Questions, concerns, or ideas about the Rules & Guidelines

[John Bauer]

If you have any questions, concerns, or ideas regarding the Rules & Guidelines, please send me a DM with them and I will address it in this thread.

​

 

[John Bauer]

4.4. Identify and address only one logical fallacy at a time. To ensure fair and orderly debate, members may identify only one alleged logical fallacy at a time in an opponent's argument. Additional accusations may not be introduced until the initial claim has been acknowledged and refuted or otherwise resolved. This prevents discussions from being overwhelmed by a cascade of accusations which, if addressed, would derail meaningful engagement. Fallacy accusations should be made in good faith, with evidence, careful attention to context, and a willingness to be corrected if mistaken.

Members who have been called out for a logical fallacy are expected to address that specific charge in good faith, either conceding the point or demonstrating that no fallacy occurred by clarifying their reasoning. Unless the charge is addressed, the member may not continue participating in that thread. Ignoring or dismissing the allegation without engagement undermines meaningful dialogue. That being said, his post may continue engaging other points, as long as it includes an acknowledgement and resolution of the fallacy accusation.

It was my understanding that rule 4.4 meant both involved parties must come to an agreement on the matter.

It doesn't mean that, nor is it necessary. As stated in the rule, the one accused (e.g., Smith) must either demonstrate that no fallacy occurred or concede the point if valid. That doesn't mean the other person (e.g., Jones) must agree that Smith did so. However, if he thinks that Smith has failed to make his case, he can hit the Report button to have a moderator adjudicate—which, according to rule 6.3, is the final court of arbitration. That means Jones cannot persist in claiming a fallacy was committed if a moderator has ruled it resolved. (On a related note: If a moderator rejects the report because he didn't see any violation, that is tantamount to ruling the fallacy resolved—again, because he didn't see any violation.)