The definition given in the CoC update draft, taken from RationalWiki, is too narrow. Argumentum ad nauseam just means "arguing until people are sick of it".
This overlaps heavily with the bad behaviour listed immediately following in the draft:
Continuing to raise issues that were not accepted by the group consensus. It you feel you have important new information or that your argument did not get a fair hearing, then contact the chairs. Otherwise, accept the group consensus and move on.
That point also, uncharacteristically in the list of behaviours good or bad, suggests what should happen, which reads quite strangely and in the context feels somewhat patronising. While the advice itself isn't wrong, it seems out of place here.
In general we expect people to be truthful (and say so very explicitly in the expected behaviours), so predicating this definition on the assertion that the core argument is false makes it redundant.
I propose that we combine the two points, and remove (from this definition) the extra exhortation.
The definition given in the CoC update draft, taken from RationalWiki, is too narrow. Argumentum ad nauseam just means "arguing until people are sick of it".
This overlaps heavily with the bad behaviour listed immediately following in the draft:
That point also, uncharacteristically in the list of behaviours good or bad, suggests what should happen, which reads quite strangely and in the context feels somewhat patronising. While the advice itself isn't wrong, it seems out of place here.
In general we expect people to be truthful (and say so very explicitly in the expected behaviours), so predicating this definition on the assertion that the core argument is false makes it redundant.
I propose that we combine the two points, and remove (from this definition) the extra exhortation.