About Lying

[Uphill Battle]

Ok. We have a rule where you can't tell someone that they are lying.

even if they are.

What this can lead to, is someone can try to defend themselves against blatant dishonesty about what it is they have said, but typically will end up warned or infracted for doing so. I propose that we need some way to limit the capabilities of those who ARE lying, and getting away with it.

[HypnoToad]

Just prove someone's lying first, instead of just being mistaken.

Otherwise, anytime someone is simply mistaken, they will be warned/infracted/banned anytime someone just claims "liar".

This is completely unnecessary.

Simple fix - don't say, "you're a liar." Instead say, "you are wrong because ...," and just post the evidence. There, how hard is that?

We already have a rule against defamation, so if you can prove it, great. We don't need to throw in additional needless rules over something that can be easily resolved otherwise.

[Uphill Battle]

Just prove someone's lying first, instead of just being mistaken.
that's a given. How would you suggest it be proven? Mod action is only based on the post reported. It doesn't really work well when you have to prove a history of dishonesty.



Otherwise, anytime someone is simply mistaken, they will be warned/infracted/banned anytime someone just claims "liar".

it could happen, but if you have to "prove it" then this could be actioned as a spite report.



This is completely unnecessary.

Simple fix - don't say, "you're a liar." Instead say, "you are wrong because ...," and just post the evidence. There, how hard is that?
because no matter how many times you do it, they lie again. There is absolutely no penalty for doing so.



We already have a rule against defamation, so if you can prove it, great. We don't need to throw in additional needless rules over something that can be easily resolved otherwise.
the defamation rule is the most useless rule we have. You say it can be easily resolved, mostly because your resolution is "just don't make the accusation, just play along." which is basically what it is, when the onus is placed on the person being lied about, placing the onus on them to prove repeatedly the same thing, where the person who is using dishonesty as a posting style, can continue to do so willy nilly with absolutely no ramifications.

[HypnoToad]

that's a given. How would you suggest it be proven? Mod action is only based on the post reported. It doesn't really work well when you have to prove a history of dishonesty.
Then your proposed rule won't work as you can't prove the charge you're making.

because no matter how many times you do it, they lie again. There is absolutely no penalty for doing so.
So? Just show how they're wrong every time they do it.

the defamation rule is the most useless rule we have. You say it can be easily resolved, mostly because your resolution is "just don't make the accusation, just play along." which is basically what it is,
Hardly. Showing them they're wrong every time is not "playing along".

when the onus is placed on the person being lied about, placing the onus on them to prove repeatedly the same thing, where the person who is using dishonesty as a posting style, can continue to do so willy nilly with absolutely no ramifications.
No ramifications. Except for the one about being proven wrong every time they try it.

[MeekOne]

...the onus is placed on the person being lied about...If someone is lying about another person here on CF, or talking about them behind their back, this needs to be exposed so that the staff can take the proper actions against the person who is lying/talking about another member. :)

[Uphill Battle]

Then your proposed rule won't work as you can't prove the charge you're making.
so then, you're telling me that we can't find a way? We can't think more creatively beyond an individual post? How then, is it possible for you to enforce the harrassment or defamation rule?



So? Just show how they're wrong every time they do it
that's the point. no matter how many times you do so, they continue to lie. They just go to another thread, and do the same thing.



Hardly. Showing them they're wrong every time is not "playing along".
It most certainly is. It's exactly what the person being dishonest wants.


No ramifications. Except for the one about being proven wrong every time they try it.
this doesn't happen.

If someone is lying about another person here on CF, or talking about them behind their back, this needs to be exposed so that the staff can take the proper actions against the person who is lying/talking about another member. :)right... but other mods disagree with the ability to do so, it would seem.

[synger]

The difficulty I've seen in situations where someone is accusing someone else of lying, is that "lying" implies an intent to deceive, and it's almost impossible to prove intent.

The best defense against someone else's untruth is to explain what you believe the truth to be. Those who read the thread will have their own opinions on whether there is misunderstanding and disagreement, or whether there is truly deceit. However, the moderator staff cannot really make that decision.

Thus, you can say that someone is mistaken, or that their information may not be accurate. And you can correct that information. You can deal with the information rather than the person.

But when you move from the information to the person, and call them a liar, it can cross into "flaming" territory.

[HypnoToad]

If someone is lying about another person here on CF, or talking about them behind their back, this needs to be exposed so that the staff can take the proper actions against the person who is lying/talking about another member. :)
That's what the defamation rule is for.

[HypnoToad]

so then, you're telling me that we can't find a way? We can't think more creatively beyond an individual post? How then, is it possible for you to enforce the harrassment or defamation rule?
Now you're confusing me. Before you said:
How would you suggest it be proven? Mod action is only based on the post reported. It doesn't really work well when you have to prove a history of dishonesty.

You suggested that going beyond the reported post would be difficult when someone lies, yet now you apparently say it's quite doable because we enforce harassment/defamation.

So, is going beyond the reported post too hard or not? Or, is it too hard for lying, but not for harassment? Or, is it that you want to be able to call someone a liar without having the responsibility of backing it up? I don't get it.

that's the point. no matter how many times you do so, they continue to lie. They just go to another thread, and do the same thing.
So? Just prove them wrong. Eventually, they'll earn themselves a reputation of posting bogus info.

It most certainly is. It's exactly what the person being dishonest wants.
So, it's a bad thing to prove them wrong? Not sure how that works.

this doesn't happen.
Why not? Why don't they get proven wrong? You can take the time to post to call them a liar, but you can't use that time instead to just demonstrate they're wrong?

[MeekOne]

That's what the defamation rule is for.Right. If someone is lying about another member, they should be called on it and reported. In the report, the staff should first address the fact that the person who is lying about that member (in other words the one reported) is in fact addressing a person rather than a post.

If someone is lying about someone else, they are in essence talking about that person instead of proving the post they are addressing wrong by discussing the post and not the person.

I think we are on the same wave length here, just explaining it differently. :)

[Amoranemix]

I think the problem Uphill Battle is describing is related to a more general problem that has bothered me since I became interested in forum management shortly after the democratic reforms.

Imagine the following scenario :

Member A exhibits loathsome behaviour.
Member B accuses member A of exhibiting loathsome behaviour.
Member B is reported.
Staff likes member A or dislikes member B.
Member B's posts is edited and (s)he receives a warning for flaming.

The flaming rule is one of the most used rules on the forum and yet is very short and open to staff discretion and thus to staff abuse. It is even worse than it was before now that we need a better rule. As it is, even accusing someone of lying with proof can be excuse for a sanction. There is no rule against loathsome behaviour. There is also no rule against provocation.

Just prove someone's lying first, instead of just being mistaken.
Otherwise, anytime someone is simply mistaken, they will be warned/infracted/banned anytime someone just claims "liar".That doesn't follow.

Simple fix - don't say, "you're a liar." Instead say, "you are wrong because ...," and just post the evidence. There, how hard is that?If I claim you robbed a defenceless old woman yesterday, what evidence are you going to post ?

We already have a rule against defamation, so if you can prove it, great. We don't need to throw in additional needless rules over something that can be easily resolved otherwise.Accusing of lying can be a form of defamation and it would I think be useful that the accused can in a report demand evidence or a retraction of the accusation.

Uphill Battle : because no matter how many times you do it, they lie again. There is absolutely no penalty for doing so.
HypnoToad : So? Just show how they're wrong every time they do it.
The remuneration for showing someone wrong is very low. I receive 0€ an hour. Perhaps if it were increased to a reasonable amount your solution would be practical, but I doubt that is going to happen.

The difficulty I've seen in situations where someone is accusing someone else of lying, is that "lying" implies an intent to deceive, and it's almost impossible to prove intent.An example case. In post ? of the thread What does it mean for God to be good or omni-benevolent (http://christianforums.com/t3106736-what-does-it-mean-for-god-to-be-good-or-omni-benevolent-.html) I stated to a member who has since long left the forum : “Stop lying. It's ugly”. I didn't call him a liar. I merely suggested he was lying because I wasn't sure he was. As in most things in the real world lies aren't black or white. Something is not either a lie or a true statement. A statement can be more or less a lie. If someone makes a statement without verifying its veracity and the statement happens to be false, was it then a lie ? If there is sufficient cause to suspect the evil intent or recklessness of a poster then it is up to the perpetrator to prove their benevolent intent and if that would be off topic then (s)he should be able to do so in a public report. That's what I did.
In the example case I judged his responsibility to know his statement was false and that if he was honestly mistaken it was his responsibility to show that.

The best defense against someone else's untruth is to explain what you believe the truth to be. Those who read the thread will have their own opinions on whether there is misunderstanding and disagreement, or whether there is truly deceit. However, the moderator staff cannot really make that decision.The crowd is a bad judge. They are the ones who lynched 280 Afro-Americans in the Colfax massacre in 1873. Most people read threads only superficially. Their filter is tuned to posts addressed to them and short posts. Usually the refutation of an accusation is longer than the accusation.

But when you move from the information to the person, and call them a liar, it can cross into "flaming" territory.That is merely your opinion. The rules are silent on it. A shortcoming with the current rules and the rules during the semi-democratic period that it doesn't take into account whether a statement is true or not. Whether to take that into account is up to staff discretion. They are thus free to censor undesirable statements.

So, is going beyond the reported post too hard or not? Or, is it too hard for lying, but not for harassment? Or, is it that you want to be able to call someone a liar without having the responsibility of backing it up? I don't get it.In the now secret harassment and false accusations wiki it proved diffucult to deal with harassment as it is an offense caused by several actions and we had no warnings back then. Now we have warnings but also secrecy.

Uphill Battle : that's the point. no matter how many times you do so, they continue to lie. They just go to another thread, and do the same thing.
HypnoToad : So? Just prove them wrong. Eventually, they'll earn themselves a reputation of posting bogus info.
I doubt that.

Why not? Why don't they get proven wrong? You can take the time to post to call them a liar, but you can't use that time instead to just demonstrate they're wrong?Indeed. It is usually hard to prove someone wrong in 20 seconds (5 seconds for typing 'You are a liar' and 15 for overhead).

If someone is lying about someone else, they are in essence talking about that person instead of proving the post they are addressing wrong by discussing the post and not the person.One can also lie about what another person did ISO about the person him/herself directly. For example, last month you said black people are intellectually inferior to white people. I just can't seem to find the post though.:P