• Republished the rules so that each section is its own post.
• Added a new rule:
4.9. Do not impersonate a moderator. Members are not moderators and should not impersonate or act as though they are. This includes issuing warnings, referencing rule violations as if in an official capacity, or directing others to comply with the rules. If you believe a rule has been broken, use the Report feature and allow the moderators to handle it.
Does that mean no non-moderator poster can ever post any rule? Does that mean no non-moderator can ask for topical discourse? Or a return to the topic when digressions occur?
I read through the amended revision of the rules and noticed much of the positive language, the content directing what to do, the goal-oriented language has been removed and what remains is largely a list of what not to do, not what to do, how to post, what goals to pursue. Is that intentional? Informing people what not to do does not inform what to do and, generally speaking, goal-oriented guidance is much more functional and efficacious.
Was that last paragraph considered impersonating a moderator
(because it wasn't intended that way)?
• Updated rule 4.4 (addressing logical fallacies) to add the following:
Members who have been called out for a logical fallacy are expected to address that specific charge in good faith, either demonstrating that no fallacy occurred by clarifying their reasoning or conceding the point if valid. Until the charge is addressed, the member may not continue participating in that thread. Ignoring or dismissing the allegation without engagement undermines meaningful dialogue and may be treated as noncompliance with this rule.
Can members expect the moderators to abide by this rule?
One of the most frequently occurring
uncited fallacies is the appeal to authority. MANY posters will post some quote or direct the conversation toward a specific writer (like Calvin or Sproul) as if that author's viewpoint is definitively authoritative, they argument being either stated or implied their position is correct because Person X says the same thing.
If Rule 4.4 is applied uniformly then it will require moderators to hold members accountable in some way or go on record themselves stating the fallacy has been committed. And then what? Will uncorrected appeals to authority be left in the thread
(to bear false witness to those not recognizing the falsity of that post and the argument built upon it)?
Real problems with Rule 4.4 have been discussed before and this rule is one of the most inconsistently enforced rules in the TOS. A post that commits multiple fallacies is supposed to have its chief fallacy corrected but 1) sometimes to equally critical (and fatal) fallacies exist among the many so selection of the most rationally egregious is arbitrary or a matter of subjective preference, and 2) that leaves all the other fallacies unaddressed. The rule was developed under the auspices some members use the very real existence of fallacious arguments as a tool of manipulation so how will valid requests to have fallacies corrected according to Rule 4.4 be discriminated from the manipulative alternatives? It might help all the members to have some
objective criteria.
Ignoring or dismissing the allegation without engagement undermines meaningful dialogue and may be treated as noncompliance with this rule.
So what?
I mean that rhetorically. If posters are permitted to ignore the allegation without consequence, then ignoring will most certainly occur. Will a post be edited to remove the uncorrected fallacy? Might an entire post be deleted because it contained a fallacy and the fallacy was denied
(or a member simply refused to correct it)? There are members of the forum who are more skilled in formal logic than others and that creates a circumstance where the learned will be able to cite fallacy readily and with just cause and intent. The less informed have an opportunity to learn something about
method and not just content but is that the concern of this rule? Will those who practice fallacy often be sanctioned with increasing penalty or permitted to break the rule ten, twenty, forty times while others comply and make the necessary changes in method?
All of this is intended to help the mods establish a functional and efficacious TOS that can be enforced objectively and practically, so please consider the above in that context.
