09-14-2018, 05:10 PMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote:

09-14-2018, 05:03 PMgrok Wrote:

09-14-2018, 04:55 PMto12143 Wrote:

09-14-2018, 04:37 PMThatDamnMcJesus Wrote: I think there are talks about getting rid of Thunderdome. But I feel like its a necessity to call out people and stuff like that. No1 really called people racist slurs or homophobic slurs on a regular basis in there so in the end it doesn't even matter.

Or you know you could contact HO and inform them of things that are happening like that. Not everything has to be called out and it would make it a lot easier for HO if people just funneled evidence to them so they could make the necessary decisions

That doesn't really indict the Thunderdome's existence though, right? Even if HO makes the decision based on collection of evidence people will still want to talk about it. TD is a holding place so volatile discussions don't spill out into discussion, announcements, media, etc.

That's illogical:
- False cause fallacy (having a place where people can be toxic does not necessarily cause people to be polite elsewhere)
- Either or fallacy (the idea that "either we have somewhere for people to be toxic or they will be toxic on entire site" is not necessarily true)

Calling every argument a fallacy without actually answering what they mean is bad faith debate. There's a pretty obvious hole in the argument for removing TD because it assumes people won't continue to discuss volatile arguments on the forums. The two arguments I make that you're trying to dismiss as "fallacies" are just impacts to the bigger picture argument, that drama will exist with or without TD.

The important takeaway is that removing TD doesn't even necessarily have solvency because its probability is limited. If it's unlikely that removing TD will eliminate drama on the forums then you can't guarantee the impacts I outline won't happen.

I'll answer your two arguments in good faith:

"False Cause Fallacy" - this claim to fallacy asserts that causation is impossiblr, and that effects causality is impossible. It's a short-sighted viewpoint that refuses to extend impacts to their logical conclusions which stymies debate.

"Either or fallacy" - this claim to fallacy assumes the impact I isolated is the only impact that exists. I isolate one impact here because I think it's the largest possible impact to make debate simpler without losing the important conversations that are a prior question to the impact level.