NationStates Jolt Archive

What is Mod position on players who, in non-RP, position themselves as an authority on a subject because of BTDT (been there, done that) when it could be relatively easy to prove that they are full of it, but can't without "outing" their RL info (even if it was researched from their own provided data)?

I mean, I can try to be "clever" and post denuded information or text clips that should let the player in on fact that some people know what's up, but even that won't work if the player is too arrogant or assured of not being "outed". :headbang:

How can you call people on crap like this when they use patently false BTDT as an argument point? (see This Thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=421265&page=1&pp=15) for a RL/News example and an early attempt to shame a particular player without "outing")

It's really making me nuts that this type of unnecessary, non-RP, blatant, disrespectful deception goes on.


Thanks for the feedback.
(private emails on this accepted for delivery of supporting data)

What is Mod position on players who, in non-RP, position themselves as an authority on a subject because of BTDT (been there, done that) when it could be relatively easy to prove that they are full of it, but can't without "outing" their RL info (even if it was researched from their own provided data)?
I'm not a mod, and my answer is not an official one, but my understanding is that mods are not concerned with 'right' and 'wrong' arguments--as there will never be such things--but rather in legal and illegal arguments. I would imagine that you'd be allowed to 'debunk' or attempt to disprove another poster's authority on something (just as he or she's allowed to advocate it) in whatever non-illegal way possible (without flame/flamebait, etc.).


It's really making me nuts that this type of unnecessary, non-RP, blatant, disrespectful deception goes on.

In a sense, all arguments are deception. An argument must simplify nuance, and in that way it 'deceives'. Disrespectful deception is possibly against the rules (qualifying as trolling or somesuch), but people are really allowed to be as 'stupid' as they want on here. If someone on here wants to argue that the world is flat, I'm not sure anyone will stop them (so long as they don't spam, flame/flamebait, or troll in the process).

Just like in the real world, posters are allowed to be 'deluded' and/or 'ignorant' (or, at least, so called by the majority opinion)--mods are not sensibility-police.

We don't regulate logic in discussions. Encourage, perhaps, but not regulate.

I'm not a mod, and my answer is not an official one, but my understanding is that mods are not concerned with 'right' and 'wrong' arguments--as there will never be such things--but rather in legal and illegal arguments. I would imagine that you'd be allowed to 'debunk' or attempt to disprove another poster's authority on something (just as he or she's allowed to advocate it) in whatever non-illegal way possible (without flame/flamebait, etc.).
<snip> --mods are not sensibility-police.
Frisbeeteria: We don't regulate logic in discussions. Encourage, perhaps, but not regulate.

My problem isn't with the argument per-se, (even to the extent of arguing somthing like "the world is flat") my problem is with someone saying: "I was an X (i.e. been there, done that), therefore your argument has less weight than mine." That is not argument, that is not simple statistical tweaking or sample bias, or even misrepresentation of data/spin. It is a false claim to authority to which I see no NS-legal recourse for rebuttal.

A good argument from a well-read, erudite poster is great. Even a poor argument from a poster who says "my opinion is thus, and that is just how I feel" is fine too.

But to say "my opinion is bases on my experiences as an X" (usually as a debate killer) when that was never the case, [i]and it is provable, but not postable/[i] is IMO both arrogant and disrespectful - and depending on the Posing in question IS Flame baiting - especially from those who actually are/have been X.

I would never claim to be a Dr./Lawyer/Hollywood Insider/PhD/Firefighter/whatever simply to bolster (or end) an argument. To do so flamebaits those who are - regardless of if they agree or disagree with my position - because it actively dishonors those who have taken the time and efforts to achieve those positions.

But I still don't see a "legal" way to call them out on NS. :(

Since the Moderator staff has no way of actually verifying a person's claim, there isn't much we can do. Trying to force an Appeal to Authority into the mold of flamebait is a bit of a stretch, too, especially since the person is usually attempting to squash debate, as opposed to provoke violent responce.

Appeal to Authority (or popularity or emotion, etc.) is certainly considered bad form, and several of the Mods won't hesitate to call a person out for using such a tactic, but we don't consider it a "crime".

If I'm in a debate, as a player, I'll call someone for using a standard logical fallacy, largely because I prefer honest debate.

If someone is using such a tactic while questioning a mod action (ie: "You should let us spam because a bunch of us like it") we will also come down on them.

If someone is using a tactic while debating a thrid party, we won't stop them. That's where the players come in. If you want people to debate properly, refuse to acknowledge such appeals. We really don't have the time or jurisdiction to stop such things. Nor do we have the ability to divine if a random poster really is a lawyer or cop or what-have-you.

Since the Moderator staff has no way of actually verifying a person's claim, there isn't much we can do. <snip>.
Thanks Hack. I understand the Mod's position. I don't expect y'all to come down on Posers, I'm just wondering how to approach it/slap them in a way that won't get ME in trouble for "outing" someone's RL.

In my opinion, the best way to handle appeals to authority is to do the following:

1) Stick to your guns. If the statement by the "authority" is factually accurate and yours isn't, either come up with something more convincing or admit you're wrong. If the statement isn't factually accurate, back up yours and prove you're right.

2) Call him on his logical fallacy(ies). Force him to come up with a more convincing argument, but do it without flaming or flamebaiting.

I once received a long diatribe via e-mail where the poster in question basically said, "do you know who I am," as if that would cow me. My response to him was that I didn't care if he was the President. I was going to make my case and I wasn't going to back down. I never heard from him again.

I also recieved several e-mails from someone who was fond of telling me that I was stupid because of points I was making, but her e-mails were riddled with spelling errors, grammatical mistakes, etc. Finally, I wrote her back saying, "if that weren't so poorly written, I might have been offended." I never heard from her again, either.

I'm not saying that either of the above are the *right* things to do (and the second one in particular was basically me going down to her level with an ad homenim attack), but they're what I did.