It's in the speech thread. I don't think it's a personal attack.

He's saying that if you accuse someone of strawmanning (misstating your position), then you have to give your actual position, otherwise you're trolling.

I'm not sure I would support it. I feel like we have enough rules.

Basically, it's just logic.

A characterizes B's position.
B says "strawman"
A says "please clarify"
B refuses to clarify.

B lost the argument as to that point. The world can see. No need for rules, I think. (?)

And yet ikestoys spent years making neverending posts like that.

You're right that B lost, but like, B losing isn't exactly a deterrent against continuing that ****ty posting forever.

I miss ikestoys.

txs. Ok I get that and I'd personally like to agree to treating it like the cite rule.

but trolling is also getting a light touch these days. If it's done excessively then it may get modded.

The general view including yours (I think) was it should be more PUey than those rules indicated.

The intention was to allow robust discussion that included personal attacks as long as it was engaging in the discussion. We've extended that to a light touch on LC personal attacks.

I suppose the issue is are we also being light touch on other LC or off topic posts. What do people want? I'd be very happy for us to do more to keep threads on topic.

Hypothetically, if I asked Shame trolly if he had a vagina, would that be considered sexist?

Exactly.

Yes. Please.

I only was aware name-calling was getting the light touch. I missed that (non name-calling) posts the willfully and knowingly disrupt our conversations here, what I call 'trolling', is also getting the light touch.

Strawman !!!1!



No.

The holder of the position knows the position and is in the position to identify a mischaracterization related with the position whatever the position is. So no, a 'straw-man' type claim doesn't have to be supported by stating the position.

I might quote this from time-to-time when someone claims I "strawmanned" them.

This is a bad rule that would be abused by the trolls and unfriendly interlocutors here. If someone attempts to characterise your views, you should be able to note their characterization is incorrect without accruing an obligation to respond further. Your own words that the characterization is incorrect is itself all the "citation" necessary to justify your making the claim (since it is about your own views). If the person making the characterization is unsatisfied because they want you to explain your view to them, too bad.

Meh, Original Position does have a point. Logically, if you're being strawmanned, you don't have to state your position. The rule on second thought would not be good to those who actually are being strawmanned.

On more than one occasion though, person claiming they are being strawmanned is not being strawmanned, and they want an excuse to hide under a rock. I can give an example on request.

What should be done is to ask the person to clarify their position, sometimes even if they've already stated it (because the trolls will deny it), and then discuss from there. Then finish it off with a screenplay called, "Trolls on Ice".

How so.

Uh, it's the interwebs, anyone can quit chatting any time they want, for any reason they want, or for no reason at all. Nobody is saying that anyone ever has any obligation to respond.

Of course. This ain't the problem. This is where the problems start. Like this...

A: I claim taxes are ponies !!!1!
B: WTF does that shiz mean?
A: Original Position sez I don't gotta say shiz. Too bad for you.
B: STFU & GTFO troll !!!1!
A: You haven't refuted my pony argument yet.

The problem is the bolded above. Sure, I can take the 5th for whatever stupid crap I spew. No problems. But at that point, if I don't STFU about my stupid crap that I've already take the 5th on, I'm willfully and knowingly disrupting the interwebs conversation. In a word, I'd be trolling.

lol'd. It certainly can be trolling, but isn't necessarily trolling. But the trolling rule gives adequate coverage in this area, at least according to my dro.

P7 doesn't moderate trolling, which was why chezlaw didn't know what you were proposing by adding a special definition of trolling to the rules.

So then this was how pokerodox characterized the proposal:

A characterizes B's position.
B says "strawman"
A says "please clarify"
B refuses to clarify.

Chezlaw responded by saying that he'd personally agree to treating it like the citation rule. My interpretation of this analogy is that if B doesn't clarify what B's position is, then B cannot say that A's characterization of B's position is a strawman.

The potential for abuse here is obvious.

A: p
Troll: A says q.
A: I didn't say q.
Troll: Clarify.
A: No, I don't clarify to trolls.

Troll reports A for trolling for saying "I didn't say q" without clarifying. Mod tells A to stop saying "I didn't say q" unless A also clarifies to the troll.

*BTW, I don't mean to suggest that I think you are trolling FoldnDark here. My own conversations with you have been enjoyable and on the level imo.

I was being much less interesting than you lot and not explaining myself well either. I just meant that if:

A characterizes B's position
B says "Strawman"
A says "please clarify"

then B has to point out what he what part of the characterisation he was calling a strawman or stop saying strawman. I didn't mean that B has to clarify his own position although that's generally good too.

I pretty sure the three of us are on the same page here.

This is a good point. My example was somebody abusing the 'strawmanning' card. Your example was someone willfully and knowingly misrepresenting to disrupt the conversation. Then abusing the clarify rule. This could play out like...

A: Pigs fly.
Troll: A sez fish walk.
A: Stop 'strawmanning' me Troll.
Troll: Ha, ha, A. I'm calling the clarify rule on you.
A: Well, here's my post <quotes post: Pigs fly>. Here's your post <quotes post: A sez fish swim>.

This doesn't work so well the other way around...

Troll: Pigs fly.
A: LMFAO Troll, pigs don't fly like birds.
Troll: Stop 'strawmanning' me A.
A: Well excuse me, WTF did you mean by 'fly'?
Troll: None of your beeswax.
A: Ha, ha, Troll. I'm calling the clarify rule on you.
Troll: Well, here's my post <quotes post: Pigs fly>.

I'm generally suspicious of rules that are intended to settle arguments. Also I don't want to have to arbitrate every dispute about what people mean

My proposed rule isn't intended to, and won't, settle any arguments. It's intended to address a certain specific, significant, and chronic pattern of posting that willfully and knowingly attempts to disrupt interwebs conversation.

Man, you're making the big $$$ as a mod, how about getting off your pampered behind and earning some of it !!!1!

Seriously, we're talking about this being an extension of the cite rule. You wouldn't have to arbitrate peep's secret inner meanings. You'd just gotta be able to figure out when someone is being an obvious troll, and for those who make it a habit, mod accordingly.

And... I think forced "thunder dome" temp-exiles (aka timeouts) for co-squabblers should definitely be added to the mod's bag-o-tricks.

Right. I don't want to be obliged to quote my prior posts or otherwise clarify my view to a troll - typically the best strategy for dealing with them is to just not engage. However, most people find it very difficult to not at minimum point out blatant misstatements of their own views and hope their reputation vs the troll's reputation will cause people to believe them. Your rule would be handing a tool to trolls to practically speaking force engagement from these posters. And any rule that depends on distinguishing between trollish and sincere requests will be rejected by the mods as requiring too much mod discretion.

Sure. On the flip side, a troll will refuse to clarify their alleged views under any circumstances, because the don't actually have any coherent views. To be clear, my intentions aren't to be "fair" to trolls, or burden their targets unduly. My intentions are to simply, I guess, to cause less net disruption to the conversations overall.

I don't see trolls blatantly misrepresenting at all. These trolls aren't the OP. They're not generally leading, or particularly active in the thread. And when it happens, it rarely destroys a thread. Peeps just lol@ the troll. The thread wanders onward.

I see trolls abusing the 'strawmanning' card, all-day=every=day. Usually, of course, they don't use the official name. But, it's always the same MO: make some claim, draw peeps in, refuse to explain WTF that claim means, destroy thread. Often they are the OP. Often they are leading the conversation. Often they are highly active, if not engaged in a coherent sense. Why it so consistently destroys threads is this kinda trolling works like click-bait. Peeps get drawn into 'arguing' that claim, and then often 100s of posts later, they get the news that the OP won't actually be discussing his claim at all.

Yeah, I get this. Yet Alta has just such a rule. However, I fully realize that enforcement of a rule is a whole different discussion from coolness of a rule. I'd be hippy-happy with an unenforced/unenforceable rule, or a rule only enforced in particularly egregious situations, or a rule that's really just a guideline... anything, as long as peeps are put on notice not to do this shiz.

It's really been my pet peeve here in Los Dos Politardias since day 1... even more so than the never ending "yelling and screaming" -vs- the R-word fiasco. So, I've made my case, I understand that at the current time it's a non-starter because of the light touch policy... and I'll get off my soapbox.

Just as a general principle, you can expect trolls to benefit more from unenforced/unenforceable rules. Non-trolls make more of an effort to follow rules that can't be enforced because they care about the goals such rules are supposed to encourage. Trolls don't care, and so don't follow them because there is no penalty for not doing so, but will criticize other people for not following the rule as a method for trolling them.

Yeah, I get this.

In fact, this is the #2 reason I'm against Alta style anti-name-calling rules. It should be obvious that the 'damage' caused by all the squabbling about who did or did not call who a name/etc dwarfs by orders of magnitude the 'damage' that would be caused by any name-calling itself.

Troll or not, all that matters is whether the argument follows or not, and why and why not.

Most people on both sides descend into (1) name calling, (2) straw manning, and (3) defending positions made by someone on our "side" when that particular position is overboard/wrong/too extreme. To you and all people of good will, please join me in avoiding these three things.