Bad Faith and Sealioning

[niklinna]

Thanks for the non-answer. Consider this post as me dropping the question.

Well played, sir, well played.

 

[Deset Gled]

The critical difference is that "bad faith" is a motivation, while "sealioning" is an action. An accusation of bad faith is ascribing another's thoughts and emotions (and is directly against site rules), but an accusation of sealioning is calling out a behavior that is public and observable.

Sealioning can be a result of bad faith arguments, but isn't necessarily so. It can also be a method of sophistry, harrasment, singling out individuals, or just plain ideological fixation. Unfortunately, none of these, especially the act of sealioning, fall within the "keep it civil" guidelines.

IMNSHO. YMMV. I am not a mod, and all that.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It seems to me that an accusation of SeaLioning is an accusation of bad faith posting behavior.

...I'm just curious if you have any evidence to back up your accusation?


Okay, that was too easy. I think Morrus addressed it- if you think you are being accused of something that breaks the rules, report it. Of course, if you're reporting someone who is correctly saying you are doing something breaking the rules, then it could be that you end up getting moderated, or maybe both of you will be moderated (because really, instead of attacking each other over it, just report it and disengage).

One thing I've learned is that there is no argument on enworld that is worth my own bad behavior and integrity and anger. Now that I've learned that lesson, I can apply it ... some of the time.

 

[payn]

The term includes bad faith as part of its meaning. If someone is asking way too many questions about something, they may not be doing it in bad faith, but then the term doesn't apply. Although an accusation of it can still be made!

Right, which is why its best to just disengage, report, and/or ignore.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The term includes bad faith as part of its meaning. If someone is asking way too many questions about something, they may not be doing it in bad faith, but then the term doesn't apply. Although an accusation of it can still be made!

Well, telling someone who's just excessively persistent from someone who's deliberately sealioning from the outside can, to some degree, not be anything but what I refer to as "Internet Telepathy". Which doesn't mean its always wrong, but its pretty hard to separate one from the other in any demonstrable way. Of course, for a fair number of people who've experienced it before (probably in contexts where it was more obvious), their patience for what at least looks like it may be long gone, and if it sounds like its quacking, they're probably going to call it a duck.

 

[pemerton]

I've had moderators (wrongly) accuse me of sealioning, and then doubled down on that despite me pointing out this very flaw in their reasoning in private messages

Is this deliberately ironic?

 

[Alzrius]

Is this deliberately ironic?

Are you sealioning me right now?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

So, in the hypothetical scenario :

Poster A: <develop stupid arguments (possibly about sealion, or saying that water boils at 43°C)>
Poster B: Why are you saying this?
Poster A: <ignoring poster A> <continues to develop nonsensical argument about water's boiling point>
Poster B: but why? Can you back it up with fact, statistics or so on? <demonstrates that water boils at 100°C>
Poster A: *report poster B"
Poster B is banned for sealioning.

Is this how it work? Why isn't the onus on A to block poster B instead if they want to keep reiterating offensive arguments but not back them up?

 

[Morrus]

I think the idea that sea-lioning is always bad faith

Sealioning is by definition in bad faith. It’s the name of a tactic. Absent bad faith it isn’t sealioning.

So, in the hypothetical scenario :

Poster A: <develop stupid arguments (possibly about sealion, or saying that water boils at 43°C)>
Poster B: Why are you saying this?
Poster A: <ignoring poster A> <continues to develop nonsensical argument about water's boiling point>
Poster B: but why? Can you back it up with fact, statistics or so on? <demonstrates that water boils at 100°C>
Poster A: *report poster B"
Poster B is banned for sealioning.

Is this how it work? Why isn't the onus on A to block poster B instead if they want to keep reiterating offensive arguments but not back them up?

That isn’t sealioning.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I still have trouble understanding the concept, then (that was what the comic posted earlier led me to think). But I am glad that it isn't.