So we can dispute the accuracy of another poster’s statements, and say directly “That’s not true”, but we cannot deny that the comments are true.
The distinction escapes me. Is there one? The thread in question is in GD, after all, and if the sticky is to be believed, that’s what GD is for. If tomndebb is going to make up another new rule for one thread in particular, I would hope it wouldn’t be a rule that violates the express purpose of Great Debates.
Or was the mod objection that posters were impugning each other’s motives? No mention was made in the mod note, and the mod note says explicitly -
It appears to be an attempt to enforce the principle of attacking the post and not the poster. The problem is there’s an undeniable connection between posts and posters. If I write “The post you wrote wasn’t true” it’s virtually the same as writing “You wrote a post that wasn’t true” - but the latter is framed as a direct comment on the poster while the former is more indirect.
The exchange you quoted is an example of how difficult it is to navigate between these two overlapping ideas. The board may end up having to abandon the idea that you can somehow say a statement is a lie without also saying the person who made that statement a liar.
I don’t see how that can be. The mod note referred specifically to “other posters’ comments”, and said that from that point on, no one could deny that “other posters’ comments” were true. If we cannot deny that other posters’ comments are true, then the name of the forum should be changed to Great Agreements.
Thanks for your thoughts, but I still don’t get it.
The only way I can see that this makes any sense is if those posters were playing an open ended game of “that’s not true”. I think there is a rule against harping on the same thing over and over. I didn’t read enough of the thread to know if that was happening or not.
But I agree that “that’s not true”, in and of itself, should not be mod’ed unless that rule Shodan quoted is changed.
AFAICT it wasn’t the same thing over and over. OurLordPeace had cited some rather disreputable anti-Zionist claims, and FinnAgain, as is his wont, was dynamiting those particular fish right out of their bucket. I was rather enjoying the slaughter. But there seemed to be a variety of fish involved - it wasn’t the same claim over and over. and tomndebb didn’t say anything like “quit beating that dead horse or take it to the Pit”.
But I don’t understand the mod note. Isn’t that (as MEBuckner says in the sticky) what we do in GD? Someone makes a claim, and someone else blasts it to smithereens with a semi-toxic mix of withering criticism and counter-cites. Granted, it can be a blood sport, but I thought the premise was that we were big boys and girls and could deal with it providing it did not include personal insults.
I guess if I did not make it clear before, I will now. I am not exactly complaining about the ruling - I just don’t know what is being forbidden (for the rest of that thread).
Tom, I don’t take sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
So my point-of-view on Shodan’s post has nothing to do with any particular poster.
Your comment just doesn’t make sense in the light of the rules and guidelines of Great Debates.
On such a complex and sensitive subject as the thread in question, changing the rules for that particular thread seems very unrealistic and unproductive. As long as posters are referring to the contents of the other person’s posts and not directly attacking the person, consider it an intense but fair debate. That should be true for any subject allowed in Great Debates. Mod only those posters who break your own traditional rule.
I agree with Little Nemo that sometimes there is little difference in the two approaches. But other posters in other topics push that line all the time without moderator intervention. That’s fair until you change your own rule for other subjects or threads.
In the Key Post OurLordPeace quotes FinnAgain at length. The first half of the quote is fine in my view. Then FinnAgain starts saying things like, “Of course, that quote is a well-known lie, which might make folks wonder just why you cited it,” and “If you knew that, how could you claim with a straight face that…? If you knew that, how could you argue with a straight face that…?”
Then FinnAgain finishes with, “So, er, you cited that bullshit… why, exactly?”, which seems ok to me.
In highly contentious subjects in GD, the goal should be to fight ignorance, not entertain a subset of posters with trainwrecks. Just saying.
Tom’s post linked above wasn’t one of his better efforts, IMHO. But I don’t know how this should have been modded. There is such a thing as BS citation and tendentious argumentation after all. It seems to me that a couple of disclaimers could have improved FinnAgain’s initial presentation. Regardless, I hope my links were helpful.
ETA:
Misleading. Tom criticized OurLordPeace in the thread: his moderation smacked of “Bending over backwards to be fair.”
But AFAICT tomndebb was not modding howFinnAgain was disputing the claims - what his mod note said was not to dispute the truth of claims at all.
Here’s the quote again -
I can’t parse that in any way besides telling everyone not to deny the truth of other posters’ comments. Which seems to be in direct contradiction to what the sticky says is what GD is all about.
If he had said “don’t call other posters liars”, that’s fine. Nobody called any other poster a liar - OurLordPeace thought so, but it wasn’t the case.
Isn’t “that statement isn’t true” a denial of the truth of the statement? Isn’t it what tomndebb forbade? Then what exactly was he talking about when he outlawed statements that MEBuckner in the sticky said GD was all about?
I don’t understand what is being forbidden, and what is to be retained as part of “what GD is all about”. Is there a point where we are not going to be allowed to deny the truth of statements with which we disagree? And how do we debate if we can’t?
If I were to start a thread saying that Obama was born in Kenya, by the third page are the mods going to start forbidding people from denying what I claim?
Best as I can figure, instead of focusing on pointing out the untruths of other posters, he wanted people to concentrate more on stating the (preferably cited) facts as they know them. In so doing, the untruths of another poster can still be adequately demonstrated, just not in such a negative and hostile manner.
I haven’t really formulated an opinion on whether or not this was the right move, but considering the predictable/repetitive pattern by which the debates on the topic in question devolve, I think some leeway on a new approach might be in order.
My wording was clearly clumsy. However, the point was that several posters were using fancy constructions to call each other liars. Had I simply said “stop calling each other liars,” I would have expected a rash of protests saying “I did not call him a liar.”
The intention was to get them to back away from stating and implying that their opponent was deliberately posting untruths.
Denying the accuracy of another’s post is an attack on the post and is acceptable.
Attacking the “truth” of another’s posts–unless one explicitly notes that a source quoted has provided the lie–runs way too close to calling the other poster a liar.
In the run up to my Mod note, the following comments were posted with none of them receiving Mod Notes or Warnings. When one of them triggered a claim by one poster that he interpreted one of them as an accusation of lying, I told everyone to back off.
I agree that the moderating post wasn’t phrased well. However, I do think moderation was called for. Something like, “Going forward, you [and other posters] will back away from implying that your opponents are knowingly posting untruths*. In fact, you’ll confine your remarks to the substance of one another’s posts and not speculate on one anothers’ motives, emotional or mental states, or the like.”
I’d actually say that “That’s not true” was okay, since it was not focused on the person but on the post. The rest specifically were aimed at the person. Just because you are using the word “true” doesn’t mean you are focusing on “truth,” at least, as you defined it, tomndebb.
I’m not nitpicking. I’m trying to get clarification, because I think being able to say, “That’s not true,” is an important part of GD. If that’s not allowed, I’ll need to adjust.
Generally, one may say “That’s not true” in Great Debates.* (Note that no Mod Notes or Warnings were issued up until the issue came to a head.) It was included in the list of statements to show the progression of the claims that collectively prompted the Mod Note.
Posting “That’s not true” in direct response to a personal assertion could garner a Mod Note, depending on the context and whether it appeared to be an accusation of lying.
Well, please note the difference between saying that “You’ve spilled soup on your shirt” and saying that “You are clumsy.” The one is about a specific incident, and a specific situation; the other is broad and implies a continued pattern of behavior. The same with “That statement is untrue” and “You are a liar.” I hope that we don’t have to give up that distinction; in formal debates, it’s the clear rule, and it makes a lot of sense if we want to have (reasonably) civil discussions.
Is saying “that statement isn’t true” not an attack on the truth of a statement?
I don’t know what you mean by a “personal assertion”. Are you saying that statements that I make on my own, without citation, may never be questioned? So, if I simply say that Obama is a wife-beater, no one can say “I don’t believe you”? And what “context” do you mean? It was GD, where denying the truth of assertions is what the forum is all about.
Again, no one in that exchange called anyone else a liar. OurLordPeace thought he had been called a liar. As you pointed out, that did not happen. Nobody was called a liar. They did deny the truth of each other’s posts, which I thought was “what GD is all about”. But you then attempted to rule that out.
I do not understand the distinction you are trying to draw.
It would be, unless tomndebb had specifically excluded it from his list of offenses -
(Emphasis added.) What FinnAgain said was -
(Emphasis added, again.) Note also the distinction FinnAgain draws between making the quote, and citing it. To give tomndebb credit, he (tomndebb) recognizes the difference between a case where a cite of another source is a lie, and a “personal assertion” is a lie. Pointing out that somebody else is quoting a lying source is fine, which tomndebb makes clear. Accusing someone of lying directly is not.
If, that is, I understand what he meant by a “personal assertion”, which I may not. Clarification, as requested, would be a good thing.
I’m having trouble as well parsing what the intent is. It seems to be to keep people from weasel wording that the other person is lying. Posters need to stop impugning each other’s motives and address the claims. But weaseling is a well-practiced art form around here, so it’s difficult to see where those lines are drawn.
The specific examples tomndebb cites in post 10 to me do not hit the “you are a liar” limit, or dance near it. “You’re very disingenuous” maybe gets close, and so does “which might make folks wonder just why you cited it.” “Yet again, I’m finding I’m having trouble believing your claims” is just a statement of disagreement with the stated claims, similar to “I think you are wrong”.
What I think he is trying to say about personal assertions would be something like “I am a member of an International Affairs group”, “That’s not true”. The personal assertion is something about that person.
Even a claim “I believe that pixies are real” could be met with a “That’s not true”, though there’s ambiguity in that phrase of if the objection is to pixies being real or to the person believing in pixies. Better response would be more specific: “Well, they aren’t”, or “Based on what evidence?” or whatever.
Tomndebb’s remark about personal assertions was not related to the specific incident that started this thread. Rather, he was trying to address the broader question he was asked, and thus was covering situations where “That’s not true” might gain a mod note.
I got lost following who said what about whom, and just remembered the “international affair’s” words, and thought I’d use it in my example.
