A frequent problem on message boards is an inability by some users to argue well. Rather than attacking an assertion they disagree with, they attack the *person* who makes the assertion instead. This is a sign of weak skills in logic and tends to obscure the point of such arguments rather than resolve them.

There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:

ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
"You are stupid and obviously know nothing about...."

ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
"You are just saying that because you want...."

ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.
"You are a hypocrite because you do...."

Discussion and opposing points of view are always welcome here, but please think things through before you post.

While I'm glad to have the moderator finally sitting down and being clear I feel something must be said about being hypocritical in posts.
For example, say I pirate non stop, I abuse poor newbies who are simply trying to get money so they can get into the swing of the game.
Now say I come here and say that pirating is ruining the game and measures should be made to stop it.
While my opinion is not wrong, I hardly have the right to form that opinion and I really can't expect anyone to respect my opinion.

I'm not asking people to stop having conversial opinions, I'm asking that people don't come to these boards and post messages citing specific instances that have happened to them and stating that it should be made so that it can't happen again when they themselves are guilty of the very offence they complain of.

I'm just asking for common sense.

Bush can't declare war and then say that anyone who declares war on another country is wrong.
His opinion is right but he has no place to give it.

Couldn't have said it better.

I hear what you are saying, but disagree a little:

Somebody who jumps off a cliff is in an unusually informed position (if they live - and here I mean a figurative position, not all mangled-up at the bottom of a ravine) for offering an opinion about the problems associated with jumping off cliffs. If they continue to leap off cliffs while still discouraging others to do so then they can be correctly be labeled a hypocrite, but this does not invalidate their opinion or prevent them from voicing an opinion.

The reader or listener may decide for themselves whether he would like to absorb information given by a hypocrite, but for the purposes of the Vendetta Test all opinions are valuable if well-stated.

Sometimes they're not being a hypocrite. Sometimes they're trying to teach the exploiter/cheater a lesson by applying the same tactics to that person. Of course when they realize how cheap their tactic is and how fast they got killed, they begin to whine about it and call the person a hypocrite. This occurs a lot.

That kind of is the definition of a hypocrite. Denouncing an act that you take part of.

that's like saying "I murder muderers, but I am only teaching them a lesson so I am free of guilt"

Actually a good working definition is: "a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold"

In Arolte's example, one could hold the opinion that cheating is wrong, but they do it anyway to teach somebody a lesson. I'm not saying I agree, but the behavior is not necessarily hypocritical.

But, this topic is about how to make an assertion without attacking the person making the opposite assertion - which results in flames and is counterproductive.

Keeping the above in mind, I deleted a post here that was attacking. I created this one thread as a way to educate, and will be particularly intolerant of rude behavior (but not opposing opinions)within this thread.

I'll admit that it was my post. Just pull the names and put it back. It was a perfectly good argument about the definition of hypocrites. It just happened to use real examples from the game.

Sadly I can't edit posts, nor can I put them back once they are deleted.

Try posting again. The specific examples "naming names" generally do invite flames, but your word choice was what pushed it over the edge. If you want, we could dissect posts here. I would have done it earlier but I didn't want to single you out. We can toy with this here.

The topic is about Arguing though.

Maybe, change delete to hide, and maybe let you edit everybody's post.

We need to act civilised when we argue.

My reply was to Arolte's "hypocrite" post in this very thread. I'd say I was on topic if he was. See my most recent post in the "remove rockets" thread.

SL: I hear ya. As you know well, the implementation leaves much to be desired.

Nyte: I was trying to steer EVERYONE back to the point.

Gotcha, but lets keep this even handed eh? I hate to bust your balls about something so trivial, but it really does seem like arolte is getting (or giving) some special treatment here.

</bitching>

Ya everyone thinks that when their posts get monkeyed with. Arolte felt I was unfair to him recently as well, just read back through the threads a little.

I'm asking people to stop complaining about the community and start doing their part to clean it up. IMO, this is the place to start because all actions can be seen by the Mods and devs.

Getting back on topic, I definatly fall under category number three. Is there a twelve step program for that?

I wouldn't consider that a sign of weak logic however. Its pointing out a problem or problematic individual. Often this type of arguing will be coupled with logical arguments. This double argument is a result of the poster having an emotional reaction (usually by way of a negative experience with the person he is arguing with) to an earlier post. These should not be discounted as flames, but looked as as real examples from the problem area of the game. My semi-flames could easily be turned around and used as perfect examples of how bad rocket ramming is, and how they should be removed from the game. Fortunately for me, they weren't.

Also a bit off topic here, sorry:

To those whom it may concern, SL glares at a few people in particular, don't exploit to stop exploiters from exploiting, it just makes you look like an exploiter. (hipocrits!)
;-)

I'm not particularly well trained in the art of the debate. But I try to be an example of an honest player, and always try to act with integrity. Sometimes I just randomly donate 10K credits to people when I'm online (which sadly isn't very often). That's my own particular way to encourage people to behave nicely. It's all about karma. :-)

sorry Off topic:

I'm asking people to stop complaining about the community and start doing their part to clean it up. IMO, this is the place to start because all actions can be seen by the Mods and devs.

I am doing my best, and we had a nice day today. Untill somebody thought it was funny to mine the biggest trading station. Because he wanted to kill some people who in his opinion where cheaters/... . Next time please dont mine the station. It only encourages complaining and bitching

cheers

Nyte: The problem with semi-flames / flames/ emotional reactions is that the reader DOES tend to dismiss the argument and respond instead to the emotion. Your logic and examples go ignored. This is not just you, it happens here again and again.

As for few off-topic posts, while I salute the calm tone and the avoidance of naming the individual in question, reporting the events in great detail invites the person who you are talking about to recognize that you are speaking about them. I ask you then, what is your point? If you are telling on them and looking for moral support and a few flames, you have done well. If you are looking to have a thoughtful discussion about a flaw in game-play, you have probably mired your point in a mound of unnecessary detail and may be inviting unwanted flames.

I'll try to grab examples of good posts in the future.

For those who don't speak Latin...

Ad hominem: Against the person
Tu quoque: You also

:P

I must say, I love this thread, and I hope this is the way discussions (I'm not going to call them arguments, because that has a negative connotation) go in the future. It's a nice, intelligent conversation where people put their thoroughly thought-out points in a calm, constructive manner, and nobody flames anyone (AAA!!! I'm in school again!). Keep up the good work!

I think there are two types of hypocracy. One is in which, for example, I tell people not to use rocketbusses because it's a weak setup. I was one of the first users of the rocketbus, and that's about all I use. Why do I use it? Because I like it. It just fits my style of playing. My point is perfectly valid, and in fact perhaps more valid than that of someone who's never used the thing. The other one is in which, for example, if I told people not to kill n00bs repeatedly, and that everyone who did that deserved to die, and then went and did it myself. Not only have I just flamed ("everyone who does it deserves to die"), but I've also been hypocritical in a bad way. Essentially, I'm saying that I deserve to die (meaning I'm a horrible person), and yet I keep on doing it (and maybe even increase in intenseness). The former is perfectly fine, but the latter is not. Unfortunately, the latter seems to be most of what I've been seeing...

P.S. I know the second example wasn't that great. I'm dashing this off right before dinner... :P