when it comes to the civility issue, so I don't really see the selective enforcement bit either.

There's been various cases where he hasn't enforced it at all or only done it for what is an obvious "bad" word. In one case I called someone an idiot, was warned and then switched to obtuse. Nothing said. Actually I think it was with you.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Anyone can employ compartmentalization. It's not a difficult concept and often happens without thought.

It also tends to break down without thought. Sometimes spectacularly, which gets covered in the little corners of the news, such as the myspace suicides, item rage assaults, or fire mage wannabes; more often in little small ways.

People need to be able to focus on what's being said, not how it's said.

Assaults on character, rants, and similar rude behavior are rarely strictly a how; they're a what. Ann Coulter does not simply disagree with her chosen opponents; she says that they're all idiots. That's not just a method of stating her points, that's an assertion in and of itself.

There's nothing wrong with calling a person an idiot if he is in fact an idiot.

The person being called an idiot is almost never an actual idiot; indeed, even when someone is actually an idiot, calling them an idiot is insensitive at best, which is why nomenclature has shifted to "profound mental retardation."

That might be the case if you actually cracked down on the practice of employing dishonest tactics by the members. So far everything's gone round in circles because of that.

I noticed the "Starfleet military vs. RL military" thread was going in circles, but as noted above, I attribute that not to argumentative fallacy, but people starting to lose their tempers and get on edge with one another.

The only thing similarity to Coulter found in the VS debate is the fanatics.

If this is true, then there are a great many fanatics visible in the VS debate.

No and neither are you.

Perhaps I have been lax lately. Should I step up enforcement? We have far fewer rules than any of the other boards dealing with this topic. I've let quite a bit of incidental rudeness not directed towards anybody in particular slide, and I probably have not been remembering all the old warnings given to frequently inactive members.

And once again that's only part of the issue, there is the dishonesty to take into account.

Genuine dishonesty - not simply someone disagreeing with you in a manner you dislike - is usually a feature of active trolling. Which is actually covered under our rules.

I have seen no definitive signs of deliberate dishonesty from you or your opponents.

An ad hominen is a warrentless personal attack. If you call someone a name while passing on information at the same time, it's not an Ad Hominen.

It is indeed an ad hominem attack, and further by the nature of communication an instance of one or another flavor of ad hominem fallacy regardless of whatever else is bundled with it.

[Cpl Kendall]

It also tends to break down without thought. Sometimes spectacularly, which gets covered in the little corners of the news, such as the myspace suicides, item rage assaults, or fire mage wannabes; more often in little small ways.

After a fair amount of time under stresses in excess of being insulted on a webboard.

Assaults on character, rants, and similar rude behavior are rarely strictly a how; they're a what.

Pardon me?

The person being called an idiot is almost never an actual idiot; indeed, even when someone is actually an idiot, calling them an idiot is insensitive at best, which is why nomenclature has shifted to "profound mental retardation."

That's just semantics. In the past "idiot" was exactly what people who were mentally retarded were called.

I noticed the "Starfleet military vs. RL military" thread was going in circles, but as noted above, I attribute that not to argumentative fallacy, but people starting to lose their tempers and get on edge with one another.

And you haven't noticed that happening with many topics? The threads revolving around the ICS and canon issues for example.

If this is true, then there are a great many fanatics visible in the VS debate.

I doubt there's all that many but there are indeed some.

Perhaps I have been lax lately. Should I step up enforcement? We have far fewer rules than any of the other boards dealing with this topic. I've let quite a bit of incidental rudeness not directed towards anybody in particular slide, and I probably have not been remembering all the old warnings given to frequently inactive members.

There's no point in enforcing something part of the time. A thread detailing warnings would be a way to remind people they have them and keep track at the same time.

Genuine dishonesty - not simply someone disagreeing with you in a manner you dislike - is usually a feature of active trolling. Which is actually covered under our rules.

Refusing to recognise that the burden of proof falls on the member making a positive claim is a widespread problem and very dishonest. It's widely known that this is the standard. This is an example of what should be cracked down on.

I have seen no definitive signs of deliberate dishonesty from you or your opponents.

See above.

[l33telboi]

No, I'm saying that there should be frankness on the reasons why he is doing this. Having rules on flaming to create rational discourse is one thing but when you don't enforce anything else that creates the same problems then your just shooting yourself in the foot (and looking bad at the same time).

Basically you want him to have the rules you'd like him to have, and anything else isn't acceptable.

I on the other hand think that if you really want a good debate, then removing flames is a step in the right direction. Removing logical fallacies would be another. Though I'm prefectly ok with doing that myself.

Yes, and some subcultures IE: the military, police and similar occupations have a lot of this.

The military and police are places where occupation demands you exert authority. Being civil just doesn't cut it. But military and police also have 0 in common with what we do here.

We do have some commonality with the two professions I mentioned earlier, though it's a amateurish commonality at best.

They don't in public, what do you think their like amongst their own in private?

You're perfectly welcome to sit behind your computer screen and go 'lol, fucking retard'. Just as they are allowed to swear and curse in their own private confines.

Besides are there scientists and lawyers amongst us, and are we in a professional setting?

I have no idea what the others do, so I wouldn't know. I do know there are those would very much like to think of themselves as scientists though. But ultimately these forums are created for the purpose of quantifying things scientifically and presenting cases both logically and convincingly. Aspiring to do it in a professional manner can't hurt, quite the opposite.

As I've said, JMSpocks purpose is to create a board where rational discourse can happen. By only enforcing one issue in that he's not accomplishing his goal beyond the minimum.

To me, his goals seems to simply provide a board where civil discourse takes place. Pointing out logical fallacies would fall to the debaters.

I'm perfectly fine with that, you apparently aren't. There's not much else to say, is there?

There's been various cases where he hasn't enforced it at all or only done it for what is an obvious "bad" word. In one case I called someone an idiot, was warned and then switched to obtuse. Nothing said. Actually I think it was with you.

So what part irks you? The fact that you received the first warning or the fact that you didn't receive the second one?

I can't say I remember the incident in question though.

[Jedi Master Spock]

After a fair amount of time under stresses in excess of being insulted on a webboard.

I recommend you go re-reading those examples and pay attention to just how much material is involved.

Pardon me?

Sometime after you hit the quote button, I edited in the above point an example that may help you understand that point better:
Ann Coulter does not simply disagree with her chosen opponents; she says that they're all idiots. That's not just a method of stating her points, that's an assertion in and of itself.

That's just semantics. In the past "idiot" was exactly what people who were mentally retarded were called.

About two percent of the population is deemed mentally retarded, having intelligences substantially below average. You have to loosen the definition of "idiot" well beyond the point where it has any real meaning before you can claim it's justified in most of the cases we're talking about.

And you haven't noticed that happening with many topics? The threads revolving around the ICS and canon issues for example.

Actually, I've noticed lots of new information being exchanged on many topics. Not everybody is coming to agree, of course, but take the whole issue of the canon status of deleted scenes - most people weren't aware that there were official statements about them, let alone what those statements said.

There's no point in enforcing something part of the time. A thread detailing warnings would be a way to remind people they have them and keep track at the same time.

I have been strongly considering this personally, which is why I've brought it up. Would anybody else care to weigh in on that?

Refusing to recognise that the burden of proof falls on the member making a positive claim is a widespread problem and very dishonest. It's widely known that this is the standard. This is an example of what should be cracked down on.

The problem I have often noticed - and pointed out - is that complaints about burdens of proof are often being made by those similarly failing to meet those standards in their own assertions.

GStone may think that he's pointing out inconsistencies and potential holes in your claims, meaning that you are the one making positive assertions; you may believe the same of yourself.

The plain truth of the matter is that both of you will need to provide evidence in order to convince third parties of anything substantive.

[GStone]

There's no point in enforcing something part of the time. A thread detailing warnings would be a way to remind people they have them and keep track at the same time.

I have been strongly considering this personally, which is why I've brought it up. Would anybody else care to weigh in on that?

It'd feel childish. Like putting a dunce cap on someone's head right before lunch and shoving them into the corner of the classroom. I highly doubt anyone of the chronological age of 5-7 year olds are gonna be on this board.

I say leave it up to the person that got the warning(s). They should be mature enough to make the decision to abide by the rules or not.

[Praeothmin]

GStone, the fact that we need rules should show you how mature a lot of people are.

I'm all for the warning thread, if only for JMS to remember who he warned, and for what... :)