Dishonesty should be against the rules... Angel vs. Baz or

[Angel]

I opened this thread to have a discussion with Otseng and/or Baz (preferably Otseng since he's the rulemaker here).

On another thread that I requested to be locked that's called, Dishonesty should be against the rules, Baz made the following response to me:

Post 57: Sat Nov 02, 2013 8:08 pm (Baz) Post subject:

[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.

I'll respond to this point and if it turns into a debate then we can move this discussion into the one-on-one section. I will respond to Baz's post below here..


Post 57: Sat Nov 02, 2013 8:08 pm (Baz)

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?

According to the forum rules, beliefs and opinions don't have to be supported with evidence. Where is the inconsistency or contradiction element in your question which was what the main point of my post that you responded to? How can you argue that an inconsistent belief is logical, factual, or true? Keep in mind, I'm not referring to arguing that someone holds such a belief but rather I'm requesting that you show that inconsistent or contradictory beliefs are logical or true in reality (e.g. that murder is objectively immoral and moral).

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)

My view is that we can only prove dishonesty SOMEtimes. The times that we can prove it is when the moderators should intervene. You mention a person may be inconsistent because of a lack of data. How much data does it take for a weak atheist who claims to have NO views on God to realize that saying God doesn't exist or that God is a pink unicorn is a view on God? If someone can't understand something as simple as that then how did they manage to understand the Forum RULES when they joined the forum?

If a weak atheist claims to not have any views on God, and then you find them expressing some view on God in another thread and BRING IT TO THEIR ATTENTION, how is it an 'honest mistake' for them to deny or not accept the inconsistency (and to deny it REPEATEDLY) AFTER it has been brought to their attention?

If a weak atheist claims to have no view on God, how is it a "different viewpoint" (did you mean to say different set of rules for logic and COMMON SENSE?) to have that same type of atheist claiming that God doesn't exist or is a pink unicorn? I can agree with you here if we can say that a "different viewpoint" can equate to a lie or CHANGING to a new position but the latter should be stated that it's a CHANGE in position rather than denying that the previously stated position was never made.

If the word or concept of "dishonesty" is the problem or hard to prove then I did suggest we just focus on the behavior that stems from it:
-REPEATED inconsistency AFTER it has been brought up that there's an inconsistency
-DISTORTING someone's position AFTER it has already been brought up to you
-IGNORING evidence and continuing to argue as if the evidence (evidence relevant to the point being debated) was not offered.

These 3 points are just examples I came up with off the top of my head but my point is that they can be proven without having to label or worry about someone's honesty. I consider that the best way to prove it since we are going by the person's ACTION(s).

[Angel]

I could argue one or two points you have just made.

Rule 1:
If you argue a claim that is inconsistent with one of your previous claims, then you must retract one of your claims when the inconsistency it is brought to your attention. You must make it clear which claim you accept and intend to argue for.

Yesterday I claimed it was too hot. Today I clime it’s too cold.

This is not an inconsistency because the 1st statement does not conflict with the 2nd. The two statements apply to different days. An inconsistency or contradiction would be if you were arguing that it was both hot and cold for the same day or at the same exact time.

And what would be wrong with me wanting to debate in favour of suicide today and against it tomorrow.

It would depend on the reason behind the inconsistency and/or your reaction to it when I bring it to your attention. Ideally, if I run this scenario through my suggested rule, then I'd start by bringing the inconsistency to your attention. You would then have to acknowledge that and clearly mention which position you accept and intend to argue for. If you don't follow through with that and your reaction to someone bringing up an inconsistency is to deny it, lie about it, cover it up, or to continue making inconsistent statements (jumping between the old and new claim after the old claim was supposed to be dropped) related to current/ongoing debate issue, then that would be grounds for someone to report you. You can jump back to the old view after you retract the new view but that may be futile if the old view was already refuted and which case then you'd be in violation of making an unsupported claim.

You also mentioned ignoring evidence but that’s more a question of what evidence you except.

The forum rules already mention what constitutes as evidence. I believe it's in rule #5, where it talks about supporting your claims. To the exception of evidence of an inconsistency, I think the ignoring evidence part is already addressed by the pre-existing forum rules so I'll take that off the table as being a new rule to add. If the evidence being ignored is the evidence that invalidates someone's claim, then that person who's ignoring would be guilty of making an invalidated or unsupported claim.

[Angel]

I'm not sure if you'd email me if or when you add the rules I suggested. I'll post more evidence in the meanwhile and please let me know when your moderators will address my suggestion or when the rule will be added. Thanks..

Evidence or claims of dishonesty - Misrepresenting someone's position:

Recognizing that someone deserves to die, is not the same thing as what you have falsely accuse me of. Now I can add your name to my list of those intending to slander me, as you too are misrepresenting what I've said. You have just said that I, "would (as you've already indicated) want to string up anyone..." Please find a quote of mine that says such a thing. I can tell you, you can't. I have never said I wanted to harm anyone for anything, not ever.

[Angel]

??????????????? Is there a way I can get a status update on what's happening with my suggestion???????????????

[otseng]

??????????????? Is there a way I can get a status update on what's happening with my suggestion???????????????

I was hoping the other moderators would chime in. I'll PM the other moderators about this thread.

[Angel]

??????????????? Is there a way I can get a status update on what's happening with my suggestion???????????????

I was hoping the other moderators would chime in. I'll PM the other moderators about this thread.

Thank you, sir. Let me also reiterate my suggestions as explicitly as I can. I want a rule that prevents people from repeatedly being inconsistent AFTEr it has been made KNOWN to them that they are being inconsistent. The reason for this is to help ensure that people are being honest otherwise why else would someone continue to be inconsistent AFTEr it has been brought to their attention and their reaction is to lie about it, get upset, or try to dodge or cover it up? Such a person is only concerned with trying to win a debate at ANY cost. I also want a rule in place that will stop people from misrepresenting people's positions after they've already been told about it.

I have personally experienced people shifting their position on this forum esp. when I use a person's position against them. I've also provided a good amount of evidence where others have complained about dishonesty on this forum. I'll quote my suggestions below:

If you agree you can put this rule and some of the other ones I mentioned under 'Intellectual Dishonesty'.

Rule 1:
If you argue a claim that is inconsistent with one of your previous claims, then you must retract one of your claims when the inconsistency it is brought to your attention. You must make it clear which claim you accept and intend to argue for.

Notes:
-Only report inconsistencies that is relevant to a debate that a person is currently in. We don't need people looking for inconsistencies from 3 years back and on a matter that is not even part of a current/ongoing debate.

-Just knowing that this is a rule will keep people in check. One moderator comment to get someone to stop their inconsistencies is far better than having regular members spending a countless number of posts trying to do it.

-This rule should stop people in their tracks if they intend to troll, to lie about or cover up their inconsistencies or repeated shifting of positions, etc.

-I figured even if we can't prove intellectual dishonesty in all cases, but we can still take preventive acation, especially since people should strive to be consistent regardless of if dishonesty is involved or not.

Rule 2:
Put a rule in place to keep people from misrepresenting someone's position AFTER they have already been told about doing so.

[Angel]

More complaints about dishonesty:

Nobody knows what you're talking about. You made a false claim about me, I asked you to provide the quote for your claim and all you've done is write down irrelevant dribble in a failed attempt to divert attention away from your false claim.

Interestingly, it is Winepusher who gets a moderator comment instead of Otseng looking into the matter of dishonesty. I anticipate that Winepusher will spend countless number of posts trying to get someone to represent his position in a truthful way. He may even get frustrated because NOTHING is done about this. The only thing that Otseng has suggested has amounted to letting dishonest people get away with misleading others - he suggests this when he tells me I should just ignore the person.

[cnorman18]

If it's permissible for a once-well-respected former moderator to ring in here:

I'm not particularly concerned with "consistency of position." That's pretty nebulous.

I am concerned about the deliberate and repeated misstatement of one's statements by an opponent, even after multiple careful and detailed corrections of those misstatements. That is clearly and objectively dishonest.

I am concerned about members ignoring counterarguments and questions without so much as acknowledging them, while simultaneously claiming that no such arguments have been presented and/or that they have already been answered or refuted -- without even specifying what they were.

I am concerned about members who blithely ignore without comment protests about such blatantly dishonest behavior, and about the ABSENCE of moderator intervention in such cases -- except, of course, when the word "dishonest" is used, even though it is very often wholly accurate and is in no way anything other than an objectively true and verifiable (often verified) observation.

I have been told, and more than once, that such behavior should be "handled in debate." When trolls and gameplayers effectively IGNORE debate, and proceed as they wish without regard to the actual facts of that debate or to things that have actually been said, making up their own "debate" with impunity, that approach is -- and has been proven, over and over, to be -- wholly ineffective.

SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE.

I loved this forum once. I have tried to return several times. On every occasion, I have been subjected to this kind of blatantly dishonest bad-faith trolling, and have seen tepid and timid "interventions" that have NOT addressed this issue.

PLEASE deal with this problem. It is DESTROYING what was once a fine and pleasant place to have a conversation and a meaningful debate. Hoping that the trolls will change their ways in the face of "debate" is a futile and forlorn hope, since they clearly have not and will not. Hoping the problem will just "go away" or "burn itself out" every time, works, I suppose -- but it only works in the following way: the sincere and honest members finally give up the futile effort, and leave the field to the victorious trolls.

When pointing out flagrant dishonesty draws a moderator comment, and the actual dishonesty itself does not, the result is predictable -- and now it is proven. As a direct result of allowing this problem to fester -- and this has been noted elsewhere by other members -- some of our BEST and most VALUABLE members, in which group I include myself without apology, have left DC&R. This forum is a poorer place for our absence; but why would anyone post in a place where dishonesty and bad faith is de facto condoned and encouraged?

I say again: SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE, or this forum will remain moribund and will eventually die, populated only by smug gameplayers and vicious trolls seeking someone to goad and bait and torment. It's pretty close to that state NOW.

[otseng]

Interestingly, it is Winepusher who gets a moderator comment instead of Otseng looking into the matter of dishonesty.

I made a general comment here.

I say again: SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE, or this forum will remain moribund and will eventually die, populated only by smug gameplayers and vicious trolls seeking someone to goad and bait and torment. It's pretty close to that state NOW.

I think this is a bit of a hyperbole. I think you are in particular referring to a single person.

[McCulloch]

-REPEATED inconsistency AFTER it has been brought up that there's an inconsistency
-DISTORTING someone's position AFTER it has already been brought up to you
-IGNORING evidence and continuing to argue as if the evidence (evidence relevant to the point being debated) was not offered.

For these cases, I'm not sure if the word dishonesty is the best way to describe these issues.

If someone brings forward the assertion that my position is inconsistent and upon reflection I disagree with this assertion and continue with what he perceives as an inconsistency, I should not be in violation of any rules.
If I misunderstand someone else' position and argue against a strawman, I should not be in violation of any rule. Even if I am particularly thick and don't quite get his repeated explanations.
Debaters do not have to respond to every piece of evidence offered. If someone is ignoring relevant evidence, repeat it, because someone else may have missed it as well.

I'm not sure how you'd word this as a rule unless you just say, "don't be dishonest" or something along those lines. That's a start, at least.

Such a vague and unenforceable rule would not help in any way, IMO.

Rule 1:
If you argue a claim that is inconsistent with one of your previous claims, then you must retract one of your claims when the inconsistency it is brought to your attention. You must make it clear which claim you accept and intend to argue for.

This I can live with.

The key to adding something to the rules is that it has to be easily enforceable and does not require extensive moderator energy.

Agreed. Perhaps included in this rule would be something making it clear that the onus is on the person reporting the inconsistency to be very specific.

[...]
other common problems of dishonesty like misusing the bb code quotation feature when you connect/link comments to someone that the person didn't make.

Unless it can be attributed to simple incompetence, I believe that misquoting someone is uncivil, covered under the incivility rule.

[Wootah]

I just don't think you can moderate logical inconsistency.

My view is that we can only prove dishonesty SOMEtimes. The times that we can prove it is when the moderators should intervene. You mention a person may be inconsistent because of a lack of data. How much data does it take for a weak atheist who claims to have NO views on God to realize that saying God doesn't exist or that God is a pink unicorn is a view on God? If someone can't understand something as simple as that then how did they manage to understand the Forum RULES when they joined the forum?

Whilst I agree with you I would hate to be forcing atheists, through rules, to admit they have a view on God. You need to do the patient work, if you choose to, of pointing out the inconsistency and hoping first that they can see it. Because generally I also think there are philosophical concepts that for many people it is down right hard to fathom, when the first time you have heard it is on a forum. Philosophy and scepticism are rarely anyone's bedfellows (although we all claim that highground).

Civility seems a good mechanism to moderate because I want people to open a thread and be able to read it without feeling personally attacked.

With moderating civility I can moderate a thread without getting involved in the argument itself. I never want to be in a situation where I am moderating a belief.