What's new
Frozen In Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Discussing A Bad Faith Debating Rule

Chatokay

Self-proclaimed FiC official absinthe provider :)
if someone is debating in bad faith it should be up to those challenging them to point it out, and they should then have to either defend their points or concede.
Lets not forgot that if two positions are different, that doesn't necessarily mean that one is wrong.
 

Mark Poe

The majestic cock
Writing Champ
The question of whether the meta-behaviour can, should or should not be reported is still one that needs answering, IMHO.
A related question would be for OPFOR contrarians (because sometimes it is nice to have an opposition to keep the stew stirring, even if it's rather artificial) and whether their existence should be tolerated...
 

Wakko

Well-known member
We can put actual serious bad faith debating under trolling as well which is against rules
I think this is the way to go. Bad faith debating basically means being dishonest in a debate. Differentiating what are good sources and what are bad sources, whether a user has some angle he/she pushes - which IMO is OK as long as it isn't done using lies - these things will in the end herd the debate in one direction, and make the debaters into sheep who are allowed to see only some selected part of the existing range of opinions. People should be encouraged to develop their critical thinking, debating skills and just general patience in arguing, not served safe opinions for consumption. I have never had a problem to just ignore posts which were to me less than believable, or seemed dishonest, or too tendential, and if a lot of them came from one user, to put him/her on ignore. Drastic options like temp/perma bans should be used VERY carefully and only as a last resort.
 

Diablo21

Active member
To get back on track, I believe that if this board has ambitions to grow in size, the decisions about rules and debate will have to be taken early with a larger size in mind, aka with the hypothesis that the moderation will be much more busy and will not benefit from having the broad knowledge of all ongoing activity. This means looking a bit at forums such as SB or AH and trying to understand what they do and which works so as to inspire oneself with it. Some fast and loose rules will work with a small volume of users and content, but will be open to extremely effective rule-lawyering in a larger community.

Therefore, this question should not be considered with the current state of things in mind but with the desired one. If I may suggest something, it would be to avoid the pit trap of considering threads as isolated islands. For bad faith debating, one of the most enraging elements is when the culprit’s actions are pretty obvious and blatant when taken as a whole but somewhat legitimate when taken within the singular thread.

The problem is that it can lead to complete ad hominem derails when the argument becomes accusations about the poster’s general behaviour and shit-flinging using old quotes and such. What I would suggest is, to avoid this, to encourage users to make much complete reports, allowing explicitely to use, in the reports, previous posts of the reported user in other threads, to show a pattern of posting that would be bad faith. If the same behaviour was observed many times and was already ruled upon negatively or was repeatedly left hanging by the accused when called on their arguments, this would make for a much stronger case for what would be otherwise an acceptable argument.

So, possibly help posters with establishing report templates, a check-list of things to add to the report for smoother handling. And perhaps even, from the staff, establishing a precedent database for mod rulings on highly-contested subjects. Such a database, a list of links to the relevant posts with a very short description, could be left accessible to all so they can refer to it when the same argument gets thrown for the n-th time by a poster.

It would add a bit of work to the staff but would probably save a lot later when a larger community is established. In short, having a mix of Code Law and Common Law.
I think this is a sound idea. If someone feels something not "kosher" has happened, give them the tools and resources needed to give the staff as much useful information as possible to determine if a member of the forum has truly done something inappropriate or not.

You raise a good point about long term planning as well. This place hasn't even been around six months yet. This place may not exist six months from now. This place may be around two decades from now and be 50 times the size it is now. If bad faith debating isn't seen as a real issue right now, I have no problem as Horton suggested by lumping bad faith debating under trolling right now.

A year from now, two years from now, if the place grows, two or three more times the number of members, two or three times the number of posts, and two or more times the number of complaints and infractions handed out, it might be more practical or necessary by then to look at classifying and dealing with bad faith debating as a more separate issue.

I feel the key going forward is going to be our ability to adjust and adapt. Don't constantly try new things or rewrite the rules every other day, but also don't be afraid once in a great while if it is felt that a new rule does need to be crafted, or don't rule out the possibility that an existing rule might benefit from being updated or modified.
 

Aaron Fox

SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
Author
Horton would probably have to invest in an algorithm to help out him and fellow staff members, as sometimes I've seen people report to silence opposition. Or at least appear to be.
 

Mark Poe

The majestic cock
Writing Champ
Slightly off topic but since there isn't exactly any suggestion threads (unless I haven't been paying attention again, which is likely), so how about a database for inside jokes and personality quirks from various members? Of course people will post their own particular styles and quirks (and not other peoples' since that's open to abuse) and so the mods will have the relevant info on hand to see if a post is simply a running gag or actually serious (ly bad).
 

Horton

Cat
Administrator
I'm thinking here from what people have suggested that some type of front page or perhaps wiki might be a good idea.

I quite like the idea of having some type of database of arguments and counter-arguments from the debates we have on here to avoid people coming into threads on SB and throwing out stuff that's been debunked...now obviously we'll have to make something like that neutral, which will be a challenge, but I'm up to it.
 

Kinetic

Vivere est militare!
You should inform them, teach them. Not punish them.
Oh comrade, you're so wrong on this it's not even funny. Consider it this way. To be ignorant of something is neither a crime, nor is it a flaw, generally speaking. But you kinda forgot about the fact that while being ignorant is not a crime, barging into a debate spewing nonsense in a very confident tone of voice is not a sign of outstanding mental might. Especially when you're arrogant enough to think that you can argue with actual professionals, while being a random uneducated schmuk who doeen't know what he is babbling about. There's no shortage of such geniuses.

Thus, ignorance is okay, but arrogance based on ignorance? Whoo boy, that is unforgivable.

On the side note, both suggested methods can be combined into the third for greater effectiveness. For example, let's assume that there is a hypothetical Russian sailor Petrov, whom is serving on Adm. Nakhimov. What do you think is going to happened if this sailor screws up on the job?

Quite likely he will be spending his foreseable future free time memorizing X pages worth of the Accident and Catastrophes of Ships, and then get tested by his CO or some other guy in charge.
 
Last edited:

Chatokay

Self-proclaimed FiC official absinthe provider :)
Oh comrade, you're so wrong on this it's not even funny. Consider it this way. To be ignorant of something is neither a crime, nor is it a flaw, generally speaking. But you kinda forgot about the fact that while being ignorant is not a crime, barging into a debate spewing nonsense in a very confident tone of voice is not a sign of outstanding mental might. Especially when you're arrogant enough to think that you can argue with actual professionals, while being a random uneducated schmuk who doeen't know what he is babbling about. There's no shortage of such geniuses.

Thus, ignorance is okay, but arrogance based on ignorance? Whoo boy, that is unforgivable.
That's why you teach them, or at least try, as I am trying to do now. Of course if they don't want to be taught, if they persist, then they leave the "ignorant people" category to enter the "trolling individual" category. But unless they prove you otherwise you should work under the premise that they are willing to be educated.
 

Aaron Fox

SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
Author
That's why you teach them, or at least try, as I am trying to do now. Of course if they don't want to be taught, if they persist, then they leave the "ignorant people" category to enter the "trolling individual" category. But unless they prove you otherwise you should work under the premise that they are willing to be educated.
This little proverb applies: You can bring a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink.

... and that pretty much applies to everything up to and including democracies...
 

IndyFront

Ξ⌊:Ξ≪⊕ `∧∀⊥∥'⌊: ∀∃∃∀⌊:⊕⌈≪⌊:⊕Γ.
Author
This little proverb applies: You can bring a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink.

... and that pretty much applies to everything up to and including democracies...
You bash and denigrate democracy, yet do you have a solution that is besides outright Boot-Licking Tyranny?
 

Diablo21

Active member
You bash and denigrate democracy, yet do you have a solution that is besides outright Boot-Licking Tyranny?
Well in reference to the forum, technically Horton owns it and pays the bills, so really in the end it's ultimately his call in the end. Any authority or priviliges that we, or any staff he picks get are up to him. We may get to ask questioms, make suggestions, give advice, but in the end, it's not our call
 

Mark Poe

The majestic cock
Writing Champ
You bash and denigrate democracy, yet do you have a solution that is besides outright Boot-Licking Tyranny?
Authoritarianism is like ice cream, everyone love it, the disagreements tend to come in which flavor and toppings are the best.
 

IndyFront

Ξ⌊:Ξ≪⊕ `∧∀⊥∥'⌊: ∀∃∃∀⌊:⊕⌈≪⌊:⊕Γ.
Author
Authoritarianism is like ice cream, everyone love it, the disagreements tend to come in which flavor and toppings are the best.
You want to know the most ironically hilarious part of this post?
I fucking hate ice cream.
 

IndyFront

Ξ⌊:Ξ≪⊕ `∧∀⊥∥'⌊: ∀∃∃∀⌊:⊕⌈≪⌊:⊕Γ.
Author
Well in reference to the forum, technically Horton owns it and pays the bills, so really in the end it's ultimately his call in the end. Any authority or priviliges that we, or any staff he picks get are up to him. We may get to ask questioms, make suggestions, give advice, but in the end, it's not our call
In reference to the forum, yes absolutely. Obviously I was referring to authoritarianism in general however.
 

Ravan

Gone
You want to know the most ironically hilarious part of this post?
I fucking hate ice cream.
Then you, sir, are a heretic and must be purged. To the Gulag with you!
 

Aaron Fox

SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
Author
You bash and denigrate democracy, yet do you have a solution that is besides outright Boot-Licking Tyranny?
I bash and denigrate democracies because I've seen where democracy can go. The proverb of 'democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for diner' is rather apt, and a balance of power with various unelected mechanisms to check the elected mechanisms must be maintained. It's just the assumption that democracy is the cure-all that has gotten us to this point.
 

IndyFront

Ξ⌊:Ξ≪⊕ `∧∀⊥∥'⌊: ∀∃∃∀⌊:⊕⌈≪⌊:⊕Γ.
Author
I bash and denigrate democracies because I've seen where democracy can go. The proverb of 'democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for diner' is rather apt, and a balance of power with various unelected mechanisms to check the elected mechanisms must be maintained. It's just the assumption that democracy is the cure-all that has gotten us to this point.
So in other words let's just make all governments run by tyrannical authoritarians like Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.

-drops mic-
 

Chatokay

Self-proclaimed FiC official absinthe provider :)
I bash and denigrate democracies because I've seen where democracy can go.
I agree with you on this point, it is true that democracies can go to some quite undesirables destinations. They can, I won't deny it. But the others forms of governments will.
 

Aaron Fox

SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
Author
I agree with you on this point, it is true that democracies can go to some quite undesirables destinations. They can, I won't deny it. But the others forms of governments will.
Eh, no. More often than not, democracies are too tied to the people which means all you have to do is make a tune and they'll follow you until someone makes a better tune... which isn't good for stability...
 
Top Bottom