Lofty ideals are devalued when their advocates' demonstrated ethics in practice fall significantly short of the spirit of their professed ideals.
Where the founders and supporters of the Canonizer advocate the lofty ideals of establishing, promoting, and supporting a "superior" forum for the purpose of facilitating meaningful discussions and building useful and credible consensus, it is reasonable to expect, not only, that they demonstrate the ethical discipline of honesty and fairness in the representation of dissenting views that they intend to challenge, but also, that they recognize the natural propensity of some to willfully or recklessly fail to hold themselves to such standards
As such is actually the case with some members of the species in general (willful or reckless abandonment of honesty and fairness in discussion
), measures should be taken to address and manage
that reality with disciplinary discouragement of such ethical abuses of the opportunity that the system might otherwise present.
It is the nature of a system that supports polemic discussion of different points of view to feature critiques made, by advocates of one point of view, of the views of their intellectual competitors or "opponents".
In the course of such critiques, it is quite common to quote or paraphrase from the published point of view one is in the process of criticizing. A dishonest (and in the opinion of this writer, quite ethically slimy) trick that is sometimes employed by a critic of other points of view, is to misquote or mischaracterize or otherwise misrepresent the substance of the point of view he is criticizing, and then base the criticism on the resulting false frame of the opposing point of view, while dishonestly representing it to be the actual view that he is criticizing.
It is the view of the author of this suggestion that this is dishonest and unethical obfuscation
that is calculated to distract readers from the actuality of the views they are attempting to marginalize.
A forum that tolerates or silently acquiesces to such behavior in intellectual discourse
, rightly loses credibility for that reason. Intelligent credible people do not want to, nor should they want to waste time amidst the foolishness that is made manifest by those who would intentionally or recklessly corrupt honest discourse of the merits of competing points of view, in an effort to win support by deception or obfuscation.
This, now brings us to the question of censorship. If censorship is employed to deal with such malfeasance, the credibility of the system becomes challenged by the emergence of potentially arbitrary or motivated suppression of legitimate dialogue and the emergence of a potentially illegitimate hierarchy that imposes such suppression.
The author of this suggestion, does not, therefore, recommend censorship as a legitimate or practically workable remedy to address the malfeasance in question. Rather, this author recommends and suggests a thoughtful grievance, gripe, or complaint system should be established, whereby complaints of misrepresentation and dishonest mischaracterization can be made, recorded, and published in such a way that the established track record of a system user can be exposed in this regard, and the offending statements can be flagged and tagged with quick links to the complaints that have been offered and investigated.
Related Discussion: Canonizer Executive advocates reckless disregard for accuracy in camps?
Relevant Discussion: No Censoring Critique
See also: Accuracy and Fairness
Please also consider this declared value
in the Canonizer Values section.
See also: Rethink Delegation of Votes