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.

Darias · Post by **Darias** » Mon Sep 23, 2013 4:59 pm

If someone is making inconstant statements, call them out on it with linked references to their previous statements. Then refer them to one or both of the following:

â€£ Self-referential incoherence
â€£ Inconsistency

If they persist in these fallacies, refer them to this, noting that their continued insistence on using fallacies is disrespectful.

Technically, calling someone a liar or dishonest is not an ad hominem attack nor is it slander, if there's evidence for it and it's relevant. However, I always prefer to address the action and not the person to avoid getting flagged for breaking rule 1.

I am personally glad that using fallacious arguments isn't against the rules; if it were, I would not be able to call anyone out on it because of rule 16, the entire point of doing so teaches others how to debate. Additionally the use of fallacious arguments doesn't necessarily mean the person's conclusions are wrong -- asserting that would mean you yourself are committing a fallacy.

If you feel someone is being dishonest or disrespectful, you can either ignore their tactics or ignore them. I personally don't ignore anyone because even though many people use fallacies, I like to be able to argue for the sake of defending my own position -- and if it happens to convince others, then all the better. I don't ever plan on changing my opponent if he or she persists in dishonesty.

I don't think this forum needs additional rules, but it is not my forum; it's otseng's, so whatever he says goes.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon Sep 23, 2013 5:29 pm

[Replying to post 2 by Darias]

I appreciate your advice and perspective, Darias. I like the link for "inconsistency". I used the word 'inconsistency' in debates but knowing that there's a link for it which takes you to a site that explains how it's fallacious is more formal or makes it feel less personal, at least.

I view lying as being deliberate, esp. when it's a pattern or when the person won't admit to the inconsistency DESPITE the clear evidence. That latter part alone shows that the person is not interested in honesty which takes away from a productive debate. All other logical fallacies are probably done out of ignorance or error that we perhaps don't notice.

I personally don't come to this site to debate just to argue, I really and 'passionately' want to get to the truth. Without some form of moderator intervention of consequences, then no matter how much I tell the person that they're being inconsistent, it seems that they can just dodge it and keep perpetrating their inconsistencies. Not only would I not want to talk to such a person who I'm beginning to see as having a 'pattern' of doing this but I also wouldn't want them participating in any threads that I create. I'd want my threads to produce quality debates where people aren't lying. People can usually tell when someone is trying to win AT ALL COSTS vs. trying to have a honest debate to get to the truth.

Philbert · Post by **Philbert** » Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:19 pm

I personally don't come to this site to debate just to argue, I really and 'passionately' want to get to the truth.

I might suggest choosing your discussion partners more carefully, advice I wish I took more often myself.

One device currently available is the Ignore feature in your control panel. It removes a specified poster's posts from all threads on the forum (as seen by you) and thus helps remove the temptation to get sucked in to pointless conversations.

Not only would I not want to talk to such a person who I'm beginning to see as having a 'pattern' of doing this but I also wouldn't want them participating in any threads that I create. I'd want my threads to produce quality debates where people aren't lying.

In a perfect world, intelligent posters such as yourself would be rewarded with a section of their own to manage via their own publishing philosophy (under the supervision of the forum owner).

I've spent literally years coding my own forum software from scratch to facilitate this, and making this argument all over the place, but....

I'm afraid the reality is that forum owners all over the net (not just here) are absolutely obsessed with managing their forums in almost the exact same manner as every other forum on the net, thus there is very little room for such innovations.

Generally speaking, forum owners are much more interested in scolding misbehavior than they are in tangibly rewarding the kind of quality posters that could take their forum to a higher level. That's just how it is, and there doesn't appear that much can be done about it.

People can usually tell when someone is trying to win AT ALL COSTS vs. trying to have a honest debate to get to the truth.

Ah yes, the difference between reason and ideology. You'll find that very few people on forums understand that there is a difference.

keithprosser3 · Post by **keithprosser3** » Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:38 pm

People can usually tell when someone is trying to win AT ALL COSTS

What does 'winning' mean in the context of a thread? Threads don't end in a victory or a concession of defeat but peter out into personal remarks and bickering and by page 37 its hard to know what the argument is about, leave alone who is the 'winner'. Usually its even harder to even care.

keithprosser3 · Post by **keithprosser3** » Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:39 pm

Post by **otseng** » Mon Sep 23, 2013 9:06 pm

Though I don't condone dishonesty, I'm not in favor of adding this to the rules.

I don't see how it's possible to prove that someone is dishonest. This would require to show that the poster has intentionally posted facts that he knew was incorrect.

If someone posts erroneous information, the best one can do is to provide facts to correct it. Then one should let readers decide for themselves which poster is correct.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon Sep 23, 2013 9:40 pm

otseng wrote: Though I don't condone dishonesty, I'm not in favor of adding this to the rules.

I don't see how it's possible to prove that someone is dishonest. This would require to show that the poster has intentionally posted facts that he knew was incorrect.

If someone posts erroneous information, the best one can do is to provide facts to correct it. Then one should let readers decide for themselves which poster is correct.

I suppose we can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but we can't be naive either. If someone claims to hold no views on God on one thread, and then in another thread you find them claiming that no Gods exist, then what would that be? If 'lying' is too strong of a word, then would you at least do something about blatant inconsistencies that are EASY to prove and when the person refuses to admit that they're being inconsistent and continues to assert that they hold no views on God. Instead of an all or nothing approach, I believe something can be done to at least require that the person 'retracts' their view and REVISE their view or stop making the claim. 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.

Post by **otseng** » Mon Sep 23, 2013 9:51 pm

Angel wrote:If someone claims to hold no views on God on one thread, and then in another thread you find them claiming that no Gods exist, then what would that be?

In such a case, point out the inconsistency. Readers can then judge for themselves of the quality of the poster.

I believe something can be done to at least require that the person 'retracts' their view and REVISE their view or stop making the claim.

I think he should make that choice himself rather than me forcing him to make that choice.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon Sep 23, 2013 10:43 pm

otseng wrote:
Angel wrote: If someone claims to hold no views on God on one thread, and then in another thread you find them claiming that no Gods exist, then what would that be?
In such a case, point out the inconsistency. Readers can then judge for themselves of the quality of the poster.

Pointing out the inconsistency is one thing but that does not help to stop the inconsistencies, especially under the scenario that I mentioned in my last post to you. Your initial reason for not wanting to add this as a rule was that you can't prove that someone is being inconsistent on purpose. But I'd argue that if a person does it 'repeatedly', in one thread and after being shown the evidence, then that is reasonable grounds to conclude that person are lying or is deliberately being inconsistent. When you continue letting people behave in such a way then they're bound to mislead people unless I keep constantly reminding everyone of the inconsitency which then becomes a back and forth and in the end nothing is solved if the person has no intention on stopping their inconsistency.

otseng wrote:
Angel wrote: I believe something can be done to at least require that the person 'retracts' their view and REVISE their view or stop making the claim.
I think he should make that choice himself rather than me forcing him to make that choice.

Well your rules force people to make supportable statements when they're using it as a statement of fact. It forces people to be civil where some would otherwise be out of control, just like on Youtube. For now, I don't see you proving that nothing 'can't' be done to at least reduce the occurrence of excessive and/or deliberate inconsistencies.