No, ~b -> ~c is validly deduced from c -> b.

Where do you see a denial of the antecedent?

The antecedent would be "They have been banned", And the consequent would be "they have been cheating". uralLESBIANS has claimed "they have NOT been banned". uralLesbians is claiming that because they have NOT been banned (denying the antecedent) therefore they are NOT cheating.

Bounce. Mods, can you ignore spyman and Acosmist's discussion of the semantics of formal logic, and give us a ruling on the cheating / metagaming issue that forms the core of this thread?

lol

spyman, you're reversing course now. Here's what you said:

"If they are cheating, they will be banned, since they have not been banned they are not cheating."

If c then b, right? Now you're saying it's if b then c. Which is the initial premise for you, just so we can be clear?

I'll give a non-diplomacy related example of "denying the antecedent":

"If it is a fish, then it lives under water."

The inverse of this statement would be:

"If it is NOT a fish, then it does NOT live under water."

We know this is not true because whales live underwater and are NOT fish.

I posted that before your post Acomist. I'll consider what you have just said.

"If they are cheating, they will be banned, since they have not been banned they are not cheating."

Clearly that is the same as "If c then b; ~b, therefore ~c"

Now what you said more recently is...

"The antecedent would be 'They have been banned', And the consequent would be 'they have been cheating'."

NOW you're saying it's "If b then c" because, obviously, the antecedent is the first term of the conditional and the consequent the second term.

The implicit assumption in the statement "if they are not banned therefore they have not been cheating" is "if they had been banned they were cheating". No?
Therefore the antecedent (asserted as a positive) would be "they have been banned".

That would be a fallacious implicit assumption, though. ~b -> ~c implies c -> b. You're ascribing a denial of the antecedent that just wasn't there; indeed, you've reversed what you said at the start, which WAS "If they are cheating, they will be banned" (direct quote from you). Then the conclusion that a person who is not banned cannot have cheated is merely the contrapositive of the initial premise, and it's true as long as that premise is true.

Here, let's do this another way:

Everyone who cheats is banned.

This person is not banned.

Therefore, he does not cheat.

That seems to be exactly what he was saying and it's perfectly valid.

The enthymeme here is that mods only ban players when they are cheating (which is not necessarily true, as Mods can make mistakes).

Maybe your're right Asosmist. Maybe I am twisting his words. In which case I need to think more about the construction of logical fallacies.
I'll try a different approach then to this case.
The statement "everyone who cheats is banned" is not a true statement as we can find plenty of example of players who have cheated and not been banned.

That's different from what you stated at the start, and doesn't make sense given the argument. We weren't assuming that "only cheaters get banned" but that "all cheaters get banned."

"The statement 'everyone who cheats is banned' is not a true statement as we can find plenty of example of players who have cheated and not been banned."

That's exactly what I said - the premise is false. The deduction was valid, though.

I think you could be right Acosmist. It's late where I am so I will look at this again tomorrow. Thank you.

Actually, even if the premise is correct, banning occurs after the fact, so the reverse is not necessarily true as itmay not have occured yet. You aren't taking into account the factor of time.

It woul dbe like saying "Police come to every accident, so if you the police haven't come then it isn't an accident." this is patently false as it is still an accident, the police just haven't arrived yet. In this case it is still cheating, they just haven't been banned yet. so both the initial logic is false, and the antecedent isn't taking into account the time factor even if it were true.

Draugnar +1
Acosmist -1
spyman -1

You have hijacked this thread with a pointlessly long argument about semantics.

Mods: are the offenders going to be banned?

yeah we argued about the meaning of words, how dare we

wuzzle wazzle <--- preferable?

I prefer waffle over wuzzle or wazzle.

Saw this and had to correct you:
"I'll give a non-diplomacy related example of "denying the antecedent":
"If it is a fish, then it lives under water."
The inverse of this statement would be:
"If it is NOT a fish, then it does NOT live under water."
We know this is not true because whales live underwater and are NOT fish. "
The way he said it he is implying that it if it does NOT live under water then it is NOT a fish. Which is an accurate statement spyman -2 :-P.
Also it was germany's first game I think a warning from an admin would be sufficient that if he tried it again he would be banned.

Who likes Five Guys? I might go there for lunch.

Five Guys is fantastic!

Whoaaa!

They just opened one up in Northern KY. I can't wait to try it out when I go on vacation next week.

kleemm, yeah I was wrong, Acomist proved this to me. But I was open to the thought that I might be, that's why I asked Acosmist for this thoughts, as I know he is really into formal logic.