Recent E1a ruling concerning the word 'Lie'

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Even so, we can be punished for transgressing it.

If being given 24 hours to edit a post is a punishment, then, yes.

Exactly what good is being given 24 hours to edit a post, if it is for breaking a rule that no one knows is a rule? Really, you people grow weirder and weirder and less and less rational every day.

[Shawna]

^  Does that mean you'll be leaving soon?  Because this is all really just a conspiracy to play with your head until you snap.

----
The moderators do a reasonable job of trying to keep up with the members, who are constantly moving the goalposts... whenever one of us thinks of a new and novel way to insult someone, the mods are forced to decide whether that insulting behavior slides or whether it needs to be addressed.

I fail to see any particular difficulty.... if the mods decide that a post needs editing, they tell you to edit it, and what words are a problem.  Then they give you 24 hours to do it with no penalty.  Even if you don't edit it, and eventually go to the Corner, the Corner is not exactly cruel and unusual punishment.  Some of the most interesting threads are Corner threads.

IGI chose a difficult principle to maintain when the founders decided that they didn't want its members to egregiously insult each other, while still trying to allow for freedom of expression.  The can of worms was opened on Day One; the mods have been running after those slippery little critters ever since.  Carry on, mods.

[kevin]

that ^^^post is bigoted.

[Kiahanie]

Kevin, they are not logically incompatible, they are just approaching the subject fromn different directions.  A person who knows he is telling an untruth is lying.  That untruth is then a lie.  Someone who repeats the lie unknowingly is not lying, but the statement is still a lie.

these two definitions are precisely incompatible, nate.

using one definition, a statement that i might make is not a lie.

using the other definition, that same statement is a lie.

therefore you are arguing that the same statement can simultaneously be a lie and not be a lie. this is impossible, and therefore the definitions cannot simultaneously be applied. in other words, they are logically incompatible.

No, the definition again:a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive  b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
In the first the speaker knows it is a lie, in the second he does not necessarily.

The head of this pin is getting very crowded. Are there very many angels still waiting to get on?

[kevin]

i've said everything i have to say, and haven't seen anything that would change what i believe to be true.

[Assyriankey]

Nate, the re-telling of a lie is never an act of lying (i.e it is not a lie) if the speaker believes it to be true.

a : the assertion of something known or believed to be untrue. <- sounds fair.

b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker <- WTF?


Fortunately for all of us here, our moderators are extremely intelligent people and they won't be adopting your definition B anytime soon.

Clearly you don't understand be as evedent by your "WTF" and the statement in the first sentence "(i.e it is not a lie). "  We are talking about two different things, a liar and a lie.  If a statememt is made with intent to deceive it is a lie.  Innocently repeating that lie does not change that fact, it only means that the parrot is not the liar.

Fortunately, the moderators whpo understand this may clarify that even though calling a statement IN a post (as opposed to the whole post) a lie is not necessarily calling the poster a liar, it is appropriate to refrain from using the word due to its inflamatory nature and the liklihood that the poster will misunderstand just as the less intelligent moderators do.

So you see nothing wrong with describing as a lie a person's erroneous statement made in good faith?  Obviously we have very different standards of acceptable conduct.  Your definition B is a nonsense.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Hi all, it is no longer permissible to describe another member's post as a lie.

If you make a statement like "Your post is a lie", it will be found guilty of breaching etiquette E1a - No insults.

Then why was a violation logged for me yesterday. If it is no longer permissible, it was permissible when I used the phrase. If using it will be found guilty of breaching etiquette E1a ... that is future tense.

So obviously the only rational and fair thing to do is to remove the etiquette violation from my account. But I won't hold my breath.

[Assyriankey]

Hi all, it is no longer permissible to describe another member's post as a lie.

If you make a statement like "Your post is a lie", it will be found guilty of breaching etiquette E1a - No insults.

Then why was a violation logged for me yesterday. If it is no longer permissible, it was permissible when I used the phrase. If using it will be found guilty of breaching etiquette E1a ... that is future tense.

Yeah, your infringement and my announcement don't align time-wise very well, my apologies for that.  I also could have worded the OP of this thread a bit better.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Don't align well=oops! I told the truth.

Let's be clear. It wasn't a breach of etiquette when I and most of the forum used the phrase up until last Saturday. Then you decided to make an example of me. I can just hear the wheels turning. Assy: "hey, remember that thread 5 years ago when Myron decreed that you couldn't say "your post is a lie?" "No", replies Luke, "But if you are sure, we can use it against MtO. Let's do it!"

How close is that? Pretty darned close, I suspect. I want the infraction off my record. I have plenty of real ones of my own, I don't need you making up fictional violations.

[Jezzebelle]

you have not been the only one dinged for this in five years. 

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Were you a moderator when you wrote this, I wonder?

"liar" is desrcibing the poster and not the post... so yes it is.

you may quote the lie and say "that is not true/that is a lie"

It is highly amusing to search for "your post lie" Whole threads of violations turn up, as well as some mighty amusing discussions

[Jezzebelle]

I don't remember.  And I never said I agreed with the ruling, but it is the ruling and you aren't/haven't been the only one dinged for it.  I clearly didn't vote on this report of yours since it was said against me. 

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Nobody is saying that you did. I asked if you were a moderator then for the very simple reason that you were giving Jay information that now has been declared wrong.

As they say, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Even here.

[Jezzebelle]

I don't remember :/  I just looked in the mod box, and I can't pin point when exactly I quit the first time but it was around then, maybe the month before or after? 

[Maggie the Opinionated]

That thread is just too, too, delicious. Poor Jay got caught in the "you didn't know it was a violation of the rules? BWAHAHAHA! Got us another one, Assy!"

There's nearly 3 years precedent on "liar."

First of all....I am supposed to know that you have '3 years of precedent on this"  How?? 

Guffaws are so healthy. I can feel my lungs expanding and taking in that good oxygen, even as I type!

[nateswift]

So you see nothing wrong with describing as a lie a person's erroneous statement made in good faith?  Obviously we have very different standards of acceptable conduct.  Your definition B is a nonsense.

If you don't think a lie can take on a life of its own you should check the history of my example.

[Assyriankey]

Don't align well=oops! I told the truth.

Let's be clear. It wasn't a breach of etiquette when I and most of the forum used the phrase up until last Saturday. Then you decided to make an example of me. I can just hear the wheels turning. Assy: "hey, remember that thread 5 years ago when Myron decreed that you couldn't say "your post is a lie?" "No", replies Luke, "But if you are sure, we can use it against MtO. Let's do it!"

How close is that? Pretty darned close, I suspect. I want the infraction off my record. I have plenty of real ones of my own, I don't need you making up fictional violations.

The only way you can have the infraction reversed is if you appeal the decision.

[Assyriankey]

So you see nothing wrong with describing as a lie a person's erroneous statement made in good faith?  Obviously we have very different standards of acceptable conduct.  Your definition B is a nonsense.

If you don't think a lie can take on a life of its own you should check the history of my example.

Certainly, but to call someone a liar when all they've done is unwittingly repeat a falsehood is ridiculous.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Don't align well=oops! I told the truth.

Let's be clear. It wasn't a breach of etiquette when I and most of the forum used the phrase up until last Saturday. Then you decided to make an example of me. I can just hear the wheels turning. Assy: "hey, remember that thread 5 years ago when Myron decreed that you couldn't say "your post is a lie?" "No", replies Luke, "But if you are sure, we can use it against MtO. Let's do it!"

How close is that? Pretty darned close, I suspect. I want the infraction off my record. I have plenty of real ones of my own, I don't need you making up fictional violations.

The only way you can have the infraction reversed is if you appeal the decision.

What do you think I am doing?  Oh wait! There are rulez about that, too!

[Assyriankey]

^ ok

[nateswift]

Certainly, but to call someone a liar when all they've done is unwittingly repeat a falsehood is ridiculous.

well, yes, Assy....That's what I have been saying, and to call a statement a lie therefore does NOT necessarily call the one who parrots the lie a liar.  Ok?

[Assyriankey]

Certainly, but to call someone a liar when all they've done is unwittingly repeat a falsehood is ridiculous.

well, yes, Assy....That's what I have been saying, and to call a statement a lie therefore does NOT necessarily call the one who parrots the lie a liar.  Ok?

Nate, yes, I know that is what you've been saying all along, and I also know you're broadly supportive of this new interpretation (not that it's truly a virgin here).  Our exchange is not just about each other.

As you know, we try to avoid judging intent so blanket interpretation is the order of the day.

[kevin]

i, kevin, am a compulsive lier, and i am lying as i write this.

Spoiler

[close]

[Assyriankey]

For the children...

What is it called when someone says something they know is not true?

That sentence is just another way of labelling a member as a liar and it won't be allowed to stand.

This is definitely not something new - e.g. asking if someone is a pedophile has always been a breach of E1a.

[Shawna]

you have not been the only one dinged for this in five years.

I was dinged for saying something about someone else's posts a year or so ago.  I muttered at the moderator who dinged me, and then I cooperated.

The rules are to try to keep discourse within a reasonable range of civil.  Whether I was technically breaking the rules or not, I was certainly not being very nice.  So...   No harm in editing......

[Maggie the Opinionated]

It is called a new low in the IGI war on the language. A ruthless war determined to rob the language of all color, depth and explanatory power. It is the aesthetic equivalent of an obese man wearing shorts, white socks with sandals and insisting that this is appropriate evening attire. Pitiful. Just pitiful.

[Shawna]

Thank you for sharing, Maggie.

You might try making your discourse less unpleasant... that would short-circuit all your problems with the rules.

Just stick to your spite smiting.... no rule against that.... 

[Jezzebelle]

rulez

good lord.  when you find something you think is clever, you really hang on to it and just beat it to death, huh?

[Maggie the Opinionated]

For the children...

What is it called when someone says something they know is not true?

That sentence is just another way of labelling a member as a liar and it won't be allowed to stand.

This is definitely not something new - e.g. asking if someone is a pedophile has always been a breach of E1a.

By the way. Is this new? Announcing that you find something an E1a violation and pronouncing it guilty in public? It is a new one on me, in any case. Have the mods actually voted on this infraction or are you giving them their orders? I am rather hoping that sanity will reign and that you will be ignored. 

[Jezzebelle]

Move along. You are clearly incapable of understanding why I am using it and I am not going to tell you. I write for adults.

ha, well you clearly got my point... you didn't say "butt out" this time