|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
In message 45 of the ACLU thread, AdminQuetzal warns crashfrog about "coming close to the line" for asking if the reason nemisis has not provided evidence for several of his assertions in that thread is because they are falsehoods. Presumably the reason behind this warning is because crash is approaching calling nemesis a liar.
I understand that forum guidelines include the admonition
Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics. and that calling someone a liar would run counter to this. However, I guess I'd like some guidance on how someone should handle a poster who repeatedly makes assertions that one believes to be factually incorrect or unsupportable, yet ignores all requests for support. The guidelines also contain this admonition:
Avoid any form of misrepresentation. Certainly one response would be to counter the assertions with evidence, but this is not always possible. It's often very difficult to provide evidence of a negative. In a perfect world, we should expect that people will not pepper their arguments with false statements, or statements made with reckless disregard for their truth. However, this is a fairly open forum, and it's far from a perfect world. It seems to me that sometimes the best way to uncover a liar is to call them exactly that. Please do not assume that I am taking a position on the matters nj asserts in the thread by using that thread as a jumping off point for this question. It's something that I've been mulling over for a while, and that thread simply provided a convenient place for me to begin. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3456 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
I understand that forum guidelines include the admonition Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics. and that calling someone a liar would run counter to this. I agree that calling someone a liar is not in the spirit of EvC, but I think that in the case of Crash in my thread he "argued the position, not the person." He asserted that the arguments NJ presented were falsehoods. I second subbie's request for clarification on how to call someone on a lie or a misrepresentation of a source or another member (and find out whether it is deliberate or not) without approaching any "line."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminQuetzal Inactive Member |
He asserted that the arguments NJ presented were falsehoods. This isn't entirely accurate. The statement I quoted when admonishing crash was:
quote: You will note that crash DID NOT directly accuse NJ of lying. However, I am absolutely certain crash was fully aware of what he was doing. To promulgate a falsehood while knowing it is a falsehood - crash's accusation here - is different from lying how, exactly? I didn't suspend him for it, because it is borderline - and I try not to suspend people without giving warning first.
I second subbie's request for clarification on how to call someone on a lie or a misrepresentation of a source or another member (and find out whether it is deliberate or not) without approaching any "line." How to do it? Well, everyone has their own style, of course. I like to use an indirect approach - a euphemism. For instance, "your assertion doesn't appear to be supported by the evidence" is a good one in science threads. "That turns out not to be the case", and "that is not entirely accurate" ( ) are alternatives. Naturally, you have to follow these up with the "why" bits, but they beat the hell out of saying "liar, liar pants on fire". I try to employ the best form of diplomacy - which a very wise man (whose name I can't remember to save my life) defined as "Diplomacy is the art of telling someone to their face to go to hell, and at the same time arouse in them a desire to purchase a ticket on the first train leaving for that destination". I don't always succeed of course. I guess the short answer is: if you wouldn't want someone to say something to you - don't say it to them. Figure out a better way of expressing it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
He asserted that the arguments NJ presented were falsehoods. This isn't entirely accurate. For instance, "your assertion doesn't appear to be supported by the evidence" is a good one in science threads. "That turns out not to be the case", and "that is not entirely accurate" ( ) are alternatives. You calling me a liar? Thanks for the direction. I suppose you do have a point. Assuming that someone has stooped to the level of lies, there's no reason we can't maintain the high ground. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminQuetzal Inactive Member |
Thanks for the direction. I suppose you do have a point. Assuming that someone has stooped to the level of lies, there's no reason we can't maintain the high ground. Well done, young jedi. I think you got it...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Hi Percy,
This is a reply to Message 276 I’m sorry you had to be bothered, I know you are busy. Thank you for unsuspending me.
But you instead stated that your purpose was to pursue an individual, and your signature was addressed directly to Schraf. What do you mean here? What statement and signature are you referring to?
I think he sensed your closing comment alluding to diminished mental capacity was a dangerous escalation. I think he suspended me because he thinks I’m a jerk. I was completely done with my conversation with Schraf after Phat warned me. The escalation was entirely her fault for bringing it back up. And she called me a liar too. And misrepresented me.
It is possible suspension was perhaps not necessary, that a warning might have been sufficient, but there is no way to know for sure. Maybe not, but let me tell you that the suspension was totally unnecessary and a warning was already sufficient for me. Perhaps she should have been warned as well, no?
So the end result is that you were suspended for a short while and Schraf wasn't, and I'm sorry if that seems unfair. You don’t need to apologize; Moose should be the one doing that. Honestly, I don’t really feel like I’m entitled to an explanation, so thank you for doing it regardless. I’m a guest here and can be suspended whenever for whatever reason. If I don’t like it then I just will have to not come back. It seems like you are a bit nicer than this, though.
If you're here because you're fascinated by the topics, you'll do fine. That is why I am here and I’m sure I’ll do fine. Rest assured that I will.
But if you're here because you're outraged by some of the participants, then you'll probably often be engaged in some kind of brinkmanship that has the potential to end as this incident did.
Outrage is not why I’m here but sometimes it does occur after I’ve already come. I’ve had problems with Schraf’s posts in the past and I’m sure I’ll have problems with them again. I don’t normally have a problem ignoring her but when/if she makes a ridiculous argument against a position that I agree with and her opponent does not realize how ridiculous it is, how am I to point it out when her style of presenting the argument is inflammatory to begin with? And on top of that, when I did try to be nicer, she misrepresented my position and accused me of avoiding a “good rebuttal”. Now, I really would like to settle the argument we were having but it was off topic for that thread. Where should the argument continue? Schraf? Edited by AdminAsgara, : fixed link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Er, no thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3456 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
I agree with your advisement to find more creative ways to call someone on a lie/misrepresentation. I try to just point out the lie with evidence instead of getting into name calling.
However, I have one quibble. You say
You will note that crash DID NOT directly accuse NJ of lying. However, I am absolutely certain crash was fully aware of what he was doing. To promulgate a falsehood while knowing it is a falsehood - crash's accusation here - is different from lying how, exactly? and yet, you advise us to say
"your assertion doesn't appear to be supported by the evidence" is a good one in science threads. "That turns out not to be the case", and "that is not entirely accurate" which is still, in essence, calling someone a liar. I know Crash can be somewhat, shall we say, fiery and maybe that approach is what you and others object to. If so, you should come out and say it. I still back him up in this case, tho, because what he said was that maybe NJ was having a hard time providing asked for evidence because the claims he made were false. That doesn't necessarily mean that he thought that NJ was deliberately lying as you suggest, but that he made some claims and when asked to back them up he couldn't do it because the arguments were lies and the evidence doesn't exist (the truth of this matter remains to be seen...I am just making a point). Then again, he may well "know what he is doing", but so would the person who says "your assertion is not supported by the evidence." They are saying the same thing. {ABE: I do realize that you and the other admins are indeed fair. I am not trying to be argumentative for argument's sake. I appreciate (and I'm sure Crash does as well) the warning and the clarification.} Edited by Jaderis, : grovelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminQuetzal Inactive Member |
...which is still, in essence, calling someone a liar. Truth. However, the other formulations are, shall we say, more diplomatic? The issue of "liar" and how to call someone on either blatant or subtle falsehoods is and has been (and probably will remain) a point of contention and discussion here. It was one of the points which resulted in Dr. A's extended suspension, for instance - a suspension that is still resulting in quite a bit of debate and discussion both openly and in the Private Administration Forum. Do we have a set, concrete policy on the issue? No. But I feel we are groping our way towards one. If crash feels I singled him out unfairly, then he can have my apologies. He is a poster who has been on EvCForum nearly as long as I have - and thus would be very aware of the nuances of how the board works/should work. He is someone whom I hold in great respect - insightful, very intelligent, an excellent writer - and one of several people whose posts I turn to first when I log on. However, he can be, as you noted, "somewhat fiery" to say the least. In his defense, it's likely because he doesn't suffer fools gladly. On the other hand, he does know better - and he was getting dangerously close to a suspension for it. Not wanting to see that, I gave him a warning that he was coming close to violating the forum guidelines, especially with the recent sensitivity here on the "liar" issue. I am very willing for someone to show how my action in this case (or in any other, for that matter) could be construed as unfair. I don't see it that way, obviously, but could probably be convinced. You'll note that I have a very low level of suspensions - but a lot of warnings. Usually, a warning is sufficient, I've found. Until and unless either the Admin team or the Big Boss comes up with an unequivocal rule on the issue (which may not even be possible), it will continue to be a judgement call. In the absence of such a ruling, my only recommendation is for all concerned to use common sense and strive for courtesy in debate - even if you believe the other poster is clearly equivocating. After all, the bottom line is that you are unlikely to convince your interlocutor directly in any event, but all the folks who read the threads are usually capable of making up their own minds as to the rightness of the case. Beat them with evidence and logical argument. It's unnecessary to stoop to overt name-calling. Edited by AdminQuetzal, : added dropped word
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If crash feels I singled him out unfairly, then he can have my apologies. There's no need. I'm actually on your side, no offense to my defenders of course, but I could have made my remarks a lot more temperate. I think you were right to call me on it as you did. I was writing in a hurry, and with my blood up - not a good combination for civil discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
which is still, in essence, calling someone a liar. It isn't calling someone a liar- it is telling somebody they are wrong. Lies are deliberately told untruths. That means the person knows what the truth is, but chose to say something other than the truth. Since we are unable to determine whether somebody knows the truth and said something contrary to it, we can only point out that a person's position is flawed, or that what they claim as factual is erroneous. We can say 'That's wrong, here's why', but 'You are lying' is simply unacceptable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
...in the "Dawkins - The God Delusion" Book Nook thread. Randman, after being warned, continues to violate guidelines 2, 4, and 8 by failing to address rebuttals, repeated rebutted arguments without elaboration, and introducing off-topic materials as a smokescreen to avoid responding to arguments.
I don't ask for any specific action to be taken but I think there's a need for a little monitoring on the subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Looks like the evo camp with nosey and crash are up to their old tricks again, falsely moderating, ignoring rebuttals while claiming no rebuttals have been given, falsely accusing of rules violations, etc, etc,......
Funny, but whereas I did offer rebuttals, Crash fails to substantiate his allegations, and yet nosey bans me....Wouldn't be surprised to hear them next start laying out false smears of lying to boot.....character assisination seems the norm for some of these guys.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I have broken no rules on the BookNook thread, and you have failed to demonstrate one area of rules breaking. No specifics given by you whatsoever.....pretty much what I'd expect from someone eager to repeat a smear of someone in their camp to silence a critic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
I understand your unhappiness, and I'm not sure at this point whether you've been treated fairly, so perhaps you could refrain from such ironic faux pas as preemptive commission of the violations you say you expect of your opponents until this is discussed among moderators. In other words, silence might be a better strategy at this point.
What I would like to see from the participants in the Dawkins - 'The God Delusion' thread, indeed in all threads, is to work hard at figuring out how to constructively move the discussion forward. In the exchanges between you and Crash, Crash has to ask himself what further evidence and argument he can bring against your point that world religion has a consensus about God, and you have to ask yourself what further evidence and argument you can bring in support of that point. This requires that one be able to tell the difference between providing additional evidence and argument versus merely reasserting a point in different words. While at this point I'm not certain that the removal of your permissions in the [forum=-16] forum was warranted, neither am I sure it is unwarranted. One doesn't wait to see the gunslinger go for his gun before giving him wide berth, and so a member's history is a factor in considering whether action is warranted.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024