Attack the post, not the poster

KomradeBishop

Not certain whether this better fits Help Desk or here, so feel free to move.


When debating on some topics, every now and then you come across a poster who will regularly use straw-men and other deceptive types of argument, and will often avoid dealing with the actual arguments you have made - but will be persistent in misrepresenting your posts, to take pot-shots/point-score, and to smear, in a way that is subtle enough to require responding, to debunk those arguments.

Sometimes this is so blatant and frequent, that it seems completely deliberate (but unfortunately, this is the kind of borderline behaviour that moderators can't do anything about - it's not actionable) - i.e. it becomes clear over time that the poster is deliberately making fallacious/deceptive/smearing arguments, that they are being dishonest.

So, my question is: Does pointing out that the poster is being dishonest, and regularly uses dishonest methods of argument, count as a warnable/infractionable offence, as attacking the poster?


If it does, then this creates a bit of an imbalance/problem: It means that posters who engage in these kinds of dishonest tactics, can successfully smear you, and you aren't really able to point out the dishonesty of their tactics.

You can debunk their points, sure, but these are the kinds of posters who just ignore logical argument, and proceed to continue with the same deceptive/smearing tactics (and the rebuttals will be so tedious, that other posters generally won't bother reading them - slinging mud like this, sticks) - so you can't really do anything to prevent them successfully changing other posters perceptions, unless you can point out the dishonesty behind it (and it also means, they can successfully bait other posters into mod action, at times).

I get into heated debates a lot on Boards - just the type of topics I'm interested in, tend to attract posters who are like that - so it's something I come across every now and then.

One eyed Jack

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Not certain whether this better fits Help Desk or here, so feel free to move.


When debating on some topics, every now and then you come across a poster who will regularly use straw-men and other deceptive types of argument, and will often avoid dealing with the actual arguments you have made - but will be persistent in misrepresenting your posts, to take pot-shots/point-score, and to smear, in a way that is subtle enough to require responding, to debunk those arguments.

...


I get into heated debates a lot on Boards - just the type of topics I'm interested in, tend to attract posters who are like that - so it's something I come across every now and then.

Surely that's your own responsibility though?

You're not required by any unwritten rule to respond to posts, and you're not required to get into heated debates?

Cookie_Monster

just report the post highlight what the poster is doing and how you think it's outside the rules even it if isn't as such on first view. Mods can then look at it in context and deal with it.

KomradeBishop

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Surely that's your own responsibility though?

You're not required by any unwritten rule to respond to posts, and you're not required to get into heated debates?

Some debates just tend to be heated - a lot of the topics I gravitate to, are ones where I can see there is a lot of controversy, and especially where I can start to see frequently repeated fallacies/flaws in some posters arguments (and most especially of all: where I can start to see a deliberate pattern of fallacious/deceptive arguments, pushing a particular agenda; I always try to contest that) - it's a good exercise in critical thinking, and a good way to learn about those controversial topics.

I've learned quite a lot about some topics, at a very deep level, just by debunking stuff following the above pattern. It'd be a loss to just avoid such topics (though granted, posters who use fallacies as a 'how-to-argue' guide, end up blocking meaningful debate, after a point).

Anyway - the OP is more about figuring out what Boards stance is, on how the 'attack the post, not the poster' rule is applied, in the circumstances I describe.

KomradeBishop

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

just report the post highlight what the poster is doing and how you think it's outside the rules even it if isn't as such on first view. Mods can then look at it in context and deal with it.

Lately I usually do - thing is though, that it's usually borderline stuff that isn't actionable by mods; to be honest, I'm not sure sometimes, whether reporting borderline stuff makes me look disruptive, rather than the person I'm highlighting/reporting.

Ruu

I can't speak for other mods but if a pattern emerges from a particular user then it will be usually looked into. If someone has been posting for a while to stay just below the radar, report and state the issue. We have ways of watching users.

endacl

Ruu wrote: »

We have ways of watching users.

:eek: *hides under duvet*

osarusan

Ruu wrote: »

We have ways of watching users.

This reads as 've have vays of vatching users' in my head.

I actually started a thread on strawman arguments a few months ago in this forum, but it seemed to be fairly low down the list of moderators were watching out for.

One of the reasons given in that thread is that it's not always easy to know whether or not somebody is misrepresenting you or just misunderstanding you - not matter how much you might think it is blatantly the former.

To answer your question somewhat: I've accused people of making strawman arguments many many times, and never heard anything from the moderators for doing so.

Taltos

Just report such posts. Replying to them only serves to feed these guys (best case) and worst case if heated enough could result in you unwittingly crossing a line yourself and earning a mod action. As you said where borderline it is more difficult to deal with, but just starve them of attention (like we already do with trolls) and where a pattern emerges of someone continually trying to play the rules let the mods of the particular forum deal with them.

Nody

Ruu wrote: »

I can't speak for other mods but if a pattern emerges from a particular user then it will be usually looked into. If someone has been posting for a while to stay just below the radar, report and state the issue. We have ways of watching users.

Duh; now you tipped them of our secret squirrel watchers... Well at least they don't know about our robot flies!

But yes reiterate Bishop report it and include a few examples going back if possible (esp. if you don't but head on a daily basis) as it will speed up seeing the pattern (or if we think there's a pattern) and as alternative solution simply put said user on ignore. It's not perfect but if you're sure they are out to strawman you all the time having them on ignore will remove the initial rush to respond as you can't see it.

Chips Lovell

I'd agree with Ruu. If you think someone is sailing close to the wind, report the posts and this will help the mods see a pattern emerge.

Having said that, I think something a lot of us don't do (myself included) is to realise when its time to let your opponent's posts just stand on their own merit rather than trying to counter or debunk everyone of them. If they really are fallacious or dishonest, it ought to be apparent to most reasonable readers.

KomradeBishop

Thanks for the replies all - lots of useful/interesting input - though would be good to get an answer to the main question in the OP (the thread was started more about that, than about borderline/dishonest debating tactics - though that's a good discussion too):
Does calling out someones arguments (and thus them) as dishonest, cross the line into a warnable/infractionable offence?


On the idea of just ignoring such posts: Trouble then is, you don't starve them of attention, you just hand them control of the narrative on a topic (especially if they post in numbers) - they get to frame the entire debate.
On economic topics in particular, this happens a lot (not as bad now as it used to be mind), and it's not uncommon to see multiple posters on one 'side' of the debate, circle wagons around the poster who straw-mans and slings-mud all the time; so they would actually be preventing a useful debate from happening, and controlling the narrative of the topic.

Usually, the deceptive/dishonest nature of their arguments, is only actually obvious, if you do reply to and tackle them (especially if it's a topic complicated enough, that the flaws in argument only become apparent if pointed out).

Pawwed Rig

In this case I thought you crossed the line from attacking the post to attacking the poster. When you are calling a posters arguments dishonest repeatedly it might be better just to put them on ignore as they are obviously winding you up.

gozunda

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

In this case I thought you crossed the line from attacking the post to attacking the poster. When you are calling a posters arguments dishonest repeatedly it might be better just to put them on ignore as they are obviously winding you up.

^^^^ This - tell them know you're not going to respond any further and that you are putting them on your ignore list. Seems to work fairly well imo. They will probably continue to sound off for a couple of posts but will look increasingly like complete ejjits spouting to themselves.

I would agree however that there are a small number posters who specialise in passive aggressive posting that do not get actioned on. It appears to be a grey area at best

Saipanne

I usually try not to engage with such posters, as the more I entangle with them, the more trouble I get into, which is exactly what they want. The ignore button is more useful than the report button, I find.

KomradeBishop

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

In this case I thought you crossed the line from attacking the post to attacking the poster. When you are calling a posters arguments dishonest repeatedly it might be better just to put them on ignore as they are obviously winding you up.

It's not that simple though, because simply ignoring some of this style of posting, leads to the entire narrative of the debate being controlled - you just hand posters who use this style of dishonest argument, complete control over the narrative of the debate, and they can successfully engage in soapboxing (in a way that is unactionable by mods, as nobody would be challenging them) by just driving away other opinions using dishonest argument, when people can't call them out on that.

For many economic topics, this is pretty much exactly what happens; that's why, as a topic, it is so heavily filled with unpleasant/condescending type replies (those posters, are typically trying to either control the narrative of the debate by being unpleasant, or trying to completely shut-down discussion of some things anathema to their views - and they're very successful at the latter in particular).

It's an effective way (extremely so, when done in numbers) of controlling-debate/propagandizing a discussion on a forum, so by actioning posters who call out the dishonesty in such debates (saying they should just put people on ignore), that actually enables soapboxing.


So, that's why I think it's important to be able to pan a posters arguments as dishonest, without that being considered crossing over into something that's warnable/infractionable - though would be good hear a more official Boards-wide view, on whether pointing out dishonesty like this, can cross the line.

KomradeBishop

Saipanne wrote: »

I usually try not to engage with such posters, as the more I entangle with them, the more trouble I get into, which is exactly what they want. The ignore button is more useful than the report button, I find.

Ya that's true - and when you combine that with what I explain above, how ignoring isn't really practical unless you want certain debates/discussions to be off-limits or heavily-controlled by dishonest posters, then that makes for a big problem where the cards are actually stacked against posters, that prevent debates from being controlled like that.

Chips Lovell

What I'm suggesting is not ignore people completely but knowing where the point of diminishing return is and pulling the plug at that point. You're not conceding the pitch if you've already gotten in there and made your points.

I think lots of us have a concern that if we don't keep arguing around in circles, we're effectively getting shouted down. That's rarely the case. Some of the most effective and persuasive posters are those who can state their position in a few posts and not get sucked into petty tit-for-tat arguments.

Finally, there is an element of "be careful what you wish for here". If you're looking for a clampdown on disruptive or cynical debating tactics, you should expect to be held to similar standards.

One man's quip is another man's snide remark. Or one man's reasoned response is another man's soapboxing wall of text etc.

Turtwig

Saying a poster is dishonest is almost always not acceptable.

Saying their post isn't accurate - and showing how - is what everyone reading the discussion wants to see.

So I'm going to "attack" the poster for a moment. All too often Komrade you just accuse someone of a fallacious post, dishonestry, strawmen but never actually illuminate why it's a strawmen. I understand this takes time to do and it's often a waste but then the obvious question is why post at all?

e.g
<Posters creates a lengthy reply to someone's else post.>
<Another poster chimes in with a blunt reply like the following:
e.g "bs!"
"That's a strawman"
"<insert logical fallacy here>

This isn't conducive to a discussions. Posters need to explain why they disagree with something, even if it obvious to them because nothing is ever obvious to others. (If it was why would you be discussing it? )

KomradeBishop

Hmm, I nearly always do show how something is a straw-man or fallacious? All it takes is to quote my original post, showing the part someone is replying to, and how their reply is attacking something I did not say.

For example, the all too common 'Socialist/Communist' straw-man, which my username is a pisstake of:
A: Advocate government spending/regulation in some area.
B: That's socialist/communist - you don't want us to become like North Korea, do you?
A: That's a strawman, I didn't argue for Communism or to become like North Korea.

Many fallacies just require a short description as well - i.e. pointing out a generalization someone is making, doesn't really need any more explanation.

It's the first time it's been said to me, that I haven't explained how something is a fallacy I don't recall anyone ever stating that to me, or asking for clarification on how something is a fallacy, before.

When it comes to pointing out something as dishonest, it's usually when a pattern becomes very well established from a particular poster - I'd argue that it's a legitimate criticism of someones post.

Pawwed Rig

"KomradeBishop wrote:

When it comes to pointing out something as dishonest, it's usually when a pattern becomes very well established from a particular poster - I'd argue that it's a legitimate criticism of someones post.

A pattern that you have observed across multiple fora. You cannot expect a mod to monitor your posts and replies across the site as closely as you do yourself so I reiterate that you should use the ignore function where possible.

reprise

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

A pattern that you have observed across multiple fora. You cannot expect a mod to monitor your posts and replies across the site as closely as you do yourself so I reiterate that you should use the ignore function where possible.

He already addressed the fatal flaw in this approach (below). What you are advocating may well be practical (for mods), however it plays right into the hands of the more pernicious, rule lawyering troll and fellow antagonistic bullies who, ironically, rarely ignore and are often dab hands at using the report function and posting merrily away themselves, maliciously, as per KomradeBishop's original post.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

On the idea of just ignoring such posts: Trouble then is, you don't starve them of attention, you just hand them control of the narrative on a topic (especially if they post in numbers) - they get to frame the entire debate.

KomradeBishop

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

A pattern that you have observed across multiple fora. You cannot expect a mod to monitor your posts and replies across the site as closely as you do yourself so I reiterate that you should use the ignore function where possible.

That's true alright; while I think the ignore approach is counterproductive (as explained earlier), I wouldn't expect mods to be aware of stuff I've seen, across multiple forums.

padd b1975

KomradeBishop wrote: »

When debating on some topics, every now and then you come across a poster who will regularly use straw-men and other deceptive types of argument, and will often avoid dealing with the actual arguments you have made - but will be persistent in misrepresenting your posts, to take pot-shots/point-score, and to smear, in a way that is subtle enough to require responding, to debunk those arguments.

Sometimes this is so blatant and frequent, that it seems completely deliberate (but unfortunately, this is the kind of borderline behaviour that moderators can't do anything about - it's not actionable) - i.e. it becomes clear over time that the poster is deliberately making fallacious/deceptive/smearing arguments, that they are being dishonest.

Just report Nodin's posts and let the mods sort it out:cool:

KomradeBishop

padd b1975 wrote: »

Just report Nodin's posts and let the mods sort it out:cool:

Ah - even though I only tend to meet Nodin in Israel vs Palestine threads - surely you mean his opponents posts

K-9

Empty vessels make the most noise.

The only thing I'll say is, joining in with the personal stuff or replying in kind does no favours and it becomes harder to mod.

reprise

Noting the above, I'd like to think that the moderators are paying attention to individuals who are clearly overrepresented in the leagues of reporting posts.

The report function is wide open to abuse by those with the greatest compulsion to use it maliciously and ever more so when mods (understandably), freely admit they are not fully reading threads.

To a rule lawyering troll, it must be absolutely irresistible.

Pawwed Rig

People do not tend to abuse the reported post function in my experience.

A poster who is reported alot will be known to the mods.

Taltos

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

People do not tend to abuse the reported post function in my experience.

A poster who is reported alot will be known to the mods.

I think I can only quote on one finger my experiences of a poster abusing the report function. One of the other mods had a quiet word with them and at the end of the day they removed themselves from posting in that forum, just a case of a bad match - poster to forum mechanics at play.

reprise

Thanks for the responses mods.

I would like to know if the moderators of the more controversial and voluminous fora would concur with your experiences.

I still think its a little too easy for malevolent cranks to go around, individually and collectively, baiting, smearing, misrepresenting, bullying and harassing, arguably within the rules and present themselves as the moderators friend or at least, brothers in arms, to slither under the radar.

KomradeBishop and myself are not lone voices. I am seeing more and more frustrated and angry posters directly refer to this activity on threads at risk to their posting rights whilst the targeting posters slap each other on the back.

Abuse of the thanks button, as a beacon for targeting abuse, being another topic altogether.

Shabra

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Thanks for the replies all - lots of useful/interesting input - though would be good to get an answer to the main question in the OP (the thread was started more about that, than about borderline/dishonest debating tactics - though that's a good discussion too):
Does calling out someones arguments (and thus them) as dishonest, cross the line into a warnable/infractionable offence?


On the idea of just ignoring such posts: Trouble then is, you don't starve them of attention, you just hand them control of the narrative on a topic (especially if they post in numbers) - they get to frame the entire debate.
On economic topics in particular, this happens a lot (not as bad now as it used to be mind), and it's not uncommon to see multiple posters on one 'side' of the debate, circle wagons around the poster who straw-mans and slings-mud all the time; so they would actually be preventing a useful debate from happening, and controlling the narrative of the topic.

Usually, the deceptive/dishonest nature of their arguments, is only actually obvious, if you do reply to and tackle them (especially if it's a topic complicated enough, that the flaws in argument only become apparent if pointed out).

Do you consider the possibility that you could be misunderstanding other users' posts and that you are incorrectly assuming that they are using "dishonest tactics"?