|
twodot posted:I think there's a fundamental divide here: But like...the fact that you really, fervently believe you're right doesn't make you right. Or make your perspective the only possible one on an issue. What if you're the rear end in a top hat sometimes?
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Allowing other posters to believe lies? Use your words, sources, etc, and refute them? It's ok to debate and discuss in the D&D forum IMO.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
twodot posted:Uh, yeah, I'm coming out as anti-lies in the political forums. If being anti-lies is controversial we should have that fight here and now. you can engage lies, but assume that the poster in question believes those lies and can be talked out of believing them until it's clear that they can't. then if they keep going disengage and call in a mod. if someone isn't arguing in good faith 15 posters laying sick burns on them isn't going to make them shut up or change their mind. its just going to poo poo up the thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Use your words, sources, etc, and refute them? It's ok to debate and discuss in the D&D forum IMO. The whole point of arguing in bad faith is that the nominal thrust of the argument isn't actually the real goal. For example, engaging a red herring on facts is exactly the wrong thing to do. By all means have assuming good faith be the obligatory default, but there comes a point where calling the argument disingenuous is the only way forward. The idea that a board on the something awful forums should allow for no options besides taking posts at face value or reporting them and sitting on your hands is insane to me, to the point where I suspect one of us is misunderstanding the other. Not to mention you have to have plat to report anyone or send PMs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:you can engage lies, but assume that the poster in question believes those lies and can be talked out of believing them until it's clear that they can't. then if they keep going disengage and call in a mod. if someone isn't arguing in good faith 15 posters laying sick burns on them isn't going to make them shut up or change their mind. its just going to poo poo up the thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
I'm just really unconvinced there are actually tons of posters arguing in bad faith such that just assuming people believe what they say is a big problem. Whereas apparently twodot thinks there's a literal conspiracy of lieposters gaslighting the SA forums I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:I'm just really unconvinced there are actually tons of posters arguing in bad faith such that just assuming people believe what they say is a big problem. Whereas apparently twodot thinks there's a literal conspiracy of lieposters gaslighting the SA forums I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:I'm just really unconvinced there are actually tons of posters arguing in bad faith such that just assuming people believe what they say is a big problem. quote:By all means have assuming good faith be the obligatory default, but there comes a point where calling the argument disingenuous is the only way forward. The idea that a board on the something awful forums should allow for no options besides taking posts at face value or reporting them and sitting on your hands is insane to me, to the point where I suspect one of us is misunderstanding the other. Have you ever read the libertarian thread when there's a live one posting? Or basically any of the iterations of uspol or Trump thread? There's tons of people who may sincerely believe the conclusions they're supporting, but absolutely support them using dishonest arguments, who quietly pretend to have never made specific arguments, and repeatedly skip over posts they can't figure out how to counter. It's not subtle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
twodot posted:So you've abandoned the treat people in good faith principle then? No? Not sure where you're getting that. Your last post was literally theorycrafting about a team of people posting in bad faith spreading each other's lies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:No? Not sure where you're getting that. Your last post was literally theorycrafting about a team of people posting in bad faith spreading each other's lies. No it wasn't. He said nothing about cooperation or coordination.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:No it wasn't. He said nothing about cooperation or coordination. That's definately how I read it but I'll admit I was wrong if that's not what he means.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:33
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:No? Not sure where you're getting that. Your last post was literally theorycrafting about a team of people posting in bad faith spreading each other's lies. edit: If it's not clear here is the good faith way to do what you did: "It sounds to me you are concerned about a literal conspiracy of posters that I think doesn't exist and I'm not concerned about" After which I can clarify, but if you tell me and others what I think then my only response is "You're being an rear end in a top hat" twodot fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Apr 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
twodot posted:Would you consider putting words in people's mouth a rhetorical device that people us in bad faith or good faith? I think he just assumed "spreading each other's lies" to mean they were actually working together rather than just adopting any argument that gets a rise out of people, or one lifted from the same dumb RWM source.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:Would you consider putting words in people's mouth a rhetorical device that people us in bad faith or good faith? I'm not interested in entertaining this, especially right after you characterized my opinion in really uncharitable terms. If I misunderstood your hypothetical then I apologize.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:I think he just assumed "spreading each other's lies" to mean they were actually working together rather than just adopting any argument that gets a rise out of people, or one lifted from the same dumb RWM source. fool_of_sound posted:I'm not interested in entertaining this, especially right after you characterized my opinion in really uncharitable terms. If I misunderstood your hypothetical then I apologize. twodot fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Apr 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
twodot posted:I know that's very clearly what happened, but instead of replying in good faith, they decided to cram words in my mouth to make some half assed ad absurdum in the middle of a discussion of how to deal with people acting in bad faith. I replied in good faith to what I assumed was an ad absurdum from you buddy
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:41
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:The whole point of arguing in bad faith is that the nominal thrust of the argument isn't actually the real goal. For example, engaging a red herring on facts is exactly the wrong thing to do. I think it's ok to say "I don't see what X thing has to do with whatever we're talking about." or just "ok dude I don't see it that way but I don't want to spend 20 pages arguing about it either" if a person doesn't want to keep arguing with someone. It's not necessary to be undisputedly seen as right (I mean...when in the history of SA has a forum argument ended that way anyway?) or to have the last word. And if it's that important to you to be able to report or send PMs then give Lowtax that :tenbux:!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:43
|
|
|
You can also reply "I already responded to this and you're clearly not interested in having a discussion" but that should be the end of it, not a twenty page slap fight
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:I replied in good faith to what I assumed was an ad absurdum from you buddy fool_of_sound posted:Whereas apparently twodot thinks there's a literal conspiracy of lieposters gaslighting the SA forums I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:You can also reply "I already responded to this and you're clearly not interested in having a discussion" but that should be the end of it, not a twenty page slap fight Isn’t that just a parting shot? Either respond to the person directly, post your “correct” opinion on the topic without replying, or just ignore them. Nothing is gained when people just go “welp I’m not replying to you anymore.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
"Bad faith" doesn't mean "makes a poor, fallacious, or incorrect argument" twodot. It means "doesn't believe the argument being made". Despite your insistence I genuinely believed you were refering to a conspiracy, because of what blue footed boobie posted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Isn’t that just a parting shot? Potentially. A parting shot is "... I'm not replying anymore" at the end of a post with other content in an attempt to get the last word in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Isn’t that just a parting shot? I don't think there's a problem with saying 'yeah this isn't going anywhere nevermind' honestly, as long as it actually ends there
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
Basically my point isnt "assume incorrect and bad arguments are true". That's facially stupid. My point is "assume others are making their arguments sincerely and out of a desire for discussion, and are not maliciously misrepresenting things to win internet arguments". At least until it's pretty clear otherwise
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:"Bad faith" doesn't mean "makes a poor, fallacious, or incorrect argument" twodot. It means "doesn't believe the argument being made". Despite your insistence I genuinely believed you were refering to a conspiracy, because of what blue footed boobie posted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
OK well if you're going to continue to insist that after I explained myself and apologized am not interested in continuing this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:OK well if you're going to continue to insist that after I explained myself and apologized am not interested in continuing this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
twodot posted:Bad faith means you're making an argument for a purpose unrelated to the content of the argument. Not believing the content of the argument is one way to do that. You put forward an argument that I think there's a conspiracy, but not because you actually cared whether that argument was true. If you cared about the truth value of that argument, you would just ask me, because I'm a perfect oracle on what I think. I don't care to speculate what purpose you had in declaring to the world that you know what I think, but it couldn't have been because you thought other people needed to know what I think and you were the best person to do that. twodot posted:This is not a good faith argument. Even if you sincerely believe you know what I think, you telling me and others that you know what I think, apparently better than I do, because you felt a need to explain to me and others what I think instead of just letting us read my posts and come to our own conclusions is gaslighting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
Really don't think that D&D has a significant issue with people arguing in bad faith or trolling with intentionally bad data. It's that the range of acceptable views on any given topic is often extremely narrow such that when someone deviates even slightly from those views the belief is that person isn't genuine and/or is lying to make their point. Because if they were being truthful then they'd come to my conclusion, which is obviously right. There's no clean way to moderate that and think the mods are generally pretty good at taking a hands off approach.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Really don't think that D&D has a significant issue with people arguing in bad faith or trolling with intentionally bad data. It's that the range of acceptable views on any given topic is often extremely narrow such that when someone deviates even slightly from those views the belief is that person isn't genuine and/or is lying to make their point. Because if they were being truthful then they'd come to my conclusion, which is obviously right. There's no clean way to moderate that and think the mods are generally pretty good at taking a hands off approach. I think use of outright fake data and the like is rare, but there definitely is a lot of...half-conscious bad faith, I guess? Like, there's a lot of topics on D&D where people on both sides of the argument respond to strawmen rather than the actual opposing argument (although this is often because the actual points were already argued to an impasse several pages ago), and Blue Footed Booby is right that there are people who do the jrodenfeld thing of systematically responding to every opposing argument except the strongest ones. There's also the trick (common in the Venezuela thread, for instance) of bringing up a point that's already been argued against extensively if not outright refuted as though it's new; but in fast-moving megathreads where it's unreasonable to expect people to have read every previous post, people will often do this in good faith. I'm not sure what can be done about this, especially since I think almost all regular posters will ignore a strong opposing point occasionally. Longer probations for people who are really blatant about it, I guess? Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Apr 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
twodot posted:I put forward a definition of bad faith which includes the thing you did (and you haven't apologized for), either refute my definition, or explain why yours is better. It seems to me that his definition is closer to trolling, while yours is closer to rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:It seems to me that his definition is closer to trolling, while yours is closer to rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
Honestly, I think the best thing for this forum (and many other threads) is for non-mods to lose the assumption that they can suggest other users “stop posting”. I’ve been a villain in several threads (none in D&D), and I always shrug off multiple “shut up Craptacular go away and never return” because none of those people are mods and thus their complaints are toothless. But the effect of that sort of posting not only turns a discussion forum into a string of vendettas, and it’s probably worse for people who aren’t the target to read eight straight posts of STFU toward someone who is probably immune to it anyway. So basically, unless you’re a mod, stop telling people to stop posting. It does nothing and just makes the thread worse. Exit: I also want to suggest this may be a consequence of the report button being for platinum users only. As a result, people who can’t afford to call the mods to a problem post try to address it with mob justice. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Apr 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
i think assuming others are posting in good faith is a good rule for this friggin' thread!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 03:11
|
|
|
What if the other person just really fervently believes that black people are subhuman Does that make the debate worth having
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 06:56
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:What if the other person just really fervently believes that black people are subhuman it makes them worth banning permanently from the forum.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 07:00
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:it makes them worth banning permanently from the forum. I mean this in an actual non-snark fashion: Is being a racist actually against any rule beyond mod/admin judgement? There are rules against offensive terms and slurs but as far as I can tell, racism of the dog whistle variety is ...OK?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 07:12
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:I mean this in an actual non-snark fashion: Yeah I mean the rules pretty much say expect to get banned if you're a racist and post like one. quote:These forums are not a safe space for racists and idiots. If you want someplace to post about how much you hate [minority group X], perhaps you can try the rest of the internet. This rule is completely, 100% subjective and is based on the mod reading the post at the time. Use at your own peril.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 07:17
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yeah I mean the rules pretty much say expect to get banned if you're a racist and post like one. Interestingly, the GBS general forum rules (which you link) read slightly different than the forum rules page linked in the D&D rules thread. These rules seem somewhat outdated, sadly. Mind you, I dont see a lot of sunlight between "I think you are racist and should be banned" and "I think you are a lovely poster and should be banned" as a mod fiat, bit its nice to see an anti-chan stance has been codified.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 07:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
argueing in bad faith and trolling is good sometimes... just depends on the context. any rule set needs to account for the fact that
also the rule against threatening world leaders shouldn't just apply to colonialist states 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 10:35
|
|
