# "That's a lie" and the edges of rules **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [November 15, 2018, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582 "2018-11-15T20:01:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582/41 "2018-11-16T17:15:56Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I think there may already have been a negative ruling on that one. I think that is factually correct. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2018, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582/42 "2018-11-17T06:45:41Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > In 99% of cases, it’s a good rule. I’m not objecting to the rule, I’m objecting to the way you chose to enforce it here. Given the extraordinary circumstances surrounding Sherrerd’s statement, you should not have chosen to enforce the rule with a warning, and you should rescind the warning. I object to the rule. I think it’s bizarre that it’s perfectly fine to lie on here, but that it’s against the rules to say somebody else is lying. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2018, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582/43 "2018-11-17T13:55:56Z")
Since it’s been in the news recently that the video had been altered to make it look like he had hit her with the video being sped up to have his arm coming down on her faster than what it did, and Sarah Sanders as well as Kellyanne Conway and other Trump supporters using the phrase _put his hand/hands on her_ which leaves that impression, I took Sherrerd’s statement that he was stating that that aspect of the video has been shown to be a lie, and that’s the only part he quoted from doorhinge was “The video shows Acosta hit a woman” Since enginneer\_com\_geek had a word for word quote that that exact phrase is not to be used in the rulebook, Sherrerd had a number of options he could have used. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2018, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582/44 "2018-11-17T14:03:07Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Were there reports that Trump and Sanders said Acosta hit a woman? > > The first person that even used the word hit in the other thread was doorhinge. They just as well have, not aware of Trump, but Sanders has eliminated the word “hit” and substituted with the phrase, _You put your hands on a woman._ KellyAnne Conway also stated of Acosta, _You put your hands on a woman._ Seems obvious to most of what kind of spin they were trying to get out of it by using that phrase. Since both his Press Secretary and Counselor are using that phrase, pretty sure Trump approves of it. Judging from the boasts of what Trump has said about women and where they let him put his little hands, because he says he’s a star, pretty sure he’ll continue to let them field these questions. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2018, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582/45 "2018-11-17T14:18:37Z")
> [@Razncain](#): > > Since enginneer\_com\_geek had a word for word quote that that exact phrase is not to be used in the rulebook, Sherrerd had a number of options he could have used. So did Tomndebb. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2018, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582/46 "2018-11-17T14:33:34Z")
Yep, in regards to the rules, not always, but I’m generally more of a spirit of the law than a letter of the law kind of a person, so was hoping tomndebb would reconsider this one. Either way, I’m fine with it, but would have also preferred Sherrerd to clarify his statement better instead of it being ambiguous. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2018, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582/47 "2018-11-18T22:09:47Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > …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:** > … and was called a lie later in the thread: > … > > 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. … > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > …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. (Bolding mine.) Thanks for making this thread. I don’t always look in on this subfolder, and didn’t see it until today. Obviously I agree with you. Doorhinge was repeating what had already been identified as a Trump-defender/White House lie, hence my use of “That’s a lie” rather than “you’re a liar.” I would mention also (as I believe it’s allowed in this subfolder) that I’ve never received so much as a note before, let alone a Warning. I believe a note would have been more appropriate in the circumstances. I do admire the choice of the Straight Dope Message Board decision-makers to place a high value on civility. I realize that requires active moderation. In this case I believe the action taken could have partaken of some recognition of the context. But: the reality is that it’s not my message board and I have no say in this. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2019, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582/48 "2019-02-06T00:21:42Z")
> [@Razncain](#): > > Since it’s been in the news recently that the video had been altered to make it look like he had hit her with the video being sped up to have his arm coming down on her faster than what it did, and Sarah Sanders as well as Kellyanne Conway and other Trump supporters using the phrase _put his hand/hands on her_ which leaves that impression, I took Sherrerd’s statement that he was stating that that aspect of the video has been shown to be a lie, and that’s the only part he quoted from doorhinge was “The video shows Acosta hit a woman”. > [@Sherrerd](#): > > (Bolding mine.) Thanks for making this thread. … > Obviously I agree with you. Doorhinge was repeating what had already been identified as a Trump-defender/White House lie, hence my use of “That’s a lie” rather than “you’re a liar.”… There’s a larger point I’d like to make in the AtMB thread on asahi, but because it will reference posts made in this thread, this may be the time to make a point I’ve been planning to make for some time: _ **Most speakers of English do not consider the phrases “that is a lie” and “you are a liar” to be equivalent in meaning.** _ They are related. But they are not the same. Particularly in the incident discussed in this thread (but in others, too) “that is a lie” can and is used to identify claims that are provably false, _without implication that the person who repeated the false claim is being deliberately deceptive_. We see this in the November discussion of a White House claim that had been in the news (and I’ll say no more about that as interested readers can look through this thread and its citations for themselves). Because this is the case, the SDMB “basic rules for Great Debates and Elections” fail to play fair. The relevant passage: > [@](#): > > 1. 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. [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=818214](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=818214) In order to play fair with users of the message board, I would suggest that instead of burying the prohibition against the phrase “That is a lie” in the middle of the paragraph, the rules should highlight this unusual usage with something like: > [@](#): > > **Please note that at this message board, “that is a lie” will be considered to be equivalent in meaning to “you are a liar.” Both are prohibited, and use of either will result in moderator action.** Drawing attention to this site’s choice to treat the two phrases as being identical in meaning would enhance the perception that users of the board will be treated fairly. One poster in this thread mentioned the “chilling effect” that the particular warning under discussion had. (That account-user has posted only six times since, which may or may not be a coincidence.) I would submit that the burial of the prohibition against the phrase “that is a lie” in the middle of the verbiage, without any acknowledgment of the eccentricity of defining it as equivalent to “you are a liar,” contributes to the chilling effect mentioned. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2019, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582/49 "2019-02-06T07:45:14Z")
I’ve found “you’ve been lied to” is a decent compromise, because it makes it clear that the statement is in fact a lie while not implying that the person repeating the lie is doing so in bad faith. Regardless of how warranted it is to say that they’re repeating it in bad faith… :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2019, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582/50 "2019-02-06T10:37:59Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > I object to the rule. I think it’s bizarre that it’s perfectly fine to lie on here, but that it’s against the rules to say somebody else is lying. The reason for both of those things is that it is very difficult (and most of the time impossible) to definitively establish that something is a lie on a message board. The difference between a statement being a lie or being a sincere statement made in ignorance, or a joke, or even a typo like forgetting the word “not” is intent. And divining intent solely from text usually requires a form of omniscience beyond what mere internet mortals possess. I’ve made plenty of mistakes on this board and I’ve said things that weren’t true as a form of humor, but I have never lied in any of my posts (nor thankfully been accused of lying). In general, impugning a poster’s intent by accusing them of lying is not going to contribute to any thread. There may be rare exceptions, perhaps if you’re discussing a poster’s conduct by quoting them admitting that they make things up to confuse or get a rise out of others, but even that goes beyond just stating that someone lied (you’re presenting evidence of confessed ill intent rather than assuming it). I can’t think of any message board or online social platform that I’ve participated in which benefited from allowing posters to call each other liars. Having a blanket rule against it is a good idea. I don’t see anything wrong with stating that someone is repeating a claim that has been established earlier as a lie, but you want to be careful to clarify that you’re not accusing the poster of generating the lie themselves. Otherwise you’re just dumping gasoline on everything. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2019, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582/51 "2019-02-06T14:44:52Z")
“thats a lie”== attacking the poster - not the post/content as it infers intent on the poster. “That information is incorrect - see x, y and z” == attacking the content, not the poster. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2019, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582/52 "2019-02-06T22:10:16Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I’ve found “you’ve been lied to” is a decent compromise, because it makes it clear that the statement is in fact a lie while not implying that the person repeating the lie is doing so in bad faith. Regardless of how warranted it is to say that they’re repeating it in bad faith… :rolleyes: I agree with that. My point is that _most people will not assume that “you’re a liar” is exactly the same in meaning as “that’s a lie,”_----and that therefore, it would be fair (and reasonable) for the site to highlight the fact that these phrases _will_ be treated as being equivalent, here. The choice to treat them as equivalent is currently buried in the middle of a paragraph. That’s a problem because the choice to treat them as equivalent isn’t normal English usage. Be explicit about the rule. Don’t bury it. > [@Atamasama](#): > > …I can’t think of any message board or online social platform that I’ve participated in which benefited from allowing posters to call each other liars. Please note that I nowhere advocated for being able to post “you are a liar.” That is not what is at issue. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2019, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582/53 "2019-02-06T23:57:11Z")
> [@Ike\_Witt](#): > > What would the ruling be on “factually incorrect”? > [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > I think the ruling would be that getting too cute irritates the moderation staff. This is a bizarre and concerning response that damages confidence in the capabilities of the moderation staff. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582/54 "2019-02-07T02:34:43Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > My point is that _most people will not assume that “you’re a liar” is exactly the same in meaning as “that’s a lie,”_----and that therefore, it would be fair (and reasonable) for the site to highlight the fact that these phrases _will_ be treated as being equivalent, here. The choice to treat them as equivalent is currently buried in the middle of a paragraph. That’s a problem because the choice to treat them as equivalent isn’t normal English usage. > > Be explicit about the rule. Don’t bury it. If a person is telling a lie, they are a liar. That is the literal definition. That’s normal English usage. Your attempt to differentiate them is what is unusual. Again, for something to be a lie there has to be intent to deceive. Otherwise it’s just incorrect, and people make honest mistakes all the time. That’s why calling something a lie is such a taboo; you cannot use the term without attacking a person’s motivation. That attack is what the board is trying to disallow. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582/55 "2019-02-07T04:28:48Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > This is a bizarre and concerning response that damages confidence in the capabilities of the moderation staff. It needs to be viewed in the context of the thread where it seemed like trying to find how close can people get without going over. So if that’s the game that is being played, then it’s better not to. That being said, I did address that specific usage in post #38 of that thread. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582/56 "2019-02-07T13:58:07Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > If a person is telling a lie, they are a liar. That is the literal definition. That’s normal English usage. Your attempt to differentiate them is what is unusual… Disagree. If a person is telling a lie, they are telling a lie. _Perhaps_ they are currently _being_ a liar. But to label a person “liar” for a single lie seems a bit much without a pattern of lying. IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582/57 "2019-02-07T14:47:18Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Disagree. If a person is telling a lie, they are telling a lie. _Perhaps_ they are currently _being_ a liar. But to label a person “liar” for a single lie seems a bit much without a pattern of lying. IMHO. I understand what you’re saying. And I agree that one lie should not permanently label someone as a liar. But at the moment they make the lie, they are. The most honest person in the world is briefly a liar if they only tell a single lie once in their lifetime. So again, accusing someone of telling a lie is at least briefly calling them a liar. As I said, the literal definition of “liar” is a person who tells lies. It is the act of telling a lie that makes you a liar. There are also habitual, pathological, and compulsive liars, and they constantly tell lies. There’s a reason we have such qualifiers because not every liar is always dishonest. Again, you can’t accuse a person of telling a lie without calling them a liar, just as you can’t accuse someone of assault without calling them a violent person, or accuse someone of theft without calling them a thief. At least briefly. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582/58 "2019-02-08T01:49:37Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > If a person is telling a lie, they are a liar. Sure. But notice that _you have here added an element that was not present in the post that was moderated_: you have added “ **telling** a lie.” The post that was moderated said, literally, “that’s a lie.” It did not say “you are a liar,” nor did it say “you are telling a lie.” If you read the thread in which the moderation occurred, you will see that the discussion was of _a claim that had been publicly and widely identified as a lie_. The White House had been shown to have repeated the lie, and other right-wing outlets, as well as apologists for the Trump Administration had been found to have repeated the lie. But of course this identification hadn’t made it to Fox News and other right-wing outlets. The person who repeated the claim is well-known on the board as being on the right. It was entirely possible that, consuming only right-wing news sources, the person did not know that the specific claim he was making: > [@](#): > > The video shows Acosta hit a woman … [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=21323341#post21323341](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=21323341#post21323341) …had been shown to be a lie. (The thread, entitled _ **White House likley altered video of Jim Acosta** _, can be read at [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=865258](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=865258) ) The claim “the video shows Acosta hit a woman” had been widely discussed as being a lie–thus my response. Alternative responses were certainly possible and in fact were made. The point here is that _ **the phrase “that is a lie” does not always constitute an accusation that the other person is being deliberately deceptive** _. The moderator’s claim that I had violated Rule 5 is unsupported by Rule 5 itself. Recall that Rule 5 requires that the post to be moderated must either accuse another poster of “deliberately saying something that the person knows is untrue,” or must accuse another poster of posting “with the intent to deceive.” Neither condition was satisfied by my post.\* [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=818214](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=818214) > [@Atamasama](#): > > So again, accusing someone of telling a lie is at least briefly calling them a liar. > …Again, you can’t accuse a person of telling a lie without calling them a liar, … Here again, you add an element not present in the moderated post: “telling a lie.” The moderated post did not say ‘you are telling a lie’ or any variation thereof. This is all moot, however, since **I am not calling for a change in the rule, so as to permit typing of the phrase “that is a lie.”** Again, as this point seems to be passing some by:\* **I am not requesting that the prohibition on typing “this is a lie” be dropped** \*. What I have requested is that this prohibition be highlighted and emphasized----because the implicit assumption that “this is a lie” is equivalent to “you are a liar” (or to “you are telling a lie”) is unusual, and would not occur to most English users. Certainly I remembered the prohibition on accusing other posters of deliberate deception quite clearly, and would not have violated it knowingly. The eccentric equating of “that is a lie” with “you are a liar,” on the other hand, I did not recall. I would have done, had the choice to equate them been highlighted in the Rules. As another poster in this thread intimated, the moderation of the two as though they were equivalent has potentially had a chilling effect on the growth of the Straight Dope Message Board. It raises the perception that participation here may be judged capriciously and unfairly. To play fair with users of this board, the prohibition on “that is a lie” and the choice to regard it as equivalent to “you are a liar” should receive more emphasis than is currently the case. \*Later claims by moderators that I was Warned because I was ‘testing the line’ or ‘getting too cute’ or ‘liking to see how close to lines I could get’ or other expressions implying that I was _posting with the moderators in mind_, are also false. I was not posting in order to impact the moderators, or to interact with them, or to have anything to do with them. I was not attempting to test the rules or to taunt the moderators. These false claims are unsupported by my posting history. I find the false claims to be, quite frankly, insulting, unobservant, and silly. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582/59 "2019-02-08T01:55:17Z")
Context matters. If one person asked for a quote from a film character and you respond, “That is a lie” or “You are a liar” because that was the character’s line, you shouldn’t be banned for it and I’d hope the moderators would know better. That’s why we have human moderators to make judgment calls and not auto-ban scripts. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582/60 "2019-02-08T01:56:12Z")
Sherrered: I know what you’re saying, but the phrase is already right there in black and white in the rules. There’s literally no need to call it out as special: if someone reads the rules, they will see the phrase is prohibited. If someone doesn’t read the rules, they will be clueless either way. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582.md?page=4)