Manufacturers on the web: a double edged sword?

I don't think it's a good idea to bad-mouth one forum on another. If a forum is open-minded, closed-minded, narrow-minded or just mindless, that's their prerogative. If we start bashing other forums and they start bashing us, pretty soon that will lead to human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria.

It'll be like 9/11 times 1000. Basically, all the worst parts of the Bible.

 

Yes, and partly the reason why it's against the AUP. So, I've deleted the posts.

 

This is exactly what I dissagree with, it is censorship of the worst kind. Any other part of the industry can be discussed and complained about, so why should forums be sacrasanct, apart from as the the creation of an insiders club that no one is allowed to criticise. This and the other nonsense of not bringing arguments from other forums are just used as excuses for biased moderation and favouritism.

The problem is not what is being discussed but *how* it is discussed. *Any* subject should be allowable as long as it is the subject that is discussed. The problems only happen when the subject is changed to the person who holds that view / poster, that is what creates conflict, nothing more. Ad Hominem.

 

Richard, it has nothing to do with censorship, I'd call it mutual respect. Other forums have their rules, we have ours. You seem to be very fond of the term "Ad Hominem". Please explain how trying to prevent (possibly pointless) arguments with other forums constitutes "Ad Hominem"?

 

Oh for heavens sake! read the post. Where did I say that was ad hominem. I described what the problem was and then gave it a name, which is what it is!

It *is* censorship, you could make the argument about mutual respect for arguments or dissagreements between members or between trade, if that was so then what could you post here apart from platitudes. This is just plain hypocrisy.

 

As the OP, I'd have to say I'd side with Dev on this occasion.

My interest, the reason I posted the topic in the first place, is in how manufacturers are served by their web presence and to what extent:

"There's one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that's not being talked about"

holds true.

Whilst there was nothing particularly damning (IMO) in (what I saw of) the deleted posts I suspect moderation at present (here and elsewhere) is quite focused on the thin end of the wedgeness of particular lines of discussion.

One of the issues, as I see it, is how far 'the trade' allow themselves to get drawn into discussions before they decide that they would rather not be there.

Reminds me of being at school and how far you could get a teacher to go off topic; often this could actually be a 'good thing' from an educational point of view and the better teachers could always turn things back before they got out of hand. Others though would almost inevitably get huffy and 'pull rank' - which was unsatisfactory all around.

 

As far as I can see, the only reason one would want to continue a discussion/dispute from another forum would be because you had been kicked off that forum.

Chris

 

Ad Hominem Fallacy

Lifted straight from a site. That doesn't make it definitive, but nevertheless gives a taste of what "Ad Hominem" is and more importantly, is not.

the ad hominem fallacy fallacy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.

But enough vagueness. The point of this article is to bury the reader under an avalanche of examples of correct and incorrect usage of ad hominem, in the hope that once the avalanche has passed, the term will never be used incorrectly again. I will begin with some invented examples, before dealing with some real-life misuses of the term at the end.


Chris

 

How is trying to abide by our stated AUP hypocrisy?

 

The AUP is hypocrisy, not you! you are a tool of that hypocrisy.

 

And the sillyness starts again. We have had this discussion all ready, ad hominem is very simple, as I said before this site you quote complicates it into legal and political spheres. But for us it is very simple, and has nothing per-se to do with insults apart from that is always the way it manifests on forums.

Yet again. http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/aterms/g/Adhominem.htm

 

As has been shown many times what you see is very far from reality.

 

Your understanding of ad hominem is very simple, Richard. Totally wrong, of course, but simple.

Chris

 

As far as I can see the AUP is not hypocritical. It could be argued that it effectively applies a form of censorship, but then so does the existence of imposed moderation. However, none of this, in itself, constitutes hypocrisy. It is possible that individuals may misuse their power in a hypocritical manner, but this does not render the rules they are misusing hypocritical.

I don't intend to get drawn into a circulatory argument of a largely semantic nature; but I would agree with those that claim that the term 'ad hominem' is largely being misused (and for the reasons already outlined in previous posts). Outside of politics it is rare to see clear ad hominem attacks being made.

 

The AUP is hypocritcal because it allows argument and discussion to happen between individuals and their views on all subjects apart from if that involves other forums or other forums are the subject. It is also self seeking and a form of control similar to that was attempted to be applied to the industry with the similar rules applied by BADA and BFA under the auspices of the flat earth cartel.

So now we have a forum cartel.

 

So all the fora are out to get you as well? A pattern emerges.....

Chris

 

I understand the point being made here but a pedantic element forces me to reiterate that the structure described does not constitute hypocrisy; 'self serving' perhaps, 'a form of control' perhaps, a form of censorship certainly - but none of this fits within the definition of hypocrisy.

If the forum stated in the AUP that it (ZG) must not be discussed on any other forum, and then discussed the goings on of another forum (pfm for example), that would be clearly hypocritical. However, pure statement of rules cannot, in itself, be hypocritical; it is how those rules are applied wherein lies the potential for hypocrisy.

 

Forum members are wont to go off on crusades about one thing or another. Most forum crusades are self-extinguishing, because they are localised. However, if an argument raged between members on two different forums, it would be self-fueling. And horrifically self-defeating.

Forums will always create cliques, and cliques will disagree with other cliques. The best way of preventing this from becoming open war between the forums is surgery.

And these 'he said, he said' inter-forum battles are more about trading insults than argumentum ad homeinem.

 

Astonishing! don't you see it is impossible to insult someone unless it is ad hominem, apply that rule and it doesn't matter what the subject is it has to be without conflict, as soon as ad hominem comes in it turns to conflict. That can be about forums or anything. Forums are now the only area, and I mean the admins and mods, where any form of behaviour can happen because it cannot be discussed.

I think I need to point to an example. This is the behaviour of and owner and admin of a forum with many thousands of members yet according to your rules it cannot be discussed and probably me using it as an example will mean it is removed, can't you see the bloody daftness of all this. If the Crossover Network hadn't allowed this to be published then this person would still be doing it and getting away with it. BUT he was named and shamed and doesn't dare do it anymore.

Read and feel disgusted http://thecrossovernetwork.co.uk/fo...(Art-of-Sound-forum-admin)-Threatening-Emails

 

The about.com definition of an argumentum ad hominem is extremely simplistic, beause it fails to distinguish between a legitimate ad hom. formal fallacy and a simple insult.

Insult: "Fred is an idiot"
Ad hom.: "What Fred said is wrong because he's an idiot"

The argumentum ad hominem is incorrect because there is no logical connection between the truth-condition of the premise and the person delivering that premise. Fred might very well be an idiot, but what he said might also be completely true.

There is no provision for enthymeme in formal fallacy. So if you present an argument and the counter to that is "Well, you're an idiot!", it remains disagreement and insult, rather than argumentum ad hominem. It can be a de facto ad hominem, but not a formal fallacy.