Dishonesty should be against the rules

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon Sep 23, 2013 4:31 pm

Several forum members and I have been engaged in a debate against a forum member named, Artie. I caught this person twice in lies. These lies involve making inconsistent statements and I have clear and direct evidence which I posted on the forum where this debate is taking place. Now I see no direct rule against lying, but it can damage trust and debate quality when this is allowed and becomes a pattern. Lying in debates can involve, lying about your position, lying about informatoin, lying about who said what, etc. I'm not saying that anyone should call someone a liar for any reason, but when there's EVIDENCE of dishonesty going on, then shouldn't moderator action be taken? In my view, a liar is not interested in getting to the truth but rather trying to win a debate at all cost with even w/ dirty or DISHONEST tactics. So I question, why should a person be kept here when there's clear evidence of this behavior.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Tue Sep 24, 2013 12:05 am

[Replying to post 9 by otseng]

If this is too much for you to deal with, eventhough you agree that being dishonest is bad, then let me do moderating in a limited capacity. I can moderate the threads that I start.

Philbert · Post by **Philbert** » Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:26 am

I'm sure there are other alternatives other than letting people get away with blantant inconsistencies and when they see nothing done they continue with it.

There are other alternatives, but generally speaking forum owners aren't interested in them. You're just going to have to get used to that.

An alternative might be to give you a section of the forum where you implement your publishing philosophy. Then you can be the boss (within limits set by the forum owner) and you and we can see how well your preferred solution works.

Posters will vote with their feet. If they like your strategy, you'll have a popular subsection. If they don't, you'll be talking to yourself.

Similar user run sections could also be established, so that posters have a choice of publishing philosophies to experience and evaluate. Whoever meets the needs of readers the best rises in popularity, while others fall away.

This is all very nice in theory, but it's not likely to happen here or elsewhere.

I know who you are upset about and why you are upset. I'm sympathetic, but....

Again, the best solution currently available to you is the ignore function. It takes 1 minute to set up, and then the problem is solved.

Beating your head against the dogma chanters wall is not rational, which is why I do it so much myself. Would anyone like some fruitcake?

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:10 am

[Replying to Philbert]

I know that some have suggested just using the ignore button but that is not enough for me. The person can still respond to my posts, twist them, and mislead others about their view and my view, and I can't respond back to set the record straight or defend myself if I have the person blocked. I'd rather cancel my account or not participate in any threads (other than my own polygamy subforum) than to ignore someone and let the person get away with falsehoods that apply to my posts.

With me, it's also about the principle. If we can all agree that dishonesty is wrong or that honesty is important in a debate, then I fail to see why Otseng would do nothing. Otseng is willing to intervene with the slightest negative comment towards someone (even towards someone who is not even part of this forum) and yet he can't do ANYTHING to stop someone from making 'repeated' or deliberate inconsistencies (inconsistiences like what I described earlier in post #8)? I don't buy it and if it's too much for him and his moderators to handle since they're so busy, then let me at least handle my own threads. If someone joins the forum and advertises that they will lie and mislead, would he also do nothing just because 'lying' or repeated and deliberate inconsistencies are not in his rules?

Post by **otseng** » Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:15 am

Angel wrote: [Replying to post 9 by otseng]

If this is too much for you to deal with, eventhough you agree that being dishonest is bad, then let me do moderating in a limited capacity. I can moderate the threads that I start.

This has been raised before. There is a conflict of interest when one moderates a debate thread that one starts. Even those on the moderating team are discouraged to moderate in any threads that they simply participate in.

Post by **otseng** » Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:21 am

Angel wrote: The person can still respond to my posts, twist them, and mislead others about their view and my view, and I can't respond back to set the record straight or defend myself if I have the person blocked.

I will do this for you. If someone else intentionally twists your position, I will intervene. I would consider that a form of a personal attack.

But, if someone is inconsistent about their own position, I think that should be handled through debate rather than moderator intervention.

Another thing, I generally only add a rule if it is a problem among many members. If it's only just a few making dishonest claims, then I'm not enthusiastic about adding yet another rule.

Philbert · Post by **Philbert** » Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:23 am

I'd rather cancel my account or not participate in any threads (other than my own polygamy subforum) than to ignore someone and let the person get away with falsehoods that apply to my posts.

Ok, fair enough, but what you're really saying is that you'd rather not participate in forums at all, as you're unlikely to find one that has a functional honesty filter as you describe it.

Of course, you could start your own forum. The challenge you'd face then is marketing your forum and building a membership. If you have many friends online, this might not be so hard. Six quality posters could probably create a better forum than six hundred not so quality posters.

Beer might be a good solution here.

Seriously, I know it's easy to get really wrapped up in forums, because I do it all the time myself, but in the end, my views and your views and somebody else's views aren't really all that important.

They aren't really our views anyway. On topics like these, little new has been said in a long time. Most of us are just playing The Great Debunker Game to inflate our childish egos. Am I allowed to say circle jerk on this forum?

Philbert · Post by **Philbert** » Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:39 am

There is a conflict of interest when one moderates a debate thread that one starts.

I agree it would be ideal for the mod of a thread or room to be above the fray. But that's not the only way to look at it.

You're the mod of the entire forum, and yet you still post your opinions from time to time. This is not such a big problem, or a problem at all. If a reader feels you are being unfair, they are free to visit any of a hundred other forums on this topic. People can vote with their feet, nobody is being victimized.

The same can be said of a room run by a member who has strong opinions. If posters feel this mod is abusing their power, they will leave that room and it will die.

What always happens in discussions like this is that everybody focuses on what the problems might with any change to the standard forum format. No matter what change suggestion is raised, everybody picks it apart to death.

What critics fail to realize and acknowledge is that the standard forum format faces challenges too. The standard common publishing model for forums is hardly perfect.

As example, few forums make any effort to reward those posters who they would like to have more of. The end result of this lack of a policy is fewer quality posters. Thus, forums get swamped with lower quality posters, which creates all kinds of problems for the mod team.

Most forums are kind of like socialism. Everybody is equal, thus there's no incentive for anybody to work at improving their participation.

keithprosser3 · Post by **keithprosser3** » Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:39 am

I also wonder why I bother with forums. maybe its displacement activity or something. I think I do it because its cheap, can last for hours and requires little physical effort. None of which apply to what I'd rather be doing.

keithprosser3 · Post by **keithprosser3** » Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:40 am

I also wonder why I bother with forums. maybe its displacement activity or something. I think I do it because its cheap, can last for hours and requires little physical effort. None of which apply to what I'd rather be doing.

Philbert · Post by **Philbert** » Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:46 am

The following graphic concisely explains my relationship with forums...