Debate the POST and NOT the poster

Whether you like it or not, the WOT has two ideological sides, and a whole stack of dead people.

You may not like what someone posts in this forum. It may strike you as crassly arrogant. It may strike you as being bloodthirsty. It may be against your proudly held convictions.

BUT

All members on ATS abide by the ATS : Terms and Conditions and in ALL cases Courtesy is Mandatory

Debate the members posts and NOT the poster. Its a simple thing to remember.

What may seem inflammatory to you, as a person, may be perfectly reasonable to someone else on the other side of the ideological divide.

ATS is NOT a battleground, its a place for civil discussion, debate and reasoned understanding. Please respect other peoples rights to have an opinion.

[edit on 18/0208/08 by neformore]

Lets face it:

If you feel the need to go ad hominem to prove your point, then perhaps its time for you take a break and rethink the merits of your position.

reply to post by FredT

---

While I can't encourage breaking of the rules, personally, I believe the prohibition on ad hominem attacks should be eliminated. Sure, people's feelings may get hurt if that were to occur, but I believe "if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen!" Furthermore, sometimes the line separating "post" from "poster" is blurred, so I feel that this rule has a tendency to unecessarily restrict people's ability to say what they need to. And that is a whole lot worse than hurt feelings.

to say what they Need to...
OR
to say what they Want to...
???

The difference being the focal point of neformore's OP, FredT's considerations, and the Actual topic of discussion.

The Post not the Poster
The Message not the Messenger
The Story not the Teller.

Sure. There are times where the "lines" can blur. But as FredT mentions, perhaps those are the times when one Needs to take a break/walk away... even though there may exist a Want to do otherwise. (?)


 

reply to post by 12m8keall2c

---

No, no. I think occassionally one NEEDS to attack the poster. What if, a poster comes in saying "I have my own data that proves so and so". What if that poster has a known history of falsifying data? In that case, a so-called ad hominem attack would be in order.

reply to post by chromatico

---

Once again if that is what your argument has turned into, civil discussion becomes impossible. And once again I need to point out that if you in the cource of defending or debating your thesis, or anybodies elese for that matter) you have to resort to a personal attack or start dragging out strawmen to prop up your point, you have lost. If you feel the urge, you need to rethink the defence of your position, and/or recognize that emotion has overridden logic and you need to take a break.

Hate the game and not the player.

reply to post by FredT

---

Well, perhaps civil discussion *with the person you are attacking* would appear to become impossible after an ad hominem attack, but, in reality, it had always been impossible, because that person wasn't shooting straight to begin with. Don't get me wrong, I hate ad hominem attacks, but when a person has a history of dishonesty or any other bad faith dealings in general, I begin to wonder if they are not necessary.

reply to post by chromatico

---

You don't get this, do you?

Every post needs to be treated on its own merits.

Your opinions of someones track record of posting do not matter. The content of the post matters. Providing that post is within the ATS : Terms and Conditions then it has a place on ATS, and is subject for debate.

It it is not within the T&C then the moderators will take appropriate action.

If, out of some sense of jingoism a person decides to choose to attack the poster and not the post appropriate action will be taken against them.

this is good news.


Most people use what you typed months ago, and use it against you. And others then attack your personal beliefs and religion instead of staying on topic. cool. thanks neformore.

Oh if only people would listen to you guys on that account.
I of course have been guilty of it but only after I have been insulted thus.
Not a good excuse but the only one I have.
Imma passionate little boy. =)

In those circumstances I would have thought that the 'civil' and obvious thing to do is point out the person's dishonesty without resorting to attacking the actual person

For example... You lied... you said X is A, B, & C. I can prove to you that X is D, E, & F

as opposed to

You are a liar, stop wasting my time, go and get lost you moron.

First one GOOD

Second one BAD

I think that's the message our esteemed moderators are trying to convey... forgive me if I've got it wrong

[edit on 18/2/2008 by Dagar]

I think the best phrase I've heard is this:
Play the ball, not the player.

The nature of a discussion board means that disagreements occur.

The nature and t&c of ATS means that we should not allow ignorance to enter a debate - and that's what attacks are, ignorance.

Besides which, maintaining dignity and politeness in the face of attacks will win you more friends and arguments than attacking back ever could.

If someone attacks you, use the alert button if the attack merits it - other than that, ignore it or use the ignore button.

I've been guilty of it myself, but the best tactic is and always will be, politeness.

Otherwise you're just buying into a game that no-one can win.

my tuppence, for what it's worth.

[edit on 18/2/2008 by budski]

Whilst I agree with the essence of the OP, unfortunately some people take any form of criticism as personal.

On several occassions I have responded to posts which have been construed as attacks on the poster.
Maybe I have been unclear in my response but overall I think it's because some people are either just too sensitive, are unable to accept any criticism and take everything personally or are just unable to understand opposing opinions.

Unfortunately I suspect that this will always be the case and there will always be an element of friction between people from opposite viewpoints.