I do enough complaining about moderation that I feel, in fairness, to speak up on this. The poster in question is not by any means a favorite. Nonetheless, ISTM that a warning (or Warning) is slightly more than it deserved. He wasn’t accusing me, directly, of lying, at least no more so than the standard-issue “Republicans are liars” that is more or less OK as part of the “you can accuse groups of lying but not posters”.
I know this sounds kind of funny coming from me. Nonetheless, might I request that it be downgraded to a Mod Note or something? I understand what you were saying, but from my side of the keyboard, it didn’t seem all that bad.
Obviously it’s your call. And besides, this way I can keep my “Shodan complains about the moderation no matter what happens” streak going!
Thanks for your consideration. And ElvisL1ves - no hard feelings, no matter how this comes out.
I’m pretty certain it was “alternative facts” that got him the warning. You’re not supposed to say another poster is using “alternative facts” as a not-so-clever work-around to the prohibition on accusations of lying.
In 11 years of sometimes-posting-mostly-lurking I’ve never complained about the moderation here, but after reading Bone’s warning in that thread I headed over here to do just that. You beat me to the punch.
I pretty much agree with everything you wrote here. In a thread that begins with the premise that it’s an assumed fact that we all hate each other, I’m pleasantly surprised that’s it’s stayed as civil as it has. I also read ElvisL1ves’s comment as trotting out the “all Republicans are liars!” line. That gets old quick but but I don’t think he was attacking Shodan.
I start from the proposition that “alternative facts” is equivalent to lies. Performing a substitution like this provides clarity by which to interpret the posts. In the warning, I quoted two separate posts from Elvis. In post #26, you (Shodan) offered your view on potential origins of partisan hatred, one of which mentions the defict, to which Elvis responded to as follows:
Paraphrased:
*‘Shodan, you are doing something, and that something that you are doing includes lying [following the traditional RW alternative-facts approach] in your example about deficts.’ *
In post #32, you (Shodan) expanded on your explanation about deficits, explaining your view of the flaw in the argument you were responding to. Elvis replies:
Paraphrased:
*Shodan, your explanation misses some nuance.
Your people would call this lying.*
I see these combined as an accusation of lying which is prohibited.
I think he skated too close to the thin ice this time. C’est la vie, but it’s only a warning…if he got a suspension I’d probably feel more strongly that the Mods should rethink it. I’ve gotten modded (rightfully) when I did similar stuff, so don’t think it was unfair. Sometimes we all try and be just a bit too clever (or we lose our tempers, as is often the case with me) and the mods jerk us back to reality.
I agree with Shodan. He did not call anyone a liar or imply anyone was lying. He’s not even anywhere near the line. Yes, he argues that what Shodan has brought up is an “alternative fact,” but that doesn’t mean that Shodan himself is lying. It can easily mean that he was misled by others who lied to him.
In this specific context, it would mean that he’s bought into some of the lies of the Republican Party. It is not saying that Shodan himself is a liar. And saying that Republicans are lying has not been forbidden.
I don’t see any difference in what he said and when posters have talked about how someone is repeating Republican talking points. And that definitely is not an accusation of lying.
Accusing someone of being disingenuous is closer to calling them a liar than this. And such comments are allowed. (And they have to be, since establishing that they are arguing in good faith is important in any debate.)
I dunno, “you’re repeating lies” doesn’t have much difference from “you’re lying” to me. There’s a difference between that and “Republicans lie”, you’re particularly pointing out specific statements as lies, and linking them to the poster as the one telling them, even if there’s the wiggle room that the poster themself doesn’t know they’re lies.
Thanks for your response. Given that, as DrDeth mentions, it is at least a gray area, can I request the downgrade to a Mod Note? I understand your reasoning, but maybe a Mod Note would get the message across as well.
Besides, help a poster out here - I am having trouble coming up with arguments besides “the board hates conservatives”. :eek:
Wherein lies the problem of using trial-and-error methods for limit testing … the errors lead to warnings … ElvisL1ves knew that saying somebody is using alternate facts is the same as calling them a liar; or if he didn’t, he does now … is there a reasonable cause for which ElvisL1ves might not have known? … then maybe downgrade the warning to a note … but the moderators have been very clear and the information widely distributed …
The only benefit to downgrading the action is to give ElvisL1ves one extra chance to call someone a liar … that’s how limit testing works … worse, now everybody would be demanding a note for calling each other liars … also, there doesn’t seem to be a limit on how many times one can use The Lil’ Red Triangle (but testing continues) … ElvisL1ves had better options if he really thought Shoden was lying …
I get where you are coming from but to call ElvisL1ves out on this is a little ridiculous when there are many more blatant examples of:
ALL members of this group do A.
We know you are a member of the group.
So (not so subtly) you also do A.
For example a common one on this board is All Republicans are racist. Hey I’m a Republican. Oh no, he’s not accusing YOU of being a racist - just all Republicans so its OK.
Bone’s analysis in #8 is faultlessly accurate. But IMHO the central issue in all situations like this – the reason the rule about calling someone a liar can be justified in the first place – revolves around the “attacking the other poster rather than attacking the other poster’s arguments” principle. Calling someone a liar is alleging a basic character flaw, implying dishonesty and deceit. It’s a clear and blatant insult that adds no information and detracts from constructive debate. IMHO one should ask, not whether a statement can be logically interpreted to mean that someone is saying something that isn’t true, but whether it’s intended as a clear and blatant insult in the sense of the above.
I think that ultimately the question of “interpretation” isn’t so much a technical one as a question of what decision makes GD a better place for debate, one in which discussions aren’t derailed by posters hurling insults at each other, but one in which discussions aren’t stifled, either, and wrong or deceptive statements can be called out without fear of sanctions. I wish we wouldn’t engage in these exercises of interpretation. Blatant insults need no interpretation. The only valid test of whether something is truly an accusation of lying IMHO is whether it helps debate (by providing information) or hinders it (by being gratuitously insulting). Since the OP wasn’t insulted by the statements in question, it’s hard to argue that they were insults.
I think this would set a bad precedent. The next time something like this happens and the OP feels insulted, the argument will be made that since it was allowed last time why isn’t it allowed this time.
Maybe at some point you could just moderate on what was said. I think performing these substitutions is absurd when the output is a Warning. I’d think that if you’re going to start moderating on what you perceive as intent rather than the content, maybe start with a Note.
