Nonsense. The standard for negligently posting something false would obviously not be such a rigid one, or we couldn’t conduct a conversation. Nobody is suggesting that somebody has to go and do hours of due diligence before posting anything.
The principal proscription is against deliberately post falsehoods, and even there I would tend to think there’s a very high bar for showing intent. Which high bar this banned poster exceeded comfortably.
I don’t believe this without a cite. If you actually feel strongly about this, then why not take 5 minutes and go to the actual effort of demonstrating your point with examples?
It’s entirely reasonable to ask you to back up your argument. These things are just self-evident to all without actual evidence.
Your post changed before my very eyes… weird. But it added the “purpose” part, and that’s fair enough, I suppose.
I don’t know if they were lying deliberately or accidentally (I’d be reluctant to say it was a lie at all, but it was a pretty strong false assertion).
But it seems that we know that the OP was trolling (and I don’t doubt that he was) in part because it was so clear that Biden didn’t say the n-word that it would take “bad faith” to hear it (and I don’t doubt that either). Yet, multiple posters watched the video, presumably themselves heard the n-word, and concluded that the video was obviously faked. That’s all that I find curious.
Editing happens in real time. No need to refresh the page to see changes. Weird the first time seeing it, though.
All that is off topic. I’ve participated in these sort of threads sufficiently, including cites from the administration with rules clarifications, to know that cites and the demands for cites are farcical or worse.
I don’t care about formally proving anything. I’m expressing my opinion in the appropriate forum.
That’s a valid point.
One poster in the Pit thread said it was tampered with, and one poster in this thread (who didn’t post in the original thread) said it was faked. There’s no indication that either was deliberately lying about this in order to piss people off.
If you start with the presumption that you’re right, sure. But I’ve participated in the same threads you have, and what I’ve seen is your bringing up incredibly strained points, and when people correctly refute them, you pointing to their refutation as evidence of the board’s bias.
There’s a farce here all right, but I’m not sure you’re laughing at the funny bits.
But yet, your op actually misrepresents the cause of banning.
You make it sound like he got banned for his pit thread. He may or may not have been warned for that Op. He got banned mainly for his ATMB thread.
OP not Op. It stands for “Original Post” which is 2 words. I mentioned this in another thread but you may not have seen it so am mentioning it again.
Yes. I’ve seen that so-called clarification. But your post actually demonstrates part of the problem.
You can stop now, Op is perfectly acceptable. Op Op Op, get it? I don’t care if it annoys you.
This is entirely irrelevant to the subject of this thread. Drop the nitpick.
Hmm, “misrepresenting” something? 
Wasn’t some guy sanctioned for that? 
I’m not sure I think they were deliberately (or otherwise) lying for any reason. But I will, as a slight tangent (and one that does intend to refer to either of those posters) suggest that I’m not sure it should matter why a poster is “deliberately lying.”
Because that’s an element of trolling. If someone is lying they might be mod noted or warned, but lying in order to piss people off is trolling and is potentially an instaban offense.
It seems obvious to me that there will always be a huge amount of leeway and benefit of the doubt about false claims. And in a conversation, there’s no standard that someone has to do extensive due diligence before making an assertion that they think is true (like saying this was faked). We’re in the business of fighting ignorance, not banning the ignorant, so in virtually all cases false claims are not moderated, and very rarely result in warnings or bans, they are instead rebutted with facts and evidence by other posters and the conversation continues.
But huge leeway does not mean infinite leeway to blatantly and deliberately lie with the additional intent to troll. Even though the standard for being certain of deliberate ill intent might be very high, the poster here removed any doubt whatsoever with his ATMB thread (and, of course, transplanted his deliberate lies to a forum that’s moderated more strictly).
This just sounds like an excuse to not ever have to back up your argument. Once again, these things are not just self-evident to everyone. If you want to convince people who disagree with you about something, you have to actually go to the effort of showing evidence.
Biden has a lifelong speech impediment. He stutters. He sometimes trips over his words. His speech included several seconds of word salad, which quite definitely included the syllable ‘nig-’ followed by the syllable ‘-er’. I think it can be fairly transcribed as:
… is broad and complex. I meeg, I’m meeger to hear [pause] nig er hear next from my good friends…
Listen to it again and see.
Maybe this is the audio equivalent of what-colour-is-the-dress, but I can definitely hear those syllables immediately after the pause.
Perhaps those who insist that he deliberately lied only heard the part before the pause. @Collibri, for instance, renders it as “n’eager”. The point is, he actually said both. The word “n’eager” (or “meeger”) came before the pause, the syllables ‘nig er’ came after the pause.
I don’t agree that FC was lying or trolling. The sounds are there, to my ears. And he did say that Biden said it accidentally. He isn’t claiming that Biden is racist.
I would say, though, that it’s a pathetic pitting.