There's no off-limit word list.
The
Forum Guidelines need another revision, but for this discussion, the key rules of the
Forum Guidelines are rules 4 and 10:
- Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
- Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.
The current rule 4 emerged out of a revision that combined two earlier rules that together had made a more clear statement about the requirement to discuss constructively.
I often liken the
Forum Guidelines to traffic laws. Many traffic laws are broken every day, indeed, every second. People role through stop signs, role through right turn on red, fail to yield at yield signs, pass on the right, exceed the speed limit, etc. and so forth. But by and large traffic roles along pretty smoothly.
A policeman might give someone a ticket for erratic driving because they were not staying within the lane, and the person might challenge it in traffic court asking questions like, "If I deviate from the center of the lane by 10% am I not staying within the lane? How about 20%? I ask the court, how do you define staying within the lane? And if you can't define it, then how can anyone say that I was not properly maintaining my vehicle in the lane?" I hope this argument strikes most people as one that wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, be successful.
Board administration cannot provide rules that list all the dos and don'ts. The world is far too varied and nuanced for such a list. And so the key requirement is discussing constructively.
Calling someone a liar can be constructive and appropriate in one context (more likely a humorous context than anything else) and completely counterproductive in another. The key question is whether your approach is constructive, intended to move the discussion forward, improve understanding, or clearly communicate an idea.
And it's also the totality of your approach. An accusation of lying is a bit strong for my taste but is probably not going to get you into trouble if done as part of a well reasoned presentation of evidence and argument. In other words, you travel for ten miles in front of a police car and drift over into the other lane once or twice. Probably nothing will happen. But if over that ten miles you do nothing
*but* drift in and out of lanes, you'll probably get pulled over.
So it isn't that calling someone a liar is inherently bad and so no one can ever call anyone a liar. It's that by the time someone is so upset that they're calling people liars, usually reason and rationality have long since left the barn, and once that happens you usually get posts that are all vituperation and no content. We try not to allow that here.
Is this getting any clearer? What's that? You over there, you say you think it's clearer now?
Why, you little liar you!
-- | Percy |
| EvC Forum Director |