I’ll admit I’m having a hard time spotting the difference between writing “That’s not true” - which is fine - and writing “That is a lie” - which is unacceptable. Is it the use of the l-word that makes it unacceptable?
I’m not a GD mod, but people can say things that are not true without being aware they are not true, and thus not being liars. Saying it’s a lie presumes that the person knows it is false and is saying it anyway. It seems like a pretty obvious distinction to me.
I have to disagree with you, Jonathan, and concur with the others that the goalposts seem to have been moved to a much broader interpretation than the guidelines that Tom and MEBuckner originally laid out. The original guidelines are consistent with the view that calling someone a liar is basically a personal insult that assails a person’s character, which is a reasonable position that is easy to understand and abide by. But here’s an example of how I feel the guidelines were unrealistically expanded.
In a thread a little while ago, a poster made a claim that I considered to be merely an unfounded opinion and not something that could ever be factually supported. I proceeded in the standard SDMB style to make that point by asking for a cite. The following dialog ensued, which can be found here starting at post #127:
Me: “I want to see a credible cite for that.”
Poster: “No cites, just an argument …”
Me: "So, as I suspected, you just made it up. "
Poster: “I made it up but I think it follows from …”
You then intervened with the following mod note (bolding mine):
Wolfpup, it is entirely against the rules to accuse another poster of lying. This includes telling someone ‘you made that up’.
On the other hand, the poster you accuse says he did make that up.
Oy.
No warnings, just a note for all that such accusations are really not allowed in Great Debates and can earn warnings in the future …
I got the distinct impression, in fact, that if the poster had not cheerfully acknowledged making it up, in the same spirit in which I had accused him of it (i.e.- “you think it’s factual, but it’s really just your subjectively drawn conclusion”) that you would have handed out a warning on the spot. Yet I think it’s very clear from the context that what I claimed he was doing was not even remotely close to “lying”.
So yes, I think that Little Nemo and others are right, and the goalposts have moved beyond the initial clear guidelines into somewhat murky territory, where warnings sometimes seem to catch posters completely by surprise.
We had a whole thread awhile back specifically devoted to, and where it was explained that “you made that up” was now considered a form of “you lied”. I suggest adding that explicitly to the “liars” rule thread so it’s crystal clear (if it isn’t there already).
The issue here is that Jonathan Chance is forging new rule interpretations- interpretations that will have a long lasting effect on the board.
It’s quite a stretch from: “However, questioning the intent of another poster in making an arguably false statement–e.g., “You are a liar”, “You are lying”, “That is a lie”, “That’s not true and you darned well know it isn’t true”–is crossing the line into attacking the other poster rather than attacking the other poster’s arguments, and will be considered a violation of the rules of the forum.” Basically call him a liar and it’s a warning. Fair.
to now* inferring * that the * intent* was to call him a liar.
This is a large and dangerous step to take. Now Warnings can be given based upon what the mods believe they can infer, rather that what you actually said. Jonathan is not saying I said* “You are a liar”, “You are lying”, “That is a lie”, “That’s not true and you darned well know it isn’t true”* rather he sez "you’re clearly saying that you believe he’s lying about his position vis-a-vis Hillary and Trump..
No longer are we able to say we followed the letter of the rule, now Warnings can be given for what the* Mods infer we believe. *
In any case, when you go into new ground like this, Jonathan, the right thing is to give a Note rather than a warning out of the blue.
I would have accepted a Note, a Note would have been reasonable. “DrDeth, you’re treading a fine line here, getting too close to calling him a liar.”
So, I ask that the Warning be changed into a Note.
**And that you guys rethink this new massive change in the rules. **
I agree. And when they do move into that Murky territory, Warnings are the wrong thing. Notes are the right tool.
I think it’s a fair warning. That the OP demonstrated a clear pattern of imputing personal motives to another poster, and the comments were clearly directed at the integrity of his interlocutor, I don’t think the mods are making any new rules here.
DrDeth,
You are focused, for some reason, on the ‘liar’ rule. This would have been enough to trigger the warning.
You do seem to be avoiding that the warning was issued for ‘being a jerk’ and your behavior for attacking Damuri Ajashi. You elected to accuse him of behavior that he argued against. When he did so you doubled down and continued to attack him. This is clearly within the ‘being a jerk’ rule.
Beyond that, as I’ve defined before, the ‘liar’ rule requires two things.
- That you say a person is telling an untruth, and
- That he is doing it intentionally
You triggered both with your accusation of Damuri Ajashi. As I said, you may disagree. Feel free.
The warning stands.
*1. That you say a person is telling an untruth, and
2. That he is doing it intentionally
*
I did neither. At not time did i say he was telling a lie. You have inferred that.
That’s not an inference, that’s the plain text meaning of what you posted.
It also, again, avoids the direct cause of your receiving a warning. Spending several posts over three days attacking another poster.
attacking another posters *posts. * and opinions. No personal insults.
You were attacking the poster more than you were attacking their posts.