The question is not whether Poster A is lying, but whether Poster B is accusing Poster A of lying.
If you firmly believe the sky is Green, and I say you’re lying about it, does that absolve me?
I don’t think this is rocket science, but it’s not about what Poster A thinks, but what Poster B says.
So what? What if Poster B then says “You’re lying”. Why would it matter if Poster A believes he is actually lying or not, if Poster B accusing him of lying? The injunction is to not accuse someone of lying. Period. It isn’t “don’t accuse someone of lying if they actually believe what the are saying”.
Bone - you had me going for a moment. 
I’ve been accused of lying here, something I hotly denied when I took it to the pit and subjected my sworn adversary to steel-trap logic. I’ve been accused of disingenuousness - which I didn’t mind because I was doing that ironically and intentionally.
Here’s an(other) example of my disingenuousness just today.
(Those who have a problem with the substance are welcome to comment in the other thread.)
I admit that the term disingenuous is commonly used in politics as a euphemism for lying. But it also has a milder meaning.
Poster B is certainly saying that Poster A is lying. Poster B is saying that Poster A has presented information in a manner that conveys a particular impression while fully aware of information that would refute this impression.
If Poster A’s knowledge of the subject is encyclopedic and Poster B could reliably conclude that the situation is binary; A is mistaken or A is deliberately misrepresenting the truth (lying), then fair enough. How, in the absence of any proof of A’s level of knowledge, B can assume that the subjective assurance of correctness by A is also a lie, I don’t know.
Remedy2: Permit certain accusations of disingenuousness, provided it’s sufficiently polite. Or permit characterizations of… characterizations. Such as, “That’s a distorted presentation.” These are attacks on the post, not direct attacks on the person. Of course I’m basically describing the status quo.
Here’s another way of looking at it. If I replied to LHoD’s post, “You are not serious,” he probably wouldn’t be happy about it. But it’s the kind of thing that can be replied to. Even it we went another round, “(I can’t see how you are serious, even though you said X.)”, it still would be fairly mild. But if I accuse a poster of lying, that’s pretty much a show stopper. Then the conversation becomes about the poster rather than the post or even the evidence. But in the distortion case, the issue could very much be about weighing evidence.
Now you’re just making things up. This is just another one of your whoppers. Stop telling fibs. I’m tiring of your deliberate falsehoods. Your mendaciousness is showing. You post like a rug. Your nose is growing. Stop with the tall tales.
Do you see a problem with the above assertions? They’re calling you a liar. Some may ring more offensive than others, but they should all be prohibited if it’s against the rules to accuse someone of lies or lying.
The argument that there should be a way to call a liar a liar as an antidote to trolls may very well have merit, but the obvious solution to that is to simply allow accusations of lies or lying. To allow mild accusations of lying, provided the word “lie” isn’t used, is total horseshit if the rule is supposed to prohibit such accusations.
Just for the record. Calling out on someone for lying is only a rule in Great Debates.
It’s discouraged in other forums, but there’s no actual rule for it in any other forum outside of GD and doing something akin to calling “bullshit” on something that is, indeed, dubious isn’t forbidden.
Huh. There’s no way I’d call that “disingenuous.” Sarcastic, flippant, ironic, facetious, any of those. Normally how I see the word used–and definitely how I see it used all the time here–there’s an element of genuine dishonesty implied, a suggestion that the person knows better than to spout such obvious untruths. It’s generally the go-to word for skirting the rule against saying another poster is lying.
That’s why I specified GD in the first line of my OP.
Here’s my interest in this. I would often say “you just made that up” in GD when I thought someone was pulling shit out of his ass, so to speak. Recently, though, in ATMB it was announced that “you made that up” is the same as saying “you are lying”. So I don’t use that expression anymore.
So, are we allowed now to say “You deliberately distorted things” in GD? I don’t really care either way (well, I do, I don’t really like the rule), I just want to know because it can be confusing.
Thanks. I’ve seen the rule in GD, and assumed it was applied more broadly. Now I know.
The way you wrote your earlier post, it seemed as if you were saying that Poster B’s conclusion was a logical derivation once Poster A insisted that their position was not a mistake, which I disputed. It now seems that this was not your intention.
I can’t speak to the rules of this board, but from the perspective of the ordinary connotations of words and phrases, “you made that up” is not the same thing as “you are lying”. The former just means that you have no basis for your statement, and is not necessarily a definitive assertion that the statement was incorrect, let alone that it’s a “lie”.
I have to agree. In modern American English, disingenuous is a fancy lie. The suggestion is that the statement is more nuanced than simply saying black is white - although that often happens here. It is still knowingly saying something that is opposite of the truth with the intention that the listener believe the statement.
It’s possible that the English usage is different from and milder than the American usage:
That’s merely an interesting possibility, though. It doesn’t change our problem.
FWIW, my take is that “disingenuous” means deliberately misleading, as opposed to an outright lie.
For example, taking things out of context, or presenting “the facts” but omitting one or more which would signficantly change the picture if included, or deliberately mis-structuring the logic so as to lead to a false conclusion.
And my take is not so much the “disingenuous” which is the problem, but the “deliberate”. It’s an accusation of bad faith and an attack on the other poster’s motivations, which is almost unfalsifiable.
In the thread in question, it was lazy debating. The poster in question did nothing to refute anything - simply denied the OP and began making accusations of bad faith and deliberate deception. That ought not, IMO, to be the go-to tactic in GD if one is not going to offer any substance to counter.
FWIW I reported the post, but given who made it I neither expected or received a response. Which leaves the usual options - respond in kind in the same thread, in which case he puts on his mod hat, calls the response a hijack and starts mod noting. Or I can Pit him, and have the thread shut down with a mod note that it should be in ATMB. Or I can respond here, and be stonewalled and/or ignored.
Maybe I’m wrong, and he will defend his post and explain how it furthered the discussion. It could happen.
Regards,
Shodan
And encouraged in some!
I’d be fine with a rule that a moderator could not post in forums personally moderated. That way there would never be confusion between modes.
“A straggling few got up to go in deep despair. The rest
Clung to that hope which springs eternal in the human breast;”
-Ernest Lawrence Thayer, “Casey at the Bat”
Officially, you can pit moderators for things that they do in their capacity as posters (as Tom was acting here).
I’m curious as to whether that has ever happened (since the rule forbidding pitting them as moderators was put into effect).
The problem with that is the trouble it would cause in getting new mods to join, and in retaining the old ones. The mods are, every one of us, mods because we really enjoy posting on the boards. We’re not getting paid for any of this, beyond a coffee mug when we sign up. So the board would be in a position of asking mods to take on a significant amount of extra effort and responsibilities, and not only will they not be paid for their work, they’ll actually have to give up (at least a part of) something they enjoy doing. We also try to assign mods to the forums they most enjoy participating in - the familiarity with the rules and expectations of the forum helps keep moderation consistent between different moderators of that forum. Plus, it makes policing the forum less like work. I don’t usually read GQ, but when I was first made a mod, I was put on that forum for a couple weeks while I learned the ropes. It was a pain in the ass, because instead of reading the forum for entertainment, while occasionally moderating something, I was reading the forum out of duty. “Better spend at least twenty minutes reading GQ, whether I want to or not.” I’d make a shitty GQ mod, because I’m just not as invested in that forum. And I wouldn’t be willing to be a Pit mod if I couldn’t participate in the Pit. Not to mention, as a self-selected group of loud-mouth know-it-alls (I’m talking about all of you guys, too, not just the mods) making someone spend a significant amount of time reading these threads, and not allowing them to participate when that guy is clearly wrong is just too cruel.
