GMforPowergamers
Legend
My understanding is the rules against 'making things personal' and attacking what someone thinks over what they say are in place to try keep things nice.
However I have noticed an uptick in personal attacks, the latest's is if you disagree with someone you are 'arguing in bad faith'.
My understanding is that a bad faith argument is one you don't really believe in. So in order to 'call out' someone for having a bad faith argument you have to both make it personal AND go after what you think they think instead of what they are saying.
Now with this is the F*U*D* acronym fear, uncertainty and doubt, usually evoked intentionally in order to put a competitor at a disadvantage.
Again this seems to me to be a assumption of the motive of the poster and instead of going after the merit of the argument you are attacking the personal character and assuming you know something they have not said.
My question is this, is there an exception to the 'no personal attacks' for claiming something is fallacy or FUD or a Bad Faith argument?
However I have noticed an uptick in personal attacks, the latest's is if you disagree with someone you are 'arguing in bad faith'.
My understanding is that a bad faith argument is one you don't really believe in. So in order to 'call out' someone for having a bad faith argument you have to both make it personal AND go after what you think they think instead of what they are saying.
Now with this is the F*U*D* acronym fear, uncertainty and doubt, usually evoked intentionally in order to put a competitor at a disadvantage.
Again this seems to me to be a assumption of the motive of the poster and instead of going after the merit of the argument you are attacking the personal character and assuming you know something they have not said.
My question is this, is there an exception to the 'no personal attacks' for claiming something is fallacy or FUD or a Bad Faith argument?