Posting guidelines

[Colin]

This section is on Western martial arts. It is about European martial arts be they historical like La Verdadera Destreza, a living tradition like Jogo do Pou or hypothetical like Roman gladiatorial combat.

All posts and comments should be about these themes; any posts or comments not consistent with these themes risk being deleted or moved to a more appropriate area.

Do not use logical fallacies in your arguments unless it is absolutely appropriate. All these demonstrate is your inability to discuss things in a rational way.

Examples of logical fallacies (this is not exhaustive):

Calling people names or shooting the messenger. These are personal attacks and fall under the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. For example: calling someone a moron or a troll in an attempt to end the argument.

Appeals to authority or argumentum ad verecundiam. Unless you are in fact an authority on the subject at hand, you are not an authority. For example: saying that you hold 2nd dan on martial art xyz can make you an authority on martial art xyz. It does not make you an authority on martial art abc. Trying to say that because you are an authority in xyz your argument is valid for abc is therefore a logical fallacy.

Invoking Godwin’s law or argumentum ad hitlerum. Sadly and all too prominently many people in attempt to shut down opposition resort to using Nazi or Hitler references. Godwin’s Law is quite interesting in how accurate it can be. However, discussing Nazis is not necessarily a logical fallacy if the discussion is legitimately about the Nazis. For example: discussing the martial arts of Nazi Germany is not a logical fallacy, but calling someone “Herr Moderator” is. Technically this logical fallacy falls under the heading of argumentum ad hominem, but due to its exceptional use it has got its own name.

Appeals to weight of numbers or argumentum ad numerum. Saying one thousand people do it this way, and only a handful do it another so therefore the former is right and the latter is wrong is a logical fallacy. The latter might be wrong, but it isn’t due to more people saying so.

Appeals to popularity (argumentum ad popularum). A popular figure saying something is right does not make it right by default.

There are of course many other logical fallacies: strawmen, red herrings and so forth, but hopefully these don’t need to be elaborated on.

Using logical fallacies will normally invoke a warning. Persistent use of logical fallacies risk having your posts or comments deleted.

Edit: Mispelt Godwin's law.

[Angel]

Gibson's Law states that "For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD", referring to the conflict between testimony of expert witnesses. Which might very well be a common feature in this forum.

You were after Godwin's Law - "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

There is the tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis automatically loses whatever debate was in progress.

Invoking Godwin's Law just to end a thread is considered bad form, and often gets ridiculed and ignored.

[Hawkwind™]

[Robbo]

On that note.

There are a set of guidelines for this website already. Why is an even longer set of instructions necessary for just one section?

If it is the results of certain individuals postings, myself for instance, why not merely make a closed forum for WMA or create a wholly separate website altogether?

[Colin]

Thanks Kerry. I updated Gibson to Godwin shortly after posting, but thanks for noticing

Matthew: No, you do not need to be an authority to post here. The whole point in highlighting logical fallacies is to facilitate a better way of communicating on a public and often anonymous board; if people stop using logical fallacies, like name-calling, then I hope the standard of conversation will improve. It will hopefully improve to the point that lurkers might actually have the confidence to post without having to put up with "put downs" and the like. IMHO it gives a much more level playing field (excepting to those who cannot help themselves to resorting to logical fallacies to "win" arguments.)

The whole point in highlighting appeal to authority is that several people have tried to use some sort of status to shut down arguments to their favour. For example: "I've been doing karate for twenty plus years so my statements on European martial arts are to be respected". This is the type of appeal to authority that should be avoided. IMHO this equally applies to those studying European martial arts when making comments about European martial arts. I try, for example, not to use the fact that I've been studying European martial arts for some time as some sort of way to discount people who have been studying it for a much shorter period. Indeed I've often learnt quite a bit from those people. (Not that I consider myself some sort of authority anyway as I still have much to learn, but I'm trying to give an example of misuse).

Robbo: In addition to my reply to Matthew it hopefully explains why I moderate in a certain way. That other moderators and site admins have differing standards is up to them. If people do not use logical fallacies and keep to the subject of European martial arts then the need for me to do any moderating should become non-existent.

[BigMac]

TTFN