Dishonesty should be against the rules

[Angel]

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.

[Aetixintro]

To merely say that some people entertain an idea, even entailing this dishonesty, more freak or not, seems to me to waste people's time.

We need to be true on the information we deliver, by the sources, minimally, and state the matters we intend to communicate properly. Possibly backing them up well too.

So I'm with the starter of this posting: I agree with "Dishonesty should be against the rules"!

(My name now included.)

[otseng]

[Replying to Aetixintro]

I agree that dishonesty is a bad thing. And in a perfect forum, we would keep out all bad things.

The biggest problem with adding this as a rule is that it's going to take up a lot of time and energy enforcing this rule. And honestly, I barely have enough time to handle the reports that we currently have. And I don't think the other moderators wish to have a greater load on them either.

Proving that someone is dishonest will require reading many posts, perhaps multiple pages. And what if the offender says that he was not dishonest? Do I then have to gather all the posts and argue that he is dishonest?

Also, if someone is going to be dishonest, more than likely he will also be guilty of the current rules. I can't imagine a scenario where someone would be dishonest and be clean of current rule violations.

[Angel]

[Replying to Aetixintro]

I agree that dishonesty is a bad thing. And in a perfect forum, we would keep out all bad things.

The biggest problem with adding this as a rule is that it's going to take up a lot of time and energy enforcing this rule. And honestly, I barely have enough time to handle the reports that we currently have. And I don't think the other moderators wish to have a greater load on them either.

Proving that someone is dishonest will require reading many posts, perhaps multiple pages. And what if the offender says that he was not dishonest? Do I then have to gather all the posts and argue that he is dishonest?

Also, if someone is going to be dishonest, more than likely he will also be guilty of the current rules. I can't imagine a scenario where someone would be dishonest and be clean of current rule violations.

I have already offered suggestions that addresses much of what you've mentioned. If it's a problem that has to be proven using multiple posts, then the person reporting the issue should be the one to gather up all of the evidence. If a person claims to have NO view on God and someone shows them making a claim about God and the person denies it, SURELY you and your moderators should be able to figure out that the person is being dishonest or LACKS reading comprehension. I can make a list for you of the common ways that people are being dishonest on this forum - things as simple as twisting someone's position, twisting their own position to AVOID being shown wrong like I encountered with a weak atheist who claimed to have NO views on God.

Since your moderators are so backed up then I'll suggest again to let me moderate the threads that I start. I really don't need you and your moderators if it's an issue I can handle myself. No one would have as much interest as me in making sure EVERYONE stays on topic and don't engage in REPEATED dishonesty and unsupported claims. If you're going to tell me that I'd be biased then why not test me on this instead of ASSUMING how I would handle moderating my own threads?

[Angel]

So there goes more evidence for you Otseng.. the part of John A's post that I changed to bold font. When are you going to address my question of how much more evidence do you need to add a rule? Or at least tell me that you would do NOTHING even if it were a big problem here just so I can stop wasting my time on trying to help debates live up to what you advertise here.

Calling someone dishonest would fall under rule 1:
1. Personal attacks of any sort are not allowed. Comments about any person that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.

Under no circumstances are anybody allowed to violate rule 1. This includes calling anyone dishonest.

If you add dishonesty (or how its effects debate - twisting someone's position, REPEATED distorting of information from sources, etc) then no one would have to call anyone dishonest. A forum member can just report the person accompanied with evidence of the dishonesty being emailed to a moderator, if needed. I'll leave it up to you and the moderators to call the person a liar for me or at least to stop the person from engaging in REPEATED dishonest debating.

Also, if a person engages in dishonest actions, then they are DISHONEST whether you want to call them that or not. Instead of worrying about offending people with WORDS, you should also be worrying about preventing the dishonest ACTION(s).

[Baz]

Having read through this thread, I feel inclined to sympathise with the frustrations of anybody who feels that they are unable to put over his or her point of view due to the inconsistent behaviour of another debater, but in my honest opinion inconsistency can’t be outlawed.

If I can use myself as an example, being totally honest, I can make the following statements;

I consider myself as a pacifist. I believe that there should be a death penalty for some crimes.

I believe that god can answer some of my prayers. I don’t believe that god hears my prayers.

I love my job and hate to be away from the action. I am very pleased to be off work at the moment.

I could go on and on but I presume you can see my point. (it is likely you don’t get my point)

On top of all that the main topic of this site is often a person’s belief in Christianity or other religion.
Inconsistency is part of the territory.

Most people will agree that dishonesty is a bad thing but how can anybody know if another person is being dishonest in their opinion / belief?





.

[Angel]

Having read through this thread, I feel inclined to sympathise with the frustrations of anybody who feels that they are unable to put over his or her point of view due to the inconsistent behaviour of another debater, but in my honest opinion inconsistency can’t be outlawed.

If I can use myself as an example, being totally honest, I can make the following statements;

I consider myself as a pacifist. I believe that there should be a death penalty for some crimes.

I believe that god can answer some of my prayers. I don’t believe that god hears my prayers.

I love my job and hate to be away from the action. I am very pleased to be off work at the moment.

I could go on and on but I presume you can see my point. (it is likely you don’t get my point)

On top of all that the main topic of this site is often a person’s belief in Christianity or other religion.
Inconsistency is part of the territory.

Most people will agree that dishonesty is a bad thing but how can anybody know if another person is being dishonest in their opinion / belief?

You asked a key question. There are several ways to determine if someone is being dishonest, and I say that because there's more than one way (or situation) to be dishonest. In general, you can only tell by looking for behavior that usually stems from dishonesty. I'll elaborate on this by addressing your examples on inconsistency.

First thing to look for is if the person will admit that their position is inconsistent to begin with. From my experience on this forum so far (or the one person who've I had to bring up his inconsistencies), a dishonest person will NOT admit their inconsistencies but will rather try to twist their position, change the subject (shows a problem accepting truth), or flat out deny they've made any inconsistent statement. The dishonesty piles up at that point if or when the person REPEATEDLY continues to deny, twist, or try to jump around the issue and continue with the inconsistencies - a clear sign of dishonesty.

You bring up some examples, but it's also important to keep in mind that your examples deal with BELIEF. If you specify it's your 'opinion' or 'belief' then you can say anything you want. But as soon as you want to try to ARGUE for it as being valid, logical, or fact, then that needs to be supported with evidence and logic (which involves consistency). Other dishonest behavior can involve simpler things than inconsistency - things like distorting someone's position or view, distorting what a source says AFTER it has already been pointed out to you, etc, etc.

[Angel]

So there goes more evidence for you Otseng.. the part of John A's post that I changed to bold font. When are you going to address my question of how much more evidence do you need to add a rule? Or at least tell me that you would do NOTHING even if it were a big problem here just so I can stop wasting my time on trying to help debates live up to what you advertise here.

Calling someone dishonest would fall under rule 1:
1. Personal attacks of any sort are not allowed. Comments about any person that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.

Under no circumstances are anybody allowed to violate rule 1. This includes calling anyone dishonest.

If you add dishonesty (or how its effects debate - twisting someone's position, REPEATED distorting of information from sources, etc) then no one would have to call anyone dishonest. A forum member can just report the person accompanied with evidence of the dishonesty being emailed to a moderator, if needed. I'll leave it up to you and the moderators to call the person a liar for me or at least to stop the person from engaging in REPEATED dishonest debating.

Also, if a person engages in dishonest actions, then they are DISHONEST whether you want to call them that or not. Instead of worrying about offending people with WORDS, you should also be worrying about preventing the dishonest ACTION(s).

Otseng,

To add to my last post to you, I should also say that you sidestepped my question which I changed to bold red font. I specifically asked you how much evidence you needed to see that you need to add dishonsty (or certain dishonest behaviors) to your list of rules. Your response to me about calling someone dishonest, something which I already addressed, does not answer my question. Since you are the RULEmaker (talking to any other member here doesn't change the rules) and even YOU see being dishonest as being wrong, then I really want to hear from you or please close or lock this thread here. You can PM me if or when you can explain why my evidence, examples, and reasoning is lacking.

[Baz]

[Replying to Angel]

I could easily disagree with your view of dishonesty.
A good deal of individual’s beliefs can be argued as valid and logical also in so far as describing belief factual. Is it not fact that the majority of people believe murder is a bad thing?

However the point I am trying to make is that what one person sees as inconsistency (lies if you like) can easily just be the result of insufficient data, honest mistakes, and different viewpoints. (And out and out devious lying)

To legislate against lies would need somebody who knows the truth to pass judgement and impose penalties.

In my opinion this would not be a job for an honest person.



Perhaps we just get everybody to promise to tell the truth and nothing but the truth so help … No that wouldn’t go down well with everybody either.

I truly do sympathise but my vote (if there was such a thing) would be to keep the rules to a minimum or they will just be used to beat people with.




.

[Aetixintro]

There should be good rhetorical routines for detecting dishonesty.

Contradiction in the text is one indicator. The way the discussion runs another.

I'll come back to this, by Paul Ricoeur too, the philosopher.

One way to look at it can be to entice possible hidden motives so as to lurk the dishonest "rodent" into the light of truth and file a report to the "Arbitration Board" soon after. Either way, it can be useful to make a pre-emptive warning stating that "subversive" dishonesty will not be tolerated. Or that some people have been making an "uproar" by holding back important information well knowing that the rhetoric would be upsetting to many people...

Let's see!

PS: Paul Ricoeur, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ric%C5%93ur.

[otseng]

Moderator Action

Thread closed by request of Angel.


______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.