Warning points

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Due to our recent upgrade, the warning points system has been renovated. Warning points are now issued on the following scale:

• Multiple Posts: 2 points, 7 day expiry
  
• Disrespect: 3 points, 7 day expiry
  
• Spamming: 4 points, 10 day expiry
  
• Advertising: 7 points, 14 day expiry
  
• Copyright violation/plagiarism: 10 points, 14 day expiry
  
• Inappropriate Profile Content: 10 points, 14 day expiry
  
• Flaming: 10 points, 14 day expiry
  
• Trolling: 10 points, 14 day expiry
  
• Persistent Strawmanning: 12 points, 16 day expiry
  
• Repeated Prejudice: 15 points, 21 day expiry
  
• HazMat Violation: 15 points, 21 day expiry
  

Once a user reaches 25 points, they are issued a 3-day ban.

[ydoaPs]

HazMat Violation?

[Dave]

That covers posts which are in violation of our hazardous materials clause, which includes things like posting instructions on making explosives and a variety of other badness. Consult the forum policy for some more details.

[DaveC426913]

Persistent Strawmanning?

12 points???

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[insane_alien]

HazMat Violation?

 

opening wormholes to the zen universe and allowing a hole bunch of nasty aliens through.

[GutZ]

This is mostly short-term based right? Your not going to give someone who flames constantly (minus the 3 day vacations) infinite chances right?

[DaveC426913]

http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

 

I know what a strawman is. I'm merely asking about the rationale as to why it is a forum violation, and a very hefty one at that.

[Phi for All]

Your not going to give someone who flames constantly (minus the 3 day vacations) infinite chances right?

Right.

I know what a strawman is. I'm merely asking about the rationale as to why it is a forum violation, and a very hefty one at that.

The violation is for *Persistent* Strawman. It's hefty because people who rely on the use of this particular fallacy derail many threads and force others to defend everything but the original argument. Strawman is also one of the few logical fallacies that is almost always wrong to use in an argument.

[Dak]

it is very, very, very annoying.

 

phi: when is it ok to use other falicies?

 

slippery slope can be a valid consern rather than a falicy, and i suppose appeal to emotion is relevent in a few cases, tho i don't like it. tautologies can be a tricky one, but other than that, i cant think of any acceptable uses of falicies?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think the original intention was to make it a broad rule for most fallacies, but that seems to have been forgotten... sorry, I drafted the warnings originally

[ecoli]

I think the original intention was to make it a broad rule for most fallacies, but that seems to have been forgotten... sorry, I drafted the warnings originally

 

Is 'persistant' going to be a judgement call by the mods? Because it's easily to make a fallacious argument without realizing it, especially strawmans. I know I've made strawman arguments by accident before, but have admited to it when I've done it. Surely something like that won't be punished, right?

[Phi for All]

phi: when is it ok to use other falicies?

Most other logical fallacies have valid applications, such as the Slippery Slope you mentioned. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (before this, therefore because of this), another common fallacy, is very often true (you walked into the room and it started to stink so it must be you :D ).

 

What is wrong about logical fallacies is to accept the reasoning behind them as sound in every case. While it is a Slippery Slope to expect burning one book to lead to the burning of other books and yet it is actually quite likely to happen that way, it is a mistake to assume that one bad action will *always* lead to a similar inevitable bad end.

 

Strawman, however, always allows one to demolish an argument and thus seem like the victor in a debate. The fact that it wasn't the argument in question is very often lost during the victory celebration.

 

Ad hominem is another fallacy that is wrong in just about every case, which is why we warn for Flaming and the like. There's no reason to call someone naive for voicing a certain argument. Showing why the argument is naive is a much firmer stance.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Is 'persistant' going to be a judgement call by the mods? Because it's easily to make a fallacious argument without realizing it, especially strawmans. I know I've made strawman arguments by accident before, but have admited to it when I've done it. Surely something like that won't be punished, right?

Of course. It's only punished if you vigorously deny/ignore us when we tell you you're strawmanning, and then turn around and do it again.

[Dak]

Ad hominem is another fallacy that is wrong in just about every case,

 

no it's not, you smelly git

 

ah i see, thanks

[DaveC426913]

There's no reason to call someone naive for voicing a certain argument. Showing why the argument is naive is a much firmer stance.

Or, more eloquently: "Attack the argument, not the arguer."

[GutZ]

Right.

 

Perfect. Except I'd do 5 days and after the first ban it gets exponentally larger. SO if you get banned a second time its, 25 days, then 625 days! I find that quite rational... XD

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'd rather we go for three days, stick with that a few times, and then just permaban the guy. After all, after 625 days you won't even remember what he did wrong the last time...

[GutZ]

I thought you scientist record everything I was just joking. It might be useful in the future to set specifics so people are not complaining that he/she were perm-banned one ban before the other.

[Spyman]

Is there a new link where one might view the Warning Points and Expiry Time left ?

 

Like the old one : http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/Warn.php?do=ViewMyWarnings

(Which doesn't seem to work anymore.)

 

From this thread: Warning System http://www.scienceforums.net/showthread.php?t=11377

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You may be able to check on how many points you have left by visiting your own profile or through the UCP; I'm not really sure how it works.