NationStates Jolt Archive

or, How Not to Get Flamed

Purpose

The purpose of this guide is to provide a simple consolidated text guide to dodging some of the vicious arguements that often pop up on the UN, as well as avoiding mistakes that can get you into a position of dealing with hostile people who will do their best to destroy your proposal, and sometimes you in the process.

Creation Notes

This is a work in progress. The style of this guide is not going to change, as to be honest I find the colors of the others to be distracting and to detract from the seriousness of what they are saying. Plus, in some cases the color combinations can actually hurt the eyes of some people to look at them, depending on the person. As such, this will be in black and white. This means I will be using bolding for emphasis, so just look for the bolded items if you are looking for a certain part of this document.

Note that these items don't just come from newbies. These items even come from experienced forumgoers and regulars, and even I am used as a target in a few.

The following changes have been made since the first draft was written:

1) Frisbeeteria's editting idea (removing certain items from the creation notes).

2) Addition of notes on spelling and grammar, as well as a clarification. Suggested by multiple posters.

3) Two arguements, one about dealing with technology and one about leaving the UN.

4) Cobdenia's note about studies.

5) A note about sources, national issues, and the addition of numbers and four items to the Advice section.

Arguements

Some people may prefer "discussions" or "discussing" for this section, but the reality of it is that we are presenting arguements.

There are certain arguements that it is best to try to dodge. These will be discussed below.

1. Religion- Unless you are arguing about a religion possibly doing something to exploit a proposal, it is best to dodge this. Even better to dodge if it happens to be your personal beliefs, as it is not unusual on this forum for them to be attacked and assumed to be just your character's beliefs. The reason why this is best to dodge is, in spite of our efforts to protect religious freedoms, we really don't give religion any respect in arguements.

2. Morality- While more respectable, it still isn't given much respect by some of the more prevalent posters.

3. National Sovereignity- Some of us feel these arguements to be a result of ignorance of the rules, specifically the portion that states the UN may override your laws at any time. Others feel it an issue to be focused on. Don't use this in an arguement unless you are prepared for the possible repercussions.

4. Your nation's history- This is a sticky issue, as there are those who feel it unimportant. If you are presenting it, make it a point to try to have it have some relevance to the proposal or resolution at hand. If it's not a proposal or resolution this is being given in relation to, just don't post it on this forum.

5. Your nation's technology level- Unless it is relevant, don't use it. This is the most interesting one, as it has resulted in a variety of reactions, including unjustified accusations of techwank. Note that techwank is not an offense you can really commit outside of RPs, for a reason that will be explained in a following section.

6. Max Barry's book- Don't bother using this for justification of anything. Barry wrote a comedic parody to possibly make a point. The style used in the book is actually illegal for use in proposals according to the rules, and as such would get you kicked out of the UN if you actually stayed true to the book. If you are wanting to stick to a certain technology level, make it a point to just say so.

7. "But a passed resolution..."- If it's a rules violation, I don't give a damn. For example, the TPP itself is illegal under current rules in that it is staffed by nations. So are several resolutions currently passed. If you don't like it, tough.

8. "They're not a nice person, so they must be wrong."- I openly admit to being one of the biggest assholes on NS, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Just because a person isn't nice doesn't mean they don't have wisdom. Often, they're not nice because they deal with about a dozen proposals a day, in addition to whatever real-life stresses they have. Some of us that are the meanest are also the most helpful, depending on the topic.

9. "They used profanity, so they must be wrong."- Who really gives a fuck? Do you see the Disney Kids logo at the top of the site? No? Didn't think so. Or did you think that age requirement for the site was just because we might accidentally say "nipples" once in awhile? Despite whatever nation you may be from, this is a UK site, which means that cussing (note there is a huge difference between cussing, cursing, and swearing) is allowed if the moderators choose so. It doesn't make the arguement presented any less true just because it includes language you don't like. However, using profanity in proposals is still a bad idea, as it makes the proposals themselves look bad.

10. "Hah! He can't spell/write! What a loser! That's why he's wrong."- Wait, so he just wrote a fourteen page essay that disproves every last point of your arguement in ways that not even God can think around and all you can come up with is to call him on spelling or grammar? Seriously, unless it's a proposal, spelling and grammar are not that important as long as you can understand what they are saying. Hell, my own spelling isn't perfect. Basically, you should strive for people to understand what you are saying, not to be perfect in spelling and grammar. Having perfect spelling and grammar means nothing if people are unable to figure out what your point is. However, people still tend to respect those with more proper grammar and spelling over those without it. Nature of the beast. Finally, for the love of all that is blasphemous and damned, don't waste your time trying to correct someone who is using a legit spelling variation.

11. Your real-life experiences in a subject- This is an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. Plus, it opens up your comments for being flamed into oblivion, as you cannot actually prove you are who you are without multiple illegal actions over the internet. I don't care if you work as a doctor, with the California government, or in advertising. It all amounts to the same, and it all is asking for you to be flamed off the forum.

12. Ping-pong reply- This is a reference created by another player in reference to the style of arguements that split posts into multiple quotes and reply to each one, creating what becomes a long chain of posts with quotes and replies in them. This is not talking about the style of arguement, but those who argue against the style rather than reply to the actual arguements presented. Some of us do consider using the "ping-pong reply" to be a form of arguement dodging and trolling. If you use this, don't be surprised if you are flamed. If you don't like the style the other person is using, you can request that they don't use it or not use it yourself. And, no, this isn't targetting that particular player who coined the reference.

13. "You're a troll"- This is an attempt to illegitimize the opponent rather than their arguements, which is quite low. In some cases, this is actually justified to be used. Due to a recent moderator ruling by GMC (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423577), this is not a form of flaming and (due to a lack of clarification as to what it is) quite possibly not a rules violation at all.

14. Techwank reply- This is an attempt to illegitimize a player's arguements by targetting an example they have used, calling it techwank, instead of dealing with their actual arguements. Sometimes, this is even used in attacks against the player when they are not around to defend against it. If there is actual evidence to back this, it is a legit arguement, but often there is no evidence to back the use of it or the evidence is faulty.

15. "But I don't like/play/want to deal with that technology level!"- Then maybe you shouldn't have joined the UN. The UN is made up of a multitude of nations, which in turn are made up of multiple technology levels and types. While you may not like it, you still must deal with the fact your proposal about guns does affect that nation with the massive warships in orbit.

16. "I'll just leave the UN."- Bye. So long. And I hope you really hated that diplomat, as we just sent him down the express elevator and I doubt he's going to breathe again. Wait, one of the mutants in the basement just dragged him off. To be honest, no nation is important enough that them leaving is a real loss. The UN will always be outnumbered and have more enemies than are humanly possible. It's just the status quo.

17. Unrelated Links- This is a problem sometimes in an arguement, in that people post links unrelated to the arguement. Often, this is just a simple mistake resulting from having multiple screens open, such as accidentally posting a link about Catholicism on a topic about water. In other cases, this is part of a divurgent dialogue that has no place in the topic, such as an extended essay on why the sky is blue that includes 8-10 links backing it up on a topic about water conservation. In any case, this is something best avoided, as it distracts from the topic and can annoy the mods.

This list is subject to expand as time goes on.

Legitimate Arguements

These are various items used throughout N.S. that are not covered by other stickies.

Our example arguement- This is where a person uses their own nation as an example. Said example doesn't have to match the RP aspects of the nation, or even be anywhere close. Some uses of this lead to the techwank reply, but that is easy to deal with. It is this reason as to why techwank really can't be committed outside of RPs, as you could just be using a theoretical example instead of how your nation really is instead of intending what you post to become the facts of your nation.

M.O.S.S. reply- This is where the proposal is called a M.O.S.S. Proposal, meaning the text of it was not posted on the forum. M.O.S.S. stands for Moo Oink Squee Squee, the text of an actual proposal in the past. It's merely used to ask a person to post the text of their proposal on this forum. There are several variations of this.

Hypocrite reply- This is one that is iffy on its placement here instead of in the preceeding section, and may be moved to that section at a later time. This is used to point out that a person has contradicted themselves, either in actions or words, during the arguement. This can result in flame wars, so it should be used sparingly and with evidence of the contradiction.

Real-world phenomena- These are only arguably legitimate. If they are relevant to the discussion, are from a credible source, are not a study, and help prove a point, then they are legitimate. If they are a study, such as about global warming, then the rule of studies comes into play. Namely, take it with a planet made of salt. This is a sticky issue that can easily go either way and should be judged based on the arguement.

"Not an international issue."- Yes, this is perfectly legitimate. Not all items are actually worthy of the UN's attention. A resolution about stopsign shapes, for example, is a perfect national issue while have no real worth as a UN resolution.

Source bias- Also perfectly legit, this is an arguement that calls a source biased and then provides a reason as to why. Source bias is very important in that it can make or break your entire arguement, either giving you an edge or utterly destroying you. If a source is biased, the information it presents cannot be trusted to be accurate or even the truth. An example of this are studies showing cigarettes to be healthy that were paid for by the cigarette companies.

This, too, will likely be added on to.

Advice

1. The advice for dodging flame wars is simple: Try to research what you are saying, try to have your information correct, and admit it when you are wrong or disproven. Other than that, try to be nice from time to time and read the other items you are advised to read.

2. When dealing with this thread, note that the explanations are simplified. They give you the basics of the information. In many cases, the reality is actually quite a bit more complex than this thread makes it out to be. The shortness of information is due to the vast amount of information involved. If you wish to find out the complexities, don't be afraid to let others make the mistakes first and learn from them.

3. There are far more arguements than this thread covers. It is best to deal with those on an individual basis, with the possibility of them being added to this for classification.

4. It is possible to give too much information. If someone asks about what the TPP is, a simple answer that points them to the resolutions or that explains it in a couple of sentences is prefered. Giving them a college-level essay on the history of the TPP, its cases, the challenges to it, and an analysis of every decision and action it has taken is definitely too much information.

Okay, anyone have any additions?

Note that items are not likely to get removed, and I have saved a copy in case it is editted. Rewordings are okay.

Not meaning to be finicky, but it's spelt 'argument', not arguement, unless that's an Americanism.

The last time I checked, it was a British variant spelling that caught on and may replace the primary spelling.

Greetings.

We note that there was a piece of advice one given by the ancient and venerable members of the NSUN, in which it was advised that a means of spell-checking be used by posters.

We ourselves employ thaumaturges to check spells for flaws as consequences can be fatal or embarrassing. We suggest other posters (especially those with long spells in verbal form) do likewise.

The last time I checked, it was a British variant spelling that caught on and may replace the primary spelling.

Plus this is a .uk domain, and thus it could be argued (easily) that English spellings are just as valid (or more valid) than Americanisms.

Plus this is a .uk domain, and thus it could be argued (easily) that English spellings are just as valid (or more valid) than Americanisms.

There we go again, with the spelling nazi's attempting to wank on spelling issues (which are valid anyways) by pitting British vs. American spellings.

To all:
UK and US work usage and spelling vary. If you see what you think may be a minor spelling error, it is better to check with the Google lords, before posting the error. Arguement, Privitise, and Theatre are just as valid as Argument, Privitize and Theater.... both are official proper spellings of those words, dependant on the varying ENGLISH STANDARDS (UK or US). Overall, the only propriety is to stick to the same standard throughout the text.... But please avoid the "US Spelling Nazi" errors, and "UK Spelling Nazi" errors, of trying to present the other as "incorrect".

Greetings.

We of Roathin realize (realise?) that the spelling and grammatical conventions of this august assembly are unusual to say the least. We remember that in 7500 Druidic or so, some centuries ago, we met a bard of Afon who told us that he wrote and staged plays for the Globe Theater. He also quoted to us a line of his work, containing the phrase, "The most unkindest cut of all."

We realise (realize?) that scant decades after that bard had shuffled off his mortal coil, the Gallicist phenomenon afflicted his home country, transforming 'color' to 'colour' and 'favor' to 'favour' and 'maneuver' to 'manoeuvre'. And of course, 'theater' to 'theatre'. Unusual and contortionate Latinate and Achaean processes were then applied to his language, resulting in rules for -ise and -ize (respectively) and other strange things. Double superlatives (as used in the previous paragraph) were outlawed.

We have therefore resolved (not Resolved, which would be NSUN prerogative) that we should favour (favor?) neither (even this, pronounced two ways) of the major trends. We are currently analysing (not -lyzing, surely) Esperanto. The name means 'language of hope'. We hope.

Although it makes for great Theatre, I'm certain DLE didn't post this so that we could have an argument over the proper spelling of arguement. The guide itself is helpful and I'm sure will be of use to new members.

ooc: I only posted the original message 'cos I thought that 'arguement' might constitute a spelling mistake. Is that how you spell it in the US? Fine, no probs. I wasn't aware of this, sorry. Tekania, you've created an argu(e)ment out of nothing!

Roathin, that was grand.

So, does anyone have any ideas on what to add?

In a post subtitled, "How Not to Get Flamed", I'd probably take out the sections flaming a particular poster for his choice of colors. Use black and white if you want, but there is no need to be obnoxious about it. You could always drop a telegram to the offender with your opinion if you really had any interest in being polite. I prefer navy for headlines myself, as it breaks up the monotony while maintaining readability.

From the reaction, perhaps it would be useful to include "spelling' in the do-not-use section. It could fit in easily after the "profanity" paragraph: "The above (or "the preceding") applies also to typos, mis-spellings and grammatical errors. An argument is no less cogent because it is not elegant."

I guess it's really an ad hominem, along the lines of, "You cannot spell, therefore you are dumb, therefore your argument is wrong."

(All the same, I can't help but feel that anyone who misuses apostrophes should be fed to Cthulu.)

From the reaction, perhaps it would be useful to include "spelling' in the do-not-use section. It could fit in easily after the "profanity" paragraph: "The above (or "the preceding") applies also to typos, mis-spellings and grammatical errors. An argument is no less cogent because it is not elegant."

I guess it's really an ad hominem, along the lines of, "You cannot spell, therefore you are dumb, therefore your argument is wrong."

(All the same, I can't help but feel that anyone who misuses apostrophes should be fed to Cthulu.)
Greetings.

We would respectfully have to disagree. A misspelled argument can indeed be less cogent simply because the word(s) misspelled might alter the nature of the argument. Consider the difference between singing and singeing. The fact is that if the final resolution has a typo and the meaning is rendered ambiguous or incorrect, the uncorrected resolution has full force of law regardless of the typographical error.

Lastly, consider this sentence: "The state should build a monument for it's dead." It is very different from the probably correct version obtained by removal of the apostrophe.

In conclusion, we believe it is our duty to take resolution writers to task for misspellings and typos so that the final text is one in which the wording is exact enough for full acceptance or rejection without disputing the words themselves (as opposed to the argument they are intended to carry).

Misspellings in proposals: should be avoided at all costs - that's why there are spell checkers, and proof-readers.
Misspellings in posts: fine in most cases. I personally try to correct my own typos, but harassing someone on the basis of spelling alone shouldn't be on.

Thanks for the clarification, Roathin and Enn. I agree that resolutions should be as near as possible to word-perfect, for the reasons Roathin has given. However, like Enn, I feel that mis-spellings in posts should be politely ignored, provided that the poster's argument is clear.

I assumed that DLE's paragraph about profanity was referring to posts, not to resolutions. I don't think profanity would be appropriate in the body of a resolution, but it would be reasonable in a post, if that's the way you argue.

Speaking of "the way you argue", welcome, very welcome, Roathin. That's some damn fine prose there. I'd even stretch to "elegant".

There we go again, with the spelling nazi's attempting to wank on spelling issues (which are valid anyways) by pitting British vs. American spellings.

To all:
UK and US work usage and spelling vary. If you see what you think may be a minor spelling error, it is better to check with the Google lords, before posting the error. Arguement, Privitise, and Theatre are just as valid as Argument, Privitize and Theater.... both are official proper spellings of those words, dependant on the varying ENGLISH STANDARDS (UK or US). Overall, the only propriety is to stick to the same standard throughout the text.... But please avoid the "US Spelling Nazi" errors, and "UK Spelling Nazi" errors, of trying to present the other as "incorrect".

Just to clarify - I was not seeking to establish one method of spelling as better than the other - I was simply trying to establish that both are as valid as one another.

I was not arguing that one is better than the other, simply that there are good justifications for using both in Nationstates.

Just to clarify - I was not seeking to establish one method of spelling as better than the other - I was simply trying to establish that both are as valid as one another.

I was not arguing that one is better than the other, simply that there are good justifications for using both in Nationstates.

I wasn't arguing with you, I was agreeing with you.... The FYI was to all.

Okay, I've added in a section on spelling/grammar and a clarification of the one on profanity.

Okay, I've added in a section on spelling/grammar and a clarification of the one on profanity.

Dat's poifekt. Ta muchly, DLE.

So, any other additions to be made?

I'm not certain, but shouldn't there be something about "RL studies" type arguments ("A study at the Footlights College, Oxbridge, shewed that global warming is indeed caused by loudmouth Norwegian politicians", to use a made up example), not just because of the fact that such a study doesn't apply to NS, but also because they tend to be a bit dodgy anyway.

Another one (which I have experience of) is derived from the spelling problem, which is variation of terminology between (especially) the UK and US; for example, a lot of people critiqued "Defining Diplomatic Immunity" because I said "Drink Driving", which is the term used in the UK for DWI, instead of "Drunk Driving".

Anyway, so far I'm only guilty of one infraction of those

I added something that helps deal with it.

Perfect.

Bump.

Oh, and is the Cobdenia speciality "This is not an issue that transcends national boundaries" legit?

While I get the idea of "arguments to avoid", I really don't see the point unless you're telling us why to dodge them. For example, the religion and morality issues, you say, are to be avoided simply because nations don't give them respect. However, many nations have a solid reason behind not giving them any respect, whether it be a cold adherence to logic or a long chain of stupid religious-based resolutions. I myself am under the impression that religiously based arguments could be presented, provided that they are not the kind that stupidly infringe or discriminate upon other peoples beliefs and moralities. Admittedly, I've yet to see this kind of intelligence occur, but still, the "just don't" wording seems like cutting a good debate completely out of the U.N.

You might want to try linking to the Logical Fallacy "Ad Hominem Abusive" if you're looking at the "He eats puppies, so he must be wrong" style arguments. There's a couple of pages out there that give really concise definitions of why it's such a dumb thing to do.

Please excuse my response time. It was due to distractions.

Cobdenia, I would say so. That's not one I have addressed as of yet due to my feeling that it is a rules issue, but I may add it in the future.

The Pojonian Puppet- My goal with this right now is to present a simple and easy to understand guide that gets the situation across without going into complexities. Many of the complexities themselves would double or triple the current length of the document. However, in the future, I may add the complexities, so at this point I am not ruling them out of being included.

Edit: Quite a few items added in now.

I am bumping this because there are a lot of people who, it appears, need help on this issue.

here is a link to a site that list many of the logial fallacies
Logical Fallacies (http://www.bcskeptics.info/resources/criticalthinking/fallacies.html)
its interesting and may help people make better arguments.

Originally posted by DemonLordEnigma ;
Some of us do consider using the "ping-pong reply" to be a form of arguement dodging and trolling.

If this is considered bad form, then I plead guilty. I'd just like a clarification of why it is considered to be "trolling". I have used this tactic before, with no malign intent, but merely to rely to specific points in a previous post. If the counter-arguments are valid (or at least civil), what is the problem?

If this is considered bad form, then I plead guilty. I'd just like a clarification of why it is considered to be "trolling". I have used this tactic before, with no malign intent, but merely to rely to specific points in a previous post. If the counter-arguments are valid (or at least civil), what is the problem?

You're unlikely to get a response from the author of this guide on this matter.

You might bear in mind as well that when I last asked about this guide, the ensuing bitchfest had to be locked. This is highly contentious, and shouldn't be seen as an authoritative guide, or one that is approved of by the majority of UN members. It is, as one person put it, largely DLE's personal opinions on everything. As such, you don't necessarily have to believe every word.

For example, in one section, she suggests that a [then] recent GMC ruling had made calling someone a troll not actionable as a flame. This 'ruling' was in fact a request for DLE to stop being so pedantic: she suggested that accusing someone falsely of being a troll was a flame. This, thus, shouldn't be seen as some general guiding light for UN representative, but rather a little bit of petty sniping.

As for the section you refer to, as so often it does, DLE's prose rather defeats me. Suffice it to say that the ping-pong argument is not - that I have ever really seen - considered trolling by the vast majority of UN members. (Whether this thread itself is is quite another matter.)