site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   3429 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for June 25, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I play a Co-Ed recreational sport in my spare time. One of the players has annoyed enough people that I'm thinking of kicking her out. But she has shown a willingness to report people to the national board for minor offenses.

Any thoughts on how to remove her without triggering national board reprisals?

First of all, have someone else do it. Some will decry this as cowardice, but actually having lackeys to do the dirty work is one of the surest signs of competence in a leader or organizer.

Second, manufacture or record significant evidence of bad (in this case, unsportsmanlike? annoying?) behavior to show to your superiors in the national league. Every little thing, blow it way out of proportion. Have a dossier.

After your man or woman fires her, you call her, tell her the situation is tough, your hands were tied, but wish her all the very best and tell her to keep in touch. Fin.

I might have someone else do it. I'm willing to do it partly because I'm not very concerned with the consequences. She will hate me and report me to the league organization. Thing is, the people in league organization probably dislike her too. They ratted her out when she complained about someone else.

The only real evidence / reason we have for kicking her out is that she is annoying and multiple people don't want to play on a team with her. I suppose I could collect a list of all the people who have told me "dont put me on a team with her".

I don't really want to appear as the "good guy" when all is said and done. I also find her annoying and would rather never talk to her again.

Count me at least as in favor of you doing it yourself. He who passes the judgment swings the sword, etc. As for signifiers of competence, let be be finale of seem, as it were. My allusions runneth over. If you're worried sbout repercussions, weigh that against her presence. If the board has her on radar as a valued snitch/lackey/presence, that gives her a certain immunity. If not, why not just say she is disruptive? Of course none of my advice here is particularly strategic. Yet you suggest you're not so concerned with consequences, so I'd suggest following conscience.

I suppose I could collect a list of all the people who have told me "dont put me on a team with her".

Can't you just tell her that a lot of people don't want to play with her (without naming them)? "You're not a team player....so you're no longer a team player". The social humiliation, and the threat of even greater social humiliation (if for example she loudly asks for a vote), might be enough to shoo her off. It's honest, unburocratic, and you're not even the bad guy.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats