Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Lords of Logic

SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 7:12:12 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Introduction:

I know I haven't said much about myself on this site, and I don't really want to create an appeal to authority (even valid authority), however I do want a valid authority on the site.

As I have perused some of the members and content I have come to the conclusion that there are a number of trolls still present and that they often hide behind facades dressed up as belief systems such as religion or atheism. Sometimes they just hide behind plausible stupidity as well.

I propose that statistical deviation in the use of logical fallacy in argument be used to evaluate a user's Troll Quotient. A person doesn't get banned for having a high TQ, but they can be excluded from serious debate.

Any user can flag an argument as fallacious in a debate by reference to the post itself (row/column/offset + length). In the cases where two arguments together create a fallacy, the reporting mechanism should allow reference in the form of argument A and argument B reference. (Con statement B is guilty of fallacy X in relation to Pro statement A).

Complexity of fallacy should be limited and as such I propose a subset of fallacies for use in this metric. I propose Fullerton University's minor list of major fallacies (http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu... )

Being voted has having used a fallacy does not increase a member's TQ. TQ is computed as positive (yielding a negative TQ rating overall) if a user has a majority of a debate rated as logically fallacious.

Conversely, TQ can be reduced over time by the same process. Participation in the fallacy reporting process, especially meta-moderation voting, has a minor effect to offset TQ. If you propose that an argument is fallacious, and the vote supports your contention, then you get negative TQ (The TQ added to the troll is deducted from your own TQ).

In this way, penance for trolling is to moderate trolls.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 9:47:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 7:12:12 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Introduction:

I know I haven't said much about myself on this site, and I don't really want to create an appeal to authority (even valid authority), however I do want a valid authority on the site.

As I have perused some of the members and content I have come to the conclusion that there are a number of trolls still present and that they often hide behind facades dressed up as belief systems such as religion or atheism. Sometimes they just hide behind plausible stupidity as well.

I propose that statistical deviation in the use of logical fallacy in argument be used to evaluate a user's Troll Quotient. A person doesn't get banned for having a high TQ, but they can be excluded from serious debate.

Any user can flag an argument as fallacious in a debate by reference to the post itself (row/column/offset + length). In the cases where two arguments together create a fallacy, the reporting mechanism should allow reference in the form of argument A and argument B reference. (Con statement B is guilty of fallacy X in relation to Pro statement A).

Complexity of fallacy should be limited and as such I propose a subset of fallacies for use in this metric. I propose Fullerton University's minor list of major fallacies (http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu... )

Being voted has having used a fallacy does not increase a member's TQ. TQ is computed as positive (yielding a negative TQ rating overall) if a user has a majority of a debate rated as logically fallacious.

Conversely, TQ can be reduced over time by the same process. Participation in the fallacy reporting process, especially meta-moderation voting, has a minor effect to offset TQ. If you propose that an argument is fallacious, and the vote supports your contention, then you get negative TQ (The TQ added to the troll is deducted from your own TQ).

In this way, penance for trolling is to moderate trolls.

This is a good idea. Its too bad we don't have Juggle to implement it.
I don't have a signature. :-)
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 10:48:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
well Juggle or no Juggle someone is still running the site, and that means someone can implement it.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 1:02:25 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 10:48:25 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
well Juggle or no Juggle someone is still running the site, and that means someone can implement it.

Juggle is the "someone' running the site. No Juggle, no one running the site.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Trollord
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 1:12:08 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 7:12:12 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Introduction:

I know I haven't said much about myself on this site, and I don't really want to create an appeal to authority (even valid authority), however I do want a valid authority on the site.

As I have perused some of the members and content I have come to the conclusion that there are a number of trolls still present and that they often hide behind facades dressed up as belief systems such as religion or atheism. Sometimes they just hide behind plausible stupidity as well.

I propose that statistical deviation in the use of logical fallacy in argument be used to evaluate a user's Troll Quotient. A person doesn't get banned for having a high TQ, but they can be excluded from serious debate.

Any user can flag an argument as fallacious in a debate by reference to the post itself (row/column/offset + length). In the cases where two arguments together create a fallacy, the reporting mechanism should allow reference in the form of argument A and argument B reference. (Con statement B is guilty of fallacy X in relation to Pro statement A).

Complexity of fallacy should be limited and as such I propose a subset of fallacies for use in this metric. I propose Fullerton University's minor list of major fallacies (http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu... )

Being voted has having used a fallacy does not increase a member's TQ. TQ is computed as positive (yielding a negative TQ rating overall) if a user has a majority of a debate rated as logically fallacious.

Conversely, TQ can be reduced over time by the same process. Participation in the fallacy reporting process, especially meta-moderation voting, has a minor effect to offset TQ. If you propose that an argument is fallacious, and the vote supports your contention, then you get negative TQ (The TQ added to the troll is deducted from your own TQ).

In this way, penance for trolling is to moderate trolls.

What about the much beloved imabench?
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 6:53:06 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 4/19/2016 7:12:12 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Introduction:

I know I haven't said much about myself on this site, and I don't really want to create an appeal to authority (even valid authority), however I do want a valid authority on the site.

As I have perused some of the members and content I have come to the conclusion that there are a number of trolls still present and that they often hide behind facades dressed up as belief systems such as religion or atheism. Sometimes they just hide behind plausible stupidity as well.

I propose that statistical deviation in the use of logical fallacy in argument be used to evaluate a user's Troll Quotient. A person doesn't get banned for having a high TQ, but they can be excluded from serious debate.

Any user can flag an argument as fallacious in a debate by reference to the post itself (row/column/offset + length). In the cases where two arguments together create a fallacy, the reporting mechanism should allow reference in the form of argument A and argument B reference. (Con statement B is guilty of fallacy X in relation to Pro statement A).

Complexity of fallacy should be limited and as such I propose a subset of fallacies for use in this metric. I propose Fullerton University's minor list of major fallacies (http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu... )

Being voted has having used a fallacy does not increase a member's TQ. TQ is computed as positive (yielding a negative TQ rating overall) if a user has a majority of a debate rated as logically fallacious.

Conversely, TQ can be reduced over time by the same process. Participation in the fallacy reporting process, especially meta-moderation voting, has a minor effect to offset TQ. If you propose that an argument is fallacious, and the vote supports your contention, then you get negative TQ (The TQ added to the troll is deducted from your own TQ).

In this way, penance for trolling is to moderate trolls.

Well lets see. You claimed a definition I posted which refuted your incorrect definition of cosmology as being "people with an axe to grind". That's a genetic fallacy. So where do I report and flag your fallacious comment?
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 12:13:03 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 4/19/2016 9:47:02 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 7:12:12 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Introduction:

I know I haven't said much about myself on this site, and I don't really want to create an appeal to authority (even valid authority), however I do want a valid authority on the site.

As I have perused some of the members and content I have come to the conclusion that there are a number of trolls still present and that they often hide behind facades dressed up as belief systems such as religion or atheism. Sometimes they just hide behind plausible stupidity as well.

I propose that statistical deviation in the use of logical fallacy in argument be used to evaluate a user's Troll Quotient. A person doesn't get banned for having a high TQ, but they can be excluded from serious debate.

Any user can flag an argument as fallacious in a debate by reference to the post itself (row/column/offset + length). In the cases where two arguments together create a fallacy, the reporting mechanism should allow reference in the form of argument A and argument B reference. (Con statement B is guilty of fallacy X in relation to Pro statement A).

Complexity of fallacy should be limited and as such I propose a subset of fallacies for use in this metric. I propose Fullerton University's minor list of major fallacies (http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu... )

Being voted has having used a fallacy does not increase a member's TQ. TQ is computed as positive (yielding a negative TQ rating overall) if a user has a majority of a debate rated as logically fallacious.

Conversely, TQ can be reduced over time by the same process. Participation in the fallacy reporting process, especially meta-moderation voting, has a minor effect to offset TQ. If you propose that an argument is fallacious, and the vote supports your contention, then you get negative TQ (The TQ added to the troll is deducted from your own TQ).

In this way, penance for trolling is to moderate trolls.

This is a good idea. Its too bad we don't have Juggle to implement it.

Maybe we could kidnap all the Juggle employees lol
Meh!
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 12:56:09 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 12:13:03 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 4/19/2016 9:47:02 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 7:12:12 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Introduction:

I know I haven't said much about myself on this site, and I don't really want to create an appeal to authority (even valid authority), however I do want a valid authority on the site.

As I have perused some of the members and content I have come to the conclusion that there are a number of trolls still present and that they often hide behind facades dressed up as belief systems such as religion or atheism. Sometimes they just hide behind plausible stupidity as well.

I propose that statistical deviation in the use of logical fallacy in argument be used to evaluate a user's Troll Quotient. A person doesn't get banned for having a high TQ, but they can be excluded from serious debate.

Any user can flag an argument as fallacious in a debate by reference to the post itself (row/column/offset + length). In the cases where two arguments together create a fallacy, the reporting mechanism should allow reference in the form of argument A and argument B reference. (Con statement B is guilty of fallacy X in relation to Pro statement A).

Complexity of fallacy should be limited and as such I propose a subset of fallacies for use in this metric. I propose Fullerton University's minor list of major fallacies (http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu... )

Being voted has having used a fallacy does not increase a member's TQ. TQ is computed as positive (yielding a negative TQ rating overall) if a user has a majority of a debate rated as logically fallacious.

Conversely, TQ can be reduced over time by the same process. Participation in the fallacy reporting process, especially meta-moderation voting, has a minor effect to offset TQ. If you propose that an argument is fallacious, and the vote supports your contention, then you get negative TQ (The TQ added to the troll is deducted from your own TQ).

In this way, penance for trolling is to moderate trolls.

This is a good idea. Its too bad we don't have Juggle to implement it.

Maybe we could kidnap all the Juggle employees lol

If we can get a large ransom, we might be able to buy Juggle!
I don't have a signature. :-)
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 1:02:09 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 12:56:09 AM, Bob13 wrote:
At 6/5/2016 12:13:03 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 4/19/2016 9:47:02 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 7:12:12 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Introduction:

I know I haven't said much about myself on this site, and I don't really want to create an appeal to authority (even valid authority), however I do want a valid authority on the site.

As I have perused some of the members and content I have come to the conclusion that there are a number of trolls still present and that they often hide behind facades dressed up as belief systems such as religion or atheism. Sometimes they just hide behind plausible stupidity as well.

I propose that statistical deviation in the use of logical fallacy in argument be used to evaluate a user's Troll Quotient. A person doesn't get banned for having a high TQ, but they can be excluded from serious debate.

Any user can flag an argument as fallacious in a debate by reference to the post itself (row/column/offset + length). In the cases where two arguments together create a fallacy, the reporting mechanism should allow reference in the form of argument A and argument B reference. (Con statement B is guilty of fallacy X in relation to Pro statement A).

Complexity of fallacy should be limited and as such I propose a subset of fallacies for use in this metric. I propose Fullerton University's minor list of major fallacies (http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu... )

Being voted has having used a fallacy does not increase a member's TQ. TQ is computed as positive (yielding a negative TQ rating overall) if a user has a majority of a debate rated as logically fallacious.

Conversely, TQ can be reduced over time by the same process. Participation in the fallacy reporting process, especially meta-moderation voting, has a minor effect to offset TQ. If you propose that an argument is fallacious, and the vote supports your contention, then you get negative TQ (The TQ added to the troll is deducted from your own TQ).

In this way, penance for trolling is to moderate trolls.

This is a good idea. Its too bad we don't have Juggle to implement it.

Maybe we could kidnap all the Juggle employees lol

If we can get a large ransom, we might be able to buy Juggle!

Perfect! We're criminal masterminds
Meh!
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 1:39:47 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 6:53:06 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
Well lets see. You claimed a definition I posted which refuted your incorrect definition of cosmology as being "people with an axe to grind". That's a genetic fallacy. So where do I report and flag your fallacious comment?

Your definition came from a site run by a group that has a clearly stated corporate agenda that conflicts with pure etymology and morphology. They have been cited numerous times for adding definitions that support their corporate identity.

Next time you want to argue semantics, use a valid source. You can know if your source is valid in this very simple way:

1.) Find out who published the source of record.
2.) Research the goals and agenda of the publishers.

you can't just choose the first result on google that agrees with you and assume their legit. check it out next time.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...