Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Moderators' position on strawman arguments.

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Awkward Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,414 ✭✭✭Awkward Badger


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Grammar Nazi is sometimes tolerable.

    I'd rather someone correct me on all intensive purposes. So I'd know to use intents and purposes. Than carry on years with an erroneous misconception. Often times it says more about the person offended at having their grammar corrected than it does the corrector. We all get stuff wrong all the time. If bluewolf hadn't corrected me there's a chance I'd still be carrying that misconception. Thanks to her, I have one less misconception.

    It's like everything really, there's a balance. Trolling becomes apparent through many factors. Excessive or unrelevant graammr nzing is unwell come.

    Correcting someone on a misconception is fair enough and I have even corrected people myself on occasion to be helpful but its rarely done to simply correct someone or be helpful from what I see. Its mostly done to laugh at or insult someone and be a dick. Even that "all intensive purposes" I seen recently in AH and it resulted in a lot of stuff dragging the thread off topic to laugh at and have a go at the person that posted it contributing absolutely nothing to anything.

    Keeping it to a rant or things that annoy you thread is fine. I understand how it annoys some people. But when it detracts from the discussion or topic at hand just to be a dick or nit pick at someone's spelling mistakes completely ignoring the topic of the thread I don't think it should be tolerated at all.

    I guess you're right in that there's a balance and everything is tolerated to some degree. Perhaps I'm more sensitive to it than others but it seems the vast majority of it is unrelevent to me yet its more well come than nonwell come.


  • #33
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    LoLth wrote: »
    thing about selective quoting is, the original post is there for everyone to see. Best defense is to call it out with the original quoted for comparison. if they continue, then it could be a case of trolling to get a reaction. Don't lose the head and just mark it down as the actions of a losing party.

    of course this is all very distracting from the real issue raised by the OP: my opinion? Worzel could totally take that wuss from Oz .

    Also, there are times when selective quoting is fine. If the argument is "If A then B and then C" if I can show "A is not true" then I don't need to quote the rest.


  • #34
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    nesf wrote: »
    Also, there are times when selective quoting is fine...
    I often edit quotes for brevity, and to sharpen the focus on the bit to which I am replying. I think that is proper practice.

    It is never my intention to distort or misrepresent the position of another person, and only rarely has anybody seemed to believe that I have done so (and, where it has happened, I have not agreed with the person making the accusation; but to get drawn into an argument about that is not likely to be productive, so I let such things go).


  • #35
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Indeed, often I'd quote the part of a post I don't agree with, often agree with the rest.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #36
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I'll just leave this here.

    x2014-07-09-Strawman.jpg.pagespeed.ic.Nd4DJHevzh.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    KahBoom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭KahBoom


    K-9 wrote: »
    That's all you can do, point out the strawman and the difference with what you initially said and see what they post. If they keep at it point it out and disengage!
    The trouble though, is that you can point it out (and with some posters, my entire reply is just repeatedly pointing out in detail how everything is one fallacious argument or other), but it's not going to stop such posters persisting, and tanking the quality of debate (and readership) of a thread - which again disrupts debate just as effectively (which I suspect is often the aim) and can block further discussion.

    Often the only choice is to just not discuss the topic at all (or not with that particular person/people) - which is 'mission accomplished', as far as people wanting to control the narrative of certain topics are concerned, because it allows them to both drown-out/muddy opposing views, and to promote their own without challenge.

    There are a handful of posters, who have this "argue exclusively in superficially-plausible fallacies" tactic honed quite well (to the point that it would probably not be possible, for mods to build a case against them), and when posters like that group in numbers, they can control/disrupt debate quite effectively.


  • #38
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'll just leave this here.

    x2014-07-09-Strawman.jpg.pagespeed.ic.Nd4DJHevzh.jpg

    Very good, The Scarecrow reminds me of keyboard warriors!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #39
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    K-9 wrote: »
    Very good, The Scarecrow reminds me of keyboard warriors!

    That's cos he's a man made of straw.:)

    Quoting selectively is fine as long as it represents what the poster is actually saying. Actually, it's preferred for brevity.


  • #40
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    KahBoom wrote: »
    The trouble though, is that you can point it out (and with some posters, my entire reply is just repeatedly pointing out in detail how everything is one fallacious argument or other), but it's not going to stop such posters persisting, and tanking the quality of debate (and readership) of a thread ..

    Just keep refuting their stuff. That's all you can do. Keep patient. Sucks, but that's humanity we're very stubborn creatures.

    Most threads only involve the same 5% of posters after a few pages anyway. I'd love to know what the reading statistics are. Say what you have to say then move on. (Obviously by this I don't in any way endorse or recommend drive by posting.)


  • #41
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    KahBoom wrote: »
    The trouble though, is that you can point it out (and with some posters, my entire reply is just repeatedly pointing out in detail how everything is one fallacious argument or other), but it's not going to stop such posters persisting, and tanking the quality of debate (and readership) of a thread - which again disrupts debate just as effectively (which I suspect is often the aim) and can block further discussion.

    Often the only choice is to just not discuss the topic at all (or not with that particular person/people) - which is 'mission accomplished', as far as people wanting to control the narrative of certain topics are concerned, because it allows them to both drown-out/muddy opposing views, and to promote their own without challenge.

    There are a handful of posters, who have this "argue exclusively in superficially-plausible fallacies" tactic honed quite well (to the point that it would probably not be possible, for mods to build a case against them), and when posters like that group in numbers, they can control/disrupt debate quite effectively.

    +1

    Thats seems the only point of this tactic, to close down discussion. As you say tanks/derails a thread usually.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Buona Fortuna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,507 ✭✭✭Buona Fortuna


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Just keep refuting their stuff. That's all you can do. Keep patient. Sucks, but that's humanity we're very stubborn creatures.

    Most threads only involve the same 5% of posters after a few pages anyway. I'd love to know what the reading statistics are. Say what you have to say then move on. (Obviously by this I don't in any way endorse or recommend drive by posting.)

    I'm probably guilty of that, I just find after about 100+ posts most of what's to be said has been or the threads just go a bit nutty. I'm talking about AH not any of the specialised forums.


Advertisement