The auto-moderation system isn’t in place for posters to attempt to control a narrative or shut down posts they don’t agree with. It’s for obvious spam or for comments that are wholly off-topic or inappropriate. Abusing it just makes @Fatshark_Hedge’s life more difficult, impedes developer efforts, and erodes the quality of feedback. Further, it isn’t particularly noble, respectful, or respectable to carry on in such a manner. It’s not something we typically get to do in any other forum either, or in real life conversation.
So it wasn’t you, really?
You’ll have to elaborate, seeing as a slew of posts were just flagged that in no way violated those guidelines or its spirit.
I’m just assuming this has to do with the newest beam staff thread…
“Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.”
I saw him doing this in that thread. Just because someone disagrees or takes offense to counter-argumentation is not a good reason to flag a post.
This has to do with the beamstaff thread, yes - and without derailing this thread into arguing who was the more flaggable user on the last 10 replies - there’s now clear indication that we need some kind of change to prevent this from being abused.
This reminds me of how people argue about the downvoting mechanic on Reddit. I don’t know what that the actual purposed use of it is (I don’t use Reddit other than for Vermintide) but I’ve seen multiple people explain that it’s not for disagreeing with an individual.
I have grown to take it as a compliment. Only proves there’s nothing to be said as a counter-argument anymore, so using extra-argumentative methods is the last resort.
This post is not relevant to the current discussion as defined by the title and first post, and should probably be moved elsewhere.
This post contains content that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or a violation of our community guidelines.
Ad hominem attacks (Telling people how and what they should think in your case)
When you see bad behavior, don’t reply. It encourages the bad behavior by acknowledging it.
Is this line of conversation with him is what is causing you to refer to his posts as ad homs? He straight up says he’s not intending to insult anyone by stating why he feels using fallacious arguments are not helpful in that topic.
It’s not a ad hominem to explain why someone’s arguments aren’t up to muster because they’re based on popularity, blind authority, or circumstantial evidence.
Only thing I’m worried about are people being afraid to post at all. I like hearing all the sides to an issue.
Would like to point out that an ad hominem attack can either be valid or a fallacy. Even used appropriately, ad hominems on this forum are explicitly against the community guidelines and prohibited.
I too want to hear both sides of most arguments, but without all of the inflammatory posting that occurs when some disagree. I don’t think it’s a coincidence Hedge posted in a previous beam thread calling out this exact disrespectful behavior.
Totally agree with you on every point. I added, “… helpful in that topic”, specifically because a fallacy is not automatically a bad thing.
I guess my perspective here is more I’m not seeing those posts as ad hominem at all.
Ad hom used appropriately? I think you misunderstand what ad hom actually is. It’s an attack on a person or motives to avoid refuting the central argument.
Deconstructing someones logic and motives while addressing the central argument isn’t ad hominem used appropriately.
It simply isn’t ad hominen.
Since you yourself have linked to the ad hom wiki entry in other threads, I suggest you read it.
Ad hominem is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Just what he and some of you did but you didn’t do it so obvious that I can nail it down in one argument and insult reply.
So it’s down to context.
If someone was trying to explain to me how my train of thought is incorrect or illogical I could take it as an ad hominem/insult but instead I try to understand their perspective even if it doesn’t change my mind.
No the argument was about the Beamstaff and Avar attacked the character, motivation and intelligence of people defending the argument avoiding the core subject with it. (even dough the defenses weren’t always that clean but they got flagged as well didn’t they?)
This is largely off topic, but to quote directly from the wikipedia page you mention:
Still against the community guidelines regardless. I don’t make the rules. Talk to Hedge if you still disagree.
No, I did not. I pointed out verbatim what was wrong with the argument and at no time attacked the character of the person speaking. When it could even potentially be construed as such, I carefully elaborated that my words were not insults but concise explanations as to why I was frustrated at having to explain the same extremely basic points three times, despite having linked to actual external definitions and having to deal with their non-stop rudeness. I even went out of the way to point out when I was being glib in instances where it wasn’t already abundantly clear to a reasonable bystander. You’ll also notice in the out of context and cherrypicked quotes you posted that when I call something fallacious it’s not only in the most literal sense but also not directed at any specific person, referring instead to the repeatedly used practice of posting arguments based in fallacy despite people being called out on it. It is a general statement that saying something that is based on demonstrable fallacy is fallacious. This is akin to saying that water is wet. They’re even derived from the same word for Christ’s sake… my statement couldn’t have been more empirically accurate if I’d say 1+1=2.
People tend to grossly mischaracterize ad hominem in this forum. Saying that someone’s position is fallacious after they have repeatedly utilized unadulterated fallacy in their arguments is neither an insult nor an attack on their character, it is a statement of fact. If people don’t want to be fallacious, they shouldn’t employ fallacies in their arguments. This is super simple stuff, common sense, and once again not an attack on anyone’s character.
You’re grasping at straws. Big time. For god sake… the counter-points to the very arguments you’re making are right there in the quotes you’re trying to use against me and neither you nor anyone else has even attempted to answer the very reasonable questions I ask or address the logic of my argument in any way.
Like a politician
Anyway you weren’t wrong with all your fallacies and your arguments weren’t all offensive/evasive but doing right here does not excuse the rest of your quite unpleasant contributions.
I really need to stick to Fat Sharks advice now.
Point out a single fallacy in my arguments and I will happily defend it or correct it. Point out a single “unpleasant” thing I said that wasn’t either objectively true or a general statement that people shouldn’t carry on in a manner that seeks to achieve a goal without the use of proper logic. Logic is not “unpleasant.” Insisting that people not use fallacy (ie. that they not be “fallacious”) is not unpleasant.
Second, by the logic of the OP in that thread, you’re “off-topic” right now because it doesn’t directly speak to the exact language of my original post. Obviously, that’s bs and I’m not about to start flagging posts for nonsense reasons, especially when the whole point of conversation is to actually have a conversation. In this case, it’s easy to point out that you still haven’t addressed a single point I’ve made so there’s really no reason to pay you the time of day aside from pointing that out. In that thread’s case, the OP is currently trying to not only move the goalposts but also to take their ball and go home. That’s not what forums are about. Some people just don’t like a) the truth, b) being wrong.
Since people are so fond of cherry-picking quotes and putting in their own bold for emphasis on only the parts they are interested in reading, allow me to do the same and demonstrate how different it reads.
Ad Valeram (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself
it is important to draw a distinction between whether the statement in question was an argument or a statement of fact (testimony). In the latter case the issues of the credibility of the person making the statement may be crucial
Thank you. For an example of this, since some people seem to think saying “ad hominem” is a get out of jail free card for winning an argument on here, an ad hominem attack would be if a robber accused me of stealing something from them and I said, “who you gonna believe? Me? Or some robber?” It’s not a complex concept. Another example, if someone posted something and someone else said, “that’s wrong because I know for a fact you smell funny and don’t know how to whittle,” that would be an ad hominem attack.