I note several fallacies in question going around. I started this topic about Efnet #mIRC. Not a typical channel in general.
I'm looking for answers for Efnet #mIRC
Efnet #mIRC is an IRC channel.
Therefore, here's the answers for an IRC channel!
Call it the opposite of division fallacy?
Now, according to /list, the 'mode' of IRC channels probably has 1 user. Matter fact, most troll channels do not have a message board affiliated or a rules page or anything. And Efnet #mIRC is not a troll channel.
Now, suppose a channel (for whatever reason), had rules. Posted rules. I suppose if a channel had rules, 1 could argue the logic of it, or argue whether a rule was broken or not. Then, the answers could be "Oh, I see how I broke my rule now, my bad," or, "Oh, I see you didn't break the rule. *Unban.*"
An example of this is a caps rule, such as 80%.
"Hi, why did I get banned? I only said 75% caps. Rule was 80% minimum."
"No, you said 83.33%, here's my reasoning proof."
"Oh, okay, I now see how you took into consideration spaces, periods, commas, and exclamation marks. I indeed did say > 80% caps."
Anyways, about 3 people that posted on the thread are the appeal to authority, as only about 3 of them were Efnet #mIRC ops.
I particularly got 3 answers from 2 ops, argv0 (argv[0]) and Bekar.
They were "reputation" and "being liked," from argv0, and about "trust," from Bekar. The other op was Mentality. There might be other ops with other relevant stuff to add.
And apparently, almost everyone else that posted is not affiliated with the channel, whatever anyone else had to say about "IRC channels in general" - well, they certainly are free to post, but rather can be meaningless to me. Because we like specific cases and specific situations.
-Neal.
