To defer is to accept and implement a view that you are neutral on, or disagree with. It is fundamentally different from referring to a view you agree with or seek to use to back your argument. It is also fundamentally different from inferring a new argument by combining several existing arguments.

Making the defer/refer/infer distinction is central to serious semantics - some claim that it is an ontological distinction between deeply unlike things. There are at least severe confusions caused by failing to make the distinction. Do not confuse any pair of these three things with each other. It is the worst mistake you can make, and renders any "work" you are doing into confused circular argument not worth critiquing.

The distinction can be subtle: A cite link for instance defers whereas a refer link refers. A cite link resembles a refer link syntactically but not semantically.

Likewise, the evidence/source/authority that backs up the arguments in an issue/position/argument is almost always the result of assumed deference relationships:

Deference is per issue in a well-run organization. An Issue Advocate may defer to the GPC Leader on most issues but will hopefully not defer without serious argument and debate on the issues s/he is Advocating on. A legislator may have the power to over-ride many others in the position protocol and affect the press release protocol to a level that would simply be considered "unfair" - but only on the issues they are tracking and have proven capable of achieving actual legislative action on. A meritocracy consists of deference relations only to people who can deliver.

To delegate is the inverse of to defer - instead of following some authority or command hierarchy "above" you, you create one "below" you.

GPC wiki training level 3 deals with some deference issues.

Conflicts of deference arise often in dealings with trolls.