I do not lie. You may be a liar, but don’t project that onto me. Lying goes against my religious beliefs.
I think this is a bigger issue than just the word “liar”.
The mods have to walk a tightrope between allowing relatively freewheeling discussions and cracking down hard on people who abuse the rules here. I think they have been pretty good about allowing a lot of topics to be discussed - even controversial ones that raise hackles a lot.
At the same time, though, I think they let a lot of stuff go, especially from longtime posters, that violates the “don’t be a jerk” rule.
How often do we see threads that dissolve into sniping between posters? Even if it is a Pit thread, this is distracting if the subject of the thread isn’t this particular argument.
It just gets tiresome.
And please note, I don’t claim any kind of innocence on this front myself - I think it is a temptation many of us fall into.
I agree
Again, spot-on. It’s a thankless job (but thanks, anyway!), which is why I said I’d defer to the Mod’s choice since it’d be them that have to police the fallout. If they felt a rule would make thinks easier, more power to them.
I think they just have more to work with, if they have more history for a poster. I think there are very few things you can say that would be “insta-jerk”, as it were. I’d say jerkhood is more of a pattern than a one-off event.
True. But someone could be just a jerk at that time, and be redirected to another thread, or told to settle down.
A were-jerk. Once the full moon passes, he’s OK.
What you said to tom was that you were regarding the OP as a poll, hence your position needed no justification.
Here, several dozen posts into the thread, we’re having something that looks, feels, and quacks like a debate.
Often enough that Finn’s extreme use of that accusation depressed but didn’t surprise me.
We do have recourse to the Pit. And if we’re going to attack the poster rather than a GD post, that seems like the right time to move there.
And while we have the “don’t be a jerk” rule, obviously we need more than that, otherwise we wouldn’t have either the “attack the post, not the poster” rule in GD, or the ‘liar’ exception.
My sentiment is: (a) there’s no point in having an exception to a fairly clear and straightforward rule unless not having that exception is creating problems somehow. I can’t see why it would do so. And (b) the exception is clearly capable of creating problems, as the thread that inspired this one demonstrated, by allowing a means of personal attack in GD.
No, it isn’t because “backed-up, cited, unambiguously correct instances of the term…are going to get [people’s] nose[s] out of joint.” It’s because people, being people, will take full advantage of the exception, and use it in situations that only have the thinnest patina of justification imaginable.
We have the rule, regardless. What we’re talking about is discarding an exception, not adding a new rule.
I’m all for keeping it simple, if simple works. Similarly, I’m for reducing complexity where there’s no need for complexity - let alone when it creates problems, as it does here.
Totally agree…nice summary. To me ‘keeping it simple’ is the ideal…and I think the simplest solution to this is to do away with the exception. We don’t NEED to call each other liars in GD…and I’m really puzzled why some folks feel we do.
I look at the debates on GW/AGW and it’s clear that neither side is telling lies…they simply have different opinions on what the data means. You can see the frustration from the pro-AGW side that the other side isn’t getting it…but this doesn’t mean that they are ‘liars’. Calling them liars neither furthers the debate NOR is it, IMHO, accurate. Being wrong isn’t the same thing as telling lies.
Close the loophole. Don’t put more work on the Mods to try and parse meanings or split hairs.
-XT
I don’t think the AGW debate is a good example - both sides are using cites and aren’t lying, in the sense we’ve been discussing. Usually, it’s the more …esoteric … things that go that way. Only time I’ve called someone a liar, was when they made up shit about various religions, and then, when shown to be wrong, still kept insisting they weren’t, without any citing or other justification. Seemed like a good time to use the word.
I’d still like a final say from the Mods, on whether they feel it’s too much work to police the exception.
Having reviewed this thread, the Mods of Great Debates have decided that the Epithet Liar is prohibited.
The correct decision, IMO.
Cool, whatever keeps the forum going best.
So let it be written, so let it be done.
Excellent decision.
-XT
I assume that “you are lying” is kosher, but “you are a liar” is not.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, if we’re going to nibble at the edges, I would argue that “You are spreading (or repeating) a lie” is acceptable, but “You are lying” is not. I think the latter implies intent, while the former doesn’t.
I took it to mean that calling someone a liar meant that their distinguishing characteristic was that they lied, whereas saying someone was lying meant that their latest post was a lie.
Lying necessarily implies intent, as witnessed by umpteen million “BushLiedAboutIraq” threads, vs. a relative paucity of “BushWasMisledByBadIntel” ones. (As well as the paucity of “Hilary/Kerry/Edwards/Albright/Slick Willy/Gore/every other prominent Democrat for the last fifteen yearsLiedAboutIraq” threads based on exactly the same evidence 
).
As the old joke puts it -
Regards,
Shodan
By your response then, since “lying” implies intent, “You are a liar” and “You are lying” are nearly synonymous, with intent applied to both. The difference being that “You are a liar” is a more broad condemnation of the poster’s general character.
I was trying to remove the “atacking the poster’s character” with my distinction. “You are repeating a lie” removes the implication of intent – one can innocently repeat a lie.
So maybe that’s the next question for this thread, or another. If you are convinced that a poster DID intend to dissemble and deceive, what is the correct terminology for that accusation?
Personally, I wouldn’t go there, and that’s why I generally stay out of GD. Arguements about issues devolve into arguements about personality and intent. And any “attack” rules for GD that are different from other forums are likely to increase that trend, IMO.
Why is either necessary in GD? Why not just “That is wrong. (Or that is false. Or that’s not true.) Here’s why…”
Why is there such a perceived need to make the debate personal? Why are you already looking for a loophole?
It seems to me that accusations of lying and dishonesty tend to generate more heat than light.
I like the moderators’ decision. I hope there will be clarification about the questions above. But what’s even more important to me is that the rule be enforced when a moderator is called a liar in GD. You may be very stoic, but it rewads my panties.
Tom, I take it that it is still okay to say, “You contradict yourself” (and provide evidence) and “Your statement is misleading.” etc.
I don’t know if they are necessary, but sometimes people do lie in GD.
Perhaps so. But it does happen occasionally.
Regards,
Shodan