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]

Otseng.. (Please remember this thread is just between Otseng and I with the exception of Baz, if Baz sees my responses to his post as being incorrect)...

I will keep asking because you keep ignoring the question and when you do finally respond after a while, you sidestep my question.

How much evidence or incidents of dishonest tactics, like I described towards the end of my last post, do you need to make a rule? I should also ask how important does a factor need to be for debates before you make it a rule? I ask because I'm sure you realized that you didn't need many instances of UNsupported views to see that logic/evidence is needed for RATIONAL debates.

If I present evidence that clearly shows someone is wrong, and that person ignores my evidence and keep arguing falsehoods, how far do you think a RATIONAL debate will go? How many people will be misled or engage with this dishonest debater thinking that they can resolve the issue after i've tried? Or do you want HONEST debaters wasting 100s of posts trying to deal with such dishonest tactics when many of these threads can probably be resolved with just a a few pages of posts?

[otseng]

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?

So, you're suggesting that a moderator should then discipline the weak atheist for not being consistent in his position?

-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.

[otseng]

How much evidence or incidents of dishonest tactics, like I described towards the end of my last post, do you need to make a rule?

There is no set number. But, I believe rules should be as minimal as possible and should apply to serious offenses or apply to a large scale problem. If "dishonesty" was a wide scale problem, I'd be more inclined to add more rules.

I should also ask how important does a factor need to be for debates before you make it a rule? I ask because I'm sure you realized that you didn't need many instances of UNsupported views to see that logic/evidence is needed for RATIONAL debates.

There is also the balance of how much time and effort it takes in enforcing the rules. You say that reporters will have the burden of proving that someone is dishonest. But, if someone does not prove it, than I'll have to ask that person to gather the information. And that already is forcing me to send at least one PM to the reporter. And more than likely it will result in many more with the reporter and the offender.

Or do you want HONEST debaters wasting 100s of posts trying to deal with such dishonest tactics when many of these threads can probably be resolved with just a a few pages of posts?

The solution is for honest debaters to not engage in debates with dishonest people.

[Angel]

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?

So, you're suggesting that a moderator should then discipline the weak atheist for not being consistent in his position?

I'm not simply referring to inconsistency because then everyone may eventually be guilty and at times we don't even know when we're being inconsistent. I am referring to someone that continues to be inconsistent on an issue after it has been made known to the person (another person brings it to their attention) that their position is inconsistent. If you start off by telling me that you accept X, and then when I use X against you then you change to arguing against X that is inconsistent. But then when I bring up that inconsistency to you and you tell me that you never accepted X or you deny it and try to change the subject when I try to find out which position you hold, then that is clearly dishonest. That person just wants to win the debate at ANY cost. I'm sure I can think of other examples if needed.

The same way no one wants to be engaged in a debate where someone shifts the goal post midway, in the same way no one wants to be in a debate with someone who shifts their position midway especially when it happens a lot in ONE debate. If it was a genuine change of mind, then why would the person not give a reason for the change in position rather than denying, ignoring, or twisting my position and theirs?

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.

-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.

Well I see them stemming from a person who doesn't want to accept the truth. If it's less problematic then I'm fine with letting my listed items stand on their own without connecting them to dishonesty. The first item on the list I already explained earlier in my response or at least I worded it better. The last two on the list are pretty straightforward and to be honest more can be added to that list.

[Angel]

How much evidence or incidents of dishonest tactics, like I described towards the end of my last post, do you need to make a rule?

There is no set number. But, I believe rules should be as minimal as possible and should apply to serious offenses or apply to a large scale problem. If "dishonesty" was a wide scale problem, I'd be more inclined to add more rules.

I suspect that it is already a wide scale problem, and that it can even be caused by a few bad apples on this forum especially when they know YOU will do nothing about it. Another thing to consider is that people aren't reporting it and are unfortunately having to get themselves bogged down spending a numerous amont of posts trying to expose someone or they get frustrated and get in trouble for it themselves. In fact, I've seen you issuing moderator actions for calling someone dishonest rather than addressing the dishonest ACTIONs. I find myself asking, which is more important to you, worrying about someone being called what they're actions would signify or stopping the wrong actions or doing BOTH, at least?

I should also ask how important does a factor need to be for debates before you make it a rule? I ask because I'm sure you realized that you didn't need many instances of UNsupported views to see that logic/evidence is needed for RATIONAL debates.

There is also the balance of how much time and effort it takes in enforcing the rules. You say that reporters will have the burden of proving that someone is dishonest. But, if someone does not prove it, than I'll have to ask that person to gather the information. And that already is forcing me to send at least one PM to the reporter. And more than likely it will result in many more with the reporter and the offender.

A dishonest act involving misstating someone's position should be relatively easy to prove. I'd let the person know the standard of evidence you require which could be to show that the person repeatedly (more than twice perhaps) misstated your position after you had already informed him or her of your position and informed them once or twice that they were misrepresenting your position.

I can understand if the issue is real complex, like when it comes to a real in-depth scientific data. I don't see anything wrong with telling a person that the issue is too complex to enforce (too many different viewpoints or ways it can be looked at, etc). But on matters where the issue is easy to understand, then I'm theorizing that it would be easy to prove dishonesty.

Or do you want HONEST debaters wasting 100s of posts trying to deal w
ith such dishonest tactics when many of these threads can probably be resolved with just a a few pages of posts?

The solution is for honest debaters to not engage in debates with dishonest people.

Actually, your proposal is a cop out because it fixes NOTHING. The person is still able to mislead and distract and that's definitely something that I don't want especially on threads that I start.

Now if or when we can both agree that something can be done about dishonesty, then the next step left would be spelling out these rules and figuring out how to implement them.

[Angel]

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.

[otseng]

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.

I can go along with something like this.

Rather than classifying it as intellectual dishonesty, I'd rather classify it in positive terms, like Debating Logic Guidelines or something similar, and put a link to it in the rules.

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

Also, if something like this is going to be added, more moderators will need to give their input on this.

[Baz]

Hi Angle thanks for the invite. I don’t think there is anything to be gained by us debating site rules. That’s a matter for you and Osteng.

My aim was to point out that inconsistences go with the territory.
You are obviously focusing on a specific incident and it is likely that you have been banging your head against a brick wall, but in reality I can’t see these debates being won by capitulation, but by convincing the audience.

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.

And what would be wrong with me wanting to debate in favour of suicide today and against it tomorrow.
You also mentioned ignoring evidence but that’s more a question of what evidence you except.





.

[Angel]

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.

I can go along with something like this.

Rather than classifying it as intellectual dishonesty, I'd rather classify it in positive terms, like Debating Logic Guidelines or something similar, and put a link to it in the rules.

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

Also, if something like this is going to be added, more moderators will need to give their input on this.

Thanks and I'll keep my fingers crossed for the rule to work out out : )

In my last post, I thought of withdrawing my suggestion about adding a rule about ignoring evidence. I feel that issue is already addressed by your rules. So for now I'll just stick with the rule that you quoted me on in your post and the other rule about REPEATEDly misstating someone's position or misstating some information that all can see for themselves and after it someone has already notified the person that they're misstating a position or information. I'll navigate the website to see if I can find any 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.