How we can all make the Celestial Forum a better place

[_marg]

So I gather Shades you have no intention of addressing what ad hominems are according to you and how you instruct your helper mods to handle them. You don't follow your own advice of "The solution to any problem always lies in continued discussion, not withdrawal and silence."

My observations of what you deem to be ad hominal and how you handle them in the Celestial, is that essentially it is a matter of whim by yourself and your helpers. None of you have ever explained what you think ad hominems are. Your focus Shades, appears to be on a select small list of words which you or a mod will delete. Other than that, harrasments are acceptable in the Celestial, off topic attacks are acceptable, but on occasion if a mod doesn't like the tone or feel of a thread they will move it to another area, in which ad homs, continued harassment are legitimate per board rules. So ad hominems/harassment are not curtailed in any effective way and contrary to your statement in this thread in which you claim you are interested in curtailing them, the observations are that isn't the case. It is consequently disingenuous of you to invite someone from another board with the idea here they will be free to express themselves. Whatever they may be free to express can be drowned out by the dog-piling or even by harrassment from one or more individuals if those individuals so choose.

To sum it up, you have no effective method to curtail ad homs and if a person chooses to harass they are free to do so on your board, particularly if they are friends of a mod or yourself. And in fact, you yourself have been a culprit of this behavior of harassing in the Celestial, by your set up of this particular thread with the "mistakes" you alleged "we" made, which were unwarranted. And evidence of your harrassment intention, is that your buddy Kevin who you associate with and have mod priviliges on his message board, rarely used direct words abusively in the Celestial, he reserved that for Terrestial, so his mistakes you pint out was "bogus". On questioning you, you admitted you have no problems with his harrassment of others, as you say it's his observations. As if by saying 'an observation which is a criticism' somehow precludes those criticisms to the person from ever being fallaciously ad hominal in a critical discussion.

It's not that I care how you run the board, it's that I expect honesty. I expect you to be honest and upfront with regards to how you run it, not just to me but to everyone who should come here. So don't say you are interested in curtailing ad hominems yet be unwilling to explain what you mean by ad hominems. Don't play games and say you are interested in curtailing them, when mere observations of how the board is run shows that isn't the case.

[_Jersey Girl]

Why the hell are you still harping on this?

Why are you? Looks to me as if she's keeping it all on one thread, unlike yourself who are "still harping" on this board, in PM's and commandeered an entire board for the purpose of doing so.

Go figure, eh?

And stay out of my PM's, Sam. Anything you have to discuss regarding events on this board, can be discussed in full public view on this board where they can be accurately referenced by people who are aware of what took place. If that's too much trouble, I can drag over your posts from Kevin's board give them a thread of their own and address them on this board.

You choose and if that's too much trouble, I'll be more than glad to choose for you.

[_Jersey Girl]

marg,

I have a question or two. The issues you have raised in some of your recent posts (including information on argumentation) leave me to think that you're attempting to hold this forum to rules of formal debate. If that is so, why/how would that apply to discussion on a message board like this? Realistically, wouldn't one expect discussion here to take place more informally?

[_marg]

marg,

I have a question or two. The issues you have raised in some of your recent posts (including information on argumentation) leave me to think that you're attempting to hold this forum to rules of formal debate. If that is so, why/how would that apply to discussion on a message board like this? Realistically, wouldn't one expect discussion here to take place more informally?

I hope this isn't too long.

The Celestial currently is little different as far as rules go to the Terrestial.

Keep in mind Shades has said he's interested in curtailing ad homs in the Celestial, it's just that it's a matter of opinion what an ad hom is. The impression I get when he designates the Celestial for scholarly, polite discussion is that it should be above the level of the Terrestial. One way of raising the level and differentiating it is on preventing or curtailing attack comments, which are meant to shift focus off topic onto individuals. Threads degenerating into little more than attacks back and forth occur quite frequently in Terrestial. I believe people have left the board because of it. There is too much junk of that sort in there.

Kevin has argued that not all ad homs are fallacious. In other words some are relevant and legitimately speak to the premises for the conclusion logically because of their relevancy. Ones which are typically pointed out by logicians as not being fallacious logically are arguments such as an opponent doesn't have the educational training to argue their point or for a particular reason the opponent is biased which prevents them from being objective and arguing against premises to a conclusion. By having this logical loophole which deals with relevancy to the concusion, it can be difficult determining if there are mitigating circumstances which justify an ad hominem. Shades has carried it to the point of ..'well as long as the person says that's their observations of the person, then ad hominems are relevant and acceptable'.

What ad homs in a critical discussion are attempting to do is prevent the other party from advancing their argument. I'm sure you appreciate being in that position yourself from 2 think. There it might have been a little better because with the threaded view to some extent a person could be ignored, but just the same excessive or persistent ad homs can effectively prevent arguments from being advanced unhindered.

The authors which I mentioned previously and gave a link to in a chapter in a book F. VanEemeren and R. Grootendorst suggest that rather than concerning oneself with relevancy in order to determine if an ad hominem, (negative remark directed to a person) is fallacious or not is treat any remark directed to a person which violates a particular rule lwhich is Parties must not prevent each other from advancing standpoints or casting doubt on standpoints. as fallacious. And the justification they give is that even relevent attacks are still meant to prevent or hinder further discussion on topic. And that even relevant ad hominems are not necessary, that an argument should stand or fall on the on-topic premises advanced.


So rather than concerning oneself with relevancy or mitigating circumstances and thinking some ad hominems are justified due to relevancy, treat every single one relevant or not as fallacious to the continued progression of a critical discussion if it is in violation of the rule.

Now on the whole probably harrassment is not an issue for most people, but no doubt harrassment does occur. Someone like Bond who really doesn't get into serious discussions who isn't a threat to anyone advancing their argument would not likely be sought out by anyone to harass him. Hence as I noticed in a recent thread in the Terrestial he thinks everything is running just fine and dandy in the Celestial, that I'm just a complainer. But someone who is actually a good debater or who is a threat will be a more likely target to some individuals who use ad hominem tactics. So someone like JAK is going to be a target to someone who uses ad hominems tactically and who feels threatened by JAK, or someone from MAD is likely to be a target as there is much opposition on this board to MAD apologists. So how can this board raise the level of discourse in the Celestial and prevent this? Well any post with negative comments "toward the person" treat as unacceptable and move that post out of the discussion. If the person wants it back in they have to copy but remove their negative comments directed "to the person". Of course, initially it might be work and there obviously will be missed ad homs. But eventually people will catch on, that negative remarks of any kind directed to a person aren't allowed, there are no exceptions. Blatantly harrassment will obviously be curtailed. Threads will not be able to degenerate into legitimized attacks on individuals.

I actually think not only will the level of discourse be raised but there will be more people posting in the Celestial, because it really will be different than the Terrestial, and attack posts won't be tolerated under any circumstances in the Celestial, thereby curtailing people who focus on attack in lieu of topic.

It's one of those things which until people catch on, initially would be difficult, but someone who persistently uses those tactics, they know what they are doing and they'd soon catch on that the ad hom. tactical game is unacceptable.

Now personally I don't care how the board is run, I appreciate fully that Shades and Keene owes no one anything. If one doesn't like their message board, they are free to leave. What I care about is understanding what the rules are, as anyone should, in order to determine how much to invest emotionally, physically even monetarily. Keene says there are no rules, Shades has indicated he is interested in rules to some extent to maintain a higher level of discourse in the Celestial than Terrestial. His current rules seem to be a function of whimother than his focus on elimination of particular abusive words. All in all whatever rules he has for curtailing ad homs aren't clear and there appears to be inconsistency, hence bias by himself and mods.

[_Jersey Girl]

marg,

After reading your post above, I decided to make some comments to Shades in the Moderator Forum just to run some ideas and comments by him. I will get back to you here eventually.

Too long? ;-) No, I think the post was the most concise that you've written on this so far.

[_haleray]

All I have to say is that I love this form of discussing things, it allows your views to be ‘heard’ even if it is unpopular, no one can interrupt you, and visa-versa. On my mission, I listened to other people’s point of view, but they wouldn’t do the same for me. Well that’s all for now.