[Aardwolf]

First, a question: is this "the rules", or is there some other document which actually enumerates some explicit rules besides "no warez and no porn"? Because if there is, I couldn't find it. And yes, I tried doing a search for it.



This is something which to me seemed like a natural extension of "don't be a dick", a specific case of what I assumed was at least a forum guideline, "assume good faith". But apparently it needs codifying.

I would like to request the staff's consideration and acknowledgement of the following:

• To argue with someone that that person's thoughts, motives, intent, etc., are something contrary to what that person has claimed is to accuse that person of dishonesty.
• That's bad.
• If someone is doing this and doesn't stop when it's pointed out to them, that's worse.
• That goes for forum staff too.

[Flipside]

I understand the issue being raised here, as it's not fair to keep accusing someone of condoning something they do not, but there are by proxy arguments that do stand. If, for example you are pro-death sentence, you are also condoning the possibility of killing an innocent man, it's a responsibility of that belief. That doesn't make every argument made in favour of the Death Sentence untenable, but it is accepted that this is the situation.

Personally, I'd say it's one of those individual case things.

[Scotty]

There is a special circumstance that led to my decision that you were not discussing in good faith (granted, I am assuming what gave rise to this, but that's hardly a huge leap of logic).  It's something you've done in the past, and it is a frankly disgusting argument.  When you take a discussion, and then you deliberately manipulate the terms and attitudes in it to form the rigid dichotomy "Either I'm right or you're attacking me", you are very clearly not discussing in good faith.

Therefore, if you do it again, and you are not right, I will attack you because that is the option you've left on the table.  This can all be avoided if you discuss in good faith.

EDIT: Your prima facie innocuous attempt to set precedent that binds moderators to a behavior you advocate has not gone unnoticed.

[niffiwan]

The four points raised to me also imply that its OK to take a logically inconsistent position, and that such a position would be "protected" by the forum guidelines.  I don't think that would be a good outcome.

I see "good faith" as a starting position. I see no reason that good faith must be maintained in the face of logical inconsistencies and/or "bad faith".

(note that I have not read, and have no intention of reading, whatever thread has spawned this)

[karajorma]

I'd further add that this entire thread looks suspiciously like a further attempt to win the discussion by forcing everyone to accept a new definition that, once again, makes you right all along.

[Aardwolf]

God ****ing dammit, I just lost two hours of post because I accidentally did a Google search in this tab instead of a new one.

@karajorma, niffiwan, and Scotty: This thread is not about what happened in that other thread. This thread is about making a better future, where honest people like myself do not have to put up with constant insinuation that they have ulterior motives for their forum posts.




@Flipside: I was thinking something much simpler. See the example.
@niffiwan: I don't know where you're getting this "logical inconsistencies" business from. See the example.

@all: here, have an example:

A: You're goalpost-shifting!
B: This has been my opinion the entire time.
A: No it hasn't.

Person A is either a psychic or an asshole.

[Scotty]

@karajorma, niffiwan, and Scotty: This thread is not about what happened in that other thread. This thread is about making a better future, where honest people like myself do not have to put up with constant insinuation that they have ulterior motives for their forum posts.

This, right here, is the problem.  You're right in that it's a problem with discussing in good faith, but the problem is on your behalf.  You're already certain that you're in the right and that nothing you've done is you being wrong, and you're already certain that you're the victim of some sort of dedicated plot to make life miserable for you in GenDisc.  That's not a wellspring from which discussion in good faith flows, Aardwolf.  If you're not willing to admit that you've made mistakes at all then this will remain a silly little plot to make sure you're never able to be called out on being wrong again.

[niffiwan]

@Aardwolf

You don't seem to have addressed my point.  I'm trying to say that the 4 points you proposed are open to abuse, therefore they are not a good idea even if they would also curb certain behaviour that is not wanted. The example you provided is behaviour that should be discouraged.  It is not an example of the behaviour that my point in referring to.

Let me take the example from Flipside; someone posting the following two views would be being logically inconsistent:

a) being pro-death penalty
b) stating that there is no possibility of the death penalty resulting in an innocent person being killed

As I read it the 4 stated points mean that pointing out the inconsistency to this fictitious person would be against the forum guidelines. i.e. because you would be arguing that their thoughts are contrary to what they've claimed.

[Aardwolf]

@Scotty:

I had considered telling you in my last post that everything you had just said was off-topic, but I decided that was needlessly harsh, and settled for "This thread is not about what happened in that other thread" instead. How was it "off-topic"? Because your objections are to the whole "were you wrong, or were you being a dick?" thing I did, and this thread has nothing to do with that. Yes, the subject of this thread made an appearance in that thread:

1. You presumed to know what I was thinking... you reckoned I believed myself to be in error, but was too stubborn to admit it. In which case you were wrong. Do not attempt to argue with me about what I was thinking; to tell me my motives or my thoughts were not what I claim they were is to accuse me of lying, and I will not stand for that.

But that was preemptive. You took a third option, so it never came up.

RE: "already certain": My uncertainty is what compelled me to look for some other possible interpretation of your post besides option #2. The post you find so egregious would not exist if not for my uncertainty. I have no illusions of conspiracy or premeditation.

Now let's not discuss this anymore.



@niffiwan:

There was some confusion because when I began writing my previous post, only Flipside had replied to the thread. The first time I hit the post button, I had written a reply to Flipside which first acknowledged that such complications existed, before commenting that it was much more complicated than what I was thinking of. But when I hit the post button, it warned me that Scotty had posted so maybe I should edit my post. And then when I was done with that and hit post again, it warned me that you and karajorma had posted. I remembered having already addressed what Flipside was talking about and hitting the post button (which is usually sufficient), so I assumed you weren't talking about the same thing.

I should like to point out that I did not use such terms as "that's bad" and "that's worse" to be funny. Mostly. Rather, that was because...

• I didn't know what was appropriate for the style of forum rules
• I didn't expect everyone to go along with my suggestion
• I recognized that, if codified improperly, this could be a very powerful weapon

@niffiwan & Flipside:

Yes, as Flipside points out, if you endorse a policy, that policy may have necessary consequences, which you then condone¹. This is sort of the reason why I included a distinct point #3, though: because one of the two parties may not realize their mistake until it's pointed out to them.

I think an explanation of the sort of "procedure" I was envisioning will help here. Let's use the roles from my earlier example, but with some other argument (it doesn't matter what the argument is).

Suppose person B invokes this protection from person A. Person A is not in trouble yet. Person A has two "correct" options: he can stop pushing his argument, or he can attempt to demonstrate some sort of "necessary consequence" relationship of the sort Flipside mentioned. Person A is only in trouble if they continue pushing the argument, in which case person B reports the post (or a moderator sees it on their own).

What sort of consequence should this have? Idk. Moderator says points at his badge and says "don't do that"?

What if they disagree on whether person A has demonstrated a "necessary consequence" relationship? Idk.



I'm still waiting for an answer to this, by the way:

Is this "the rules", or is there some other document which actually enumerates some explicit rules besides "no warez and no porn"? Because if there is, I couldn't find it. And yes, I tried doing a search for it.

¹Nonetheless I found it odd that Flipside started out by saying "as it's not fair to keep accusing someone of condoning something they do not", when there are so many other kinds of thoughts, beliefs, or motives besides "condoning something". An earlier version of my reply first acknowledged the complication Flipside brought up, before saying "but I was thinking of something much simpler".

[karajorma]

Give it up Aardwolf. You didn't argue in good faith in the previous thread and you're now being so intellectually dishonest that you're trying to foist an unnecessary rule on the rest of us just so you can prove yourself right. Even though people are repeatedly pointing out the flaws in your argument.

This is exactly what you did on the other thread when you tried to redefine what WMD meant just so you could prove that you were right. And even when you confronted with evidence of why it was a bad idea you didn't simply let it go, you continued to argue you were correct.

This is a really, really big problem with Gen Discuss and you aren't the only one to do it. But you doing it on this thread ends now.