| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
For those that are unaware, arguing in good faith is the first requirement of rhetorical debate. To argue in good faith mandates that you have to do everything in your power to ensure that you represent your opponent's position in the best possible light.
The reason why this is the first rule is really simple; if you don't follow this rule, you aren't actually having a debate, your just writing at each other. It's the rhetorical equivalent of flinging poop.
Just thought I'd send out this PSA into the aether... Enjoy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good post, needed saying.
Huh, not sure how the rules of rhetorical debate have anything to do with gamer talk specifically, but I guess it is what it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, not sure how the rules of rhetorical debate have anything to do with gamer talk specifically, but I guess it is what it is.
It's a more appropriate forum than the Pathfinder RPG General Discussion forum, which should be kept more to the game itself, rather than commentary on how to hold a discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, not sure how the rules of rhetorical debate have anything to do with gamer talk specifically, but I guess it is what it is.It's a more appropriate forum than the Pathfinder RPG General Discussion forum, which should be kept more to the game itself, rather than commentary on how to hold a discussion.
I see, that makes sense. I've been coming here for a while and I never made the connection between the general discussion forum and the pathfinder game. Thanks for the information.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And do you, Trogdar, truly feel like you in fact always represent your opponent's position in the best possible light?
A quick review of your posts could lead some to believe that you, on occasion, post a reply using a snarky tone and appear to be very dismissive of the poster that you're replying to when you disagree with them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you trying to say Trogdar is a rude evil troglodyte?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you trying to say you'll always try to represent an opponent's case in the worst possible light?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
And do you, Trogdar, truly feel like you in fact always represent your opponent's position in the best possible light?
A quick review of your posts could lead some to believe that you, on occasion, post a reply using a snarky tone and appear to be very dismissive of the poster that you're replying to when you disagree with them.
Let's avoid personal attacks and dragging individuals' drama from other threads into those that were heretofore free of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you trying to say we should be polite and avoid taking things to a hostile level?
Whoops I think that's what you actually meant to say. I mean, are you trying to say we should censor our discussion?
No personal attacks, and I didn't quote any specific posts in order to ensure no "drama" was dragged in. The topic of the post is "
Arguing from a position of good faith, and why it's important".
If we can't discuss what constitutes "arguing from a position of good faith," how can the topic be discussed at all? Might as well lock the thread.
A lot of the responses so far make me feel like, "this is why we can not have nice thing." Sigh.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No personal attacks, and I didn't quote any specific posts in order to ensure no "drama" was dragged in. The topic of the post is "
Arguing from a position of good faith, and why it's important".If we can't discuss what constitutes "arguing from a position of good faith," how can the topic be discussed at all? Might as well lock the thread.
You can do it without "but THIS person does bad stuff ALL THE TIME!!!"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you trying to say we should be polite and avoid taking things to a hostile level?
Whoops I think that's what you actually meant to say. I mean, are you trying to say we should censor our discussion?
I shouldn't be encouraging you, but you're on fire today, dude. ;-)
I agree completely. What in my post indicated that I said a specific user did bad stuff all the time? I even used the words "on occasion," to indicate that it specifically wasn't something that happened all the time.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't really need to involve his own personal posts to clarify what he means. Just ask him where he thinks the line is drawn.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I shouldn't be encouraging you, but you're on fire today, dude. ;-)Are you trying to say we should be polite and avoid taking things to a hostile level?
Whoops I think that's what you actually meant to say. I mean, are you trying to say we should censor our discussion?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, If I disagree with someone's position, I have no intention of presenting it in a light better than it actually is.
No, that doesn't necessarily help either. The point is to avoid things like:
"I like to run the game with less structured rules and more scope for GM fiat" presented as "If you want to play fantasy-story-time, I'm glad I'm not stuck at your table."
or
"I enjoy creating a character and sifting through lots of options to ensure the mechanical representation of my character represents the flavor I'm trying to convey" represented as "You just care about having MOAR POWER!!!!!"
Hyperbole is one of the biggest problems on the rules forum, in my opinion. When people encounter an opposing view, it's extremely common to extrapolate that view to the most absurd interpretation possible and then criticise the extremist position - regardless of where the original poster actually sits on the spectrum. They then come in to defend themselves and often retaliate by resorting to hyperbole themselves.
Ultimately, the result is two people loudly ridiculing two positions nobody in the discussion actually holds.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hyperbole is one of the biggest problems on the rules forum, in my opinion.
That's a big one, and another one I see is ascribing motives. Saying "You are intentionally misreading that because you have an agenda." When in fact we have seen over and over that people can reach different conclusions from the text, because it isn't always written with the precision of legal writing or programming language.
Trusting folks that they really do believe the page says what they are saying it says, could be another example of good faith.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, speculating about other people's motives is rarely helpful (even if you're right it doesn't actually add anything).
Are you trying to say you'll always try to represent an opponent's case in the worst possible light?No need for strawman arguments. No.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's also important to recognize when certain topics don't need to be rhetorical debates. An argument in good faith is still an argument; not every discussion needs a devil's advocate to weigh in.
Are you trying to say Chelaxians should be banned from speaking in public?
Trusting folks that they really do believe the page says what they are saying it says, could be another example of good faith.
Are you trying to say we should never trust anybody?
Yeah, speculating about other people's motives is rarely helpful (even if you're right it doesn't actually add anything).
Are you trying to say Lisa Stevens is a reptilian sleeper agent?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
;PAre you trying to say you'll always try to represent an opponent's case in the worst possible light?No need for strawman arguments. No.
ಠ_ಠ
Are you trying to say, "Hoot! Hoot!"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hyperbole is one of the biggest problems on the rules forum, in my opinion. When people encounter an opposing view, it's extremely common to extrapolate that view to the most absurd interpretation possible and then criticise the extremist position - regardless of where the original poster actually sits on the spectrum. They then come in to defend themselves and often retaliate by resorting to hyperbole themselves.
Agreed, and I don't think people even realize that they're doing it most of the time.
Plus there are times when people post things that they think are funny, but in turn simply distract from the topic at hand.
Ultimately, its each person's responsibility to use their best judgment and when a post seems to be baiting or even is actual baiting, not to respond to it. Easier said than done most of the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you trying to say you'll always try to represent an opponent's case in the worst possible light?No need for strawman arguments. No. I'm saying that I'm going to represent my opponent's case in the realistic ligth. Not worse nor better.
I think you may be missing the point. Many comments or arguments are open to interpretation; trying to interpret them in good faith is a cornerstone of logical debate. Being unable to even see that an opposing argument can be interpreted in anything but the most negative way seems to be a not uncommon issue - people aren't always being disingenuous so much as being unfair on a whole other unconscious level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Kobold - lol
@ Badbird - exactly
The sad thing is that most people don't realize that, if you argue in bad faith, your not actually arguing at all and essentially handing the argument to the opponent.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's also important to recognize when certain topics don't need to be rhetorical debates. An argument in good faith is still an argument; not every discussion needs a devil's advocate to weigh in.Are you trying to say Chelaxians should be banned from speaking in public?
Mmmmmmmm, yeah, basically. ;D
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the biggest contributors I believe is the same topics coming up over and over. New forumites don't have the conversation history that the veterans do. So often the bad faith arguments are "here we go again" or getting "inb4" the rhetoric begins. Worst case scenario the poster makes bad faith arguments out of spite. A good exercise is to think if you have nothing constructive to contribute its best to not contribute at all.
Let me be the first to apologize for failing often on this. I swear im getting better though!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Kobold - lol
@ Badbird - exactlyThe sad thing is that most people don't realize that, if you argue in bad faith, your not actually arguing at all and essentially handing the argument to the opponent.
And yet people argue in bad faith all the time and often do quite well by it.
People disguise their real motives and their real opinions in order to achieve things they couldn't if they were honest about their motives.
In many cases figuring out what nastiness is behind a person's apparently pleasant words is a social survival skill.Even in internet debate on gaming boards, some people really are just trolling. Past a certain point, interpreting what they say in the best possible light is just adding to the train wreck.
I dont know how missrepresenting an argument could get at a real motive honestly. I just dont know how that would work objectively. Your just leading a conversation astray if one party or the other too badly distorts the message. At least, if the end is to achieve something through discourse, then it serves both parties to argue in good faith. That is probably the most accurate way to say it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The sad thing is that most people don't realize that, if you argue in bad faith, your not actually arguing at all and essentially handing the argument to the opponent.
If one is making an emotional appeal, rather than an intellectual argument, arguing in bad faith might give one the emotional edge. Many (most?) people these days respond more favorably to an emotional argument than an intellectual one, which I think is unfortunate.
If one can argue on an emotional level, but force one's opponent to argue on an intellectual level, so much the better (apparently).
At least, if the end is to achieve something through discourse, then it serves both parties to argue in good faith.
Unless the end that one is trying to achieve is social dominance over the other party, or some other goal that isn't directly about the topic of discussion. Some people do that, which I think is also unfortunate.
Of course, these are debate tactics, and not good rules for an actual, constructive discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont know how missrepresenting an argument could get at a real motive honestly. I just dont know how that would work objectively. Your just leading a conversation astray if one party or the other too badly distorts the message. At least, if the end is to achieve something through discourse, then it serves both parties to argue in good faith. That is probably the most accurate way to say it.@Kobold - lol
@ Badbird - exactlyThe sad thing is that most people don't realize that, if you argue in bad faith, your not actually arguing at all and essentially handing the argument to the opponent.
And yet people argue in bad faith all the time and often do quite well by it.
People disguise their real motives and their real opinions in order to achieve things they couldn't if they were honest about their motives.
In many cases figuring out what nastiness is behind a person's apparently pleasant words is a social survival skill.Even in internet debate on gaming boards, some people really are just trolling. Past a certain point, interpreting what they say in the best possible light is just adding to the train wreck.
There is a difference between "missrepresenting an argument" and not representing "your opponent's position in the best possible light".
As I said, "the best possible light" might be as much of a distortion as anything. You want to respond to your opponent's actual meaning, not a rosy version of it.
To the extent that the other person is arguing in good faith, you're certainly right. It's when the other person is not, when they're arguing emotionally or otherwise manipulating the discussion, then bending over backwards to put their argument in the best light just plays into their hands.
Maybe, I don't know. I would assume that if someone is manipulating the conversation with arguments from ethos, then the best possible light would be to take it that way because there really isn't a lot of ways to do otherwise.
Edit for clarity: I think that an argument that rests on nothing substantial like reasonable premises, even when taken the best way, can be discarded. So, from my perspective, there is no issue with using good faith because good faith won't fix a non argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the big differences between posters in a rules argument is exegesis vs Eisegesis.
Eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. ie, reading into the text
Exegesis is getting a reading out of the text.
Many posters consider eisegesis of the rules in order to read it in a more advantageous manner and are confused by the more RAI methods of eisegesis.
One of the big differences between posters in a rules argument is exegesis vs Eisegesis.
Eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. ie, reading into the text
Exegesis is getting a reading out of the text.
Many posters consider exegesis of the rules in order to read it in a more advantageous manner and are confused by the more RAI methods of eisegesis.
I think I fixed that for you. You repeated the same term in the last paragraph.
Yeah, I can see that. I think I have trouble with reading into the text because I don't trust myself enough. I really am not super interested in introducing my biases. I already know what they are. :P
What would be helpful is if we could have some case examples to review.
I wonder if an individual poster offers to allow his/her post to be evaluated in such a manner if that is acceptable to the mods / board rules?
My initial assumption is that people's interpretation of what constitutes viewing an argument in a positive light will be all over the place, but it would be interesting to see.
Well, I'm not going to quote anything because that would put somebody on the spot, but I will put a simple example down.
Me: "Apples are great and full of fiber. Best not to eat too many in a day though, because of the sugar content."
Other: "Why do you hate apples!?"
See how the reply doesn't really deal with the content of the opening comment? That's arguing in bad faith.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I agree with you, but that is a fairly cut and dry example.
My suspicion is that there are times when people aren't arguing in bad faith, but there has instead been a miscommunication.
In addition, the longer a thread gets, the less likely that it remains coherent. Several posters are going off on tangents and then people reply to the tangents without making it clear that they are doing so, which in turn causes another person to think they're commenting on the original topic of the thread.
Rinse/repeat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I agree with you, but that is a fairly cut and dry example.
My suspicion is that there are times when people aren't arguing in bad faith, but there has instead been a miscommunication.
In addition, the longer a thread gets, the less likely that it remains coherent. Several posters are going off on tangents and then people reply to the tangents without making it clear that they are doing so, which in turn causes another person to think they're commenting on the original topic of the thread.
Rinse/repeat.
Thankfully, a fair number of offenders will quote the text they are misrepresenting, which is helpful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the risk of starting a major tangent, I think that an equal problem, that I think goes hand in hand with this, is people reacting with hostility or with some sort of trying to win mentality. When combined, we really get a lot of Gotcha posts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The OP is 100% correct.
If you can't explain your opponent's argument to his or her satisfaction, then you're doing it wrong. Yes, it is easier said than done. On the other hand, if it would never even occur to you to try...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to invalidate other people's experiences happens a lot as well. As in someone says "I've noticed a problem with x, so I don't allow x anymore in my games."
Then someone else will come along and say "x? Are you kidding me? x is not a problem."
Where a better answer would be "Interesting, I've never encountered a problem with x at my table."
At the risk of starting a major tangent, I think that an equal problem, that I think goes hand in hand with this, is people reacting with hostility or with some sort of trying to win mentality. When combined, we really get a lot of Gotcha posts.
I can sort of see that. I kind of feel like some think winning is something that applies to everything, which is odd. I imagine its got something to do with capital based ideology. Anyway, you can't win an argument by not participating in it. You can totally derail an argument to the detriment of everyone by arguing in bad faith.