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.

[Angel]

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?

Thanks for the cheer up : ). Beer or even some vodka with Sprite would do. I haven't had a drink in a while because I'm bogged down with work and school but maybe in 2 years that will change.

As far as starting my own forum, I actually used to have one but I never really opened it for membership because my girlfriend made problems with me about it. I do plan on starting a forum in the near future, but I'd rather do it after I'm done with my eductation, or even after I write a book or publish a good study.

[Angel]

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.

I guess I'll have to settle for that : )..

Well, let me also make some comments about your last point. It could be that there aren't that many people being dishonest OR that people are not bringing it up to your attention. Perhaps starting this thread will make people look out for that more and more complaints will come in. The reason I can spot out dishonesty, is because I'm willing to work hard to expose it, even digging into the past posts of members if I have to.

And finally let me say, I don't claim to be infallible or the most consistent person. I see inconsistency as a problem based on the person's reaction when they are confronted with their inconsistencies. If they try to make excuses, COVER IT UP, deny, twist their position, etc, then that is a clear sign of dishonesty and that's when the behavior is REPEATED after I press them more on it and they continue being dishonest. If someone simply admits their inconsistencies and mistakes, like most honest people would do, then I wouldn't see this as a problem.

I'll come back to this issue at another time, perhaps after I find more examples (clear ones like what I mentioned in post #8), especially from the same person that I mentioned in the OP.

[Lux]

I know it can be extremely frustrating when you know someone is lying in an attempt to "win" a debate. I'm not familiar with this particular member of the forum enough to say if he is inconsistent in his claims or not, but I think one of the Internet's golden rules can be helpful in cases like this: Don't feed the troll. The healthy thing is to scroll through their posts and save yourself some frustration/increased blood pressure.

If you are convinced that Person A is a liar, then surely you must agree that there is nothing for you to gain from debating them. There is no real gain to Internet debate other than a search for truth and/or personal growth. If that isn't what you're getting from an exchange, abandon the exchange ASAP.

[AdHoc]

WARNING. Graphic content

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

WHY DID YOU POST THAT PICTURE? I can't unsee that...

But it is a good metaphor.

Good in a gross dog's breakfast sort of way...

[Philbert]

WHY DID YOU POST THAT PICTURE?

I posted it because I'm a.....

[Angel]

Here's another charge of dishonesty. Here you have 2 differnet people accusing the same person (John A.) of dishonesty. I hope more can be done to look into this rather than just making a general moderator statement to not call someone dishonest. Then again, I'm not sure if olavisjo and instantc actually reported John A but my point in bringing this up is to show how I'm NOT the only person complaining about dishonesty on this forum. I'm just one of the few that's willing to suggest that it should be added to the forum rules.

Do you think it is a nice thing to imply I am being dishonest?

Yes I think you are being dishonest, I can keep these citations coming if you want, I have plenty more replicating the exact thing you deny above, namely that strict liability in these countries works as a reversal of the burden of proof. See how Dr. van Dam is restating here the exact notion that I wrote in my original argument? Either all these legal professionals are "struggling to understand strict liability" as you say, or then you don't have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about.

To remind you, here's my initial contention about strict liability that you have been challenging: (see how it corresponds to what Dr. van Dam is saying above)

Do you actually have a point to make, a question to ask?

The point is that you may be distorting what others have said. This is what I am trying to resolve.

[olavisjo]

.

I'm just one of the few that's willing to suggest that it should be added to the forum rules.

Dishonesty in debate is easy to spot, and easy to expose, so there is no reason to complicate things with more rules.

If your opponent wants to hang himself, on the rope of dishonesty, just hand him some more rope.

[instantc]

It's difficult to say when someone is being dishonest and when they simple don't realize how off they are. In case of JohnA, who refuses to acknowledge a direct quotation from an academically credible source that refutes his accusation word-by-word, it's difficult to see how he could possibly not realize that. But even then it might perhaps be generally better if the moderators don't start passing judgments on people's dishonesty, it's a slippery slope and might take an unreasonable amount of time and dedication from the mods.

[otseng]

Nobody should be accusing anybody of dishonesty on the forum ... even if one could prove it. We should be arguing about ideas, not about forum participants.

[Angel]

.

I'm just one of the few that's willing to suggest that it should be added to the forum rules.

Dishonesty in debate is easy to spot, and easy to expose, so there is no reason to complicate things with more rules.

If your opponent wants to hang himself, on the rope of dishonesty, just hand him some more rope.

I don't see that adding rules would complicate things just as long as the rule is clear. If we can all agree that dishonesty is important in a debate, and that being dishonest is a bad thing, then I fail to see why nothing can be done about it when you have the moderators worrying about something as petty as making negative comments towards people who aren't even on the forum. I would think dishonesty would be more important to a debate than if I make a negative comment against Hitler or someone else.