General discussion of moderation procedures

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.

and when you never get an answer while said person keeps claiming to have answered you, what's the next step?

I would suggest something that Jerry Don Bauer sometimes does.If you and another poster simply can't agree on the fact that questions have been answered, it's time to stop the discussion. Just drop it. There's no common ground left for further constructive discussion. It happens.A polite but firm note that you don't see any way to continue discussion, that you're dropping it, and a "thank you" seem appropriate in the situation you describe.AbE: Better off as in non-admin mode here; changing poster IDThis message has been edited by Ben, Tuesday, 2005/05/10 09:34 PM

do you think jerry's dismissal of the arguments of others is (a) a resolution of the issues left unanswered and (b) put's jerry's position in any better light?I'm curious, because the only impression I get from it is that he is using an excuse to avoid an issue he cannot or doesn't want to answer.like photons being particles and never waves, so they aren't "realized" into particles by some "supreme observer"like a complete absence of any fossil or other evidence for a {just created} state that humans have since "devolved" from on their way to "mutational meltdown"like the computation of molecular probabilities based on a strict order of formation rather than any bond being formed in any order to reach the same resultand these are only from my direct experience and don't involve similar points raised by othersdoes it also resolve the issue for the next time you are discussing things with said person and they point out that you ran from the last confrontation?it seems to me that asking the other person to substantiate their claim (in this type of instance) is so easy a step to take that it is silly not to do it and actually RESOLVE the issue.can you tell me what is wrong with
http://EvC Forum: contracycle, clothes, humans, and bare lies. -->EvC Forum: contracycle, clothes, humans, and bare lies.as a way of actually documenting some false representations while also publicly challenging the perpetuator to substantiate his other false claims (that can only be proven true, if there is any substance to them)?it removes the issue from the other topics and addresses specific points, imho, and is otherwise no different than wj's responses to my hypothetical position.just curious.

Regardless of Jerry's reasons for walking away from a discussion (which I won't comment here), I think it IS the proper way to go about things in the situation you described. If people can't agree simply whether a question has been answered or not, there's no ground left for discussion. It's just not possible. I think there is a time and place for walking away.You're right that the tactic, if used improperly, will look like dodging. But if done in the situation described, it looks like somebody realizing there's an impasse. The alternative is to get into repetetive posts with somebody until an admin says "stop it." This is like grade-school stuff. If somebody calls you a name, just suck it up. State your reasons for leaving in your post. If somebody says you ran away, tell them that you can't post without a resolution of the issue you mentioned in your final post. If they resolve that issue, you'd be happy to post again, but without it, there's no way to proceed.If somebody continues to badger you, just ignore them. Stop debating with them. Why would you debate with somebody who can't debate you in good faith? To ask once or twice is an easy, reasonable step. Your scenario sounded like you already did that, and you got a response that "it HAS been substantiated." So, at that point, asking to substantiate AGAIN is NOT a reasonable and easy request. It's pointless. Common ground for discussion is gone. I'm not trying to address that point here at all. I'm just trying to suggest a way to deal with the situation you posited. The post at the link you provided is WAY downstream from that point. And analyzing that post is WAY more than what I was looking for when I posted my suggestion in post ... 213?

We'll see if you're right. I have stated my position, and I am dissappointed in the responses that have ranged from dismissive to outright hostile.Other than that, I admire admins for taking on the task before them. I wish you well.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Is this the considered, agreed position of board management?

Like any group, the moderators at EvC lack unanimity on many points, but the primary purpose of this site is to permit more informed discussion than is possible at other sites. One of the ways we achieve this is to proscribe behaviors that draw discussions into emotional realms. Placing inflammatory labels on people like "liar" is one of those behaviors.The Forum Guidelines requests that members remain dispassionate in discussion and focused on the topic. If you're going to call someone a liar you'll have to do it in a manner reminiscent of a member of Congress politely remonstrating a fellow member who has perhaps been a bit freer with the facts than can be justified, e.g.:,"I would just like to call to the attention of my distinguished colleague that the facts he has cited may lack a certain correspondence and are somewhat at variance to what is generally known."

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

IMHO, yes, it's the board position. And I certainly understand just how great the need and urge to call someone a liar can be. I've been in many a thread where I would have loved to do so.But here's the problem. Everytime that seems to happen here the almost immediate result is a redlined thread of "Yes you are!, No I'm not!" which then seems to roll over into a separate "Tommy called me a bad name" thread followed by a "Billy did it first" thread.If you'll take a second and dispassionately look at some of the threads in question I believe you can see what I mean. Just look at the number of threads, posts and messages that this has generated.And over what? We're arguing over comments in an Internet Discussion Forum folk. Please, let's get some perspective.

---

All too often gays and gay lubbers tend to consider information and opinions about deviant lifestyle as unwarranted attacks,, when in fact folks practicing deviant lifestyles may critique traditional lifestyles till the cows come home. So really it's not a concession when the post is about information and opinion.(deviant=to deviate.)

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

I hope this is important enough to post. When Moose closed the O'Reilly evidence thread, he said his impression is that Rrhain was nitpicking. He wasn't nitpicking. He was wrong, but it's impossible to communicate with Rrhain, so I quit trying.I'm addressing this to you, because it concerns why you don't let forumites call other forumites liars.Here's how the conversation went across two threads: I don't doubt that Rrhain really believes I'm lying and that I regularly lie. However, there is nothing like a basis for his ranting and raving when numerous people are trying to correct him.The fact is, there is a reason that respect is in the rules of this forum and most others. In the heat of debate, your opponent always looks devious, unreasonable, and clearly has the heart of the devil himself. People incapable of questioning their own judgment will never be able to show respect or be pleasant to talk to.Rrhain has stated he doesn't care if he's pleasant to talk to. Here's the problem.In both threads where his focus has become to expose truthlover's evil, the thread ended. Not only did my participation end, but so did Crashfrog's, Schrafinator's, and everyone else's, except those trying to control Rrhain's public tantrum.In other words, whether Rrhain's crusade against me was righteous or not, it didn't help EVCforum.So, in conclusion, two points:1.) People who call other people liars and are disrespectful in other ways, are almost never justified by the facts. It's simply a pattern with that person.2.) Even if it were justified the results make EVCforum a less educational and less attractive web site.There are good reasons that no-name-calling and respect-required rules exist.

I love that last sentence.Personally, I don't know and at this point don't care who was right and who was wrong. The bottom line is that there was a major disruption of the forum operations over a rather insignificant detail. So, to Rrhain and anyone else involved in the posting of so many words and messages about this whole affair - DROP IT; LEAVE IT BEHIND.I suggest to the various admins, that automatic suspensions be passed out to any member who does not follow the above request.I am once again going to close this topic for a while, so that this message doesn't just get buried in the pile.If you have comments/questions about moderator issues, save them for when the topic reopens.Adminnemooseus

participents may wish to look at the previous message, especially if you haven't before.Adminnemooseus

AdminBen responds to me:

quote:

---

1. Is lying OK on this forum?

​

Absolutely not.

---

Then why is pointing out a lie inappropriate?

quote:

---

2. Why is it bad to point out when someone is lying?

​

Don't ask this question again.

---

Then answer it. So far, you haven't.

quote:

---

From my perspective, you've conflated three questions,

---

But none of the questions you have stuck in my mouth were ones that I asked, really. Why is it so important for you to answer the questions you wish I would have asked rather than the one I actually did?

quote:

---

Below I try and unpack your question,

---

So rather than deal with the question I actually asked, you decide to misquote me, respond to the misquotes, and then expect me to think you've responded in an open, honest, and respectful manner? Do you seriously think I'm that stupid and can't see a strawman being created right in front of my eyes?

quote:

---

You're going to have to derive your answer from there. That's the best I can do.

---

Incorrect. You could actually answer the question I asked. The fact that you refuse to is quite telling.

quote:

---

Name-calling solves nothing.

---

When is truth-telling "name-calling"?You see, that's the problem with answering questions I didn't ask. As I pointed out above, if someone were to come in here and make racist or sexist or homophobic comments, you wouldn't have any problems with people pointing them out as racist or sexist or homophobic, would you? That wouldn't be "name-calling," would it?So why does lying get a pass?

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is it bad to point out when someone is re-using refuted arguments?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Provided that you do so using evidence, and that you avoid name-calling like "that's a lie," "you're lying," or "liar," it's not.

---

I didn't ask this question. Re-using refuted arguments is one thing. Lying is another. There are all sorts of reasons that someone might re-use an argument that has been refuted such as having the argument restated in another fashion which needs some analysis in order to discover that it is simply the same argument that was refuted before. But that isn't lying. That's just shoddy thinking.So please answer the question I actually asked and not the strawman question you wish I would have asked:Why is it bad to point out when someing is lying. No, not merely mistaken. Not misinformed. Not of a different interpretational aspect. [I][B]LYING[/i][/b].

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is it bad to confront other posters who are misrepresenting or lying?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Because chances are very high the confrontation will degrade into a battle of words and emotions.

---

Again, I didn't ask this question. But that said, is that not the responsibility of the person who lied? Are you seriously saying that the emotional reaction of the person who has violated the forum guidelines both in letter and in spirit is more important than those guidelines?What about the emotional reaction of the one who was lied to?

quote:

---

That does no good here. I told you to take a different approach--to contact admin.

---

And then what? What will you do? Delete the post? Ban the poster? All the while never mentioning the fact that the problem is that the person lied? How is that open and responsive moderation?How does one respond to a lie without acknowledging that it is a lie? Only admins are capable of determining when something is a lie?

quote:

---

If no agreement can be made, then you have two options:
1. Drop it. Some things just aren't that important.

---

Obviously. But I get to make that decision for me. Whether or not a point is "important" in a discussion I am having is my perogative unless you somehow think you can control my thoughts.

quote:

---

2. Contact the board administration. We can review the case, and take action on anybody who we find to be misrepresenting things

---

Only admins can detect lies? There's a spell book you get when you become an admin that allows you to determine when a lie has been uttered?And again, what will you do? How on earth do you propose to handle a lie without acknowledging that it is a lie?

quote:

---

3. And how is one to do that if it is against the rules to point it out?

​

The only action you can take is to email admin.

---

So that you can do everything in the dark? So that you can insult the readership by just declaring something out of bounds without ever explaining why? After all, to explain why would require acknowledging that it was a lie and apparently it is never appropriate to point out lies. If I am not allowed to say, "That is a lie," why do you get to?

quote:

---

If we agree, we'll take action against the person doing the misrepresenting.

---

Like what? What will you do?And how will you do it while refusing to acknowledge that the problem is that the poster is lying? All you've done is push the issue back one level. You haven't answered the question:Why is it inappropriate to point out when someone is lying?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

AdminSchraf responds to me:

quote:

---

It is not possible to really know people's intentions.

---

So how can one possibly claim that something is a misrepresentation and hold people accountable to the standard of not putting forth misrepresentations? If they don't think it is, and you just said that we can't know that they do, then how can anything ever be determined to be a misrepresentation?

quote:

---

I think that there's a reason the word "misrepresent" is used in the guidelines rather than "lie".

---

Of course. Not all misrepresentations are lies. Lies are a subset.

quote:

---

To accuse someone of lying is an inflammatory statement and is definitely not in the spirit of rule #3

---

Isn't accusing someone of sexism an inflammatory statement and is definitely not in the spirit of rule #3?When are you going to sanction yourself?Why does lying get a pass?

quote:

---

I don't think that calling someone a liar qualifies as a "coolly academic approach", nor as "respect for others".

---

I respectfully disagree.Is telling a lie "cooly academic"? Is it showing "respect for others"? If not, how can telling the truth that something is a lie be something other than respectful to the process by which debate takes place?You will note, I did not speculate as to why the lie was stated. That would be disrespectful. At the very least, it would require me to psychoanalyze somebody over the internet which I don't have the ability to do. In fact, my statement directly pointed out that I was incapable of understanding why the lie was uttered. I simply pointed out that it was.

quote:

---

I am confident that you can find a way to get your ideas across without blatantly accusing people of lying.

---

How does one respond to a lie without acknowledging that it is a lie? No, not mistaken information. A lie.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!