You did? I don’t think so.
Oh goody, you want to argue that point here instead of in the original thread! Sounds like fun, and a really great idea!
Wait, I changed my mind.
When you say you “quoted a passage from the OP”, which OP are you talking about. I assumed you meant the OP in this thread. If not, then fine. If so, then yeah, I do want to argue that point in this thread.
:smack: My bad. I was referring to this post in reference to this OP–i.e., the OP of the thread in which Tom’s comment about “deliberate distortion” occurred. I thought you were arguing with my saying that I “showed how the OP’s description of those links was, while technically accurate, not remotely a fair connotative description of those links.” Which would be a fine thing to argue in the other thread but not here.
Anyway, I apologize for jumping on you there, and for phrasing my earlier post unclearly.
No worries. That’s not the worst thing that happened to me today. 
I am at somewhat of a loss to understand why at least 2 moderators have posted in this thread, yet not one has actually answered the question I asked in the OP. I don’t think it’s a stupid question, but I’m open to suggestions that it is.
You’re really “at somewhat of a loss”? Let’s see if I can help out a bit.
You’ve posted a question about a gray area of the rules, but which contains a logical basis for something to be considered a rules violation. But the poster in question, who would be in violation if your logic is correct, is a moderator of long standing. Are the moderators going to be champing at the bit to get at this question? I don’t think so …
Hope that helps.
No doubt the mods are discussing it in the mod loop, and we will get a clear answer sometime before the heat death of the universe. Probably.
Regards,
Shodan
Just for my own part, the “No lies” thing is a GD-specific rule, and I’m not a GD mod, so I’m hesitant to make any statements about how that rule is interpreted or enforced.
Well I am a Great Debates moderator.
The subject is now under discussion in the loop. Further updates as events warrant.
OK, thanks, and just to be clear I don’t mean to imply that we need a bright line rule. Context matters, as usual, so the real question is whether certain contexts (like what I outlined in the OP) make it the same as “you lied”.
Poster A: What? No I didn’t. I characterized it accurately.
Poster B: Anybody can go back and see that you didn’t.
Poster A: Did.
Poster B: Didn’t.
Poster A: Nuh-uh.
Poster B: Uh-huh.
Mod JC: Stop that or I may clear my throat.
Poster A: Well, nobody wants that.
Poster B: Certainly not.
Poster A: I wasn’t lying.
Poster B: I didn’t say you were. To lie is to express something that you know isn’t true. Spin can at times involve truthful statements that are characterized in an intentionally slanted manner. They are not untrue. They are typically inaccurate. But some level of inaccuracy is close to inevitable when working with conversational language. Distortion is somewhere in between.
Poster A: And intentional distortion?
Poster B: Well all spin is intentional. Distortion can be unintentional, intentional or negligent.
Poster A: So… what do you think I was doing?
Poster B: Lying like a rock.
Mod X: Poster B has racked up 15 warnings and is having his posting privileges discussed.
The first point is of interest to me, too, relative newbie here though I am, and I offer my opinion that it’s quite different from accusing someone of lying. The prohibition against accusing someone of lying or being a liar is something that I think most of us can live with because it’s unnecessarily insulting and hostile. But when we start outlawing anything that can even remotely be considered possibly synonymous, then IMHO we start to seriously impair the ability to communicate on this board. Which is my answer to the basic question in the OP – it may or may not be equivalent to an accusation of lying depending on context, and the mods can make that call, but we don’t need any more rules that impair the ability to communicate basic ideas.
Getting back to that first point again, when you say that someone “just made it up” that implies to me that the poster made a statement that he might very well believe to be true and might even be true, but for which he has not provided any citation. One would typically be expressing doubt that such cite could ever be provided, not necessarily because the statement is false, but perhaps because it’s a value judgment not amenable to such validation. All of that is nicely summed up by saying “you just made it up”, basically synonymous with “you stated as fact something which clearly can never be substantiated” which is distinctly different from “you are a lying jerk”. So I’ll say again: it’s fine to have rules that promote civil discourse, but not rules so far gone that we can’t properly communicate, and in particular, that impairs the ability to call out complete bullshit when we see it.
wolfpup nails it.
As I see it, the key distinction is between plausible and implausible deniability. And that depends upon context. In practice though, there’s a pretty bright line between “Lie” and everything else. Yes yes, you can be a jerk without saying explicitly that somebody is lying. That’s why we don’t have hard and fast rules: they can be gamed.
Here’s another competing consideration. Ok, let’s say -hypothetically- that X involves a statement made by another poster on a previous thread page. And that the characterization is made without a quote. Or perhaps it’s a position ascribed to someone Poster A disagrees with on an offsite webpage. At higher levels of debate (relative to this message board, admittedly) misrepresenting you opponent’s argument is a cardinal violation. If egregious, it’s fair game to simply point that out and say, “Come back when you have a real argument.”
Saying somebody distorted an argument with intention isn’t especially polite. But nor is egregious distortion. It wastes our time. Most of use here understand that: most of us here don’t abjectly humiliate themselves by presenting fisheye lens characterizations. But this is a public message board after all, so it reflects a range of human behavior.
Wise moderation is an exercise in avoiding various pitfalls, not all of which are immediately obvious.
Why are you guys insisting on talking about fish recipes? This is ATMB!
After what is - without doubt - the most emails on the mod loop in one day ever (we may have broken 100) I have decided that ‘deliberately distorted’ does indeed cross the line. While distorted and distortion and such may at times be acceptable - context is extremely important - the use of deliberately elevates the issue. It is, in general, a very bad idea in Great Debates and Elections to personalize one’s responses to another poster or to attribute intent to another poster and that is the easiest way to cross the ‘attack the post and not the poster’ line that is so fuzzy.
I have elected to mod note Tom in the thread as there were clearly some grey areas involved. Those areas should now be less grey and I hope all of us are now clearer on the subject.
I leave any adjudication on the use of ‘disingenuous’ until such time as it pops up in the future and my blood sugar is low.
I think I personally contributed 25% of those emails…
You skipped a step. You say we shouldn’t outlaw “anything that can even remotely be considered possibly synonymous”, but you didn’t explain why “deliberately distorted” fits the “remotely” description. In my book, it’s the next door neighbor, not the guy 6 blocks down the street.
I agree that “you made that up” can be quite a bit removed from “you lied”, but if the former is not allowed, well I think “deliberately distorted” is a lot closer to “you lied” and should also be disallowed.
As Miller said, I don’t mod GD and there’s a very, very good reason for it. I only go into that forum once in a blue moon. I’d much rather leave it for those staff members whose expertise is for those forums. : p
I mean, I could offer my opinions, yeah, but they’d probably be biased and not based on what the rules really may or may not be.
GD rules are so specialized that even for a non-GD mod it’s a bit like a non-rabbi offering a commentary on the Talmud.