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

[Sherrerd]

I appreciate the feedback, Atamasama and Ravenman.

I still think it would be an increase in fairness to board users if the equating of “that is a lie” with “you are a liar” would be mentioned explicitly, because it’s unusual usage.

It almost seems as though the concept of making this uncommon equivalence more plain than it is now, is being considered to be something to be avoided. Why would that be?

[Bone]

@Sherrerd

It almost seems as though the concept of making this uncommon equivalence more plain than it is now, is being considered to be something to be avoided. Why would that be?

When you raised this previously, I took a look at it. In my view, the language has been as it is for quite some time and this is the first comment of this nature as far as I can tell. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have merit, but it does mean it hasn’t been a huge issue before.

Then I thought about how we’d reword it, and that’s where I stopped. The flow of the rule seems more natural to me as it stands. It starts with the general rule - it is against the rules to accuse another poster of lying or being a liar. It then goes into further detail with examples, etc. Bringing the specific example up to the front makes the ordering somewhat awkward.

[Sherrerd]

@Bone

When you raised this previously, I took a look at it. In my view, the language has been as it is for quite some time and this is the first comment of this nature as far as I can tell. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have merit, but it does mean it hasn’t been a huge issue before.

Then I thought about how we’d reword it, and that’s where I stopped. The flow of the rule seems more natural to me as it stands. It starts with the general rule - it is against the rules to accuse another poster of lying or being a liar. It then goes into further detail with examples, etc. Bringing the specific example up to the front makes the ordering somewhat awkward.

I was suggesting that the equation of ‘that is a lie’ with phrases that specifically claim deception on the part of the person being addressed should be added to the end of Rule 5, to highlight it. The wording I’d thought of earlier is:

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.

No doubt the wording could be improved.

I genuinely believe that something of this sort would increase the perception of potential users of the site that they will meet with moderation that is fair and transparent in its rulings.

I’d be interested to hear from those who initially made and responded in this thread, expressing reservations about the original moderation incident; I hope they’ll weigh in. (Of course some of us aren’t really in the habit of checking in on this subfolder daily, so it might take a while.)

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Sherrerd

I’d be interested to hear from those who initially made and responded in this thread, expressing reservations about the original moderation incident; I hope they’ll weigh in. (Of course some of us aren’t really in the habit of checking in on this subfolder daily, so it might take a while.)

As the OP, I haven’t said anything, because this is way far afield of my original objection. But if you wanna hear…

To recap: there are edge cases in which you can say “That’s a lie” in response to what someone’s said without accusing them of lying.

These edge cases occur when:

1. A third party has made a statement.
2. There’s been persuasive evidence brought that the third party’s statement is a lie.
3. A poster quotes or paraphrases that statement.
4. It’s pretty clear that the poster is quoting or paraphrasing that statement.

Under these very rare circumstances, “That’s a lie” may mean, “That statement that you’re paraphrasing is a lie told by someone else.”

The incident linked in the OP is one of those very rare circumstances, which is why I think it was moderated too harshly. It broke the letter, but not the spirit, of the rules; and I am very much a spirit-of-the-rules dude, or try to be on my better days.

Most of the time, responding with “that is a lie” is equivalent to saying, “In this case, at least, you are a liar,” and I don’t think that leads to great debates.

[Sherrerd]

I agree with all that, Left Hand of Dorkness.

My point is that “that is a lie” does have some special circumstances attached to it, and that’s why it merits an additional sentence in the rules. Clarity is never bad (or so I’ve have thought).