TGC Warning

KomradeBishop

Even though this is expired now (meant to follow it up after Feedback thread, but had forgotten about it), I'd like to appeal a warning I got on TGC.
Instead of making this thread originally, I created a Feedback thread asking for clarification on the site rule my warning is based on, which should probably be reviewed first:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057346330

I got lots of good feedback there from lots of mods, and even though I don't expect a different response here (but still think it's worth trying), it would still be good to get a CMod/admin view on this (especially as it would make 100% clear, the extent of that site rule).

My warning came down to judging a posters arguments as being dishonest - and this judgment was based on multiple encounters with the poster, going across a couple of different forums, over a number of months; the type of arguments and repeated use of the same fallacies, seemed to me - after a point - as something the poster could not reasonably be unaware of (of the arguments being fallacious), and so I thought it reasonable to point out that I thought that was dishonest.

This seems to be judged as breaking the site 'attack the post, not the poster' rule though - but (as is explained in the Feedback thread a bit), I don't think this should be seen as a breach of that, as pointing out the dishonesty in someones arguments should be allowed, as otherwise posters who routinely engage in dishonest argument, can be given a large advantage which allows them to skew the debate, without being called out on that, and in some cases can use such tactics to try and smear other posters too.

Note also, that - as described in the Feedback thread - simply ignoring such posters isn't always possible, as that also gives them the ability to heavily skew/control the debate.

I understand this is a pain for mods to deal with sometimes, but it's something that I view as requiring a tradeoff, between 'difficulty modding' vs 'letting debates be manipulated/controlled'.

Scofflaw

There are a number of interlocking issues here, which, to be honest, I don't propose to deal with at this time or in this forum. What I'll say about the specific case is that you had on this occasion overdone it to the extent deserving a warning, but that your concerns are noted, and in some senses shared.

From a practical standpoint, that's "warning upheld", though, and probably as far as this thread goes, unless you'd like to appeal that decision.

cordially,
Scofflaw

KomradeBishop

Okey, thanks for taking the time to look into that; I won't take it further so, it's good that the issue is recognized (got the impression from the Feedback thread, that there might not be allowances for this), and that - so long as I'm more careful in highlighting how something is dishonest - I 'should' be able to avoid overdoing it in the future.