"That's a lie" and the edges of rules

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

The following exchanges occurred in a thread about the White House lies about Jim Acosta:

@doorhinge

The video shows Acosta hit a woman

@Sherrerd

That’s a lie.

@tomndebb

While doorhinge’s remark is clearly contradicted by all the genuine evidence, it is still against the rules to accuse a poster of lying.
This is a Warning to avoid such behavior in the future.

[ /Moderating ]

I’m about to split hairs, but I think it’s for a good cause.

Sherrerd didn’t accuse doorhinge of lying. He(?) said that a specific statement was a lie.

Under like 99% of circumstances, the only reasonable reading of Sherrerd’s post is an accusation of lying against doorhinge. However, the entire thread hinges on a specific lie being told by the White House–and the lie they’re telling is that the video shows Acosta hit a woman.

That statement was called a lie previously in the thread:

@iiandyiiii

The White House is lying

and was called a lie later in the thread:

@RitterSport

I have no idea why posters on this board are falling for such obvious lies by the administration.

And doorhinge got a warning for trolling, which was pretty clearly a warning for lying:

@Bone

Given the obvious falseness of this statement, and the rest of the content of this post, I can only surmise this is trolling. This is a warning for trolling.

Given the overwhelming consensus that the statement is, in fact, a lie, and that it’s the lie that is at the center of the controversy, I suggest that this is the 1% of the time that the statement “That’s a lie” should be read charitably, as identifying the statement itself and not the person who posted it, and that the warning should be rescinded. To do otherwise seems to require some real logical contortions: it’s okay to recognize a statement as a lie, and it’s okay to recognize that it’s been said as a deliberate lie, but it’s not okay to quote someone on the board saying the exact same statement and call it a lie.

In this case, the benefit of the doubt should reduce this warning to a note at best. But even a note seems overly harsh, as the mods seem to agree that the statement is unambiguously a lie.

(I’m also not super-happy with doorhinge’s warning for trolling, to be honest, as I think it assumes facts not in evidence–namely, that doorhinge is able to evaluate statements critically and according to evidence and to distinguish between Trumpian lies and reality. I think we may be prematurely attributing his actions to malice. But since I’d be okay with dinging him for being a jerk in this case, I’m not too worried about that aspect of the case.)

[engineer_comp_geek]

This is spelled out very clearly in the rules for GD/Elections (red highlighting mine):

Accusations of lying - It is against the rules to accuse another poster of lying or being a liar in the Great Debates or Elections fora. Questioning or disputing the accuracy of another poster’s statements–“I don’t think that’s right”, “That’s incorrect”, “You are mistaken”, or even “That’s not true”-- is what Great Debates is all about. 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

As the sticky says, use something like “that is incorrect” instead of “that’s a lie”.

[Omar_Little]

This sounds like a reasonable criticism for the way that thread was moderated. But moderation can be hard to evaluate when much of it is done like a drive by grand jury, plus it can be difficult to interpret emotion, sarcasm, and intent in the written form.

[Saint_Cad]

Accusations of lying - It is against the rules to accuse another poster of lying or being a liar in the Great Debates or Elections fora. Questioning or disputing the accuracy of another poster’s statements–“I don’t think that’s right”, “That’s incorrect”, “You are mistaken”, or even “That’s not true”-- is what Great Debates is all about. 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. In general, to be considered an accusation of lying a post must contain the following two elements: 1) deliberately saying something that the person knows is untrue, and 2) doing so with the intent to deceive.

Emphasis added.

I personally think it’s a BS rule (even before I got warned for it) because a poster can make up a lie as ugly as “That sentiment doesn’t surprise me coming from you who believe that it’s ok to rape and murder people if they are ugly.” and be relatively exempt from modding* whereas it it up to the person being attacked to be diplomatic in their response lest THEY get modded
“Methinks good sir/madam that you are perhaps mistaken in your belief on my position.” or asking for cites which will be ignored with no accountability.

• A simple “Ooops I was mistaken.” and everything is OK

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@engineer_comp_geek

This is spelled out very clearly in the rules for GD/Elections (red highlighting mine):

As the sticky says, use something like “that is incorrect” instead of “that’s a lie”.

Ah–I didn’t realize that specific example was in there. Given that, keeping it as a note makes sense, I suppose. But like I say, I think this is the extraordinarily rare instance in which someone repeated a statement made by someone else (Trump, Sanders), and that statement had been previously identified as a lie, and the poster was reiterating that that statement is a lie.

The rules clearly weren’t designed with that circumstance in mind, and it doesn’t make sense to warn someone for it.

[Chronos]

Quoth Saint Cad:

I personally think it’s a BS rule (even before I got warned for it) because a poster can make up a lie as ugly as “That sentiment doesn’t surprise me coming from you who believe that it’s ok to rape and murder people if they are ugly.” and be relatively exempt from modding*

That looks to me like a personal insult, which would in fact be moddable.

[Saint_Cad]

@Chronos

That looks to me like a personal insult, which would in fact be moddable.

Then let’s change the example to “That sentiment doesn’t surprise me coming from someone who continually posts that it’s ok to rape and murder people if they are ugly.”

[Czarcasm]

@Saint_Cad

Then let’s change the example to “That sentiment doesn’t surprise me coming from someone who continually posts that it’s ok to rape and murder people if they are ugly.”

You can always report it to a Mod and/or take it to The Pit.

[RitterSport]

I think it’s easy enough to point out that something is untrue without saying the poster is lying.

Poster A: The sky is green.
Poster B: That is obviously untrue. I’ve just looked out my window and it’s blue, plus here are cites that show that the sky doesn’t turn green.

If Poster B said, “That’s a lie”, they are claiming that Poster A knew that what he said was untrue and was acting with malice. We don’t know what’s in Poster A’s mind – he could be color blind, or unable to tell truth from lies depending on the source. I pointed out that the administration is lying and that our local posters are falling for that, not that our local posters are lying.

So, it’s really easy to point out that something is false without saying the original speaker is acting with bad intent.

And, if you think the speaker is acting with bad intent, just report the post as trolling or something.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@RitterSport

If Poster B said, “That’s a lie”, they are claiming that Poster A knew that what he said was untrue and was acting with malice.

As I said in the OP, 99% of the time that’s true. But 99% of the time, Poster A isn’t simply repeating a statement that has already been characterized as a lie earlier in the thread. 99% of the time, Poster A isn’t repeating that statement in a thread that’s entirely about that lie.

In this particular case, a charitable reading is that Poster B was reiterating the previous characterization of the statement, not impugning malice to Poster A.

[Roderick_Femm]

OK, so you can’t accuse another poster of either lying or of posting a lie, although you can accuse a third party (such as the white house) of lying. Here are some possible borderline cases to bore you with:

That statement supports the lie that the white house has been telling.

You seem to be in agreement with the white house’s lie on this topic.

When the white house says it I have no problem calling it a lie; when you say it, I can only say it isn’t true.

I suppose you get the drift. I know the mods don’t like being asked to pre-judge specific arguable wording cases, but I am curious whether any or all of these would draw a note or a warning. (For myself, I think all of them probably deserve at least a note the first time, and then a warning, as they are all but calling a poster’s statement a lie.)

[x-ray_vision]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Sherrerd didn’t accuse doorhinge of lying. He(?) said that a specific statement was a lie.

This was doorhinge’s statement in full:

The video shows Acosta hit a woman who was simply doing her job. Acosta then lost his WH lame stream media credentials. Maybe the woman who was assaulted by Acosta should ask for a restraining order against Acosta?

Doorhinge is making a claim regarding what the video showed. Based on the full statement, it seems he is writing what he believes to be true, not that it’s a claim by the White House.

And doorhinge got a warning for trolling, which was pretty clearly a warning for lying:

Okay? Saying that the White house made a claim can’t be lying. Making the claim one’s self can be.

Given the overwhelming consensus that the statement is, in fact, a lie, and that it’s the lie that is at the center of the controversy, I suggest that this is the 1% of the time that the statement “That’s a lie” should be read charitably, as identifying the statement itself and not the person who posted it, and that the warning should be rescinded. To do otherwise seems to require some real logical contortions: it’s okay to recognize a statement as a lie, and it’s okay to recognize that it’s been said as a deliberate lie, but it’s not okay to quote someone on the board saying the exact same statement and call it a lie.

I don’t see any logical contortion. It’s okay to say it’s a lie when it’s said by someone who is not a member of the board. It’s not okay to quote a member of this board and say that quoted statement is a lie (regardless if earlier a non-member was called out for lying by making the same claim).

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@engineer_comp_geek

This is spelled out very clearly in the rules for GD/Elections (red highlighting mine):

As the sticky says, use something like “that is incorrect” instead of “that’s a lie”.

Then there’s a problem in the rules, because sometimes “that is incorrect” isn’t enough. This is one of those cases. The problem with doorhinge’s post wasn’t just that it was wrong. It was that it was wrong and he obviously knew it was wrong.

The video shows Acosta hit a woman who was simply doing her job.

I’m sorry, this is not an opinion anyone who watched the video - even the doctored video - actually holds. **doorhinge **is, as is often the case (and about time he started picking up warnings for this crap), lying. He is not arguing in good faith. I don’t think anyone could make the claim that he is. Just saying “you’re wrong” to a statement like that doesn’t cut it. When someone is clearly and obviously arguing in bad faith and lying, it’s simply the truth to point out that it’s a lie, and demanding that we not speak the truth, particularly when that mostly goes to the benefit of obvious trolls just feels kinda wrong.

I’d say the fact that a moderator chimed in to give **doorhinge **a warning for trolling largely because his statement was such an obvious lie should be reason enough to reverse this warning - clearly, the moderators agree with Sherrerd’s statement. It’s just kinda silly.

[Larry_Borgia]

I thought it was pretty clear that “That’s a lie” referred to the video itself. Sherred wasn’t calling** Doorhinge** a liar. He was saying that Doorhinge was relying on a lie.

[Quartz]

So, how are we to deal with a deliberate repeated lie? It seems to me that a post like “You were told here (link) that that was not correct and here (link) is the original thread where all can see that you are not correct.” would be moddable.

[John_Mace]

@Quartz

So, how are we to deal with a deliberate repeated lie? It seems to me that a post like “You were told here (link) that that was not correct and here (link) is the original thread where all can see that you are not correct.” would be moddable.

This was addressed just recently in the other “lie” thread on the front page of this forum. Link here.

@BPC

Then there’s a problem in the rules, because sometimes “that is incorrect” isn’t enough.

Isn’t enough for you. There is always the Pit, if it’s that important to you. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the mods to determine when it’s “enough” or not.

[Quartz]

@John_Mace

This was addressed just recently in the other “lie” thread on the front page of this forum. Link here.

Heh. And it was even I who made the same question!

Thereby demonstrating that people sometimes forget and need reminding.

[octopus]

In these political threads quite often people post in hyperbolic fashion and knowingly so in order to poke at a party or supporters of a party. Warnings for trolling shouldn’t be on such criteria as analogous posts usually draw no notice at all.

[RitterSport]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

As I said in the OP, 99% of the time that’s true. But 99% of the time, Poster A isn’t simply repeating a statement that has already been characterized as a lie earlier in the thread. 99% of the time, Poster A isn’t repeating that statement in a thread that’s entirely about that lie.

In this particular case, a charitable reading is that Poster B was reiterating the previous characterization of the statement, not impugning malice to Poster A.

I’m not sure how to get to that charitable reading – I guess Poster B could have said, “as already noted upthread, your statement is incorrect” and then reported Poster A for trolling or being a jerk or something.

[Bone]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

I’d say the fact that a moderator chimed in to give **doorhinge **a warning for trolling largely because his statement was such an obvious lie should be reason enough to reverse this warning - clearly, the moderators agree with Sherrerd’s statement. It’s just kinda silly.

To be clear, the warning for Doorhinge was not because I thought he was lying, rather the totality of his post indicated that it was made solely for the purpose to rile others up.