Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: [Site Rules Update] Intellectual Honesty

  1. #1
    Member
    Bardo's Avatar
    Join Date

    Nov 2004
    Location

    Portland, Oregon
    Posts

    3,844

    [Site Rules Update] Intellectual Honesty

    It recently came to our attention that we have no policy against outright lying on this site (no, we're not going to discuss the background, we're just happy this was indirectly brought to our attention). Also absent were any guidelines around intellectual dishonesty as far as debating goes. Predominantly, MTS is a discussion/debate forum.

    Since we doubt most regulars periodically review our Site Rules, we thought we'd call this out here.

    http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...l=1#post174027

    I originally had some discussion points in this post (trash-talking is not subject to the guidelines, nor are we going to issue warnings for burning straw men), but have just incorporated that stuff into the site rules.

    If you have any questions or suggestions for improvement, let us know.

    - Staff

  2. #2
    Member

    Join Date

    Jan 2005
    Location

    I actually live in actual Chicago
    Posts

    679

    Re: [Site Rules Update] Intellectual Honesty

    A rule against lying? On the INTERNET? Crazy talk.

  3. #3
    Everybody's a jerk! You, me..........this jerk.
    Parcher's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jan 2006
    Location

    DuPont Circle
    Posts

    1,520

    Re: [Site Rules Update] Intellectual Honesty

    I have an issue with this in direct relation to The Source; specifically in regards to hyperbole (see: ThunderBluff, Cheatyface Ichorid)

    One of the greatest things about this site is it's members and admin's ability to relax normal mores in the face of that which is genuinely entertaining. This circumvents that in the name of "preventing lying". Well as long as the lying only could fool those whose opinion is held in derision anyway, who does it hurt?

    For instance, I could in some relative context claim that a friend of mine has three......assholes. Anyone with a modicum of reasoning could easily conclude that there is likely little truth in that statement. But in a certain frame of reference, and with "suckers on the line', so to speak, it could create a hilarious situation.

    Now stating this as open fact is in direct violation of these newly posted guidelines, but I can't imagine any of the general population of The Source not enjoying this type of situation. Hell, I know some who live for it.
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGruber View Post
    Look, I will suck your dick. I will suck your fucking dick. I will do it, just join my team. I’ll suck your dick. You can fuck me or get fucked by me. You can watch me fuck something. Just point at something, I’ll fuck it for you. Just tell me what you want me to fuck!
    ~ Team Unicorn Motto

  4. #4
    Member
    Forbiddian's Avatar
    Join Date

    Nov 2003
    Location

    San Diego
    Posts

    1,377

    Re: [Site Rules Update] Intellectual Honesty

    I think this new rule was at least in part made in reference to an exchange that went like this:

    ~"I don't care how my cards look. Half my Dazes are from Jace vs. Chandra. I would gladly cash out Revised dual lands for anything cheaper, no matter how ugly they are."

    Another guy quotes half a sentence and says, ~"Omg, this guy thinks Daze is on the reserved list. What an idiot." Which is like a straw man eating a red herring while discussing a non-sequiter ad hominem.


    You're free to joke around and such, and Bardo specifically stated that mods won't crack down on this (since it doesn't violate any rules), but it's just so people are aware of what they're doing. The Source is at a higher standard of debate than *cough* salvation *cough* other websites, so it's nice that there's now some official statement about honest debate. I think he also said this doesn't apply to statements used for ironic value.

  5. #5
    Stop looking at my shiny purple helmet...
    yankeedave's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2008
    Location

    London UK
    Posts

    279

    Re: [Site Rules Update] Intellectual Honesty

    Does that mean that I can ask if Parcher's friend with the multiple rectums is single?
    "Time you enjoy wasting, was not wasted." - John Lennon

  6. #6
    Order of the Ebon Hand gets there...pro Swords...take 2...
    Jason's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jun 2008
    Location

    Iowa
    Posts

    249

    Re: [Site Rules Update] Intellectual Honesty

    ThunderBluff being a hyperbole?! I won't accept it! You probably think Nourishing Lich isn't viable... just wait til I win the GP in Columbus with it! Haha!
    End of turn...Morphling

    Quote Originally Posted by AriLax View Post
    Brainstorm is only useful in certain situations? Brainstorm is useful when you hand is not the stone cold nutter butter blade Ranchington Q. Farnsworth Esquire best. When Brainstorm is "dead", the game is already over.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ectoplasm View Post
    I heard Bryant Cook once set fire to his opponent's face for playing a Rule of Law.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin View Post
    It's impressive the amount of effort you put into telling a story that actually makes you look much worse than the idiot.
    Team OMRIAIGTWYFEWARTCAE

  7. #7

    Re: [Site Rules Update] Intellectual Honesty

    Quote Originally Posted by Forbiddian View Post
    I think this new rule was at least in part made in reference to an exchange that went like this:

    ~"I don't care how my cards look. Half my Dazes are from Jace vs. Chandra. I would gladly cash out Revised dual lands for anything cheaper, no matter how ugly they are."

    Another guy quotes half a sentence and says, ~"Omg, this guy thinks Daze is on the reserved list. What an idiot." Which is like a straw man eating a red herring while discussing a non-sequiter ad hominem.


    You're free to joke around and such, and Bardo specifically stated that mods won't crack down on this (since it doesn't violate any rules), but it's just so people are aware of what they're doing. The Source is at a higher standard of debate than *cough* salvation *cough* other websites, so it's nice that there's now some official statement about honest debate. I think he also said this doesn't apply to statements used for ironic value.
    Actually, it isn't. While we understand that you like to take things out of context and attack them, this was actually triggered by the repeated but very amusing lies told by Magic_Fanatic in regards to his personal wealth, connections, business activities, etc.

    Sorry to break this to you, but the world is not, in fact, all about you, Mr. "Quote One Line of My Post, Explain How the Metaphor That Had No Bearing On the Larger Point Being Made is Wrong, and Then Say Nothing Else of Value About the Post."

  8. #8
    Plays green decks
    Jak's Avatar
    Join Date

    Nov 2006
    Location

    Portland
    Posts

    2,184

    Re: [Site Rules Update] Intellectual Honesty

    I think it's fine. I highly doubt this will be enforced (since you really can't... unless you cyber-stalk someone). I think most of the time, admins or mods won't have to do anything because people can see through bullshit easily and call the person out. It's nice to have just-in-case though.

  9. #9
    Member
    Bardo's Avatar
    Join Date

    Nov 2004
    Location

    Portland, Oregon
    Posts

    3,844

    Re: [Site Rules Update] Intellectual Honesty

    Quote Originally Posted by Parcher
    One of the greatest things about this site is it's members and admin's ability to relax normal mores in the face of that which is genuinely entertaining. This circumvents that in the name of "preventing lying". Well as long as the lying only could fool those whose opinion is held in derision anyway, who does it hurt?
    Believe me, if it's entertaining, you're fine.

    For instance, I could in some relative context claim that a friend of mine has three......assholes. Anyone with a modicum of reasoning could easily conclude that there is likely little truth in that statement. But in a certain frame of reference, and with "suckers on the line', so to speak, it could create a hilarious situation.
    Right, that's never going to be a problem. It specifically applies to "serious" [I just cringed when I typed that] discussion. The mods/admins aren't half-wits, and if something is both over-the-line and funny, we're not going to crack down or anything like that.

    Remember, as the guidelines around this are framed, it's "model posting," unlike, say, the no spam/flaming rules that we enforce with warnings. Except in extraordinary cases (nothing that you've described), the mods/admins are not going to intervene.

    Quote Originally Posted by Forbiddian
    ~"I don't care how my cards look. Half my Dazes are from Jace vs. Chandra. I would gladly cash out Revised dual lands for anything cheaper, no matter how ugly they are."

    Another guy quotes half a sentence and says, ~"Omg, this guy thinks Daze is on the reserved list. What an idiot." Which is like a straw man eating a red herring while discussing a non-sequiter ad hominem.
    Again, they're "model posting" guidelines. Take that for what it means. There are a lot of people on this site who are fairly terrible posters, but we're not taking away their ability to post. (Though, I'm not likely to ever +rep them.)

    I think he also said this doesn't apply to statements used for ironic value.
    Absolutely. None of the guideslines around intellectual honesty apply to fun and assorted good times.

    Does that mean that I can ask if Parcher's friend with the multiple rectums is single?
    If someone has multiple rectums, why would they need to be single?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aggro_zombies
    ...this was actually triggered by the repeated but very amusing lies told by Magic_Fanatic in regards to his personal wealth, connections, business activities, etc.
    I didn't want to go there, but yeah, exactly. I mean, the random tall-tale story is one thing, but repeatedly deceiving members is not something we want to see. Once we made that leap, it was an easy step create some guidelines around honest debate.

    Reading the guidelines again, I think they say exactly what we mean them to say, which is basically to be an intelligent debater that adds value to "important" [there it is again] discussions. There's no desire to take the fun out of posting smack or talking about the more inane points of a fantasy-themed collectible card game. We're keeping perspective here.

  10. #10
    Everybody's a jerk! You, me..........this jerk.
    Parcher's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jan 2006
    Location

    DuPont Circle
    Posts

    1,520

    Re: [Site Rules Update] Intellectual Honesty

    Quote Originally Posted by yankeedave View Post
    Does that mean that I can ask if Parcher's friend with the multiple rectums is single?
    Nope. He actually is dating a model. Not, like a supermodel or anythng, but they do get paid.

    I don't know if the two are connected or not.
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGruber View Post
    Look, I will suck your dick. I will suck your fucking dick. I will do it, just join my team. I’ll suck your dick. You can fuck me or get fucked by me. You can watch me fuck something. Just point at something, I’ll fuck it for you. Just tell me what you want me to fuck!
    ~ Team Unicorn Motto

  11. #11
    Noachide'
    MMogg's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2009
    Location

    Dongying, China
    Posts

    1,048

    Re: [Site Rules Update] Intellectual Honesty

    I can feel a cold gust of wind blowing across my e-peen.

    C===================B
    C=B


    The only place this seems to have major significance is in reporting play results. Who cares about braggin otherwise because as Jak says, people always get called out on BS... those are usually the interesting threads.
    Who says the Internet isn't full of <3?
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleksandr View Post
    MMogg, I love you more and more.
    Quote Originally Posted by menace13
    MMogg is already loved any place he goes.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)