General discussion of moderation procedures

There seems to be an exaggerated amount of sensitivity about "lies" and "liars". Intention is a necesarry component of a lie and it is notoriously difficult to "prove" a person's intention. Simply for that reason, berating someone as lying should be avoided. However if someone is convinced that another poster is lying then they should be able to make that accusation but must substantiate their claim - if they cannot substantiate it then they should retract it or suffer official sanction. Isn't this the spirit of this discussion board? Isn't this what is expected about any claim made in any of the serious threads on this board?

I did not say {V}. Show us where you think I said {V}.

You're kidding, aren't you? If the claim that a person is a liar is substantiated beyond reasonable doubt then the censure should be on the one telling the lie, not the one exposing it.Surely telling lies is contrary to the goals of this board and more damaging to its reputation and value for the sake of protecting some thin skins!And statements such as "A decision has been made. There is nothing more to discuss." are not conducive to mature discussion of an issue.

Where exactly did I say it? I'm sure that the vast silent audience who hang on our every word eagerly await your substantiating evidence.

Is this the considered, agreed position of board management?

Sorry Admin but this is a rather weak equivocation. I wish to make 3 points on the matter.1. If there is a range of opinions on the acceptability of a certain action (eg. a poster calling another a liar and providing the grounds for such an assertion), the current arrangement allows any moderator who takes exception to implement censure, whether this is the majority view of the moderators or not. This effectively means that any post or statement by a board poster must be acceptable to all moderators or it may incur sanction on the author. This is a situation verging on the ridiculous. If, for example, Adminjar is hypersensitive about any poster calling another a liar and Adminmoose objects to any post without a reference to published and other moderator have their own pet peeves, peer reviewed material with references, then most posts on the board would fall foul of one of the moderators and be liable to censure.Surely a more reasonable and pragmatic approach is for censure to be meted out only if the majority of moderators agree that censure is appropriate. This is the basis on which democracies and their highest legal courts operate. Whilst this effectively means that censure of posters will be rarer and slower, I don't see this as a significant problem because it is only a discussion board, it's not dealing with life and limb.Secondly, I think the act of lying is much more damaging to the goals of this board than calling someone a liar and providing the evidence to support the accusation. "Knowledge and understanding through discussion" is more damaged by the use of known untruths than "ungentlemanly" language. We do all purport to have pretentions to adulthood, don't we? Surely adults can handle a little robustness rather than needing to be treated with kid gloves! We don't want a board just for the immature and delicate of psyche, do we? Thirdly, it is possible to mistake emotion for passion. I'm sure many of us here are passionate about our respective understandings of reality. Otherwise the "debate" would have resolved years ago.

SylasThis is the position which I have questioned: Can you think of any other desirable situation in real life where this philosophy would apply? What is to be preferred on this board, accurate information or gentlemanly behavour? I don't think most of the members here want a polite, factually inaccurate discussion board - that can be had on many creationist websites.

Percy, you can't threaten me like that!I'm not criticising moderators in general or any of them in particular. I appreciate the value of volunteers in such an organisation. However I thought the comment in message #206 seemed to be inconsistent with what I expected from the board. As members are not privy to the communications between moderators and policies which might have been adopted between moderators on a particular issue what is left to members is to raise issues and ask questions until they think they understand the position and put in their 2 cents worth.BTW, does anyone see the irony in a thread titled "General discussion of moderation procedures" containing a statement "A decision has been made. There is nothing more to discuss" and having the thread temporarily suspended by a moderator because of a parallel exchange of messages on the thread? It leaves the avenues for members to discuss moderation and running of the board amongst themselves rather limited. {Added link - AM}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-14-2005 01:20 PM

I think holmes's suggestion is a good one. If a member abuses it by making spurious or excessive complaints then they can be provided with that feedback directly. If they choose to ignore it then the service could be denied to them or they could be temporarily suspended. If the latter were to occur, it should be explained in the announcement as other members would not know what had been going on in the other channel.