That would be true if the readership would be uniformly following along closely, keeping track of who said what etc. My experience and belief is that a large portion of the readership has a somewhat vague grasp of the nuances and specifics of these discussions and even this tends to wan over the course of extended back-and-forth debates. In this circumstance, the direct and attention-grabbing assertion of lying is far more effective and clear-cut than yet another rehash of I-said-this-and-you’re-claiming-I-said-that.
Of course, saying someone else is lying is not the same as convincing everyone else that this is so. But at least it gets you on record with this position, so that the muddled reader at least knows that this is subject to significant dispute and that they should look more closely before accepting the other guy’s claims.
I’ve not measured dishonest claims against incidents. But dishonesty in debates is extremely common, in my experience. Very very few heated debates do not involve one or more posters strenuously attempting to frame the debate as themselves against some caricatured strawman version of their opponents’ position.
I think the key phrase is “in your experience.” What you see as a caricatured strawman version of an opponent’s position is, I believe, much likelier to be one of three things:
You’re misunderstanding the characterization of the position; or
You’re misunderstanding the position being characterized; or
The person characterizing the position genuinely misunderstands the position.
Too often, people jump right past these possibilities to the conclusion that the person characterizing the position is doing so dishonestly/disingenuously/whatever. I think that’s troublesome.
It appears that this is a wildly unpopular suggestion, which surprises me. So I’ll change it slightly. As I said initially, I think folks should show enough decorum and respect to refrain from such accusations without the mods’ involvement. If you absolutely feel you must accuse someone of dishonesty, I suggest two steps to take first:
Ask yourself whether there’s any other possibility, and really think on that question first. In a lot of cases, you might see that what you consider a strawman is really just an honest misunderstanding.
If you really can’t explain via your or their incompetence the behavior being witnessed, consider pitting the dishonest person rather than discussing their motives in a thread putatively dedicated to a different topic.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here, as accusing people of lying is against the rules and this is a theoretical discussion. But FWIW, of your two suggestions, 1) is obvious and 2) is not practical - unless you happen to have the energy and interest for a separate discussion of someone else’s honesty (& have reason to believe the audience will follow the discussion - which will generally not be the case).
In defense of the status quo
The only way you establish that somebody is intentionally telling an untruth is by reading their mind. Ok, that’s not the only way: in a very few cases there is a trail of evidence. But in that case, report the evidence.
Also, any accusation of lying immediately derails the thread. It’s sort of like saying that you disagree with somebody’s stance on cross-national SO2 policy, and they’re only defending it because they like fucking pigs in their backyard. Sorry, but I’m going to defend my honor (such as it is) before I return to the finer points of technological remediation. So it’s off to the pit we go. (Less comically, something like this actually occurred to me some years back when -as I characterize the incident- I was accused of lying in a gun control thread, utterly without justification. More concretely, IIRC only the accuser thought he had a case.)
Oh yeah, the OP
What if I take a stance of only assuming malicious or deceitful intent after all other alternatives have been carefully ruled out? If I’m debating with somebody with a history of deceit and game playing-- such a stance would be disingenuous. If I’m debating somebody with no such history, but I consider it probable that they are being deceitful, then such a stance is again disingenuous. Might it be appropriate for a third party to characterize my position that way? What if I start piling on the snark, or merely toss a couple of curveballs? If I see a ridiculous post, I often respond in kind.
When I see ludicrous vitriol in GD, I occasionally make jokes. Some of them are disingenuous: it’s part of the humor. The target is fully within his right to call me on that, and since I’m not a troll I’ll often not respond. The joke and the point has been made.
Perhaps some accusations of disingenuousness are consistent with best practice. The unifying characteristic in my examples is that the target doesn’t mind the accusation at all.
I am not a mod. Your post appears to reflect some interest into what can be gotten away with, for some reason. Generally speaking, it is better to characterize arguments than individuals. I suspect that extensive usage of euphemisms as a stand-in for prohibited behavior would be frowned upon.
In Great Debates, one may allude to the fact that one’s opponent is insincere. If one does that in a manner that appears to be an accusation of lying, one will be Moderated. Insincerity does not equal lying.
It doesn’t? I’ve certainly always seen it essentially used as a synonym for “lying”. The only real difference is that it also applies to non-verbal dishonesty like facial expressions, an “insincere smile”.
The direct “You are lying” may be more attention-grabbing, but it is also easier to drop than to support. Given the way some people around here misinterpret what other people are saying (just look at Peter Morris’s thread in ATMB), there are plenty of instances where one person thinks the other person is lying, but the other person is not lying. It is a misperception on someone’s part.
If you really need to “get on record” about what you think the other person is doing, you are still able to do so with statements “you are misrepresenting what I said” or “that is a distortion of my position” or “your facts are in error”. They are sufficiently clear to the audience that you feel the other person is not playing fairly.
As far as the OP, I don’t really support the recommendations. In general, I would agree that it is less than helpful to speak to another poster’s motivations or to ascribe them with dishonesty. However, there are times those things can be germane.
I certainly don’t want the rules to be fuzzier and more subject to interpretation.
These are pretty much the same thing, without the hotbutton word. As a practical matter, this is what people frequently do - try to skirt the rules in this manner and communicate the same message without using the word “liar”. Personally I don’t see much value in this.
Setting aside the issue about whether calling someone a liar is a direct insult and whether some insults, should be allowed in GD…
Concerning Best Practices
Upon reflection, I actually like this. You might want to substitute in “dishonesty or bad faith”. My problem is that strawman arguments, disingenuousness or hidden motives are not necessarily done with an intention to deceive or muddy the waters. Error, irony and parsimony are 3 possible explanations: all can be clarified to varying extents (with the possible exception of irony: some don’t like to step on their jokes). Still if you really are dealing with somebody who plays games and never comes clean (i.e. a troll as opposed to a humorist) then it is indeed a difficult situation.
I tend to think of liar, dishonest, insincere, disingenuous, as being on a spectrum from a form of active brazen dishonesty, to *passive incidental *dishonesty. For example, one can be disingenuous by not going out of his way to point out a known weakness in his own line of argument, and yet not be a liar. One can strike a tone that is insincere while not factually being dishonest.