Forum Guidelines

Author: TheRealNihilist

Posts

Total: 71
Topic's author
#61
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
i don’t think you’re really understanding the key point here. The key point I’m making is that when the decision of moderators is based exclusively on interpretation of the validity of the content and nature of what people are arguing; it becomes inherently subjective.
Tell me how this isn't arguing about the interpretation of the validity of the content:
II. Personal Attacks
"Personal attacks will not be tolerated."
Clearly arguing against the validity of someones' argument. What if my argument required personal attacks to be complete? Surely you are denying me my argument due to this rule.
4. Hate Speech
"Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc., is not a legitimate excuse for hate speech."
Clearly stating you can't argue with hate speech with the sites preferred definition. 
5. Cross-Thread Contamination
"Treat every new exchange with a member with as much of a "clean slate" as possible."
Telling people not to argue with prior-information on different sites instead disregard prior-information on different sites which is helpful in ones argument. I could call out someone by stating what they were like on DDO but I don't think I need to for you to understand my argument. At least I think I don't need it.
6. Threats
"it is not permissible to threaten another user on the basis of those accusations or complaints."
"Threats include (but are not limited to):
  • Threats of legal action.
  • Threats of violence (even oblique ones).
  • Threats of "Doxxing" someone, particularly if the threat implies exposing the user to political, religious or other persecution.
  • Threats of moderator reporting or moderator action."
Clearly showing I can't argue with threats.
B. The Just Kidding Excuse
"The “just kidding” argument is not a valid excuse for actions which can reasonably be interpreted as personal attacks."
Clearly showing I can't use humor that can be considered a personal attack. Clearly reducing the line of argument I am able to move around on.
1. Doxxing
"Doxxing is strictly prohibited."
Clearly showing I can't argue with doxxing.
4. Adult Content
"Posting adult content or links to adult content, including pornography, is strictly prohibited."
Can't use adult content for my arguments.

I'll stop here because you get the point already.

Now you might say but there are other reasons. Okay my rules also have other reasons. It would help helpful discourse while also helping making sure people argue about the topic at hand. Neither yours or my rules exclusively target one specific thing. There are many things it targets so I consider what your use of "exclusively" as a straw-man of my position which is why I didn't actually argue against it because that wasn't my position. If you actually wanted to know what reasons I had that weren't exclusively about arguments you would have read my OP as in the second and third bullet point. This clearly shows this isn't "exclusively" based on what people argue instead by me giving two reasons it shows more than just that. That's if I agree that one reason is specifically targeted depending on the argumentation which I don't you still would be wrong about the "exclusively" part.
For example, I don’t think you’re really engaging on my key argument, or fully understanding it. Would this fit the criteria for me removing you from my thread? Or classifying you as someone who is not interested in discussion?
Is speaking about the topic at hand what I am speaking about?
I am sick and tired of people adding nothing of importance to the forums I have created to specifically address something. 
Yes so clarification about the topic at hand will be allowed. The "topic at hand" is the key part. If they ask questions, argue or answer. It doesn't matter. It matters more so about if it was about the topic at hand. 
I could argue it both ways depending on which side I’m on. As it’s either you misunderstanding me, or me not expressing myself well.
I can argue that wasn't doxxing, posting adult content or threatened someone. What is your response to that?
Continues...

Topic's author
#62
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
if I said something facetious, is it an attempt at satirical mockery of a point that is inherently stupid, or is it deliberate trolling and failure to engage in the point? It would depend on whether I think the point is stupid.
Where did I say I won't allow "stupid" points? I didn't if you read my OP.
There are going to be people who troll, people who are stupid, people who don’t understand and don’t know how to argue, there’ll be people who have a screw loose and people with intellectually bankrupt positions they can’t support and are forced to defend their crass and idiotic opinions with memes and dismissive nonsense - and it’s been that way since the dawn of the internet. Each one of them think the same is true about every other, and so it’s literally not possible to satisfactorily do anythkmg about any of them without inherently preventing the free exchange of ideas and debates.
So we ought to value the "free exchange of ideas" over making sure those ideas have the platform that helps make sure those ideas are actually tested? Staying on the topic at hand can lead to the ideas being tested more than not having that rule. 
I had an analogy but I have a better point to make. You don't agree with this very sentiment here. You don't allow dumb people to break the rules and code of conduct of the site with inherently prevents the free exchange of ideas and debates. This is the clearest I can be with what I just said. You can't reply back by saying you don't understand what I am saying because I have clearly laid out how you as a moderator follow the rules and code of conduct while inherently infringing upon the free exchange of ideas and debates.

Are you stopping the free exchange of porn debates and forum discussions? Yes.
Are you stopping the free exchange of personal information? Yes.
Are you stopping the free exchange of personal attacks? Yes.

So that excuse doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You have to justify your prevention of the free exchange of ideas while also making sure that very argument can't be used for my side. Good luck.  

#63
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Personal attacks are not assessing the validity of the content, and all the examples are above are not assessing the validity or quality of the content being posted, but are directly assessing what the content is.

I’m not talking about exclusively dumb people: I specified a lot of different points.

The issue is, that I can spin what you’re doing here as engaging in bad faith; because the criteria listed are so subjective they could apply to anyone. I don’t think your addressing the key point I’m making, and your really asking questions that are orthogonal to what I’m saying and not really in the context

Does this mean I should be able to remove you from the topic?

Thats the problem that you are confusing when lumping in arguing in bad faith with personal atta k rules. They’re not
the same.

The reason they are not the same is that I can tell if you call me a **** or a **** or a ****ing **** **** who **** ****** **** while on horseback. It’s objective. I can also tell whether you release personal information about me. Or threaten me. Or post something obviously off topic deliberately. Or hate speech. Or adult content.


It is not objective as to whether or not what you’re saying is engaging in good faith. I don’t think your dealing with my key points, and have confused two different things, and have subtly misrepresented what I’m saying: how do we judge whether your arguing in good faith or not? Does someone
look at your arguments after a complaint, then try and determine whether what you said is valid and logical? Are they going to come to a different position if they agree with you or not? Probably. And that’s the issue.


Topic's author
#64
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
Personal attacks are not assessing the validity of the content, and all the examples are above are not assessing the validity or quality of the content being posted, but are directly assessing what the content is.
Why are you interpreting the validity of the content and nature of what people are arguing; it becomes inherently subjective?
I’m not talking about exclusively dumb people: I specified a lot of different points.
Do tell me the others then.
The issue is, that I can spin what you’re doing here as engaging in bad faith; because the criteria listed are so subjective they could apply to anyone. I don’t think your addressing the key point I’m making, and your really asking questions that are orthogonal to what I’m saying and not really in the context
Then I would have to adjust my argumentation to fall in with the current CoC. If lets say the moderators are not following their very own CoC I can point that out or state how I didn't break the CoC. Sure I can argue against those rules but I am your platform not on mine so you make the rules. I am simply wanting another one to be in place.
Does this mean I should be able to remove you from the topic?
Depends on the CoC. How it is applied and enforced.
Thats the problem that you are confusing when lumping in arguing in bad faith with personal atta k rules. They’re not
the same.
What is a fair way of adding a bad faith rule? Do we agree bad faith actors ought to be problem to be stopped by the site or am I the only one who thinks that?
The reason they are not the same is that I can tell if you call me a **** or a **** or a ****ing **** **** who **** ****** **** while on horseback. It’s objective. I can also tell whether you release personal information about me. Or threaten me. Or post something obviously off topic deliberately. Or hate speech. Or adult content.
What do you mean? "while on horseback" All this sounds like is you trying to argue for your subjective guidelines while simply changing the word to objective to subjective. Do you want me explain how this is the or case or do you want to reply to this before I do?
It is not objective as to whether or not what you’re saying is engaging in good faith. I don’t think your dealing with my key points, and have confused two different things, and have subtly misrepresented what I’m saying: how do we judge whether your arguing in good faith or not? Does someone
look at your arguments after a complaint, then try and determine whether what you said is valid and logical? Are they going to come to a different position if they agree with you or not? Probably. And that’s the issue.
It is neither objective when someone is called out for a personal attack or someone reveals adult content and you have yet to tell me how that is the case. If you have misrepresented what you said like with what I think is done on the we can simply ask them to explain their stance and if it isn't good enough it can be removed. 

#65
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
There is not a way to pick out bad faith actors who aren’t engaging in obvious spam or any of the objectively determinable prohibited conduct that is already against the rules - that is literally the whole point.

Any subjective criteria that cuts deeper and would cover what you seem to want, would allow me to categorize what you’re doing right now I’m this thread as being a “bad faith actor”.




Topic's author
#66
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
There is not a way to pick out bad faith actors who aren’t engaging in obvious spam or any of the objectively determinable prohibited conduct that is already against the rules - that is literally the whole point.

Any subjective criteria that cuts deeper and would cover what you seem to want, would allow me to categorize what you’re doing right now I’m this thread as being a “bad faith actor”.
What if I remove the term bad faith actors from my wants?

Tell me the difference between a subjective criteria and an objective criteria.

Since you are not making a good faith approach in debunking my ideas. I won't either. I will pick and choose the statements you make in order to make my points better. 
#67
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The issue is that you don’t seem to be grasping the central point I’m making; and so I am forced to make a more specific argument to prevent having to deal with a page full of quotes - none of which are particularly relevant.

But you’re explaining what the issue is pretty well.

You beleive I’m arguing in bad faith, I beleive your arguing in bad faith. We’re both convinced.

Which one of us should get banned?


Topic's author
#68
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
You beleive I’m arguing in bad faith, I beleive your arguing in bad faith. We’re both convinced.

Which one of us should get banned?
You don't have a consistent history of making these sorts of arguments while knowing it is wrong nor did I even accept you were making bad faith arguments. I would say you are not making a good faith effort in debunking my arguments. 

To answer your question none of us. 

#69
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheRealNihilist
And how exactly do you expect moderators to establish that I make arguments knowing that they’re wrong?
Topic's author
#70
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
And how exactly do you expect moderators to establish that I make arguments knowing that they’re wrong?
By being honest about what kind of system they have. If they say we are justifying these CoC by what we think is the best way to moderate the site but we are also open to seeing things changed if they are more effective. This statement I just made doesn't support what moderators like you support. You imply you have an objective standard yet you can't defend the objective part of it. You don't say you are open to change either from my knowledge.

By seeing if we were speaking about the topic at hand. My OP doesn't state anything about wrong think. Bad faith actors don't wrong think more so have the wrong intent. They don't want a discussion instead want to harm discourse which is why I have a problem with people like Rubin. A real life example of a bad faith actor who made his way to the right without having good arguments instead done it for the money. Work colleges vouch that and when pressed on defending the very views on his show or provide a counter to more extreme guests he is not able to. He is a bad faith actor.

Topic's author
#71
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
Colleagues instead of colleges.