Can you show one example of rule bending or line pissing in the linked thread? I just read the whole thing and found it quite entertaining; not pitworthy at all. Roadfood got a little sloppy with his definitions and got called on it is all.
Then you’re sadly lacking in the ol’ clue department.
Or perhaps I should say: Cite, please.
Demonstrate how your new favorite pal is outside the rules.
I don’t mind an indictment of Lib; however I like the man, he can handle the personal attacks. However, in indicting the entire moderation and administrative staff here at the SDMB, you seem to have taken a long step in to “put up or shut up” territiry.
I’m wary of jumping into this Andros, as this Pitting is totally undeserved… but IIRC Lib has, in the past, admitted to playing Devil’s Advocate without letting people know that’s what he was doing. Now, IANAM… but that sure seems to cross the line. What would the practical difference be between a troll posting to stir shit up, and me taking up a position I didn’t believe in simply to rile people up and get into an argument?
Well, I think you’ve begged a question here, Finn. You’re assuming that his motivations in playing Devil’s Advocate were to stir shit. I’m not convinced that’s a safe assumption. Merely asserting a position one does not hold is not trollery, even without making it clear at the outset. Poor form perhaps, depending on the circumstances, but not trollery.
I think my questions about Aeschines’ assertions stand.
Well… what other possible motive was there besides to start a debate? I’m willing to accept any other plausible scenarios, but I can’t think of any. Isn’t that pretty much the definition of playing Devil’s Advocate anyways? Taking up a position in order to debate from that stance? And, even if the motive wasn’t to stir up shit, that’s the practical ramification. I was somewhat careful to make my point that, regardless of intent, the result is the same as trolling.
Well… can you give me another assumption? I’m not trying to pick a fight, but I honestly don’t understand how taking a position in order to debate isn’t intented to lead to a debate.
Willful trolling? Naw. Having the same effect? Sometimes…
Well, Veb did say he bends the rules sometimes… although I can see your point too.
Here’s what I said back then:
“I do not argue a position unless I believe it has merit. And I believe in every position that does. I don’t think it’s necessary to hold only one point of view at the expense of all others. Throughout my long history here, I’ve consistently maintained that I hold other points of view that are different from my own — atheism, for example — to be valid, even if I disagree with them.”
Merriam-Webster defines devil’s advocate as “a person who champions the less accepted cause for the sake of argument”. I don’t take that to mean argument in the sense of pointless contention, but argument in the sense of debate. If, for example, there are twenty people on one side of an issue and only two on the other, and if I believe that the minority view has merit, I will almost always argue the minority view because the opposing view is already well represented.
I do not see how that constitutes stirring up shit. To me, stirring up shit is taking a position, not because you believe it to be valid, but for the purpose of pissing people off. Sometimes, people get pissed off simply because you argue for a certain view — damn you for agreeing with Sam Stone about this point. […shrug…]
As is a douche.
Because I know there are sometimes problems of communication between us Lib, I just want to make it perfectly clear that I don’t think you mean to cause problems. I think you honestly mean to do good, but that often your posting style and/or ideas can cause shit to get stirred up.
If, for example, you were to vociferously not just defend, but champion Atheism, other posters might very well become quite confused as to “what Liberal thinks.” Dopers have our statements recorded so that, partially, we can be held to them. It would cause needless friction for you to champion a view which was in direct contradiction to your real view, and have other Dopers off hunting down contradictory statements of yours. Like it or not, the poster is bound up with the posts.
Now, as to your point of taking a minority view because the opposition is well represented… even if you mean well, the practical ramifications are that shit gets stirred up. I don’t think it’s too much to expect that the only debates which will happen here are between those who honestly hold points of view, rather than those simply wanting a good fight. Or at least, if they want a good fight, that they have the courtesy to tell their fellow posters not to take them seriously and tha they’re just expressing a position which has the possibility of being defended as an intellectual exercise.
There’s also the fact that you have views which you actually hold, yes? Hopefully you’d care more about having the truth recognized than a rip snortin’ good Pit grudge match. To take the example we’ve been using in these posts, let’s take Theism Vs. Atheism. You honestly believe in a God. Good for you, n’ all that. Wouldn’t you then want, as per the SDMB’s mission, to share the truth with others and/or convince them that your position is right? If one position is right, why champion its alternate just because it’s logically possible to do so?
You have wings!?!:eek:
Alls I’m saying is that there’s a difference between “stirring up shit” and “trolling.” And that difference lies entirely in intent. I can’t see it as a violation of board rules if the shit-stirring is not intentional. And I can’t even really see it as a violation if the shit-stirring is intentional in many circumstances–sometimes shit-stirring has a valid rhetorical or philosophical purpose. Is Howard Dean a troll for his “the Republican party is a party of rich white people?” I don’t think so, as his words had an intent beyond merely trying piss off the Republicans.
:shrug: Hell, I dunno. But if you’re honestly saying that Lib (or anyone), in taking up a position just for the sake of debate, is not deliberately causing trouble, then I can’t see an accusation of breaking board rules having merit.
I appreciate that, Finn. I’m glad you and I can recognize our differences and maintain our respect for one another. I wouldn’t ever (and haven’t ever) championed atheism, but I always have (and always will) championed the fact that atheism is as valid a viewpoint as theism. When I was at the Pizza Parlor, I often argued on behalf of atheists when twenty people were saying that atheists were “missing something”, or were somehow “incomplete”. I do not have to hold atheism as my own philosophy in order to point out that atheists are not missing anything, nor in any way incomplete.
If only one position is right, then it cannot be logically possible to defend its alternate. That’s not what I do. As I said both then and now, I defend a position if it is just as valid as its opposing position, but arguments in favor of it are weak or few and far between. I think it adds balance to a discussion. It isn’t that I don’t believe in what I’m saying. Not at all.
---- If one position is right, why champion its alternate just because it’s logically possible to do so?
One might do that if one believed that neither side had the monopoly on the truth.
I’d say that there are both destructive and constructive forms of Devil’s Advocacy. Constructive forms can tighten the arguments of the truth-favored side, for example.
Myself, I like to argue both sides of the issue in the same post, while indicating which side I fall on. This usually takes the form of “Pre-empting”.
Hey! It just occurred to me that I’ve been playing Devil’s Advocate in this thread. Personally, I think Lib is an ok guy, though we disagree on most topics. None of that implies that a particular criticism of Lib will be on target or constructive though.
On preview: I see that Lib has outlined another valid form of Devil’s advocacy.
No problem. Namaste.
Agreed. But in my mind, that’s not playing devil’s advocate, that’s advancing an honestly held belief of yours (e.g. that atheists are not mentally deficient even if they’re wrong.) It’s pointing out holes in your opponent’s argument. That’s more than kosher, especially one the Dope. Nor do I think that’s playing Devil’s Advocate. We’d get into that terrain if we started to, say, not just argue that Atheism was logically coherent, but that it was correct.
Perhaps we’re simply working under different understandings of the term “Devil’s Advocate.” Maybe we shouldn’t go off on this tangent, lest you be accused of hijacking your own Pit thread. 
Here you and I part ways philosophicaly. Reason is a whore. Give me free reign to craft my own axioms, and I can “prove” that murder, rape, whatever, is perfectly justified. Our big ol’ brains end up bringing us a paradox. Reason it the best way to interface with the world (IMNSHO), but it also has pitfalls and box canyons.
Think human rights are more important than national security? You can take up a “liberal” position. Think national security is more important than human rights? You can take up a “conservative” position.
Allow me to control the axioms, and I can argue for or against whatever you wish.
I don’t grok in fullness. To me, it seems eminently superior to point out flaws in both positions and thereby attempt to get at the truth, rather than arguing a position which might be defended, but isn’t the whole truth-as-you-see-it. Or, at the very least, to make it plain as day that while you’re arguing against someone’s denunciations of a position, that you don’t embrace that position as your own. Again, perhaps we’re getting hung up on the semantics here.
Perhaps. But let’s be frank here. It’s not your job, nor mine, nor anybody else’s, to impart balance to the SDMB. We’re supposed to be sharing our honest opinions and/or getting at the truth. Wouldn’t you do the boards a far greater service if instead of seeking balance, you tried to always argue for the one position which you felt most strongly was correct?
Andros:
As a caveat, I just want to reiterate that since IANAM, my opinions on board policy are just that. Nothing I say should be taken as gospel, and to be honest this entire topic is beginning to make me a bit nervous. Although rules and rulings have been posted, it is not up to me to interpret them. Now, with that standard disclaimer out of the way:
I would agree entirely. But I think they’re both detrimental for the board. My understanding is that stirring up shit is against the rules not because someone gets their jollies off of it, but because it’s stirring up shit. In other words, we have enough real conflict and debate without adding unnecessary disagreement and rancor just so that certian people can get a debating fix.
Well, let me put it to you this way.
Let’s say we have Poster X, who is an as-of-yet-not-unmasked-troll, and Poster Y who is not a troll.
Let’s say Poster X takes up the position “Democrats are all janus faced jackasses who are ruining this country!” Poster X takes up this position because he’d like to see a good shit flinging match and piss some people off.
Let’s say Poster Y takes up the position “Democrats are all janus faced jackasses who are ruining this country!” Poster Y takes up this position because although it’s not what he believes, he believes that a case can be made for it. Poster Y takes up this position, especially, because he notices that there are a lot of people who care enough about the topic to post opposing oppinions to his. Poster Y takes up this position because he’d like to see a “good debate” and get some of his “opponents” deeper into discussion.
How are Poster X and Poster Y’s actions actually different in their results?
Yes, in order to be a troll one must have the intent to troll… but how different, in reality, is the attempt to post something one does not believe in to stir up shit different from posting something one does not believe in in order to cause/escalate a discussion?
Agreed. Sometimes one can, essentially, be stating “look at the holes in your argument.” But I’d also say that in such circumstances, one should make clear that they’re arguing against one position, and not for it’s opposite. A small distinction, but I feel it’s somewhat essential for good message board conduct.
You and I would disagree on that analysis then.
One does not deliberately have to cause trouble for trouble to be caused, and I’d think that in general we should keep the SDMB free of all trouble that is not honestly found. We have enough rancor and squabbling without someone adding some more.
Would it not be better, then, to argue for one position which one did believe in, while pointing out why both ‘sides’ had it wrong? The excluded middle is a fallacy, after all.
To put it another way, I do not believe that the organizations reporting on Gitmo are sharing the Gospel Truth, but I do believe they’re mostly correct. With that being true, I feel it would be wrong for me to argue for the side saying “No abuses ever happened.” The middle ground seems most fertile in that case.
As long as you let people know you’re playing DA, yes. But there’s also a difference between arguing against a position, and arguing for its opposite. In a recent thread, for example, I argued against certain exagerations made upon a public figure’s conduct. I did not, however, take up the position that nothing untoward ever happened.
And that’s kosher.
I understand what you’re saying, Finn. I don’t entirely agree with you, but I understand.
I like Lib. What he occasionally lacks in tact he more than makes up for in originality of thought.
I disagree; he was failing to think about what others (Lib and David Simmons, in particular) were saying, instead constantly repeating his assertions and claiming them to be self-evident.
FinnAgain: I share your view that we may be viewing into semantics. Some of the pitfalls of Devil’s Advocacy you noted are real.
Aside: here’s one (not the only) def. of Devil’s Advocacy: “One who argues against a popular cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply to make people discuss and consider it in more detail.”
Let me give an example of what I’ve done in the past. I’m largely pro-Israel and was deeply skeptical of the position taken by Arafat’s PLO. Nonetheless, on this board I read a number of characterizations of the origins of the Israeli state (many during our Winter of Missed Content), that were borderline fanciful. That offends my sensibilities and prompted me to argue against defenders of Israel.
If I saw dubious Jihadist sentiments that were not being adequately responded to on this board (fat chance), I would do the same.
---- It’s not your job, nor mine, nor anybody else’s, to impart balance to the SDMB. We’re supposed to be sharing our honest opinions and/or getting at the truth. Wouldn’t you do the boards a far greater service if instead of seeking balance, you tried to always argue for the one position which you felt most strongly was correct?
Quibble, perhaps, but no. We’re supposed to be fighting ignorance not sharing our honest opinions (IMHO 
). I have lots of opinions that don’t warrent mention on this board. It’s the substantiated argument that dispels ignorance. Building in the opposing POV into one’s framework helps as well.
------- To put it another way, I do not believe that the organizations reporting on Gitmo are sharing the Gospel Truth, but I do believe they’re mostly correct. With that being true, I feel it would be wrong for me to argue for the side saying “No abuses ever happened.” The middle ground seems most fertile in that case.
Mostly agreed. It’s just that, in practice, the middle ground will look a lot like the opposing view in many contexts.
---- As long as you let people know you’re playing DA, yes. But there’s also a difference between arguing against a position, and arguing for its opposite.
Tricky. I agree with the 2nd sentence, but I’ll note that those who do not read carefully may not pick up on that distinction. That is, they may not pick up on my hints, or heck, my outright declarations.
I confess that I may not always bother to thwack them with a cluestick: I may or may not want to reconsider this position.
Hey dumbfuck, it was a Mod himself who said a few posts back that Liberal bends the hell out of the rules.
Who says I am indicting the whole mod/admin staff? That’s bullshit. I’m saying that one particular posters behavior isn’t being handled right.
Now go fuck off.
[Robert’s rules of disorder] Point of order: Veb is a woman. [/Robert’s rules of disorder]
andros: No problem. We’ve at least achieved a rough form of communion, albeit not total agreement.
Measure: I knewwwwwww I should’ve been more careful when talking about opinions. That’s actually one of my major pet peeves, when someone acts as if just because they’ve called something an opinion it no longer needs factual confirmation and is immune to factual refutation. “I already said that it’s just my opinion that Bush is corrupt, why are you asking for a cite?” That being said, I’d wager that MPSIMS, IMHO, and CS all have a rather large ammount of perfectly valid subjective opinions being bandied about.