Policy on the use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc.:

[daisym]

agreed - however how DO you argue against being called 'a terrorist supporter', an 'america basher' or somebody who 'has no respect for the military' as was the case in the thread mentioned above.

While the terrorist supporter label is so ludicrous its not worthy of response, when you get called this repeatedly, it does wear you down. And what can you say in your defence? how do you PROVE you are not a terrorist supporter on a forum such as this?

what about the term anti American - apart from the fact that I am not even sure what it means ... when people call me an America basher etc etc etc it is sending a message to other posters, as well as directing contempt at me - but how do I counter it? I can ask for a definition - but you know as well as I that these types of people just hurl more insults/labels ...


what about the claim that SAm has no respect for the military? how can she defend against this? I haven't seen evidence that thats not true. She seems to have a lot of compassion for SOLDIERS although she is critical of the way they are used, and I suspect she would feel the same wherever she was. But how is she to defend herself against this?

Another one I really hate is the way liberal is used as an insult (it may be true that left posters also use terms as insults BTW - I probably only notice these kinds of insults because they are aimed at me).

This is just STUPID. I can't prove I'm not a liberal (although in the Australian context I am definitely NOT), because my ideas are more closely aligned with liberalism in US politics - but why should such a term be used as an insult?

It doesn't make any sense.

I think it is pretty clear that there are some posters on this forum whose use of terms (and these terms could be quite neutral in another context) is designed to incite and inflame negativity.

The moderators KNOW who these people are, and they sould be cautioning against this kind of behaviour as well as the more obvious name calling.

If someone wants to call me a terrorist supporter I have every right to call them a liar. They know they are lying, I know they are lying.

If someone says Sam has no respect for the military, they know they are lying, she knows they are lying ... so why can't she say so?

I don't see why we can't call a spade a spade if the moderators don't see fit to caution people whose intent is to insult others.

[timj219]

Originally Posted by daisym

agreed - however how DO you argue against being called 'a terrorist supporter', an 'america basher' or somebody who 'has no respect for the military' as was the case in the thread mentioned above.

While the terrorist supporter label is so ludicrous its not worthy of response, when you get called this repeatedly, it does wear you down. And what can you say in your defence? how do you PROVE you are not a terrorist supporter on a forum such as this?

what about the term anti American - apart from the fact that I am not even sure what it means ... when people call me an America basher etc etc etc it is sending a message to other posters, as well as directing contempt at me - but how do I counter it? I can ask for a definition - but you know as well as I that these types of people just hurl more insults/labels ...


what about the claim that SAm has no respect for the military? how can she defend against this? I haven't seen evidence that thats not true. She seems to have a lot of compassion for SOLDIERS although she is critical of the way they are used, and I suspect she would feel the same wherever she was. But how is she to defend herself against this?

Another one I really hate is the way liberal is used as an insult (it may be true that left posters also use terms as insults BTW - I probably only notice these kinds of insults because they are aimed at me).

This is just STUPID. I can't prove I'm not a liberal (although in the Australian context I am definitely NOT), because my ideas are more closely aligned with liberalism in US politics - but why should such a term be used as an insult?

It doesn't make any sense.

I think it is pretty clear that there are some posters on this forum whose use of terms (and these terms could be quite neutral in another context) is designed to incite and inflame negativity.

The moderators KNOW who these people are, and they sould be cautioning against this kind of behaviour as well as the more obvious name calling.

If someone wants to call me a terrorist supporter I have every right to call them a liar. They know they are lying, I know they are lying.

If someone says Sam has no respect for the military, they know they are lying, she knows they are lying ... so why can't she say so?

I don't see why we can't call a spade a spade if the moderators don't see fit to caution people whose intent is to insult others.

You're right it is impossible to prove you are not what some other poster calls you. And you don't have to!

All you have to do is insist that the accuser supply quotes from you proving their characterization is correct and point out that if they can't (they never can) they are substituting personal attacks for reasoned argument.

But I won't deny you are right that personal attacks are just as heinous as calling someone a liar and they do seem to slip under the radar.

In the end I think we all know which posters resort to these kind of tactics because they have nothing else. And while in a perfect world they would all get points and suspensions every time they do, it would probably take about 5 times as many mods as we have to keep it that way. And there just aren't enough people who want the headaches and can be more or less impartial are there?

[Malvolio]

Of course it's possible that someone really is liar, or a moron, or an idiot. But it is insulting anyway. But we cannot look into every single case and decide whether the allegation may be justified or not. It's impossible to say for us whether someone is really intentionally lying or just dead wrong about something. The old policy encouraged some posters to use these terms as a loophole for baiting.

There are a great number of less inflammatory ways of questioning the validity of statements. What's wrong with "That's not the truth" or "you are dead wrong about that" if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions? If you can't make your point without using insults or other kinds of kindergarten-rhetorics, you better stay away from such discussions.

Just don't accuse any other poster of being a liar. Try to be polite and to lead your discussions in a decent way. I really wonder what's so difficult to understand about that concept?

[daisym]

I do agree with both of you - however I still believe that if someone is deliberately using this ploy the person who is accused has every right to call them what they are - which is at least being honest.

At present people use indefensible accusatory statements as a loophole for baiting. these are used with the intent of insulting a person, and therefore are really no different from making a false allegation that someone is lying, and are in fact worse than stating someone is lying when they are.


I think the examples of responses you have given Malvolio, are probably the better way of handling these attackers, however I would like to say that in my experience its not always the victim of those posters who should be told to stay away from these discussions.

On quite a few ocassions I have introduced topics that have attracted those who want to bash me. In general I try to deal with these people in a polite and respectful manner, or if that is not possible, I place them on ignore (with one or two exceptions, whose intractable silliness amuses me).

what this does is make me see perfectly decent threads become impossible to follow. this detracts from the value of USPO and makes me disinclined to discuss issues.

Maybe thats no great loss to USPO - and for me personally ... well I have other avenues where I can learn about different viewpoints, however I think that a forum which encourages international discussion about current issues and differing philosophies can be an important aid in helping us to understand each other.

I know I'm expecting too much from the mods - but think it is important to put it out there that intent to insult is NOT the way to have an intelligent, worthwhile discussion.

[enigma2]

I find it ludicrous that daisym, who was nominated for most polite poster, has to bring this matter to the attention of moderators. I have seen posts openly boasting about taunting and defaming other posters. I have never 'gone with the flow' in my entire life so am used to the 'slings and arrows of outrageous fortune' <g>. However, to be deliberately targetted is not fair for those who are searching for their personal worldview. A little compassion and understanding , along with gentle instruction is not too much to ask. Or is it?

Having said that, let me say this, that of some of the forums I have surfed around, USPO was the best I have come across by a large margin. But there is always room for improvement.

[Malvolio]

Enigma, there is nothing ludicrous about it. This topic is being discussed by moderators and other poster for quite some time now. We try to keep this forum as open and free as possible. However, there are some tings are not acceptable. We somehow have to decide what is appropriate and what is not. So we regard terms like idiot, moron, liar as insulting. But it is impossible to draw a clear line here. Obviously there are other and more subtle ways to taunt somebody than just name-calling. But I guess you just have to accept that if you engage in a controversial discussion on the internet. We can't force everybody to be nice. Unfortunately all we can do is try to keep up at least some formal standards of discussion. But if you can't stand the heat, better stay out of the kitchen.

We do not put up such rules because we like to, but because it has shown to be necessary. It would be great if it wouldn't ... but it is necessary.

[daisym]

Enigma, Malvie - I'm just venting.

I know the mods in general try to keep things in check - and I appreciate the difficulty of knowing where to draw the line. It IS of course much easier to target particular words than it is to target intent. And there are words used as insults only by those with a particular mndset - so you can't very well jump all over those words.

I still felt I needed to bring this up though. Maybe - just maybe - there are posters who might think a little about how they come across in some of their posts.

Admittedly, the main offenders won't think - but if some of the occasional offenders take note, eventually the more consistently rude people may also begin to feel awkward about coming in that way.

I hope.

[Malvolio]

Originally Posted by daisym

I do agree with both of you - however I still believe that if someone is deliberately using this ploy the person who is accused has every right to call them what they are - which is at least being honest.

At present people use indefensible accusatory statements as a loophole for baiting. these are used with the intent of insulting a person, and therefore are really no different from making a false allegation that someone is lying, and are in fact worse than stating someone is lying when they are.


I think the examples of responses you have given Malvolio, are probably the better way of handling these attackers, however I would like to say that in my experience its not always the victim of those posters who should be told to stay away from these discussions.

On quite a few ocassions I have introduced topics that have attracted those who want to bash me. In general I try to deal with these people in a polite and respectful manner, or if that is not possible, I place them on ignore (with one or two exceptions, whose intractable silliness amuses me).

what this does is make me see perfectly decent threads become impossible to follow. this detracts from the value of USPO and makes me disinclined to discuss issues.

Maybe thats no great loss to USPO - and for me personally ... well I have other avenues where I can learn about different viewpoints, however I think that a forum which encourages international discussion about current issues and differing philosophies can be an important aid in helping us to understand each other.

I know I'm expecting too much from the mods - but think it is important to put it out there that intent to insult is NOT the way to have an intelligent, worthwhile discussion.

Daisym, really .... this is getting ridiculous. Do you think calling other posters liars is a way to have an intelligent worthwhile discussion? Really, if calling someone a liar would be your only means to defend yourself against "accusatory statements" you should not engage in controversial discussions.

Like I said above. Unfortunately we can't force everybody to be nice and friendly. I wish we could. But all we can do is try to keep up certain formal standards. It's not easy sometimes, but we try our best.

[Curly]

Originally Posted by Malvolio

Daisym, really .... this is getting ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous?

The problem I have with making "liar" such a special word, never to be used (I guess because it's offensive?) is that sometimes it is the perfect word to use to describe someone who has made a very personal and inflammatory statement about you. If a person tells a flat-out lie about you, we cannot say that the person is a liar (although he is). Instead, we have to play a little game of semantics ... perhaps call him a Maker of False Statements? Talk about ridiculous.

If the lie is about something that should be public knowledge - the name of the 40th President, the current federal minimum wage, etc. - then the perfect response is the correct information with a link. But if the lie is in the nature of a personal attack - saying that someone supports terrorism, or hates our military - and the person being attacked wants/needs to respond, why not respond with the truth, that the person lied?

Originally Posted by Malvolio

Do you think calling other posters liars is a way to have an intelligent worthwhile discussion? Really, if calling someone a liar would be your only means to defend yourself against "accusatory statements" you should not engage in controversial discussions.

Nice job - kind of like blaming the victim for the crime, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Malvolio

Like I said above. Unfortunately we can't force everybody to be nice and friendly. I wish we could. But all we can do is try to keep up certain formal standards. It's not easy sometimes, but we try our best.

Most moderators do a fine job given the difficulty and scope of the job.

[muspell]

I think we should get a rule outlawing the use of the word "stupid". It's such a derogatory term, but something I've been baited with so many times I think it should be outlawed. I'm not stuu-pid, and anyone who claims so is stu... a not very intelligent person. Like /I/ am, since /I/ can mince words better than you. *bltthththt*

Seriously, though. The moderators are doing a commendable job, considering the difficulty of the task.

[MattLarson]

Originally Posted by daisym

I noticed this thread

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/foru...ad.php?t=33499

was closed, however I feel that an issue raised there should be discussed.

There are a number of posters here who make indefensible accusatory statements about other posters - and Sam, because of her strong views, is often the focus of this. I consider myself quite tame in the nature of my posts, yet I too have had this kind of treatment from certain posters.
In response, I started doing the same in some instances, even though I know that all this does is polarise people and limit the discussion.

consequently, I prefer to put people on ignore. I have seen fourth graders with more maturity than some posters on this forum.

It IS NOT OK for people to make indefensible accusatory statements to other posters.

These "indefensible accusatory statements" are simply statements of opinion. They are easily refuted or denied without resorting to "lair".

For instance, Sam (in the case you cite) could easily have said something like "I support the troops, just not the administration."

Simple and effective. Far more mature that "You're a liar!!!!!".

Of course, then we would not have gotten to enjoy the histrionics about the post, and a whole thread devoted to the drama.

Originally Posted by daisym

To do so lowers the tone of the forum. I think we deserve better than that.

If the moderators are not prepared to caution those who deliberately use this tactic, then the accused SHOULD have the right to call that person what they are. If thats a Liar - so be it. At least the response is honest.

All opinions are equal, Daisy. If we are to act on the opinion Sam was upset about, we must also act on the numerous instances she has made similar "indefensible accusatory statements" toward other members.

Matt

[Crystal]

Originally Posted by Samantha

I would like to request a new rule to go with the other new rule.

Otherwise, what should a poster do when being lied about?

So the question is: How should one defend themselves against claims such as "Samantha has no respect for the U.S. or its military" or other such opinion statements? It's really pretty simple. Instead of saying "You are lying about me.", if you feel the absolute need to respond instead of ignoring, it really would be better to expain yourself by saying "I do respect the military and this is how - [fill in the blank with examples of how you respect the military]. Perhaps you demonstrate your respect in other ways and that's fine. I'm sure we do other things differently also, afterall, there is more than one way to skin a cat. I won't pass judgement on the way you show respect to others and I would appreciate the same level of courtesy. This may be one issue that we will have to agree to disagree on. I would also like to point out that this thread is not about me". Yes, the proper response did take a little bit more time and effort on my part to type out, but the result is something more respectable than kindergarten insults and if you insist on responding to such opinions then please, be more mature about it then the person posting their personal opinions of you.

Also, it would be impossible to enforce a rule such as "...there should be a forum rule preventing you from lying about me", because the mod team doesn't know everyone that well so how would we be able to determine if they are lying about you.

I would also like to point out a couple of things.
1. It is okay to agree to disagree. Sometimes that's the best thing to do to prevent the thread from derailing into some kind of pissing contest.
2. We should all do our best to debate the topic and not a members character. If you feel your character has been brought into the discussion and you prefer it not to be, then report it with a comment simple saying "I prefer false statements about me not be brought into the discussion. This thread is not about me." Once you report such a post, you should IGNORE it - DO NOT respond to it.

[segep soch]

This kind of stuff seems to happen a lot on this board. I'm not sure what, if anything, could or should be done about it. Maybe it just comes with the territory. On the one hand, it would be nice not to see the kind of garbage that some people consider debate. But if the mods spent all their time deleting and modding posts, it would seem like it would stifle honest discussion in some ways. I don't think there's enough time in the day even with all the mods here to read and analyze every post for politeness and accuracy.

This is a very active forum, and there are a lot of quality posters here. They're easy to spot because they tend not to question the character of other posters. If we all ignore the habitual jerks, hopefully they'll get bored and move on to somewhere else on the 'net where they can get the reaction they're hoping for.

[iamwhatiseem]

Honestly there is alot more crying wolf than actual infractions.

There are posters who use crying foul as a natural part of their "debate" style.
One in particular does this damn near half their posts.

[muspell]

Originally Posted by Crystal

Also, it would be impossible to enforce a rule such as "...there should be a forum rule preventing you from lying about me", because the mod team doesn't know everyone that well so how would we be able to determine if they are lying about you.

So remind me again.. why do we have a rule against the word "liar"?

Originally Posted by segep soch

But if the mods spent all their time deleting and modding posts, it would seem like it would stifle honest discussion in some ways. I don't think there's enough time in the day even with all the mods here to read and analyze every post for politeness and accuracy.

Oh, but that's such a negative view! All of us must certainly commend the moderators for taking at least /some/ of the infractions, regardless of the way in which they treat the rules. As you say, they cannot take everything. So shouldn't we all be greatful that at least some of the horrendous offenders are taken to task?