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

[Malvolio]

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

"Liar", "lie", "lying" or similar expressions have become a popular means of baiting recently. The Moderators have received a lot of complaints about that. Until now, the use of those terms wasn't regarded as a violation of the forum rules. However, we have come to the conclusion, that this policy has encouraged some posters to use these terms as a loophole for baiting. Unfortunately, for the moderators it is impossible to decide in each case we see whether the calling of someone a liar is being raised as a real belief or is being used abusively. So from now on, the accusation of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. So please do not call another poster a liar from now on. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" seem to be absolutely sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

[trailblazer]

I don't have any huge objections to the concept of having such a policy. That said, the one that's currently written leaves a lot of gray area open.

Clearly it's baiting to say "Liar, liar, pants on fire," but what if you've caught another poster in a lie? And what about someone who has a proven record on USPOL of trying to deceive? What about so-called "pathological liars?"

I'm not trying to be difficult. (Really!) I'm just of the opinion that this new policy needs some clarification.

[ViolaLee]

You're so difficult....you are a trouble-maker and a rebel. But at least you're not a liar

[partofme]

I have never personally known of the mods abusing their power in the 2 1/2 years I have been here. When I see that then maybe I will have more to say in this thread.

[ViolaLee]

Where's the other thread with our questions about the new rule? I never got an answer and now it's a closed sticky with no responses! WTF?

[JHC]

There is no need to call someone a liar save for utter frustration which still makes it baiting. I had the same thought, Trailblazer. You know how long WEB followed me around calling me a liar and arrogant? It doesn't matter if I was either of those things. Having someone respond to your posts like that serves no purpose.

If you think someone is lying, simply post the proof. Otherwise, you just look like a troll (even if it's true they were lying). This is what I try to do.

[muspell]

Mm, this is swell. No calling people a liar, because it /might/ be a way to bait people. And it's been so popular lately, we're going to ban a word... I mean, I know it looks like kindergarden here.. but I could do without the nannies, at least..

(disclaimer for this message: "Of course, that's just my opinion, and it should be up to each and every poster to decide for themselves whether this should be taken as an offensive statement or not, or simply dismissed. And if you take offense, please do report the post and do us all a favour by having any such offensive language removed from the board. In fact, I am sorry in general for possibly have caused offense, and I therefore issue this insincere apology on beforehand. Thank you".)

[Crystal]

Originally Posted by Samantha

Where's the other thread with our questions about the new rule? I never got an answer and now it's a closed sticky with no responses! WTF?

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/foru...490#post815490

[Malvolio]

Originally Posted by trailblazer

I don't have any huge objections to the concept of having such a policy. That said, the one that's currently written leaves a lot of gray area open.

Clearly it's baiting to say "Liar, liar, pants on fire," but what if you've caught another poster in a lie? And what about someone who has a proven record on USPOL of trying to deceive? What about so-called "pathological liars?"

I'm not trying to be difficult. (Really!) I'm just of the opinion that this new policy needs some clarification.

It's a problem sure. But another problem is, that it has become a popular loophole for baiting, because we didn't regard it as a clear insult so far. It is always possible that it actually was a real lie. But who can really tell? Who can decide if somebody is intentionally lying or just wrong about something? BTW, there pretty much is the same problem with other insults: "Hey Mods, why can't I call ... an idiot when he really is an idiot?!". We just try to hold up a certan standard of discussion here. And we thinkt that baiting, name calling etc. is not helpful in this regard.

[JHC]

Originally Posted by muspell

Mm, this is swell. No calling people a liar, because it /might/ be a way to bait people. And it's been so popular lately, we're going to ban a word... I mean, I know it looks like kindergarden here.. but I could do without the nannies, at least..

(disclaimer for this message: "Of course, that's just my opinion, and it should be up to each and every poster to decide for themselves whether this should be taken as an offensive statement or not, or simply dismissed. And if you take offense, please do report the post and do us all a favour by having any such offensive language removed from the board. In fact, I am sorry in general for possibly have caused offense, and I therefore issue this insincere apology on beforehand. Thank you".)

If you were resopnding to my post, I'm not a moderator. My post is my personal observations.

In real life, if I think you're lying, calling you a liar in public just makes it look like I have a personal grudge and I'm out to ruin your reputation, (baiting). But if I simply show people the difference between what you say and what is true, I don't have to stoop to name calling and everyone comes to the same conclusion I did, that you are lying or mistaken.

There's another benefit to this; On the off chance you thought the person was lying and they weren't, you've protected your own reputation.

You have to ask yourself, when you're tempted to call someone a liar, what your own motivation is. Do you think you'll change the persons behavior? Not likely. Do you have a personal grudge? Then they've already won. Are you trying to worn others? Then show them.

[USViking]

Originally Posted by trailblazer

I don't have any huge objections to the concept of having such a policy. That said, the one that's currently written leaves a lot of gray area open.

Clearly it's baiting to say "Liar, liar, pants on fire," but what if you've caught another poster in a lie? And what about someone who has a proven record on USPOL of trying to deceive? What about so-called "pathological liars?"

I'm not trying to be difficult. (Really!) I'm just of the opinion that this new policy needs some clarification.

In two years and seven months with over 5000 posts
on five boards I have yet to see someone tell an outright lie.

Befuddled, yes; without command of fact or logic, yes; a dupe
for lies by others, yes; but no member has ever knowingly told
a lie that I have caught.

[Speakeasy]

If you think someone is lying, show everyone why. Say something like "That statement is pretty dishonest, because..."

Simply calling someone a 'liar' is pretty confrontational and from what we've seen, is usually the beginning of the end for a decent thread.

It's not that big of a change. Most of the people on this board don't go around accusing others of lying, they go the route I outlined above.

[muspell]

Originally Posted by JHC

If you were resopnding to my post, I'm not a moderator. My post is my personal observations.

No, I was just musing over the new rule... After I'd just had one of my posts preemptively deleted before the rule was posted officially on the board.

In real life, if I think you're lying, calling you a liar in public just makes it look like I have a personal grudge and I'm out to ruin your reputation, (baiting). But if I simply show people the difference between what you say and what is true, I don't have to stoop to name calling and everyone comes to the same conclusion I did, that you are lying or mistaken.

There's another benefit to this; On the off chance you thought the person was lying and they weren't, you've protected your own reputation.

You have to ask yourself, when you're tempted to call someone a liar, what your own motivation is. Do you think you'll change the persons behavior? Not likely. Do you have a personal grudge? Then they've already won. Are you trying to worn others? Then show them.

All well and good. And there's almost never a reason to call people liars, even when they clearly lie. Or perhaps especially when they clearly lie, since simply namecalling is not going to prove a point. Still, the point is that I am apparently allowed to explain how some other poster is lying, if I abuse the thesaurus and fill the post with loads of elliptic language - since the mods can't be expected to interpret whether something is simply an insult or an argument - but I can't say: "if that's not true and you can't come up with anything better, then you, sir/ma'am are a liar, and I will have nothing more to do with you".

Now, I understand why the rule shows up. I "get it" - I have been moderating a board, and I know how tempting it is to target language specifically, since this is the most obvious symptom for bad discussion on the forum. But frankly, it's not going to raise the level of debate, ever. It's going to allow - as it has before - all kinds of tactics to circumvent the rule, and piss off posters who do not suffer fools gracefully to no end.

And that's not going to change until the mods here understand that: if you declare you cannot spy the intent of the posts, or the truthfulness of the posts, then you are simply treating symptoms. And when you're treating symptoms, then we are on the brink of outlawing all offensive language, while permitting and covering up offensive behaviour. Because treating posters who are offensive as so unintelligent and childish they cannot be expected to change their language a bit to avoid the rules - that's not going to lead to a huge success.

Because, just as such a rule would perhaps "encourage" reasonable posters to not throw the word "liar" around, you could also say that reasonable posters understand when evidence of blatant lies are presented. You could also argue that reasonable posters see how someone throwing "liar" is making complete fools of themselves. And what we end up with is a scenario where the only posters who are possibly a target with this rule are:
1. irrational posters.
2. who are bloody stupid.
3. and do not have a thesaurus.

Do I make myself clear?

(ps. not mad at you JHC )

[JHC]

lol...you make yourself clear and even if you were angry, you have every right to express yourself.

I'm only going to argue this from one more angle and I'll leave you in peace.
There are two methods of speaking, direct and indirect. I prefer direct speaking unless what I'm going to say could be construed to be an attack on the person and not a contribution to the subject at hand.

There are times when it is nearly impossible to make a contribution to a discussion that does NOT make someone feel that they've suffered slurs. I don't think anyone is asking that we walk on eggshells.

You may need to say something specific about why you think a person makes the claim they make and thats personal. This may appear and indeed BE mean spirited but still a legitimate tack in furthering a discussion. Being direct is not an option. Being direct only shuts off conversation. If you don't want to participate anymore, you can always leave.

For instance, a participant appears to be using verbiage and vocabulary they normally wouldn't and you suspect they're plagiarizing - which is a form of lie. You could say "I don't think those are your words, did you get that from someone else?" I would hope at least one mod in a mod team would be able to tell the difference between this and baiting. I've counted on it several times. In fact, my example is real. I had to procede to find the plagiarized material and post it...then I carried on with expletives and probably called the guy a liar outright. I was pretty pissed. I could have left well enough alone.

In another instance, rather than call a person a hypocrite, I played a trick on them. I quoted an Islamic fundamentalist and provided a link that said "link" and then criticized the fundamentalist author for his strict interpretation of religious text. The poster that I thought was being hypocritical did not follow the link and assumed I was talking about Christians, proceding to carry on about my Christian bashing. I did not bait this guy but I knew he would do exactly what he did. Several other people made the same assumption too. I'm sure they were all embarassed. The point was made without a direct attack.

What it boils down to is our judge and jury - the mod team. Be prepared to defend yourself.

"I think that statement is false" is not a direct attack. It could be untrue or incorrect or misquoted or misconstrued or misunderstood...

"You're a liar" is undoubtedly a direct attack. The word "liar" is not the problem, it's the delivery.

[muspell]

Originally Posted by JHC

"I think that statement is false" is not a direct attack. It could be untrue or incorrect or misquoted or misconstrued or misunderstood...

"You're a liar" is undoubtedly a direct attack. The word "liar" is not the problem, it's the delivery.

Mm. Well, even if the rule is redundant too, it's a difficult thing. Because of these rules, we're sort of.. forced.. to bring the discussion down to this every time, because it's obvious that some people do not appear to understand why calling people "liar" isn't very polite. Similarly, there are posters on the board who think lying isn't really a problem. There are posters who believe that stating blatant untruths isn't lies, because - they say - the poster may just see things, in general, differently. Like, that black is white. And, there are posters who think they are not lying when semantically being able to excuse their statements, out of context or otherwise it doesn't matter, and reserve the right to be outraged if people do not consistently assume they have divine and unfallible wisdom.

So I'm left with, oh, several questions: why let these idiots dictate what the rules on the board should be? Again this is a rule designed to make ordinary posters "show restraint", while ignoring the fact that 99% of the posts on this board are not made by this category of people. It never is. Not here, and not in real life. Why assume that is the case?

And what is the intention with these rules? Do the mods think all the horrible posters are going to go away just because it's not allowed to call people liars? That everyone is going to become courteous and nice, and be "forced" to become more reasoned and less partisan when they're not allowed to call people "liars"?

..I mean, if it is to educate posters in the noble art of discourse *cough*, there really are other ways to do this than to cheapen insults into becoming simply forbidden words.

Not that I think the mods are going to suddenly change their opinions because of this, of course, but I've had it with this kind of underhanded idiocy. And I will not stay on a board who cannot even keep their own moderators from falling over in personal attacks - as long as it is not covered by the "magic words" in the rules.