Bone - Re: ElvisL1ves' Warning in Elections

[Bone]

@wolfpup

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 agree, and there are plenty of ways to call out wrong or misleading statements without fear of sanctions. You’re right to identify one of the main principles, attack the post not the poster. As corollaries to that we have several specific tactics that are off limits because ultimately they run afoul of this principle. No accusations of trolling, lying, sexual gratification, etc. Those things invariably make the boards a worse place for discussion.

What also makes GD and Elections a worse place for debate are efforts to try and ride as close to the line as possible. Inevitably some folks will run afoul of the rules as is the nature of passionate disagreement. That’s not a big deal and most of the time a reminder is sufficient. I tend to interpret generously, but that only goes so far. When many reminders are necessary, it becomes clear that escalation is needed. A warning represents that escalation so hopefully it serves its intended purpose.

@wolfpup

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.

We’ve determined by way of the rules of the forum that any accusation of lying hinders debate so the first prong of your test is a non-starter. Analogous to the decision on whether legal action should proceed, a DA can move forward without the consent of the victim because some offenses are both against the person [poster] and against the state [board].

@Munch

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.

A note would be great. It would be even better if there was an ATMB thread about it. And of course we don’t expect posters to see every note if they are not participants in the thread, but the instruction has been given multiple times. I like to think that the fact that the phrase isn’t used more frequently even though it’s part of the current zeitgeist is because of such instruction. But more than notes, and the ATMB thread, it would be even better if an explanation was posted as a sticky at the top of the forum for a month. Something like this:

@tomndebb

The phrase [alternative facts] means falsehood from its inception and any use directed at the statements of another poster will be treated as an accusation of lying.

The warning will stand.