-->
@3RU7AL
"ad hominem" doesn't appear anywhere in the CoC
COC Revisions
Posts
Total:
171
-->
@Ramshutu
Well stated.It doesn’t advance your ideas, nor does it attack mine. It doesn’t challenge any of the points made...
-->
@drafterman
B. Personal Attacks
Personal attacks will not be tolerated. The policy prohibiting personal attacks applies site-wide--in debates, forums, private messages, and everywhere else on the site. If you are having a dispute with another site member, the appropriate response is to inform moderation. It is not appropriate to respond with invective or misconduct. [LINK]
Definition of Ad Hominem
Ad hominem is a Latin word that means “against the man.” As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent, to undermine him instead of his arguments. [LINK]
Ad hominem attack = personal attack.
-->
@3RU7AL
An ad hominem isn't merely a personal attack. It is a specific kind of personal attack used to undermine a person's arguments. That is, a person's arguments are wrong because of some undesirable quality in the person.
Without the attempt at refutation of an argument, it doesn't amount to an ad hominem, nor would every kind of ad hominem involve a personal attack according to the CoC of this site.
For example, if I catch you in a lie, and then try to argue that because you've lied once, no one else should trust any future argument, that would be an ad hominem attack, but not a personal attack according to the CoC.
Plagiarism is a stupid rule, and should be allowed. We are here to debate ideals, not to be original. Fuck off Nazi
-->
@drafterman
I think people who are easily confused about what ad hominem means should be eradicated from the planet or at the very least not allowed to reproduce. This single thing may push up the average IQ and bring us one step closer to the utopia that a technological singularity will bring.
Out of morbid curiosity, based on the no-mocking-profile-pictures rule, does that technically make it illegal for anyone to have an anti-Frozen profile picture since I could argue that it is mocking me since I have only ever had this Elsa pic as my profile picture?
Oh darling, we all know which of the two of us whispered in bsh1's ear to get debates deleted and actively hinder the other's ability to thrive and enjoy the website. I will intentionally be vague, because everything I say you will hypocritically portray as an 'attack on you' whereas your profile pic choices and active leading of gang bullying of me in the forums were legit abuse that would have psychologically broken a weaker individual.
Again. Another personal attack, unsubstantiated accusations and falsehoods.
You’re not justifying your position, your not providing any detail; you are just doing what is called “poisoning the well”. Your not making your case, just saying bad things about the opposing party. Nothing you have said is true; and I will happily refer you to any of the threads or debates where the above were discussed - and you failed to defend your claims.
This is expressly the issue I am trying to make about the rules; the rules as written mean that harassment or abuse is constituted by whatever party wishes to say some critical behaviour felt harassing or abusive.
Given that you seem quite willing to accuse, but wilt when given the opportunity to defend your position - this is clearly problematic: moderator actions and rules should be based upon objective criteria, and clear violations of good conduct, not on arbitrary accusations of hurt feelings.
-->
@Imabench
<———
How about this for an anti-frozen profile picture?
-->
@Ramshutu
Okay one, GO *#(% YOURSELF
;D
Two, and in actual seriousness, that could be interpreted as just an 'Anti Ice' picture, which technically makes it an immigration stance since ABOLISH ICE is an actual thing, not just a dig at Frozen
-->
@Imabench
Correct.
It could also be harassing anyone who considers themselves either an optimist or pessimist.
-->
@drafterman
An ad hominem isn't merely a personal attack. It is a specific kind of personal attack used to undermine a person's arguments. That is, a person's arguments are wrong because of some undesirable quality in the person.
Citation please. You appear to be making a distinction without a difference.
Without the attempt at refutation of an argument, it doesn't amount to an ad hominem, nor would every kind of ad hominem involve a personal attack according to the CoC of this site.
This is a debate website. Debaters should focus on the arguments as they are presented and not on your opinion of, or the personality of, or the habits or the identity of the individual making those arguments.
For example, if I catch you in a lie, and then try to argue that because you've lied once, no one else should trust any future argument, that would be an ad hominem attack, but not a personal attack according to the CoC.
Citation please. Calling someone a liar would seem to qualify as a "derogatory remark aimed at a site user or site users".
"a personal attack is any abusive or derogatory remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse." [LINK]
-->
@Imabench
2. The Just Kidding Excuse
The abusive, insulting, or derogatory nature of a comment will be judged based on how a reasonable individual would interpret it. It is not based upon the intentions of speaker, unless those intentions were stated clearly and explicitly prior to the offending remark. Reasonableness is interpreted solely by the mods. The "just kidding" argument is not a valid excuse for actions which can reasonably be interpreted as personal attacks. [LINK]
-->
@Imabench
But this is inherently the problem - even if you hated me and vice versa - a glass of water vs Elsa is not even close to something one could consider abusive. If I had, for example, had a picture of a bench being sawn in half, that’s where we get closer.
-->
@3RU7AL
Im fairly certain anyone who knows anything about me for longer than 4 minutes could probably interpret the sarcasm in the first half of that comment
-->
@3RU7AL
Citation please. You appear to be making a distinction without a difference.
It's in the definition you cited.
This is a debate website. Debaters should focus on the arguments as they are presented and not on your opinion of, or the personality of, or the habits or the identity of the individual making those arguments.
Forum comments aren't debates.
Citation please. Calling someone a liar would seem to qualify as a "derogatory remark aimed at a site user or site users"."a personal attack is any abusive or derogatory remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse." [LINK]
I believe that calling someone a liar necessarily refers to the content of what they have said: specifically that said content is knowingly false.
-->
@Ramshutu
But a glass of water is also not something blatantly related to the movie Frozen or anyone in it. Completely out of context a glass of water will be seen by average lookers as just a glass of waterA glass of water vs Elsa is not even close to something one could consider abusive. If I had, for example, had a picture of a bench being sawn in half, that’s where we get closer.
What Im saying is if someone had their profile pic be something deliberately Anti-Frozen, like FROZEN SUCKS in capital letters or a picture of Elsa with the words OVERRATED painted over it, could that technically be illegal now since my profile pic as Elsa has always been that and therefore makes the anti-Frozen pic a mocking/derogatory dig at me?
-->
@Wylted
How ironic.I think people who are easily confused about what ad hominem means should be eradicated from the planet or at the very least not allowed to reproduce.
-->
@Imabench
Yes it could. And I agree that this could be a problem: a specific attack, such as someone’s RL image, or some explicit attack (such as bench is a ^}*]+[^}) absolutely - but the general issue is that you cannot put the offended party in charge of defining what is offensive. Especially as the anti frozen glass of water is the type of profile picture expressly seemed as “abusive harassment”.
Its the inverse of the just kidding excuse - JKE is there to ensure that someone doesn’t call someone a c**t then say “just kidding, don’t warn me”. It’s not there to punish actual jokes that clearly shouldn’t enrage anyone - like the glass of water.
This is a microcosm of the US government. The issue is not the regulations and the crappy laws, they have a good reason for most of them, the issue is that they are officiously enforced despite not being intended for what they are being enforced against.
I think as guidelines they are good “try and act like this”, but I don’t think it’s reasonable as an enforceable rule.
-->
@Imabench
Im fairly certain anyone who knows anything about me for longer than 4 minutes could probably interpret the sarcasm in the first half of that comment
Beyond the fact that you didn't actually insult anyone.
-->
@drafterman
Citation please. You appear to be making a distinction without a difference.It's in the definition you cited.
"An ad hominem isn't merely a personal attack. It is a specific kind of personal attack used to undermine a person's arguments."
(IFF) this quoted statement (of yours) is true (THEN) all ad hominems are BANNED per COC (since ad hominem is a sub-category of "personal attacks".
This is a debate website. Debaters should focus on the arguments as they are presented and not on your opinion of, or the personality of, or the habits or the identity of the individual making those arguments.Forum comments aren't debates.
Forum comments are subject to COC.
Citation please. Calling someone a liar would seem to qualify as a "derogatory remark aimed at a site user or site users"."a personal attack is any abusive or derogatory remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse." [LINK]I believe that calling someone a liar necessarily refers to the content of what they have said: specifically that said content is knowingly false.
Calling someone a liar (directly or indirectly) is the very definition of a personal attack.
Referring to the inaccuracy of a statement requires counter-factual evidence and even if inaccuracy is determined, whether or not the inaccurate statement was "knowingly false" (or not) is moot.
I STAND WITH WYLTED
(IFF) this quoted statement (of yours) is true (THEN) all ad hominems are BANNED per COC (since ad hominem is a sub-category of "personal attacks".
A personal attack is only against the CoC if it is a personal attack as defined by the CoC. Not everything any source categorizes as a "personal attack" is against the CoC simply because they share the same term. An Ad hominem is a kind of personal attack only in the sense that it is an "attack" of the person rather than of arguments. It is not automatically a violation of the CoC.
This is a debate website. Debaters should focus on the arguments as they are presented and not on your opinion of, or the personality of, or the habits or the identity of the individual making those arguments.Forum comments aren't debates.Forum comments are subject to COC.
I don't dispute that. I'm simply noting that forum commenters are not required to focus on arguments to the exclusion of opinions, personality, habits, or identities.
Calling someone a liar (directly or indirectly) is the very definition of a personal attack.Referring to the inaccuracy of a statement requires counter-factual evidence and even if inaccuracy is determined, whether or not the inaccurate statement was "knowingly false" (or not) is moot.
Incorrect. If you have lied, I am allowed to call you a liar.
IMO the COC should start with the golden rule (perhaps under slightly different wording), followed immediately by a table of contents, then probably voting guidelines... and moderation policies being a last resort (which most people will never need to understand) only being listed at the end.
Regarding voting, one area which has bothered me for a long time is blatant point manipulation to favor a bias. Using a recent example, a vote which wholly ignores conduct to vote in favor of the side forfeiting is passable (not saying how arguments should lay, but conduct is clear cut unless something happened to bring it back to a tie).
Another special case I believe would be warranted is No Contest debates. When someone spews off topic gibberish without addressing the topic but doesn't technically forfeit, I see no benefit in demanding voters put in significantly greater effort than the losing debater.
Also, I would like S&G to be expanded to also include general presentation. A user can technically commit no spelling errors, but engage in an all bold wall of text still harming legibility, and when that's against someone who uses proper headings and other good formatting tools, I believe we should be able to give the point.
-->
@Barney
The silver rule is much more comprehensive, “What you do not wish done to you, do not do to others.” [LINK]IMO the COC should start with the golden rule (perhaps under slightly different wording),
Another special case I believe would be warranted is No Contest debates. When someone spews off topic gibberish without addressing the topic but doesn't technically forfeit, I see no benefit in demanding voters put in significantly greater effort than the losing debater.
I also have a fix for this, CIVIL DEBATE RULE 3 - [LINK]
-->
@drafterman
A personal attack is only against the CoC if it is a personal attack as defined by the CoC.
Quoting from the site's current official COC,
"A personal attack is any abusive or DEROGATORY remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse. A personal attack may take any of several common forms, including but NOT LIMITED TO the following examples." [LINK]
ANY DEROGATORY REMARK. NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLES.
This seems quite comprehensive to me.
-->
@drafterman
Forum comments are subject to COC.I don't dispute that. I'm simply noting that forum commenters are not required to focus on arguments to the exclusion of opinions, personality, habits, or identities.
"A personal attack is any abusive or DEROGATORY remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse. A personal attack may take any of several common forms, including but NOT LIMITED TO the following examples." [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
"A personal attack is any abusive or DEROGATORY remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse. A personal attack may take any of several common forms, including but NOT LIMITED TO the following examples." [LINK]
Ad hominems are not required to be abusive or derogatory, merely a critique of the person, rather than their arguments.
-->
@drafterman
Referring to the inaccuracy of a statement requires counter-factual evidence and even if inaccuracy is determined, whether or not the inaccurate statement was "knowingly false" (or not) is moot.Incorrect. If you have lied, I am allowed to call you a liar.
"Your statement is factually innacurate" =/= "You are a liar"
Calling someone a "liar" is a DEROGATORY remark aimed at a site user, and is therefore verboten by the COC.
-->
@drafterman
My issue there needs to be a scale of what is considered severe and light personal attacks. It also needs to depend on the scenario that occurs
e.g: Calling someone a dumb donkey in the middle of nowhere should not be treated equally than calling someone a fucking n-word homophobic word, or saying OK BOOMER! There needs to be clear lines. I don't want get punish eqaully for calling someone an idiot for making a bad argument vs someone getting the same time calling someone a pussy n-word
e.g: Calling someone a dumb donkey in the middle of nowhere should not be treated equally than calling someone a fucking n-word homophobic word, or saying OK BOOMER! There needs to be clear lines. I don't want get punish eqaully for calling someone an idiot for making a bad argument vs someone getting the same time calling someone a pussy n-word