Don't say too fast, it's a bully

Day 2,150, 06:20 • Published in United Kingdom Belgium • by mittekemuis


Last time I wrote about cyber bullying, it got a tremendous amount of support. It blew my mind on how much this subject was living amongst the erepublik community. Thank you for that!

The previous article, although containing a real testimony, wasn’t an analysis on the situation in the erepublik community itself. I will however start with making a valid argument to once again make a point on why this subject must be discussed. I could say something like:

Cyberbullying occurs in all online media.
Erepublik is an online game.
So Erepublik is subjected to cyberbullying.

We all know this argument is valid as it follows logic. You can’t logically contradict a valid argument like this but you can put a strong argument across it to counter this. Because it is my belief that a lot of feelings surrounding cyberbullying in regards of erepublik are to be found in the political scene of the game. I will try and make a strong argument to prove that and that is why I will talk about political argumentation. What you can expect to be a valid argumentation although maybe harsh and what you can condemn as an invalid or in many cases abusive argumentation.



Politics: a thin line between factual argumentation and personal attacks.
Why I want to talk about politics in regards of cyberbullying is because all too often there is a vague line between political debate and slander/abuse. The latter mostly being used by people who feel cornered and don’t seem to get their point of view pushed through on sheer facts and knowledge alone.

Politics is a real passion, one in which you are challenged to get your points and views across and try to influence others to follow you preferably with strong arguments.
Politics is also a power game. He who dominates the political landscape can do great things within his mandate.

Before I start talking about what are good and bad arguments I want to show you a sketch from Monty Python
I think this says it all so if you don’t like a long theoretical article you can skip the rest 🙂



What is a valid political argumentation?
An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition."

A valid argumentation in erepublik politics would for example be about the current economics and its relation to the community and how it affects our play. Another example about a political argument would be about whether or not to go to war.

An argument has its base in what is presently the situation and which is deemed not good. So it is clear that an argument is never logic alone. It also has to do with feelings. Take for example the recent debate on going to war or not in the eUK. From a pure logical point of view we can say the following argument is logically valid.

In all wargames war is essential
erepublik is a wargame
so eUK going to war is essential.

But as I stated before politics is not only logic but also about perception and more variables.

- war brings more activity/helping the alliance
- war gives us TP medals/for older players not so much
- war is good for business in the UK/For most It costs more than what we get out of it
- which country do we choose?

All these are political subject yet I assume you can see they have also an emotional connotation.



What is an invalid political argumentation?
If you want a list of logical fallacies I suggest you go and read The Nizkor Project and list of logical fallacies
There are so many wrong ways to make an argument but I am obviously not going to discuss them all. I am just going to take those out who can overstep boundaries. The thin line between what is political and what is personal. Players will use many different kinds of means getting their point across, even so when in a bad manner. Although sometimes proven effective we should not condemn this kind of argumentation and I understand that the step from an invalid, provocative argumentation to bullying is easily made.

A method often used by politician is the "Appeal to force or fear". They will use threat or force to try and push others to accept a conclusion. The threat itself doesn't even have to come from the person itself.

For example:
" I know your forum profile ID, so have I told you I am a moderator?"

Then there is the "argument directed at the man"
There are two forms of this sort of argumentation.
1. The abusive form: If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentation.
example: "You claim that using country organisations for making profits for myself own and the countries benefit is wrongful, yet I seem to remember that two years back you were temp banned for stealing by multying."
2. A second form of argument directed at the man is to try and persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by referring to that person's particular circumstances.

Example: "Therefore it is perfectly acceptable for joining battles and fight for enemy countries, I see you are a happy one owning a mercenary medal!"

I can give you a different example

"But ofc you can argue that TUP players should have majority members in Government. You are a TUP elitist."

This last example is used very often and is called "poisoning the well"

It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known previous offender or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a reference. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.



Conclusion.
As we can see politicians often use arguments that are strong but not so much logical. They can be perceived as a threat on your person or even on a whole group.
This is not what I would call bullying although you are free to disagree on that. Often when in the line of fire emotions take over. However, it is very easy to cross over this very vague border. Very often it becomes a repeated attack on one person’s personality. That is when a political argument becomes bullying.
It becomes a real problem when it continues and proceeds in this player's real life.

I can only end this article with the advice, of not entering politics if you have a problem with the "Appeal to force or fear" and "argument directed at the man".
If someone goes beyond this border and you feel this player attacks your personal integrity you call on friends to help.

To really conclude this article I want to remind you to not give bullies ammunition.
Never give out any kind of personal information!


Yours truly,