Abuse of fellow members

[onearmedbandit]

They have made their presence well known. They're being watched.

[Joni]

They are a bunch of wankers.... oops sorry, does that earn me another abusive rep!

PM Cajun and MT guys, dont bitch about it on here.

Get something done about it.

They have made their presence well known. They're being watched.

Watched?

I never knew abuse via the rep system was worth only a watch.....

[Quasievil]

They are a bunch of wankers.... oops sorry, does that earn me another abusive rep!

PM Cajun and MT guys, dont bitch about it on here.

Get something done about it.

Watched?

I never knew abuse via the rep system was worth only a watch.....

get rid of rep, problem solved

[Livvy]

They are a bunch of wankers.... oops sorry, does that earn me another abusive rep!

PM Cajun and MT guys, dont bitch about it on here.

Get something done about it.

Watched?

I never knew abuse via the rep system was worth only a watch.....

True true, Joni.

And nope, not an abusive rep, I'd give you green if I could but I gotta share around before I can give more to you!

[fireball]

get rid of rep, problem solved

it would... and make KB a very green happy place

[Joni]

get rid of rep, problem solved

I agree with you, but you know that....

The powers that be dont.

So be it.

Pity they dont penalise the people who abuse it though.

[onearmedbandit]

Watched?

I never knew abuse via the rep system was worth only a watch.....

Joni, as you know mate I can't see other peoples rep, so I can't comment on any examples of abusive rep as no one has actually sent me a PM with a complaint.

[Teflon]

Im building a increasingly large collection of 'infractions'

Is it User CP to view infraction points?

[Hitcher]

Is it User CP to view infraction points?

That's correct.

[BiK3RChiK]

Does stalking and harrassment count as abuse? How far can one poster go on a crusade before he is stopped?

[idleidolidyll]

If the moderators moderated consistently according to the 'rules' instead of the erratic, inconsistent and often ignorant way they do now; we would have far fewer problems here.

And before you go getting all upset, I use the word ignorant in its first form: lacking knowledge.

Cases in point abound and I've posted websites here explaining what constitutes a personal attack or a fallacious argument. Sadly, many of those 'in charge' have no idea and impose that ignorance on an ad hoc basis.

I've pulled them up on the hypocrisy of their warnings and reds too many times to excuse their lack of knowledge and bias.

[idleidolidyll]

So lets post it again:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

yes, I know it's hard; Kiwis are often better at ignorant bullshit than informed discussion.

This is the most abused of course (mind you, i'm sure they've all been used/abused at some time or another):

Argumentum ad Hominem

Translation: "Argument against the man", Latin
Alias: The Fallacy of Personal Attack
Type: Genetic Fallacy
Exposition:

A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.
Exposure:

Ad Hominem is the most familiar of informal fallacies, and—with the possible exception of Undistributed Middle—the most familiar logical fallacy of them all. It is also one of the most used and abused of fallacies, and both justified and unjustified accusations of Ad Hominem abound in any debate.
The phrase "ad hominem argument" is sometimes used to refer to a very different type of argument, namely, one that uses premisses accepted by the opposition to argue for a position. In other words, if you are trying to convince someone of something, using premisses that the person accepts—whether or not you believe them yourself. This is not necessarily a fallacious argument, and is often rhetorically effective.
Subfallacies:

• Abusive: An Abusive Ad Hominem occurs when an attack on the character or other irrelevant personal qualities of the opposition—such as appearance—is offered as evidence against her position. Such attacks are often effective distractions ("red herrings"), because the opponent feels it necessary to defend herself, thus being distracted from the topic of the debate.
• Circumstantial: A Circumstantial Ad Hominem is one in which some irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is offered as evidence against the opponent's position. This fallacy is often introduced by phrases such as: "Of course, that's what you'd expect him to say." The fallacy claims that the only reason why he argues as he does is because of personal circumstances, such as standing to gain from the argument's acceptance.

This form of the fallacy needs to be distinguished from criticisms directed at testimony, which are not fallacious, since pointing out that someone stands to gain from testifying a certain way would tend to cast doubt upon that testimony. For instance, when a celebrity endorses a product, it is usually in return for money, which lowers the evidentiary value of such an endorsement—often to nothing! In contrast, the fact that an arguer may gain in some way from an argument's acceptance does not affect the evidentiary value of the argument, for arguments can and do stand or fall on their own merits.

• Poisoning the Well
• Tu Quoque

Source:

S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Fifth Edition) (St. Martin's, 1994), pp. 198-206.



Your fallacy of course is to infer that because I offered the reference, it is somehow not authoritative.
Can you tell me the name of the fallacy you've committed?

No? Neither can most of the 'moderators', and that's the whole point.

[rottiguy]

Does stalking and harrassment count as abuse? How far can one poster go on a crusade before he is stopped?

[chanceyy]

Just try giving them shit back and see how they like a taste of that, if they start insulting or out and out calling you derogatory names, pm a moddie and they should give them a slapping

Instead of giving them shit back .. just use the ignore button .. & if its a major problem pm a mod & do not retaliate that just makes it tit for tat.


remember this is the internet & ppl love to hide behind a screen

[idleidolidyll]

Actually this is the website I prefer for identification of fallacies.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

I used it extensively in a study of internet debate I did for my degree a few years ago.

Others might prefer Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

I don't, wiki's setup is too open to corruption and it's not entirely trustworthy as a source for anything important.

Whichever website you like though, if you read through you'll have a far better understanding of why many arguments you see here seem so 'ignorant'.

Basically the rule of thumb is "If it feels irrelevant, ignorant or abusive, it's probably a fallacy" and you would do well to head to one of the sites on offer to identify it.

Use of fallacy is usually the province of the loser in an argument. They have nothing left that can be deemed logical or relevant so they fall back on fallacy. Of course many don't even know they are doing so, foggy thinking abounds.