Describing another member as lying

[hideousmonster]

2) Calling someone a liar has always been against our rules.

Not explicitly it hasn't. It's only now against the rules because it's been deemed an insult. By that logic, any word at all could be deemed an insult at any time by the mods. Hell, why advertise it at all if it's so malleable a rule? <-- This sentence could be judged by the mods as insulting to you, and the result is the same.

Precisely. Ultimately the mods can do what ever they want. If you don't like that, tough. You can either try to avoid accusing people of lying, and find other ways of expressing disagreement, or you can find or make a forum that offers you the freedom to insult others which you desire.

If accusing people of lying is such a necessary part of your online community participation experience, then don't be surprised if your kind of motives conflict with forums like this one, where a goal is to keep it civil, congenial, and open-minded.

[Vynn]

Precisely. Ultimately the mods can do what ever they want. If you don't like that, tough.

Duh. I didn't know that this obvious sentiment was in need of being expressed. I do think it's quite telling when it eventually gets said, though. I've seen this ultimatum on various other forums, and it's always been a precursor to more ambiguous power being given to the mods to f**k the members over in any way that they want. Evidently, this is supposed to make the members feel better about not being worth s**t to those in power. I dunno..

You can either try to avoid accusing people of lying, and find other ways of expressing disagreement, or you can find or make a forum that offers you the freedom to insult others which you desire.

Nice accusations, Hal. Unfortunately, you're now arguing the same strawmen as the mods at ATT, and with the same empty accusations that dodge the issue. Are you catching this s**t, Assy?

If accusing people of lying is such a necessary part of your online community participation experience, then don't be surprised if your kind of motives conflict with forums like this one, where a goal is to keep it civil, congenial, and open-minded.

FAIL

Wait, should i now say something about the necessity you feel to erect strawmen in order to feel better about your side of the argument?

You're welcome to search my post history and see how many times i've accused someone of lying if you'd like. It has nothing to do with something "being a necessary part of my online community participation" and EVERYTHING to do with what is and isn't moderated and what will or won't be moderated tomorrow or next week. I'm not taking issue with this because i want to go around and call people liars, i'm taking issue with this because it's a useless rule that only serves to promote the powerful by serving notice that they can do what they want, when they want. You don't think this rule changes anything, or keeps people from being insulted, do you? Please. The members who want to call another member a liar are still going to find a way to do that without using the letters "l", "i", "a", and "r". You know this as well as i do. This is just a rule to ban one word that's deemed unacceptable for whatever reason. It's been demonstrated over and over that if people want to be insulting and call somebody a certain thing, they're going to find a way to do that. Sure, you can ban certain words and phrases, or you can act like responsible individuals with a decent pair of balls and look at what people are actually saying, and make decisions based on that reality. My point is that everybody here knows this, and yet shout "hooray" and "hallelujah" when somebody suggests sticking gum over the crack in the radiator. Ya'll be sure to let me know what the next outlawed word or phrase will be. I'm sure it'll be just as successful. We'll have a whole 'nother party then, too. We'll have to switch to cheaper champagne after a while though. I mean, have you ever looked at how many words can be used to be "offensive"?!?

[rickymooston]

Duh....
...

This Vynn guy is a serious offender in terms of implying insults, ...

I think he is accusing his opponent of stupidity. Of course, I suspect his opponet owns the board and will counter with a nastier accuation.

[Vynn]

This Vynn guy is a serious offender in terms of implying insults, ...

I think he is accusing his opponent of stupidity. Of course, I suspect his opponet owns the board and will counter with a nastier accuation.

LOL!

The point is so freaking simple i'd think it would be obvious. You can't end certain behavior by banning groups of words. That's like trying to stop stealing by banning crowbars. The no insult rule is a fabulous rule that should be USED by the mods. Banning words and phrases is merely empty and useless posturing.

[rickymooston]

The point is so freaking simple i'd think it would be obvious. You can't end certain behavior by banning groups of words. That's like trying to stop stealing by banning crowbars. The no insult rule is a fabulous rule that should be USED by the mods. Banning words and phrases is merely empty and useless posturing.

Well, ... see the moose's take on rule #6, its much more than the use of words, now that implied accusations of lying are taking to imply a person is a "liar"

https://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,21613.0.html

As somebody who disagrees with people on this forum, you are one of the main offenders.


Disagreeing with somebody implies that their opinion is stupid. If a person who lies once is a liar, isn't a person who says stupid things stupid

Note that having proof that your oponent is lying does not allow you to claim he is lying.

[JustMyron]

Ultimately the mods can do what ever they want. If you don't like that, tough.

We'll see. True, the mods/owners of this board have the power to do whatever they like, but they have agreed to listen to the members, and be accountable to them. So far, they have done a good job of listening, but that gets tested each time someone disagrees with a decision taken by the moderators.

My thought is that calling someone a liar is an insult under #6, and saying they are lying is very similar. Vynn (or perhaps Cosmic?) made a good point about saying someone is a liar indicating a pattern of behaviour, while saying someone has lied or that something they have said is a lie only indicates single instance, so it's less insulting. But after thinking about this for a while, I think that misses the point. Rule #6 is meant to deter people from talking about their opponents and keep the discussion focused on the arguments they make. Saying someone has lied is addressing the person rather than the argument (or at best, the person AND the argument), because (to most people anyway) lying requires an intent to deceive. Saying something untrue which you believe to be true is a mistake, and not a lie, to most people. On the other hand, saying that what someone has said is not true, or that what someone has said makes them look like a liar (or look like anything else insulting, for that matter, such as a stupid lying racist pedophile), is addressing the argument and should be permitted. It seems pretty simple and reasonable, and I'd like to keep it that way.

If the intent is to increase consistency and transparency in how liar-type insults are handled, then I think that purpose would be best served by posting things that contravened the insult rule (and others that didn't but were flagged as possible contraventions) somewhere, so that members can see how things were handled, and why the distinction between "insult" and "not insult" was made in each case.

Oh, and Ricky, I think AK made it pretty clear that dealing with implied insults was outside of the scope of #6, at least as it pertains to calling someone a liar.

Something a little funny to think about: There are seven words you can't say on television, and we're moving in the direction of having one you can't say on this forum. I'm not sure it belongs on the list, or that starting a list is a good idea. NOTE: Audio content contains language that is not safe for work.

[Assyriankey]

If you were intentionally trying to deceive me with some falsehood then yes - you were lying and could quite properly be called a liar.

But our rule has absolutely nothing to do with the veracity of the charge of lying.  I called a member of this forum a racist and received a rule #6 break as a result - same deal.

If we want to be allowed to call someone a liar then we need to change rule #6.  Maybe we should have a "No lying." rule? :)

This is only because you are defining "that's a lie", with "you're a liar", and defining "you're a liar" as an insult. Yes, anything the mods decide is an insult is against rule #6. I've already made this point.

Can someone tell a lie without being a liar?  I don't think so.

As for defining "you're a liar" as an insult this is not some weird twist I am putting on these words - calling someone a liar is always an insult.

1) Saying that another member is lying has always been equivalent with calling that member a liar.

I disagree. Someone can commit an act a few times and not be defined by that act. If i accidentally take a pen home from work, i've "stolen" that pen. The fact that i've stolen a pen doesn't mean that generally, i'm a thief. I think the same applies for lying.

If you accidentally take a pen home from work then you have most definitely not stolen that pen.  Words (their definitions) actually matter...

Do you agree that someone must have an intent to deceive before they can be described as lying?

[Assyriankey]

I'm not taking issue with this because i want to go around and call people liars, i'm taking issue with this because it's a useless rule that only serves to promote the powerful by serving notice that they can do what they want, when they want. You don't think this rule changes anything, or keeps people from being insulted, do you? Please. The members who want to call another member a liar are still going to find a way to do that without using the letters "l", "i", "a", and "r". You know this as well as i do. This is just a rule to ban one word that's deemed unacceptable for whatever reason. It's been demonstrated over and over that if people want to be insulting and call somebody a certain thing, they're going to find a way to do that. Sure, you can ban certain words and phrases, or you can act like responsible individuals with a decent pair of balls and look at what people are actually saying, and make decisions based on that reality. My point is that everybody here knows this, and yet shout "hooray" and "hallelujah" when somebody suggests sticking gum over the crack in the radiator. Ya'll be sure to let me know what the next outlawed word or phrase will be. I'm sure it'll be just as successful. We'll have a whole 'nother party then, too. We'll have to switch to cheaper champagne after a while though. I mean, have you ever looked at how many words can be used to be "offensive"?!?

Vynn, that's crap.  Saying that someone is lying is directly equivalent to calling them a liar in the same way that saying someone has sex with babies is directly equivalent to calling them a pedophile.

Stop trying to misrepresent my motive for highlighting this issue - this issue was debated for some time in the staff-only area before this thread was started.  I have not suddenly taken a dislike to members saying that other members are lying - this issue is all about consistency of rule interpretation.

[Assyriankey]

Oh, and Ricky, I think AK made it pretty clear that dealing with implied insults was outside of the scope of #6, at least as it pertains to calling someone a liar.

Clarity is totally wasted on Ricky.

[Captain Luke]

Oh, and Ricky, I think AK made it pretty clear that dealing with implied insults was outside of the scope of #6, at least as it pertains to calling someone a liar.

Clarity is totally wasted on Ricky.

Is this not the same as saying that Ricky is muddle-headed or stupid? Is that not an insult, albeit a veiled one? Even DaveDave treats Ricky with more respect than you...

[Assyriankey]

Oh, and Ricky, I think AK made it pretty clear that dealing with implied insults was outside of the scope of #6, at least as it pertains to calling someone a liar.

Clarity is totally wasted on Ricky.

Is this not the same as saying that Ricky is muddle-headed or stupid?

No.

[Vynn]

Can someone tell a lie without being a liar?  I don't think so.

I think so, but i understand why some people don't take this view. I think you can take an action rarely, and not be defined by that action always. Someone can steal, and yet not be defined by that action and be called a "thief". The same is true of many descriptive words versus labels. I use drugs occasionally (legal ones), but i'm not a "druggie".

As for defining "you're a liar" as an insult this is not some weird twist I am putting on these words - calling someone a liar is always an insult.

I disagree. I'd prefer if there was freedom of speech here, and if someone could somehow point out that another person lied, in a gentle enough tone and demeanor, it'd not automatically be assumed to be an insult.

1) Saying that another member is lying has always been equivalent with calling that member a liar.

I disagree. Someone can commit an act a few times and not be defined by that act. If i accidentally take a pen home from work, i've "stolen" that pen. The fact that i've stolen a pen doesn't mean that generally, i'm a thief. I think the same applies for lying.

Do you agree that someone must have an intent to deceive before they can be described as lying?

Sort of. 

[Vynn]

Vynn, that's crap.  Saying that someone is lying is directly equivalent to calling them a liar in the same way that saying someone has sex with babies is directly equivalent to calling them a pedophile.

No. I'd comment further, but why? You've clearly demonstrated that you're not willing to discuss this with an open mind. You've declared that you're right, and that's that. Congratulations.

Stop trying to misrepresent my motive for highlighting this issue -

I'm not misrepresenting anything. -1

I'm simply representing my opinion. Isn't this allowed? Or from now on when i simply state my own opinion, where it happens to disagree with your, i'm "misrepresenting your 'motive'".

this issue was debated for some time in the staff-only area before this thread was started. 

Big deal. Is that supposed to mean that we members can't voice our opinion because the almighty staff has reached their almighty decision on it?

I have not suddenly taken a dislike to members saying that other members are lying

Then you'll need to discuss this with a member who thinks you've done this. I don't.

- this issue is all about consistency of rule interpretation.

I've not claimed otherwise. I'm looking forward to the soon to be assembled list of words and phrases that we can no longer use on this forum. We need that consistency, Assy. Let's get it done.

[Captain Luke]

Oh, and Ricky, I think AK made it pretty clear that dealing with implied insults was outside of the scope of #6, at least as it pertains to calling someone a liar.

Clarity is totally wasted on Ricky.

Is this not the same as saying that Ricky is muddle-headed or stupid?

No.

Well I find it insulting.

[Assyriankey]

Vynn, please define "lying".  I think we might be talking past each other here - either that or you're a druggie :)

[Assyriankey]

Oh, and Ricky, I think AK made it pretty clear that dealing with implied insults was outside of the scope of #6, at least as it pertains to calling someone a liar.

Clarity is totally wasted on Ricky.

Is this not the same as saying that Ricky is muddle-headed or stupid?

No.

Well I find it insulting.

I really don't know why clarity is wasted on Ricky, only that it is.  He may be muddle-headed.  He may be stupid.  He may have ADD or suffer from poor comprehension levels, or have bad eyesight, or a bad attitude to English - I only know that clarity is wasted on him.

[Assyriankey]

Vynn says (above) that describing someone as lying is not equivalent to calling that person a liar.

Is Vynn correct?

[Lillium]

Everybody is a liar! Now put me in the corner...

[DungyQuipu]

?If you obey all of the rules, you miss all of the fun.?

Katharine Hepburn

[rickymooston]

Vynn says (above) that describing someone as lying is not equivalent to calling that person a liar.

Is Vynn correct?

I think almost everybody except possibly morningdewb has lied in their life about something.

[JustMyron]

Vynn says (above) that describing someone as lying is not equivalent to calling that person a liar.

Is Vynn correct?

You are talking past each other because Vynn's definition of a liar is someone who lies frequently and is likely to continue doing so, whereas yours is someone who lies even once. Both work. Under your definition, saying someone has told a lie is equivalent to saying someone is a liar. I think that semantic debate is secondary to deciding what we should do about this issue, because "is Vynn's definition of a liar correct" can be answered different ways by different people. If there was only one way, we could use the definition to decide, but since there are multiple ways, we have to use something else. I think considering the spirit and intent of rule #6, and deciding based on that how to handle someone being told that they have lied, is a reasonable way to go. I'll give you my thoughts below.

The point of rule #6 saying attacking the argument in a potentially insulting way is acceptable, while attacking the person in a potentially insulting way is not, was twofold. First, to give an easy and transparent way for moderators to decide which types of insults should be curtailed, in something approaching an objective and impartial manner. And second, to put into practice the underlying principle that what you're trying to do here is have a good debate. That requires expressing disagreement, which risks insulting members. At the same time, deliberately attempting to "get a rise" out of a member, or insulting them because you feel offended and want to retaliate, adds nothing to a debate, and makes the atmosphere worse for everyone. So, the spirit of the no insults rule as written is, "let's try to leave people as free to express their opinion as possible, while stopping people from insulting others if it's not constructive or helpful to advancing a discussion". The "attack the argument, not the person" idea was a good one in my opinion. It achieves transparency and balance between openness and civility fairly well, and I think we should stick with it.

If you agree up to this point, the question then becomes, does saying someone has told a lie amount to a personal attack, or an attack against their arguments? Judging whether it amounts to a rule-break in this way is entirely consistent with judging other breaks of rule #6, by the way, so if the reason this was considered is because we want consistency, then my logic works for that goal as well.

My answer is that saying someone has told a lie is personal because of the difference between a lie and a mistake/misunderstanding. Since I view lies as requiring intent to deceive (whereas a misunderstanding of the truth does not), by saying someone's statement is a lie, you are making a statement about that person's intent (and possibly their character as well), as well as the content of their post. Further, since you can't determine intent from a post, you can only assume and guess, calling someone a liar is very likely to cause more difficulties in an argument than it solves, so allowing it goes against the spirit of rule #6, as well as the letter, in my opinion.

If you (anyone reading this) do not view lying as requiring an intent to deceive (if you use a different definition than I do) then you need to make that clear when you post saying someone has told a lie. For example, if you were to say "that is a lie. You may not have deliberately meant to post something that was not true, but you did, and I view anything untrue as a lie" then the personal aspect of saying someone has lied is removed, and as you can see that statement becomes much less offensive/insulting as a result. In my view, that should be seen as a comment on the post and not the person, and so be outside of the scope of rule #6. But, for those who think lying does not require intent, I think it's important to realize that not everyone sees things that way, so for the sake of a good debate, if you want to say someone has lied, you have a responsibility to make it clear that your definition of "lied" is meant to be a comment solely on the content of the post, and not on the person's intent. If you fail to clarify your definitions, and someone reasonably takes it as an attack upon their person rather than their argument, and a moderator agrees, you're stuck.

And that's how I think we should solve that. For the sake of consistency, the deciding factor should remain: is this "insult" an attack on the person, or on the argument?". And the responsibility of demonstrating that they are criticizing the argument rather than the person should rest with the person who posted the contentious "insult", who then has a motivation to make sure their intended meaning is clearly stated and does not contravene the rules.

[Lillium]

I say, Just Myron must be an essayist.  He writes the longest most in depth posts than any other member around here.

Reminds me of me on another forum.

[rickymooston]

We (the staff) are not adopting this position in an attempt to further enforce our notions of good forum behaviour on our members - we are doing it because it is the correct interpretation of our rules.  If we want to be allowed to describe someone as lying then we need to change rule #6.

[rickymooston]

Oh, and Ricky, I think AK made it pretty clear that dealing with implied insults was outside of the scope of #6, at least as it pertains to calling someone a liar.

Clarity is totally wasted on Ricky.

Should rule number 6 be altered to allow this when one is be provoked.

An evil bastard would take this as "insulting" ricky yet somebody else may say the moose kind of deserves it.

[rickymooston]

I really don't know why clarity is wasted on Ricky, only that it is.  He may be muddle-headed.  He may be stupid.  He may have ADD or suffer from poor comprehension levels, or have bad eyesight, or a bad attitude to English - I only know that clarity is wasted on him.

If statements such as the above are legal. Then the moose feels better about rule #6 in its current form and Jawood's original statement should be 100% legal as per Happy Evolute's logic. ;-).

[rickymooston]

Oh, and Ricky, I think AK made it pretty clear that dealing with implied insults was outside of the scope of #6, at least as it pertains to calling someone a liar.

Clarity is totally wasted on Ricky.

Is this not the same as saying that Ricky is muddle-headed or stupid?

No.

Good just checking.



For the record kind of sad about the applaud that got away, applaud 228 turned into smite 118.

[JustMyron]

Reminds me of me on another forum.

I'd like to see that. Unless it's an anime forum...

You don't have a typical "soon to be English teacher" persona on this forum, so it'd be interesting to see that side of your personality.

[Lillium]

Reminds me of me on another forum.

I'd like to see that. Unless it's an anime forum...

You don't have a typical "soon to be English teacher" persona on this forum, so it'd be interesting to see that side of your personality.

Well, this forum I'm speaking of has been through several different versions domain hopping and such.  I think most of my lengthy posts were on the older versions and are unfortunately non-existant.

;] I am now an Admin though and you can check it out. cv.lejimmeh.com

and no... It's called Christian-View formerly Christian-RPG.

SomethingAwful did a weekend web about it.  here  I'm the only one anybody ever said anything positive about. 

[rickymooston]

1) Saying that another member is lying has always been equivalent with calling that member a liar.

Just to be clear on the source of the moose's confusion, there exists a statement from AssyrianKey about intent

Can't find the quote. But do believe I misunderstood the donkey's intent.

If Jagwood's statement is considered calling his opponent a liar, I have an issue. Otherwise, I have none. .

[Vynn]

Vynn, please define "lying".  I think we might be talking past each other here - either that or you're a druggie :)

Well, the action of lying, to me, is stating a known falsehood. (I know that many people tack on the "with intent to deceive" bit, but i think that's irrelevant in some cases. If i say that i've not posted in this thread, that's a lie, whether or not i'm trying to deceive anybody on the issue.)

Two further issues.

1. A person is not necessarily defined by their intermittent actions. While in one sense we are all liars, in another we aren't, as that's not our primary descriptor. As a teen, i stole some cassettes. While in one sense i'm a thief, because of that, i would object to you calling me that. You have every right to say that i've stolen something, and this doesn't mean that because you state this fact that you are calling me a thief, or automatically insulting me. Because of this, you can can say that someone has just lied, or that their statement was a lie, without implying that they are a full-time, scumbag, lier OR being insulting. The reverse is true, too. You can use plenty of IGI politically correct terminology, and still insult someone here. That's why the "no insult" rule is good, and this sub-micro-rule within it is bad. I say let the mods do their job and decide on a case by case basis whether or not such comments are insults. I suspect that most of the "you're lying", or "that's a lie" comments will be deemed insults by those professionals, but maybe not every case. The members on this forum are already under the authority of the mods decisions on individual cases anyway and what they say already goes.

2. It's pointless to start telling people what words and phrases are politically correct here. That's just going to wind up generating a list of words and phrases that people can work around at will. I think we can all agree that it's insulting to tell somebody to "f**k off". At the same time, i've had someone tell this to me and within the context of how they said it, and because of who it was, it was one of the most hilarious things i've heard. I think if i were to start telling people here that i'd never been a christian, or never been a minister, you'd have the right to tell people that those statements were lies. For you to point out that these statements of mine are lies would not necessarily be you labeling me a liar, and it'd not necessarily be insulting, either.