General discussion of moderation procedures

in my experience this results in (1) the thread being tied up with unneccesary posts, (2) the thread being closed and (3) both the perp and the responder being suspended.I have to agree with Rrhain (especially if what we are dealing with is a assertion that has been repeated) it should be easy to show either(1) that it is based on facts (by the perp) or
(2) that it is false (by the responder)and while it may not be possible to do one (due to the problem with proving of false negatives), failure to do the other should be sufficient evidence of {with whom} the problem lies (ahem) exists.this procedure should be easy to implement with a side thread that removes the issue from taking up the thread topic to the detriment of other posters.

---

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

quote:

---

considering that she is currently suspended.

---

Geez nobody ever tells me anything.

Razd if I remember correctly, you were suspended because you did NOT do what Ben is suggesting. Page after page of back and forth attacks without contacting administration only left one solution.

quote:

---

lying is by definition intentional falsehoods, and while it may be difficult to demonstrate intention whenever falsehoods are presented, it cannot be anything but intentional when the person fails to deal with the issue when challenged to do so.

---

I don't actually know for sure, but I don't think that Syamsu lied intentionally, even though he contradicted what he said all the time.Besides, this place is, more or less, supposed to be a science site.You just don't see scientists accusing each other of lying or of being stupid in the comments pages of professional journals, nor do you see it at conferences.The truth is, while they may be intentionally lying, they might also be so self-deluded that they really don't believe that what they are saying is false. I think that this was the case with prominent Creationists like Gish and Morris.In any case, I agree with Ned that it is always much, much more powerful in a debate to corner someone with their own words and show what they did rather than to come right out and say it. Readers can and will make the appropriate judgements.We can never truly know someone's intentions.

quote:

---

AdminNosy, you didn't answer any of my questions. You pointed out reasons why a person might want to hesitate before accusing someone of lying, but you didn't say why such an accusation is bad if it can be substantiated.

---

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

quote:

---

Isn't pointing out that someone is violating the spirit of honest discussion and debate by misrepresenting things important? Misrepresentation is a direct violation of the forum guidelines, after all (#7).

---

I think that there's a reason the word "misrepresent" is used in the guidelines rather than "lie".This is because "misrepresentation" can be intentional or not, whereas "lying" is always intentional.To accuse someone of lying is an inflammatory statement and is definitely not in the spirit of rule #3: I don't think that calling someone a liar qualifies as a "coolly academic approach", nor as "respect for others".I am confident that you can find a way to get your ideas across without blatantly accusing people of lying.

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?

sigh. once more. the person in question (not syamsu) kept saying that I said things I hadn't.so badly off the mark that the purported statements were ludicrous imho.the only ways to "confront" such a situation is to (a) put into evidence everything single thing I have ever said, or (b) challenge them to substantiate their claim. what appalled me was the total abject failure of any single admin to say"okay {X}, substantiate your claim"when doing so would have resolved the issue of whether the claim was true or false.it was only after repeated failures of {X} to substantiate his claim, total lack of support on having that done, and subsequent reposting of the same old falsehoodam I wrong or is this not part of the forum guidelines? scientists are human too. sorry. you do see scientists asking others to substantiate their positions. I've known and debated with many such and not had this problem, and this was not a creationist (or equal). Would it be better to call them self-deluded?so far the only valid conclusions one can make from the experience are:(1) it is okay to lie, infact it appears almost encouraged.
(2) it is not okay to point it out, because the messanger will be shot.there are three fatal flaws to this approach(1) it doesn't solve the problem, so it will continue to re-occur (which it did) and involve others (which it did)
(2) the person 'being shot' knows they are being punished for the wrong doings of another. the likelyhood of a civil debate between the two people drops to zero instead of being resolved
(3) it neuters the forum guidelinesI've had enough of this issue to last me a while, not because it's resolved, but because I don't see it moving in that direction at all, so the only thing I can do is support the next victim,when it happensagain(as it will continue to happen).

substantiate a claim by you that a person saying "you said {V}" is not true.can you prove you never said {V}?

it can't be a lie without it also being a misrepresentation. perhaps if the issue of misrepresentation were dealt with properly we wouldn't get to the issue of repeated misrepresentations that grow into lies.

he put words in my mouth I did not sayhe used gratuitous insult, and I challenge you to find in any of my posts any comments that come close to you will also see that he called me a liar (surprise?)now read my reply to one of his laced with insults
EvC Forum: the evolution of clothes?and the {{{one}}} you will see is" in response to a obviously sarcastic comment that he was "all ears"I don't claim to be perfect, but there is an obvious (to me anyway) degree of difference between these levels of responses.but you could prove me wrong by making a list from each of us.I also note that it was only at the point where I did ask for admin that action was taken. I won't say what I think of the action taken, as I think that is already been made clear.

---

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

A decision has been made. There is nothing more to discuss. You may not agree with the decision and that's fine. But if you call someone a liar (correctly or not) or stupid (correctly or not) YOU will be the one suspended.

---

I thank you for your well considered and balanced response to the issue.

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.

I've already done that on another thread. Why should I keep repeating myself, after all you're the person that said absence of {X} is proof of {Y}.... I think you get the drift.