[General] Ashiel's Rules of Engagement

[Ashiel]

Having engaged in several debates on these boards and others, I believe it has come time to try and define what I feel are a few good guidelines for carrying on discussions and debates in a confrontational or disagreement environment. Also, I want a thread I can link to in my signature, rather than breaking my signature open with a way-to-long character count in spoiler tags.

EDIT: Also, I'm not saying everyone should follow these rules. It will however help people know how I will be debating with them at a glance; as well as help them know how I will view their given styles.

I give you Ashiel's Rules of Engagement v1.0

Here is a few tips. I'm not an expert at public speaking or anything, but these are some things I try to get my little brother to remember at all times:

• If you say something and it is contestable, or is contested, provide evidence. Be ready to provide proof and/or sources and formulas to showcase this information. Avoid anecdotal evidence when possible (unless expressing it merely as an off-comment separate from your points). If possible, try to use mathematics to show things in a debate; as 1+1=2 is both difficult to contest, and it lends credibility (assuming your math isn't horribly off).
• Avoid exaggerations, hyperbole, and gross analogies. Exceptions should be spelled out, such as "It's hyperbole but" or "a more extreme example would be", and so on. Used properly, these tools can be used to drive home the point. Used improperly and you'll hit your thumb and discredit yourself in the eyes of both opponents and onlookers.
• Conversation - especially debates - are like a dueling ring. To garner respect for yourself and for your points, you must be clean and respectful. Dishonest tricks such as using straw-man tactics, ad hominem, or the fictitious Chewbacca Defense, are the debating equivalents to throwing sand in someone's eyes and sucker punching. Using these methods will not only discredit you as a debater and conversationalist, but also as a person. Additionally, they will only make you look like a fool to those who possess actual knowledge of the subject. Additionally, such dirty actions can be used as references by your opponents to show your inexperience and discredit you. At this point, the gloves are off and you're about to get beaten down by someone who has more experience and skill than you - who is also now angry that you stooped to dirty tricks in your match.
• Don't attempt to ignore the subject matter. It may be difficult to address all of it at once, but try to break it down. Never ignore it. Never attempt to side-step it. If you missed something, and they call you on it, address it immediately. Continuing to side-step or ignore evidence will continue to ruin your credibility, and be annoying for everyone. The worst case scenario would be to take something and re-present it as something that it is not/was not to begin with. It's dishonesty that is visible to anyone who views it. Your honor is your life. Loose it and you've lost your credibility.
• As noted before, don't resort to Ad hominem attacks. Don't resort to name calling, or try to imply things about your peers in an attempt to discredit their points, views, or positions. Use facts, not attacks.
• Should someone continue to dishonor the discussion and their peers, feel free to call them on it. If someone is continually crossing the line, let them know that you are aware of it and let others be made aware. Do not, however, fall into a name calling contest. Continue to debate cleanly. If you feel you must return some spite (and it is hard to resist when someone is continually engaging in dishonest action), try to return it as cleanly as possible. This is usually just done by calling them on it, or letting them know that you're loosing patience with their foolishness. If you are at this point then they are likely breaking many of above rules, and merely demanding that they either step up and provide evidence or stop side-stepping or stand down will press their hand. If they cannot, then they break by default. You've won.
• If you cannot provide ample evidence, or cannot properly debate the subject - make it known that your comments are merely anecdotal or personal. If someone disagrees, withdraw until you have further evidence. If someone has bested you, keep your honor and merely stand down. It is better to be wrong or invalidated and have engaged in a clean conversation/debate than to discredit and disgrace yourself. I've stood down on many occasions if I couldn't gain ground. Headbutting contests are for dinosaurs. Just recently I stood down on a subject concerning a book I read (non-RPG related), with a rather vocal and belligerent friend of mine. It was better that I concede to his incorrect statements, as I had nothing to prove them incorrect with. However, having pulled out my copy of the book in question, I proved the case I would have argued previously but was ill equipped to do so. Should he have been correct, I would have accepted that. Arguing on principle is rarely a good idea - or a respectable one.

If anyone thinks something should be amended or added, lemme know. It would be nice to have a set of standards and guidelines to go by or assume by default; especially with the frequency of debates and heated discussions that arise on message boards such as these.

Logical Fallacies Listings
To further set the bar, Iceforge and Kurald Galain have presented a list of logical fallacies to avoid when conversing or debating about a subject. Each of these logical fallacies hurt your credibility and make you appear foolish; when carrying on a conversation or debate, these mistakes should be avoided.

Logical Fallacies

Often used Logical Fallacies are

"Appeal to Authority"
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

"Appeal to Belief"
1. Most people believe that a claim, X, is true
2. Therefore X is true
-Closely related to "Appeal to Popularity"
1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X)
2. Therefore X is true

"Ignoring a Common Cause"
1. When we see A we also see B
2. Therefore, A causes B
Which ignores the possibility that B causes A or unknown variable C causes both A and B

Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
1. X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.
2. X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.
3. X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.
4. X is false because accepting that X is false has positive consequences.
5. I wish that X were true, therefore X is true
6. I wish that X were false, therefore X is false

And, of course, the ever-popular "Straw Man"
1. Person A claims X.
2. Y is false, where Y is usually a misinterpretation or exaggeration of X.
3. Therefore, person A is wrong.

And since this is an RPG forum, there's also the "Oberoni Fallacy", which is actually a form of Straw Man.
1. Rule A has problem X.
2. It is easy to solve problem X through houseruling.
3. Therefore rule A doesn't have problem X.

As well as the less common "Stormwind Fallacy", a subset of the "False Dichotomy" fallacy.
1. Person A belongs to group X.
2. Group X is different from group Y.
3. Therefore person A doesn't belong to group Y.

And this variation on the Appeal To Authority also often applies to roleplaying gamers,
1. Rule A can be interpreted in several ways.
2. I prefer interpretation X, which tends to correspond to the interpretation that makes my character more powerful.
3. Therefore interprertation X is RAW, and every other interpretation is a houserule.

[Iceforge]

Also, people should be aware if their arguments contains any logical fallacies; While presenting a point, you might think an argument is solid, because it sounds right, but if the logic used is filled with fallacies, then it won't convince someone who does not have a positive bias towards your opinion already.

Logical Fallacies

Often used Logical Fallacies are

"Appeal to Authority"
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

"Appeal to Belief"
1. Most people believe that a claim, X, is true
2. Therefore X is true
-Closely related to "Appeal to Popularity"
1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X)
2. Therefore X is true

"Ignoring a Common Cause"
1. When we see A we also see B
2. Therefore, A causes B
Which ignores the possibility that B causes A or unknown variable C causes both A and B

Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
1. X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.
2. X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.
3. X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.
4. X is false because accepting that X is false has positive consequences.
5. I wish that X were true, therefore X is true
6. I wish that X were false, therefore X is false

[Ashiel]

Good thinking Iceforge. Logical fallacies are also very bad in general; and doubly so when you're trying to have an actual discussion or debate. Logical fallacies are quick to discredit a debater, and make you look bad.

This is a good addition to the thread. If you would like, I can add your contribution to the OP with credit to you (though it may not be needed since you're the 2nd poster and thus the logical next step from reading the OP).

[WeeFreeMen]

Also, people should be aware if their arguments contains any logical fallacies; While presenting a point, you might think an argument is solid, because it sounds right, but if the logic used is filled with fallacies, then it won't convince someone who does not have a positive bias towards your opinion already.

Logical Fallacies

Often used Logical Fallacies are

"Appeal to Authority"
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

"Appeal to Belief"
1. Most people believe that a claim, X, is true
2. Therefore X is true
-Closely related to "Appeal to Popularity"
1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X)
2. Therefore X is true

"Ignoring a Common Cause"
1. When we see A we also see B
2. Therefore, A causes B
Which ignores the possibility that B causes A or unknown variable C causes both A and B

Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
1. X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.
2. X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.
3. X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.
4. X is false because accepting that X is false has positive consequences.
5. I wish that X were true, therefore X is true
6. I wish that X were false, therefore X is false

You sir have just helped me in writing my english paper.
Thank you for breaking down my mental block.

On a more related note.
Logical Fallacy often is what I think, the main contributor. Such as the RAW demon. Most believe X, so X is true.

[Kurald Galain]

Logical Fallacies

Often used Logical Fallacies are

And, of course, the ever-popular "Straw Man"
1. Person A claims X.
2. Y is false, where Y is usually a misinterpretation or exaggeration of X.
3. Therefore, person A is wrong.

And since this is an RPG forum, there's also the "Oberoni Fallacy", which is actually a form of Straw Man.
1. Rule A has problem X.
2. It is easy to solve problem X through houseruling.
3. Therefore rule A doesn't have problem X.

As well as the less common "Stormwind Fallacy", a suhset of the "False Dichotomy" fallacy.
1. Person A belongs to group X.
2. Group X is different from group Y.
3. Therefore person A doesn't belong to group Y.

And this variation on the Appeal To Authority also often applies to roleplaying gamers,
1. Rule A can be interpreted in several ways.
2. I prefer interpretation X, which tends to correspond to the interpretation that makes my character more powerful.
3. Therefore interprertation X is RAW, and every other interpretation is a houserule.

[gallagher]

also, good logic also requires some ability to properly present it. however, everyone thinks that being too poetic makes them sound smarter (in reality, as often as people appreciate it, these days, more people think you are a certain 3 letter word)

while not being too verbose, and keeping your language to a respectable level of complexity, you no longer run the risk of having your argument itself tossed aside because of your own personal faults (that is, making people dislike you and therefor dislike your argument).

also, dont use words that you dont know the definition for. as someone with a rather large vocabulary, i cannot say enough how annoying it can be,

[ScionoftheVoid]

dont use words that you dont know the definition for. as someone with a rather large vocabulary, i cannot say enough how annoying it can be,

I agree with the rest of your post, Gallagher, and suffer from attempting to make my posts interesting at the cost of some clarity myself, but this bears repeating (in simpler terms: QFT).

When you can simply open another window or tab and search "define: [word]" in your search engine of choice there is no excuse. Laziness and forgetfulness are just about the only reasons for such behaviour, which makes it worse.

[Ashiel]

Updated original post to include Logical Fallacies, to the credit of their Original Posters.

[herrhauptmann]

The following aren't really statements regarding the use of logical fallacies that were opened with, but I think they need to be said anyway. Mainly because I keep seeing them happen.

People need to use clear cut language, and when stating statistics, do so in a manner that can not taken another way.

Going to try and use a generic example of a conversation that I see occasionally.
By doing X in character generation, the character's chances of hitting the Monster goes up by 50%.
Conclude: So the character should have an easy time fighting the monster. Or: The monster is not a difficult challenge for the character.

Truth: The character as described could only hit on a 19 or 20. Action X, consisted of taking weapon focus. Now he hits on a 18-20, a range 50% larger than previously possible.
In first phrasing, the character had a 50% increase in chances to hit. But, it was only an increase from 10% overall, to 15% overall.


2- Want to make a statement regarding advice given (also slightly offtopic). "Have the wizard cast a spell" which improves someone's effectiveness, or removes a weakness. It requires assumptions on the nature of the game.
Perhaps the player in question does not like the person who plays a wizard. Or their characters hate one another in a game where people roleplay, even if the players themselves are best friends. Also, having been the guy who needs to spend first round of combat removing the weakness of another character so he can fight, it's not fun, and leads to resentment in high power games along the lines of "Why couldn't you avoid this huge weakness in your character?"


Sorry for the slightly rambling rants, I just wanted to get those off my chest.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Don't be partisan when you don't need to be. Whenever I see a distinction between "roleplaying" and "rollplaying" stated or implied, I get a bit tense.

Think about what you're doing before you post. This is rather difficult, but if you're inclined to be uncivil and wish to act civilly, it will pay off. It's altogether too easy to get caught up in posting and make hasty characterizations. You might read offense into something, gloss over the humanity of other posters, simply the debate into partisan terms, et cetera.

[Ashiel]

Don't be partisan when you don't need to be. Whenever I see a distinction between "roleplaying" and "rollplaying" stated or implied, I get a bit tense.

Think about what you're doing before you post. This is rather difficult, but if you're inclined to be uncivil and wish to act civilly, it will pay off. It's altogether too easy to get caught up in posting and make hasty characterizations. You might read offense into something, gloss over the humanity of other posters, simply the debate into partisan terms, et cetera.

Agreed entirely. I get tense as well when that comes up. It's usually a big "red-flag", and more often than not presented in a very poor context or in ways that are entirely inflammatory and, usually, fallacious in nature.

Your second point is also very good. Humans in general have various things that get under their skin (so to speak); and approaching things rationally and with prepared self control and resilience is often a good step towards solid communication or victory (in the case of a debate). Very sound pieces of advice Foryn.

People need to use clear cut language, and when stating statistics, do so in a manner that can not taken another way.

Going to try and use a generic example of a conversation that I see occasionally.
By doing X in character generation, the character's chances of hitting the Monster goes up by 50%.
Conclude: So the character should have an easy time fighting the monster. Or: The monster is not a difficult challenge for the character.

Truth: The character as described could only hit on a 19 or 20. Action X, consisted of taking weapon focus. Now he hits on a 18-20, a range 50% larger than previously possible.
In first phrasing, the character had a 50% increase in chances to hit. But, it was only an increase from 10% overall, to 15% overall.

Very true Herrhauptmann. It's good to be able to explain the context in your math, as well as show how that relates to the subject matter at hand.

Want to make a statement regarding advice given (also slightly offtopic). "Have the wizard cast a spell" which improves someone's effectiveness, or removes a weakness. It requires assumptions on the nature of the game.
Perhaps the player in question does not like the person who plays a wizard. Or their characters hate one another in a game where people roleplay, even if the players themselves are best friends. Also, having been the guy who needs to spend first round of combat removing the weakness of another character so he can fight, it's not fun, and leads to resentment in high power games along the lines of "Why couldn't you avoid this huge weakness in your character?"

Again, good points. It's also worth noting the same can be true from other angles. If someone offers advice for the game, remember that the default assumption is the standard game rules and party dynamics (unless specified to be different). Example: If a wizard-player comes to the boards and asks for advice on how to be more use to his party, or on what spells to pick, he is likely to receive suggestions based on a generic game. He or she may receive answers directing them to haste, dispel magic, mirror image, enlarge person; as well as notes that in general party enhancement tends to be better than dealing damage.

At the same time, it's worth noting that if a player comes into a conversation specifying that he wants to blast things with spells like fireball, then it's not cool to put them down because they're not choosing haste over fireball. What would be acceptable would be suggesting ways to turn Glitterdust into a blasting spell (with say, metamagic trickery), which could help him have his cake and eat it to. Or suggest the player try a Psion instead since it's better at blasting by default. Or suggesting some feats to use to be a better blaster, or tips for picking their blasting spells; such as Spell X and Spell Y compliment each other, while spell Z deals less damage than the prior two but can stun opponents caught in the blast.

Should a player's situation be unusual for specific reasons (such as story/role-playing limitations and considerations, or house rules), then it would also be nice for the player to mention these things when asking for advice or opinions. It's better to have these sorts of things up-front, rather than brought up later in response to something else. Obviously this doesn't mean you should publish your whole house rule list with your post, but anything you think might be relevant would be nice.