This is not a thread about SSM. I respectfully request any poster to refrain from expressing an opinion on the subject in this thread, and to do so if necessary in GD.
I would request, if possible, to limit discussion in this thread only to questions of moderation.
I asked the following in a now-locked thread -
[QUOTE]
[ul][li]Is it now the job of the mods to decide what arguments are wrong, and may therefore not be repeated? [/li][li]What are the standards under which it will be decided what arguments are right and what are wrong? [/li][li]If the moderation staff cannot or prefers not to clarify the standards, should Dopers who see an incorrect and repeated argument simply report it, as we are asked to do for other violations of standards?[/ul] [/li][/QUOTE]
Again - please - this is not a discussion of the merits or otherwise of any specific analogy.
I wrote in the locked thread that I think this is a very bad idea.
For some context, here’s a quote from the locked thread from TubaDiva:
Hell yes, you’re asking too much, but mainly from the moderators. Think it through.
The main result of attempting this will be to stifle GD and probably cause the bias and partisanship of the moderators to generate even more complaints than it already does.
ETA: Was going to write more, but I have to dash. I’ll write more soon.
I too think this is a bad idea. I was writing out my reasoning in Word, but then saw the thread was closed. I didn’t think my scribblings were worthy of creating a new thread, so I deleted them. Now I’m sorry I didn’t keep a copy.
At any rate, short version, I far prefer the present system wherein posters making flawed (even ‘invalid’) arguments are refuted by other posters and suffer just deserts in the “shovel – hole” system. Even annoyingly persistent and repetitious flawed reasoning (and I’ve seen plenty in GD!) is better than having moderation of the validity or the effort level (“A game”) of interlocutors’ arguments and analogies.
I think you’re focusing on the wrong thing. It’s not a “ban” on flawed or incorrect arguments. It’s limiting flawed argument methodologies. If you want to make a completely idiotic nonsensical argument, go for it. That shouldn’t be limited by moderators. But if you ignore responses and critiques of your argument and simply repeat the same thing over and over, that adds nothing to the discussion. I’m fine with moderators trying to keep things on track in that situation.
And therein lies the problem. Who—with consistent fairness and without partisanship or bias—is to judge whether an argument has been duly rebutted, and whether the poster’s pertinacious style is truly impeding the progress of the debate or on the contrary bravely holding fast in the face of invalid counter-argument?
I still hold that the moderators should not act on that level. There are already sufficient complaints—not all lacking validity—about moderator bias. This would take that to a whole new level.
It’s a fair point, but the same could be said for anything the moderators do. I think most posters and pretty much all the mods can do a decent job of identifying when someone is no longer arguing in good faith. I’ll take the few mistakes versus threads that devolve into nothing more than “Is so!”, “Is not!”
I think a useful discussion can be had around if we want the mods to limit unfair argument methods that contribute nothing to the discussion. But the OP was about banning wrong arguments, which isn’t really a problem here.
First off, I strenuously protest the title of this thread. Analogies are not banned in GD or anywhere else, so stop that crap right now.
Surely if someone has argued in bad faith – gone on for pages and pages and not addressed any critiques, not rebutted anything, just keeps throwing the same thing up over and over – that’s not debate, that’s a whole 'nother thing altogether and something should have been said.
In saying that I’m not making any accusations here towards anyone in any direction. I note that I’m not a GD moderator neither. The people that are have a tough job that makes herding cats look like a walk in the spring rain. I’d like to see them have better stuff to moderate. I believe most of our Dopers are highly capable of that betterment.
I certainly agree with the sentiment behind this statement.
However, there is a real limit to the extent to which moderators can take action to improve the quality of a thread. I firmly believe your suggestion goes to far into trying to micromanage the posters, and furthermore would be an undo burden on the moderators. Simply stated, it would be asking moderators to get involved in every thread to an unreasonable extent, barring adding A LOT more moderators to GD.
However laudable the desire to improve the quality of threads, in GD or elsewhere, I don’t think either the posters or the moderators really want moderation of content. Make a stupid argument/analogy once and you’ll be refuted. (I know, I’ve made my share of stupid arguments.) Make the same one again and you’ll be laughed at. (I may have done so a time or two. ) Keep on making it and you’ll be ignored. At least, you’ll be ignored by everybody who is actually debating. People engaging in empty snark or making their own non-contributions will do as they do.
Usually by this point the real debate has moved on or been settled. If I’m entertained by the repeated flogging of the deceased equine, I’ll keep reading. Otherwise, I’ll send my attention elsewhere. The thread will live or die. All will be right with the world.
What I won’t have to do is constantly run to ATMB to see rules lawyering precipitated by moderation of somebody’s analogy in that thread.