Appeals to Consequences in Content Revision Threads

[LordXcano]

I've noticed this kind of debate tactic has become increasingly common on threads throughout here. You've probably seen it too, it goes a little like this:

A: "Because of X then Y logically follows."

B: "If we used this logic then we would have to upgrade/downgrade/revise X/Y/Z verses though."

And that's pretty much it. That's the bulk of the argument. Now normally this wouldn't be a problem, people use fallacies all the time (In fact, I'm pretty sure I've used this tactic before), but I'm starting to see this in pretty much any thread with any shred of controversy in it.

Given how common this is becoming, how often it can derail threads into arguments about why the verse that would puportedly be revised would or wouldn't be revised, and how it is a textbook example of an appeal to consequences fallacy I think it might be a good idea to instate a rule about this. Perhaps worded something like:

"Please refrain from making arguments based on how they would affect the rankings other franchises, as this tends to bog down threads and relies heavily on an appeal to consequences."

Do note, this does not affect decisions about Wiki policies for the most part. There is a difference between "But this would make Luffy 2-C so it can't be true" and "This would likely lead to the demise of the Wiki so it's probably a bad idea." If anyone has an idea of how to make this more clear in the rule's wording that would be appreciated.

 

[LordAizenSama]

I agree

 

[Antvasima]

I also think that this seems like a good idea, as long as the staff are still free to evaluate potential bad consequences for the overall running of the wiki.

 

[CrossverseCrisis]

I agree with this fully. It's honestly so, excuse my language but i have to say it in all honesty, ******* stupid that people ALWAYS do this in every thread rather than just sticking to the topic at hand.

I don't mind this being off of it, but on the actual topic itself? Absolutely not. In fact, this is one of the main reasons why i can't stand being in a content thread that much nowadays: Because of stuff like this happening.

But yes, again, i too think a rule like this should be made at least if it can truly help us keep things running alright.

 

[Amelia_Lonelyheart]

I also think this is a good idea. At worst it can completely derail a thread, and at best it's annoying to have to address and deal with.

 

[Grudgeman1706]

Yah I I completely with this

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

I agree with this

 

[Promestein]

Agreed.

 

[DontTalk]

I agree that this can be annoying.


Though I want to point out that one has to be careful with this, because there are also important arguments of similar style that are legitimate.

To give two examples: One has to be able to call out inconsistent ruling. So if there was a past thread where this kind of reasoning was denied for one character and it is supposed to be accepted in the thread for another character, that is a problem that has to be addressed some way.

Generally making a thread where it is decided just if this kind of reasoning is legitimate, disregarding the characters in question, is in my opinion the best solution, though this kind of meta discussion on decisions isn't something everyone likes to do, I believe. (it is also more tedious, due to having to consider all eventualities)

The alternative to that is either pointing out in the revision thread that there was a past decision that would imply this reasoning to be illegitimate or to make a new thread saying "In the past this reasoning was denied, but now for another character it was accepted, so it should now be accepted for this character as well".


The second example is that if you have a rule of the style "Because of X then Y logically follows", saying that applying this rule to a different case gives unrealistic results is a legitimate argument for the reasoning behind the rule to be wrong. Basically if there is a rule that would as consequence upgrade current Luffy to 2-C, if applied to him, then that is actually a problem with the rule, because there is no way this makes sense.

Though in those cases, in order to prevent bias regarding luffy to affect the thread, I would also prefer if such problems are pointed out by just describing the scenarios in which they occur. (though that makes it more complicated to understand)

 

[Sera_EX]

I agree with DontTalk as well as Xcano's OP. "Refrain" is the best word to use here. Simply don't always pull this argument out but do so in appropriate cases (which mind you are once every blue moon).

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I agree with what Donttalk's words. In many cases these types of arguments are legitimate and can showcase the bias in the attempted upgrader's arguments.

Specially in cases where say, a character has multiple accepted FTL and Massively FTL+ feats and the person wants to downgrade them based on a collection of Subsonic low-ends.

Or has 3-A feats and the person argues that the times they were hurt by bullets or a laser are legitimate.

Overall, it would be preferable to treat this on a Case by case analysis.

 

[Dino_Ranger_Black]

I, personally, believe this rule should be situational. Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with this thread but I do believe there will be certian times where such a comparison is valid for faulty arguments.

For example, if someone tries to upgrade a character for relatively weak reasons, a simple comparison to how illogical it is for another verse with a similar situation or character within the same verse can also be applied and makes sense. Overall, I think it depends on the circumstances.

 

[SomebodyData]

I think Dino and Matt have a point, sometimes, the comparison can be valid.

 

[KamiYasha]

Agreed.

 

[VenomElite]

Case-by-case is best.

 

[Promestein]

I agree with the new points.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

I also agree with a case-by-case basis analysis.

 

[LordXcano]

I agree with @DT but nothing thereafter. Except possibly @DRB, depending on what he means.

 

[Antvasima]

So, what are the conclusions here, in summary?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

That this is highly situational and like most things, should be on a case-by-case analysis rather than an absolute.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. So no new rule then?