Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Thad]

All right, I've pretty much been trying to avoid this since day one, but I think it's pretty clear by now that we need a quick list of Do's and Do Not Do's for the Real World board.

I'll keep it brief and bulleted.  This way it works as a quick copy-and-paste when I tell somebody what he's doing wrong, and as a checklist for people who are trying to annoy me to see how much trolling they can cram into a single post.

DO:

• expect to be challenged when you say something on this board.
• be prepared to defend your viewpoint using facts, logic, and external sources.
• format links in a descriptive, informative manner.

DO NOT:

• dismiss criticism with "IT'S MY OPINION AND I'M ENTITLED TO IT"
• say something controversial and then refuse to back it up
• change the subject when challenged
• debate strawmen
• respond to criticism with vague, short posts
• play the persecution card when someone asks you to defend your viewpoint or calls you on doing any of the above

BEST USED SPARINGLY:

• analogies
• personal anecdotes
• tangents, jokes, and off-topic posts
• semantic debates -- if you've been legitimately misunderstood, it's fair to explain why, but don't split hairs as a distraction technique.

[Detonator]

DO:

• Quote the posts you are responding to to avoid misunderstandings and "I never said that!" responses.
• Contribute something meaningful to the topic, even if it's a quick link to relevant information.

DO NOT:

• Take anything personally.  Your argument may be blasted to pieces, but if you take offense to that then this board isn't for you.
• Make pointless "me too!" posts that contribute nothing to the discussion.

BEST USED SPARINGLY:

• Sarcasm.  If you are using it in a debate, it is condescending at best and creates a huge misunderstanding at worst.  If you are making a "LET ME REPHRASE THE OPPOSING VIEW SO IT SOUNDS STUPID AND IN ALL CAPS" post, that was never funny or clever.

[MadMAxJr]

DO:

• Accept the possibility you could be wrong when someone presents evidence that contradicts you.
• Do your best to avoid fallacies.

[Brentai]

DO:

• The Mario

BEST USED SPARINGLY:

• tangents, jokes, and off-topic posts

:nyoro~n:

[Mongrel]

Of course, you realize that the existence of formal rules will only goad certain people into ignoring them rather more deliberately.

[Detonator]

Of course, you realize that the existence of formal rules will only goad certain people into ignoring them rather more deliberately.

Which in turn will make it easier to quickly ban them from the board.  Everyone wins!

[Cannon]

I don't post much here, but I think I may change that. I'd very much appreciate being called on the errors I do commit in the future, guys. I could always learn to argue more effectively. Thanks in advance.

I don't think I'll do anything too embarrassing, because I like to believe I can admit when I'm wrong. We'll see, won't we?

[Thad]

Of course, you realize that the existence of formal rules will only goad certain people into ignoring them rather more deliberately.

This way it works as a quick copy-and-paste when I tell somebody what he's doing wrong, and as a checklist for people who are trying to annoy me to see how much trolling they can cram into a single post.

Nope, never occurred to me.

PS: MaxJu: great link; thanks.

[Kazz]

Geez, it sure just started sounding like a lot of work to post here.

[Thad]

None of these rules are new and I pretty much hate everybody for the fact that I've had to actually write them down.

[Detonator]

I pretty much hate everybody

Thad's new catchphrase doesn't have the same ring to it.

[Mongrel]

That's a new one?

[jsnlxndrlv]

I often found the conversational terrorism list useful when I wanted to call someone out for trolling my arguments, although it always struck me as a little bit makeshift.

[Alex]

All right, I've pretty much been trying to avoid this since day one, but I think it's pretty clear by now that we need a quick list of Do's and Do Not Do's for the Real World board.

I'll keep it brief and bulleted.  This way it works as a quick copy-and-paste when I tell somebody what he's doing wrong, and as a checklist for people who are trying to annoy me to see how much trolling they can cram into a single post.

DO:

• expect to be challenged when you say something on this board.
• be prepared to defend your viewpoint using facts, logic, and external sources.
• format links in a descriptive, informative manner.

DO NOT:

• dismiss criticism with "IT'S MY OPINION AND I'M ENTITLED TO IT"
• say something controversial and then refuse to back it up
• change the subject when challenged
• debate strawmen
• respond to criticism with vague, short posts
• play the persecution card when someone asks you to defend your viewpoint or calls you on doing any of the above

BEST USED SPARINGLY:

• analogies
• personal anecdotes
• tangents, jokes, and off-topic posts
• semantic debates -- if you've been legitimately misunderstood, it's fair to explain why, but don't split hairs as a distraction technique.

I'm sorry, Thad!  It was just how I envisioned you reading the post!

I'm pretty bad at my explanations, so I tend to avoid Real World topics a lot and refrain from jumping into arguments since I'm totally bad at being in them.  Also, I hate going and digging up links to terribly coded news sites (which is usually most of them).  :sadpanda:

Still, us hear and obey.

[Arc]

Real World Posting Guidelines

these rules

[JDigital]

I remember when the fallacies list used to be something secret, that you might stumble upon late one night via Google Directory, in the era before Youtube, Wikipedia and TV Tropes. Now, every kid who thinks he's right will bring these up like parents who are going to shout at you.

They wield it like a crude club, even though the list warns against that at the start. You can't cite a hypothetical - that's begging the question. You can't give an example - that's a strawman fallacy. You can't quote someone - that's an appeal-to-authority fallacy. You can't criticize anyone - that's an ad hominem, and so forth.

[Royal☭]

And yet, it's almost like the fallacies have been around for thousands of years.

[Zaratustra]

Thad makes sure to answer every Real World post PERSONALLY. So be CAREFUL!

[Thad]

Now, every kid who thinks he's right will bring these up like parents who are going to shout at you.

They wield it like a crude club, even though the list warns against that at the start. You can't cite a hypothetical - that's begging the question. You can't give an example - that's a strawman fallacy. You can't quote someone - that's an appeal-to-authority fallacy. You can't criticize anyone - that's an ad hominem, and so forth.

That's a fair point too.  People do occasionally throw around the emote for hypothetical examples -- I've probably done it myself -- but by and large I think we're pretty good about pointing out fallacies WHEN APPROPRIATE.  (Well, except maybe that one guy.)

I think excessive accusations of logical fallacy probably fall under the "hairsplitting as a distraction technique" heading in my first post.

Thad makes sure to answer every Real World post PERSONALLY.

NO I DON'T

wait

DAMN

[Büge]

I've stopped using analogies because they're never right.