NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7858982&postcount=22

Rather than attacking the arguements, he decided to go for the author.

My favorite quote:

I suggest you stop asserting its failure and start learning your head from your butt

Pretty much nothing else he states actually attacks the arguement I made. He's instead attempting to discredit the author. I decided I would rather deal with this now instead of waiting until he had a few more posts.

I normally don't mind it, but this one went a little too far for my tastes.

Your own side of the debate is not completely polite and civil, either. I suggest the both of you work on that problem.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Slightly unexpected, but not totally.

I thank you for your effort in this.

Your own side of the debate is not completely polite and civil, either. I suggest the both of you work on that problem.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

If it matters, I've had nothing but the greatest respect for the Powerhungry Chipmunks. He / she has been a positive influence on UN newbies, and I also agree that his / her experience in telegramming and drafting and passing multiple UN resolutions (a very difficult task) is a valuable experience. I think a player can and should be encouraged to talk about the value of their game experiences.

It looks to me as if he / she was put on the defensive after basically being double teamed. :(

If it matters, I've had nothing but the greatest respect for the Powerhungry Chipmunks. He / she has been a positive influence on UN newbies, and I also agree that his / her experience in telegramming and drafting and passing multiple UN resolutions (a very difficult task) is a valuable experience. I think a player can and should be encouraged to talk about the value of their game experiences.

But how does experience help answer the challenges of others? There is a place for it, but using it as your primary defense is not such a case.

It looks to me as if he / she was put on the defensive after basically being double teamed. :(

There is defensive, and there is insulting.

There is defensive, and there is insulting.

(Are you DemonLordEnigma's puppet? And yes, I suspect you are, though I hope I'm wrong.)

That is your opinion.

I happen to agree with Cog in that I found DemonLordEnigma's posts in that thread to be equally rude.

My posts were rude. And I accept the warning that came because it was my actions that earned it. If I'm going to be an ass, at least I can be an honorable one. Cog has never ruled unfairly in my experience.

It wasn't until PC stated "I suggest you stop asserting its failure and start learning your head from your butt" that I decided he has gone too far for what even I am willing to do at my evillest. No excuse can justify that.

Anything posted here in green italics is spoken unofficially and not in the capacity of NationStates Moderator.

I think a player can and should be encouraged to talk about the value of their game experiences.
The validity of an argument in deductive logic does not depend upon the character qualities of whoever is arguing for or against (unless the validity of the premises depends upon said character qualities). To claim otherwise constitutes an ad hominem fallacy and should left out of logical debate.

Once a set of premises is commonly accepted as true, it doesn't matter who you are or what your experience is as long as you can logically connect one argument to the next.

Ad hominem attacks are not per se violations of NationStates rules. However, they could easily qualify as flamebait, which is a violation of NationStates rules.

My posts were rude. And I accept the warning that came because it was my actions that earned it.
Neither you nor Powerhungry Chipmunks got an official warning; I'm feeling lenient, today. The both of you can consider yourselves lucky.

If it were an official warning, then I would've put it in red bold with your name on it. At least, that's what I do; other Moderators have different practices.

I have been told by other Moderators that NationStates players are not necessarily required to show each other respect. However, I will unofficially point out that being respectful towards those with whom you're debating goes a long way towards preventing problems of this kind. Patience also helps (though I will admit that it can be hard to maintain, even for myself).

As an example (and forgive me if I sound condescending by providing an example): Instead of saying "Congrats for providing an arguement that disproves yours and shoots down the entirety of your repeal attempt", say "Your argument here seems to contradict what you're trying to accomplish because [reason 1], [reason 2], and [reason 3]."

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

I thank you for correcting my errors.

Anything posted here in green italics is spoken unofficially and not in the capacity of NationStates Moderator.

The validity of an argument in deductive logic does not depend upon the character qualities of whoever is arguing for or against (unless the validity of the premises depends upon said character qualities). To claim otherwise constitutes an ad hominem fallacy and should left out of logical debate.

Once a set of premises is commonly accepted as true, it doesn't matter who you are or what your experience is as long as you can logically connect one argument to the next.

Ad hominem attacks are not per se violations of NationStates rules. However, they could easily qualify as flamebait, which is a violation of NationStates rules.


I'd like to address this ...

Aren't we talking about a "character quality" in this case?

Wasn't the issue basically one where Vastiva questioned the interest within UN membership in a repeal of the Legalize Prostitution resolution, and the Chipmunks' response was to point to his / her experience in interacting with and understanding the interests of the general UN population?

With tha few exceptions, besides personal experiences how can anybody really predict what may or may not be an idea that will interest UN members?

In the absence of data, I don't think we can easily talk about "predicting UN response" and without relying upon personal experiences. This is by its very nature a subject dripping in opinion.

There are a few exceptions, but I've rarely seen even the best of NS players use logic when describing or predicting how and why players vote certain ways. Obviously I'd like that to change, but IMHO the first step is for the regular UN players to begin to help the younger players and provide constructive advice. The other way is to actually *ask* nations why they behave in certain ways without insulting them.

The other way is to actually *ask* nations why they behave in certain ways without insulting them.

You mean I shouldn't ask like this? ;) :D

"What the hell were you thinking, voting for that dumbass resolution, moron?"

You mean I shouldn't ask like this? ;) :D

"What the hell were you thinking, voting for that dumbass resolution, moron?"

To the Texan Hotrodders:

You are being charged for snarf related damages to one standard issue English keyboard and a can of coke cola for the total sum of 12 mg of Spice Melange. (We are also crediting the loss of nose hairs to your account as "grooming services".)

Billing Department,
Office of International Affairs,
Confederated City States of Mikitivity

Ban them! Ban them all!





(you know you want to)

Huh. And I was sure I'd already been banned.