Your re-defintion of "noob sniping," strikes me as a solely tactical attempt to reset terms. I have never before seen any indication that the term includes some pedagogic component.
It's not a re-definition of noob sniping, but instead, a clarification of what I thought you already knew (but ultimately didn't), given your prior experience on DDO.
For example, the
DDO Wiki definition you provided makes no mention that lack of feedback might be an essential element of noob snipe.
Yes, it does. This is the definition that the Wiki provides:
Noob Sniping, also referred to as Newb Sniping or Newbie Sniping is the action where a senior member purposefully debates mainly against new members because they're a fag that is why.
It's obvious that "fag" isn't being used in its literal sense, as one's sexual preferences have nothing to do with online debating. Instead, "fag" here is being used as a general pejorative, indicating that intent indeed does have something to do with noob sniping.
That said, I'm not really one who keeps up with the complex intercontexts of social media jargon so perhaps you can provide a few prior examples where "noob sniping" was clearly defined as a question of training rather than merely critique of experience matching up vs inexperience.
-Noob sniping: A term used for when an experienced member debates a noob (and wins) just to inflate his Win/Loss Record.
Here it is crystal clear that a pro debating against a noob for pedagogic purposes aren't noob snipers since noob sniping is solely about inflating one's W/L Record, as defined above. In fact, those who It's important to note that the post was made in late 2014, so technically speaking, any member that joined in 2015 or later would use that definition of "noob sniping". Probabilistically speaking, it would be extremely unlikely for there to be no posts about noob sniping whatsoever in the past 5 years. This means that there would almost certainly be conversations in DDO where the pedagogic aspect (or lack thereof) of noob sniping would be considered.
Right now, I'm thinking "oh, F just wants so new ground in which to plant moral objection" which then makes me think, "I guess that means he bought my argument in the last post or else he'd be continuing those arguments rather than looking for new ones"
Well, you're wrong, and I just proved it.
The good news is that if you really meant this:
What makes it morally repugnant in my eyes is the lack of feedback that the new debater receives from the experienced one after they are finished.
Then as far as I can tell our website is fairly noopsnipe-free. I would say that experienced users on this site do a far, far better job at offering feedback than any other debate website I've visited. I count at least 13 times new users PM'd me for advice on good debating which I do a lot generally and sometimes specifically. Look at the beginning of this topic where I tried to give some practical advice about winning. Look at post #31 where our illustrious all-medal-er RationalMadman offers the benefit of his experience to a new user. Look at Ragnar's docs on format and Kritik, the way he gently nudges noob debate topics for clarity or falsifiability. If the moral concern here is truly lack of feedback (as you have newly posited) then I'm pretty encouraged by how little noob sniping can be found on this site.
I never said that noob sniping was an issue in DART.
Then what did you mean by:
The most relevant framework is the DebateArt.com Code of Conduct which places no restrictions on debates by relative experience. I can't think of any overarching moral principle that might prohibit such engagement or over-ride the CoC.
Just what I say. Perhaps it over-lawyerly of me to turn to the rulebook as a starting place for in-game moral questions but I start with the rulebook for all in-game questions, moral or otherwise. Then I note that one should think bigger picture than rulebooks before lauching into my pricipalistic approach to the question.
Nowhere in the COC does it address any "moral questions", let alone the morals of noob sniping. In fact, noob sniping isn't mentioned anywhere in any version of the DART COC. So how is the COC a relevant framework when there's nothing there relating to this topic whatsoever?
You have mis-read the sentence to mean CoC=moral. Since I examine the moral question by four different criteria beginning in the very next sentence without any reliance on the Code of Conduct, I'll lay that misunderstanding at your door for correction.
You made two initial arguments, the COC one and the "4 aspects of morality" one. I was referring to the former, not the latter.
You are the one making oughts here, right?
IS: You don't give noobs feedback
OUGHT:You ought not to noob snipe
Aren't you obligated to explain how lack of feedback amounts to some moral fault?
Since we are purposive beings, we generally have a reason to engage in an activity when we do so. You also expect to have some positive things come out of that activity, whether that be for you or for others. In the case of debating, you either join a debate because you want yourself and others to get some good out of it (which for a pro debating a noob, means giving feedback so that the noob gets something out of the debate so he can improve) or because you just want to have good for yourself (exploiting the noob's inexperience to gain wins, which is the definition of noob sniping).
With that said, this becomes a simple Kantian
Hypothetical Imperative: It
is the case that those who engage in debates with noobs while not providing feedback to them are engaging in noob sniping. It
is the case that noob sniping amounts to exploitation of said noobs.
If one sees this as immoral, then one
ought not to noob snipe.
Have I suggested some ought in this exchange? Hume's Is-Ought Guillotine has no application to my defense.
I presented Hume's Guillotine as a conditional. If that was your argument (which you pointed out it wasn't), then you would be subject to Hume's Guillotine.
So, you've shifted your moral hockey puck to "lack of feedback" and then you've chosen to quote from a fairly long piece of advice I gave to fellow debaters just a few months back. Feedback by me that you've obviously read. Maybe you ought to stick that puck another meter by changing your complaint to "not enough feedback, morally speaking"
No, I never shifted my "moral hockey puck", and aren't about to.
IS: Your argument is selfish and circumstantial
OUGHT:You ought not to noob snipe
Hume would ask, "What is the source of this knowledge? How are we determining what's morally ok?" Aren't you obligated to explain how setting goals and modifying approaches according to circumstance amounts to some moral fault?
Here you have bungled together pieces from two completely different points I made. I never said that the argument you made was selfish (whatever that means). By "selfish", I was referring to the actions of the noob snipers, not to your argument. I can once again use the Hypothetical Imperative to formulate my point: If you don't wish to be seen as selfish, then you ought not to noob snipe.
I also never said, "Your argument is circumstantial, therefore you ought not to noob snipe." What I said was that since the point you made of getting to 100 debates is entirely contingent on circumstance, you cannot use it to morally validate noob sniping.
Not automatically and that's hardly the whole of the argument but I think it 100% appropriate to be sensitive to site culture. Learning and reinforcing site norms is an essential part of society building in the social media sense.
Are you arguing that noob sniping (as defined above) is a site norm? If so, then you contradict yourself. If not, then this point is moot.
I agree. When noobs can learn something from the debates, they will know how to improve their arguments. That, in turn, will improve the community as a whole and raise the site's reputation.
So you concede the benefits of noob sniping as I described.
The key point to my statement was "when noobs can learn something from the debates". Noobs don't learn anything from noob snipes. Also, what you described isn't noob sniping, as defined in the definition.
By non-response, you also seem to agree that noop-sniping does not violate noob autonomy.
Your argument for their autonomy is that they get to set the debate up. The problem with this (which you have not adequately addressed) is that they often don't know how to properly do so. Also, do the noobs get to choose who they debate against when creating a debate? No. That means they don't have any autonomy in that regard. Also, if a noob sniper keeps accepting all of your debates, then you basically have four choices: constantly receive a pounding, constantly concede, constantly ask for the debate to be deleted (which means valuable time is wasted), or ask the mods for an RO against the person (which there is no guarantee for them granting). This is not autonomy.
You also seem to agree that the harms are minor since the worst consequence you've identified so far is that a new user might not return to the site.
It can be minor, it can be major. The current state of the website does not inform any moral argument whatsoever.
Of course, new users drift away the site pretty regularly, weekly at least, few of whom have ever engaged in a debate with an experienced user. The harm is so minor that we can't really discern the spiping harm from the background radiation of ennui.
It is entirely possible that this won't be the case in the future.
I already have POST #27. You agreed that self-improvement and elevation of site quality were positive moral benefits. This debater believes that practice and self-improvement in nearly any skill set is a positive moral benefit.
Just like a teacher who only gives out tests and doesn't actually teach, you learn nothing from a noob-sniped debate. Thus it doesn't lead to self-improvement. I also contend that teaching someone how to debate properly (not noob sniping) increases the site quality much more than noob sniping.
I defined noobs as <3 debaters which you have not protested. So by the time the user gets to that third "over again" she is no longer a noob.
You presented that as a conditional, not a definition. But if you are committed to it as a definition (and you indeed are, as shown with your interaction with Crocodile in #43), then you must substantiate why the cutoff for noobiness is 3 debates. Why not 2, or 4? To me, this seems completely arbitrary, and thus invalid.
