PDA

View Full Version : Lying and Implications on a Forum


Darth_Yuthura
03-02-2009, 08:44 AM
A forum has rules and regulations that all who post on it have agreed to follow before they signed up. When someone violates those rules, a moderator can and should step in to enforce those policies... but where does lying, or an implication fit in to all that?

Obviously a direct insult to another member would most definitely violate the rules of a forum and that member deserves whatever sanctions the moderator believes is appropriate. The issue I see is that the majority of such violations are not so direct. When is an insult considered an insult? If someone feels harassed, is that the point where a moderator should step in? If I posted a thread such as this, but did not give any names, would the moderators of this site regard this as an insult to them?

Where does lying get dealt with? Moderators could use their own good judgment, but they have no idea what another person knows and can't sanction someone for lying, or can they? Should they?

When someone lies, that is not in itself offensive to a particular member or moderator, but it is spamming at the very least. The problem is that no one should expect a moderator to go out of their way to figure out whether or not someone is being deceitful on the forum they maintain, but a reasonable deduction could be made without a moderator having to go to great effort.

This thread is not set up as an insult, but it likely would be interpreted as such by specific individuals. If in the event that it does, it is NOT intended to harass. I simply want to get a better understanding as to where interpretation and deceit falls into violating the rules of a specific forum.

Moved to Kavars -- j7

EnderWiggin
03-02-2009, 08:59 AM
Why the hell would you post this in Ahto? :confused:

Kavar's, at the least, but preferably in the Feedback section.



Oh, and for the record your post makes no sense to me. What are you asking? Whether or not someone should be punished for lying? We're not 5 years old anymore. How can the staff know when someone's lying? How can anyone know when someone online is lying?

House: Everybody lies.

_EW_

Astor
03-02-2009, 09:01 AM
When is an insult considered an insult? If someone feels harassed, is that the point where a moderator should step in?

An insult would, obviously, be considered as such when the person who is targeted feels victimised, or finds the comment offensive.

If I posted a thread such as this, but did not give any names, would the moderators of this site regard this as an insult to them?

I would suggest that if you do actually have problems with the staff, you take it to the Contact Staff Board in Help and Feedback. (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=745) That way it can be dealt with in a discreet manner.

But of course, this is assuming that you do have a problem with the staff, but anything relating to staff complaints would be better handled there.

Where does lying get dealt with? Moderators could use their own good judgment, but they have no idea what another person knows and can't sanction someone for lying, or can they? Should they?

The problem with the internet is there's rarely a concrete way of verifying anything anyone says on it - the inherent anonymity involved means you really could make up anything.

When someone lies, that is not in itself offensive to a particular member or moderator, but it is spamming at the very least.

There'd need to concrete proof of lying first, and whether it is 'spam' or not would be another matter, dependent on the subject of the thread, and content of the post.

AK.

EnderWiggin
03-02-2009, 09:02 AM
FTR: Lying is not inherently spam.

_EW_

Arcesious
03-02-2009, 09:11 AM
I do recall lying about my age a few times, until I decided "Eh, who cares, I'll tell the truth."

Lying about age is probably the most common thing I see lied about, also because I used to do it. But now the truth is that I'm 15 year old freshman without a job who can't drive yet, not a 16-year old sophomore with a job at burger king and a driver's license. :xp:

It's hard to keep up with such a lie if you're not an adult anyways, plus lying about age is kind of pointless, because a good forum 'judges' you by how you behave, not how old you are.

Now, adults lying about being younger than they are on a forum, now that's just weird, but very rare.

People like to lie in order to try to benefit themselves. If they say they're older than they are, they probably hope to get respect due to their alleged age. If its a blatant lie or a half-truth in a debate, that's far more serious. Eventually though, the lie will stop 'benefitting' you if you slip up with an inconsistency. In the long run, lies only hurt your own reputation.

jonathan7
03-02-2009, 09:11 AM
This post represents entirely my opinion and not Lucas Forums, nor the rest of the staff.

A forum has rules and regulations that all who post on it have agreed to follow before they signed up. When someone violates those rules, a moderator can and should step in to enforce those policies... but where does lying, or an implication fit in to all that?

Unless the lying is directed at another member, (i.e. lying about them), as I understand the rules does not break the rules, regardless of my own feelings about the ethicalness of it.

Obviously a direct insult to another member would most definitely violate the rules of a forum and that member deserves whatever sanctions the moderator believes is appropriate. The issue I see is that the majority of such violations are not so direct. When is an insult considered an insult? If someone feels harassed, is that the point where a moderator should step in? If I posted a thread such as this, but did not give any names, would the moderators of this site regard this as an insult to them?

If a post is inflammatory towards someone then the mods will step in, you can also use the report post function, if you feel harassed. No, I and I suspect the rest of the staff don't feel offended by this.

Where does lying get dealt with? Moderators could use their own good judgment, but they have no idea what another person knows and can't sanction someone for lying, or can they? Should they?

See above, lets say someone on the boards lied about being someone famous, and are shown up to be lying, I don't think they have broken any rules.

When someone lies, that is not in itself offensive to a particular member or moderator, but it is spamming at the very least. The problem is that no one should expect a moderator to go out of their way to figure out whether or not someone is being deceitful on the forum they maintain, but a reasonable deduction could be made without a moderator having to go to great effort.

The problem with the internet is there's rarely a concrete way of verifying anything anyone says on it - the inherent anonymity involved means you really could make up anything.

QFT

This thread is not set up as an insult, but it likely would be interpreted as such by specific individuals. If in the event that it does, it is NOT intended to harass. I simply want to get a better understanding as to where interpretation and deceit falls into violating the rules of a specific forum

Perhaps something has passed me by, but who is lying?

Hope that clarifies a bit. :)

Darth_Yuthura
03-02-2009, 09:11 AM
This wasn't MEANT to go to feedback.

Moderators are the supreme power of Lucasforums. They can do anything they like because they manage the site. It's as simple as that.

Astor
03-02-2009, 09:13 AM
This wasn't MEANT to go to feedback.

Moderators are the supreme power of Lucasforums. They can do anything they like because they manage the site. It's as simple as that.

To be fair, the tone and content of the thread wasn't all too clear - it's hard to tell whether you were trying to raise an issue or just make a statement...

EnderWiggin
03-02-2009, 09:18 AM
This wasn't MEANT to go to feedback.

Moderators are the supreme power of Lucasforums. They can do anything they like because they manage the site. It's as simple as that.

Perhaps you could clarify as to what you are trying to prove or ask then? Because I know I am thoroughly confused as to your point. >:|

_EW_

jonathan7
03-02-2009, 09:28 AM
This wasn't MEANT to go to feedback.

Moderators are the supreme power of Lucasforums. They can do anything they like because they manage the site. It's as simple as that.

This isn't a thread for Ahto; which is for light-hearted chat about a variety of topics, this either belongs in Kavars or Feedback, though the latter makes more sense. If you want this moved to Kavars then I will do that.

Sabretooth
03-02-2009, 10:00 AM
Yes, I think this has to go to Kavar's, I can see what Yuthura is talking about and she's definitely not complaining about the staff or raising a feedback issue etc. etc.

But I don't really see where Yuthura is coming from. No forum or discussion board monitors truth or lies, they only monitor behaviour and environment. As much as they look like it, the staff isn't really some SS gestapo propaganda mash-up army thing, but they are the local police force.

Moved from Feedback to Kavars -- j7

Jae Onasi
03-02-2009, 10:20 AM
Darth_Yuthura, you'll need to make a decision about where this thread is going. If this is about issues in general, please clarify that. This either needs to become a discussion or be closed. If this is a complaint about a specific moderator, please PM me and I'll move it to the feedback forum where complaints about staff are supposed to go. Thanks.

Darth_Yuthura
03-02-2009, 12:01 PM
Kavar's is fine. Sorry about posting it w/out specifying exactly what it was and in the wrong location. Thanks to J7 and Jae.

Web Rider
03-02-2009, 07:42 PM
In a discussion of facts, lying is hard to pull when you provide sources for your claims. Twisted statements, statistics, that sort of stuff, while misleading, is not really lying. And most people who just say "ZOMG ADSHOIANONFASND!!!!" without backing up their claims are ignored. So, that problem is readily solved.

If someone is lying about a member, and it's offensive, then a moderator will deal with it as usual. If someone is lying about themselves, their friend, or some other thing that noone here can prove, then we're all just SOL. Though some lies are pretty blatant, in which case, again, they are ignored by the other people in the topic and the problem is solved.

So really, there isn't a whole lot to be done about lying, and lies or slander that alaready happen are dealt with.

Bee Hoon
03-03-2009, 11:49 AM
Imho, lying online is possible, but I don't really see a point to it. For example, how do you *know* that I'm not a socially dysfunctional tinfoil-hat-wearing 50-year-old who lives in a basement and whose only connection with Asia is an unhealthy fascination with underage girls? On the flip side, I might be a hawt multilingual Japanese/Taiwanese actor who is desired by many but seek only to secretly express my geekish tendencies.

(Anyone who has heard me on Skype HAS BEEN FOOLED. NYAN NYAN DID NOT HAPPEN)

So, erm, yeah. I don't have any desire to impersonate others, but the internetz is haunted by many unusual folks, so I daresay that at least some people on this forum are faking it, whether in small ways (i.e. age. Arc, no one gives a damn. Honestly. Maturity earns respect, not calendar age) or big ways.

I bet that Dev is actually a CIA agent conducting a....social experiment.

Jeff
03-03-2009, 12:23 PM
(Anyone who has heard me on Skype HAS BEEN FOOLED. NYAN NYAN DID NOT HAPPEN)Keep telling yourself that. :p

I don't really see the point of lying on a forum about age, gender, etc but I am sure some people do it. I am probably way more open about who I am IRL than most people who come online though. But I think the only consequence if you are caught in a lie is potential humiliation, there wouldn't be any actual punishment.

Pho3nix
03-03-2009, 12:56 PM
I don't really see the point of lying on a forum about age, gender, etc but I am sure some people do it. I am probably way more open about who I am IRL than most people who come online though. But I think the only consequence if you are caught in a lie is potential humiliation, there wouldn't be any actual punishment.
Same here. I've never seen any point in lying about my age or whatever, I don't get people who feel the need to do that.

mimartin
03-03-2009, 01:22 PM
I really donít understand the topic. Do you want the staff to moderate lying? Without being 100% sure something was a lie I would be really uncomfortable doing that. I would rather error on the side the poster was telling the truth. Even if someone is lying and I know it, unless it is a special circumstance that could affects others following the poster lying advice or if the lie is about a member, I donít really see what harm a lie on the internet could produce.

Besides Iím lying to you right now. my name really isnít mimartin

adamqd
03-03-2009, 03:44 PM
I was on a certain (Not this) Forum once and got in to a fracas with some dude about some pointless topic, and he made himself look a fool. So he then posts a life story about how he's a war vet, recovering intravenous drug using suicidal gay Virgin with hep-C... ((Not your average geek forum member for starters)) anyway, I call him out and say he's probably a 16 year old with too much time on his hands. I get about 20 PM's saying I'm a Cold MF, and I dont know what it's like to suffer like him etc. It later came out as a lie but I had since been cold-shouldered from the forum. Pathetic but unprovable really

Vaelastraz
03-03-2009, 03:54 PM
An insult would, obviously, be considered as such when the person who is targeted feels victimised, or finds the comment offensive.

That can't be the whole story. Otherwise, I might as well claim that every post I don't agree with is offensive.. :)

Btw, the sentence in my second paragraph is not true. santsmil

TSR
03-03-2009, 05:12 PM
Lying. On the internet.

Really?

I think a thread discussing the implications and effects of lying on forums is a bigger waste themselves than the topics it intended to deal with. So what if someone makes something up? You can be who the hell you want on the internet.

16/f/cal

Darth_Yuthura
03-06-2009, 12:19 AM
I really don’t understand the topic. Do you want the staff to moderate lying? Without being 100% sure something was a lie I would be really uncomfortable doing that. I would rather error on the side the poster was telling the truth. Even if someone is lying and I know it, unless it is a special circumstance that could affects others following the poster lying advice or if the lie is about a member, I don’t really see what harm a lie on the internet could produce.

**I don't understand what you mean by this. If you can't convince me, then you aren't proving your point.**

I might give an example of lying made by a MODERATOR, but I can't make an implication, since I was sanctioned for it. I said he was a smart guy, but the implication was that I really meant 'only if he agreed with my side of the argument.' That's an implied insult.

I deserved to be sanctioned for that, but so did that moderator, who disregarded info that he once used to make an argument on another thread. That was low for a moderator. I hold no grudge for the one who issued the sanction, but for the mod who forced the opposite side of an argument to needlessly jump though hoops to provide info that he already knew... that's disruptive to any debate. (in my opinion, of course) << Just that could be regarded as an implication.

Jae Onasi
03-06-2009, 12:29 AM
This sounds more and more like a complaint about a staff member. Complaints about staff should be directed to this forum. (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=745) Thanks.

mimartin
03-06-2009, 01:26 AM
**I don't understand what you mean by this. If you can't convince me, then you aren't proving your point.**
I don't have to convince you of anything. My point was "I" would not be comfortable moderating if a member was lying or not. My point had nothing to do with you or anyone else.

Besides that my only point was asking you, your point for making this thread.

Ray Jones
03-06-2009, 01:50 PM
could would might fright light beep boob pee poop :rolleyes:

Is this thread trying to implicate something, or telling us lies?

Because it's neither making a definite statement, nor giving hard facts.

machievelli
06-01-2009, 10:54 AM
In a discussion of facts, lying is hard to pull when you provide sources for your claims. Twisted statements, statistics, that sort of stuff, while misleading, is not really lying. And most people who just say "ZOMG ADSHOIANONFASND!!!!" without backing up their claims are ignored. So, that problem is readily solved.

The comment doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The definition of 'fact' is truth. As an example, I was in a political argument about the ongoing Iraq war with someone and he trotted out the 'the US supplied chemical weapons to Iraq' line. I answered with the SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) report. He first answered 'it may be fact, but that doesn't make it the truth', then used an opposing editorial written during the Gulf war which used statements taken out of context to 'prove' his claim.

To me a twisted statement is a lie. And as for statistics, you can prove anything with them by just using the factors you want to use and ignoring everything else. If you are using it as a sounding board, that is good. But when you hold it up as proof, I prefer cold hard facts.

vanir
06-03-2009, 09:25 AM
I've learned myself over time I can get too hooked up in a particular forum. When I start getting too emotional about it, like overly concerned about what other forum members are thinking I found I just need a break for a bit. I'm tying myself up in knots of virtual interaction and what's the point?
If it was a physical interaction, well then they might be wrong or I might be wrong, but on the internet I think it's a matter of when it bothers you, walk away. Why stress? The thing about the internet is people can post without pause, they can be very offensive by simply being arrogant or dismissive towards you personally (I think it's okay to be such about impersonal subject material though I may not do that myself or like it, it's not offensive per se to be ignorant or in turn to be called on that), where in person when you offend someone you see the look of disappointment and the other sees the look of guilt. You can win an argument in person and still lose because you're wrong and you know it, or you're lying and you know it and so does the other party even if they can't word it immediately or in a witty fashion. Witty people can often win arguments when they're completely wrong, usually by tying up the other party in knots. But at least in person it is obvious someone is getting manipulated by argumentative behaviour whereas this takes a severe amount of experience to recognise in correspondance, a desperate reply from someone who knows what they're on about in the face of an argumentative party can easily look like they're the one starting an argument. In person this is far less likely to be the case, because we can all see exactly at which statements you began to flush red, and note that they were in fact a bit harsh and irrelevent, and the smirk on the arguer who achieved this as he spake clearly signifying it was his intention, or at the very least he is getting off on simply upsetting someone and the sense of power to it.

On the internet you can use self delusion, ie. make believe or "lying" as you put it, as a tool, where it may not apply except in the company of the particularly innocent/ignorant in RL. I've answered ridiculous arguments with a simple look before, and the establishment was obvious to all witnesses, but this can either be faked or fail to implicate on the 'net. Some things like conscience are easier to ignore in a virtual environment and often this is a very large part of feeling offended on the 'net.

So for this reason alone, though many others I'm sure, where you feel bothered by a forum, take a break for a bit. Simply put there's nothing you can do about it and there's no point shortening your life to the manipulations of the callous at heart. Or just as bad, by misreading or misinterpreting perfectly fine intentions.

Blix
06-03-2009, 05:33 PM
I think it's difficult to discern when someone's lying or being truthful on a forum unless you know them somewhat well enough to know better or at least enough to be suspicious, since the internet allows one enough sources to be able to provide false information to others online to either troll or just to get attention. I know at least one forum that takes the cake for that, I won't say the name out of respect for Lucas Forums but it definitely exists it isn't a fantasy.

Darth_Yuthura
06-11-2009, 11:27 AM
To me a twisted statement is a lie. And as for statistics, you can prove anything with them by just using the factors you want to use and ignoring everything else. If you are using it as a sounding board, that is good. But when you hold it up as proof, I prefer cold hard facts.

A similar issue I've encountered are two-on-one opposition debates. When one person presents a series of posts to make a point, then a counter argument can be made to the validity of the facts. When there are two or more people back a side, it has a snowballing effect where the opposition can't attack because someone else made the statement.

Example: If I presented statistics in a thread and someone else makes a point by twisting what I presented into something completely different, it can't be opposed because that person didn't make the original statement. If I made that same statement, then I would lose because I presented the original statistics in the first place.

Multiple people debating for the same side mutually compliment one another, but inevitably causes what is termed 'group think.'

Totenkopf
06-11-2009, 11:43 AM
Example: If I presented statistics in a thread and someone else makes a point by twisting what I presented into something completely different, it can't be opposed because that person didn't make the original statement. If I made that same statement, then I would lose because I presented the original statistics in the first place.

Arguments can always be opposed if either A)you disagree with them on principle or B)you take issue with how something is being presented. I don't see how you cannot oppose someone's argument just b/c you think or feel they've twisted your statistics to make a counterargument or new argument altogether. That they didn't make the original argument/statement doesn't make their position unassailable. My guess is that it may become a bit disorienting combating multiple posters as you may might begin to conflate your opponent's arguments and mistake who made which specific claim. Shouldn't be a problem if you address each poster individually.

Darth_Yuthura
06-11-2009, 12:07 PM
Well I would have given some actual examples of what I've had to address, but I'm not at liberty to present them.

Whether or not an argument is won to me is irrelevant, but if I fail to make my point; that DOES NOT mean that the opposition must be so. What I loathe to an extreme level are people who don't actually present a convincing counter-argument and then assume that they've disproven a point, attack the opposite side by using that assumption, and at that point(true or not) it would blackball anyone who thinks differently.

At that point, no one would actually look at the evidence anymore. The term 'blackball' isn't used properly, just note that.

Totenkopf
06-11-2009, 12:46 PM
Just b/c more than one person might disagree with you doesn't inherently marginalize your point. I've noticed that what gets people in trouble, though, is the heatedness with which they disagree. When arguments become personal, the debate has pretty much ended b/c neither side is really interested in hearing the other's positions. Sometimes you've just got to agree to disagree and disengage, especially in a forum like this, b/c it has no real impact on your personal life (save whatever you choose to give it).

But you're going to have to accept that this will happen anyway. It's a public forum and your opposition may see your arguments the same way and react similiarly. A bitter pill, perhaps, but one of the side effects of "free speech". Just present your arguments and understand that others are going to disagree with you. That and it's not the end of the world. Don't assume that b/c the other guy gets the last word (or that you do) that it is definitive. People will make up their own minds.

Darth_Yuthura
06-12-2009, 06:15 PM
Well I intensely dislike it not when the opposite side disagrees with me, but when they turn the debate from an intellectual process into a heated match where they hold to something and refuse to believe anything else. And from that to assume everything else is wrong and to fight it so people see things their way instead of letting them make their own judgments.

In one recent debate I've had, a person presented anecdotal evidence for actual proof and essentially put his one perspective above everything else. I have nothing against those who've served in the military; they show great courage when they step up to defend the state, but that does not mean their perspective automatically is worth more when they speak of issues that go beyond their experiences. If a soldier talks about a political issue of which he didn't participate in, he cannot say his word is worth more than another's because he wasn't there.

If the issue were about Dragon Skin armour and he had worn it, he can make a statement about his experience right there about its performance. The problem is that if he starts spouting off about the military's testing of DS, he would make claims and use himself as a first-hand reference for everything on that topic when he's not. He could talk about his experience for wearing DS once, but that is as far as it goes.

The problem I encounter most often in an argument is how people paint the opposite side badly and hold to a certain belief, but go so far as to proclaim that they know better than the opposite side. I would yield to the word of a US soldier who's actually been in war, but not when he would use that status as a shield by which to make any claims he wants. (This isn't about anyone on this site, just in case you're wondering)

When that happens to anyone happening to see the thread, I would expect any reasonable person to back him because he does know more about battle than I; but actually didn't know that much about the topic being argued.

mimartin
06-12-2009, 08:22 PM
Disagreement with opinion does not equal lying. Everyone is entitled to their opinion be it right or wrong.

Darth_Yuthura
06-12-2009, 11:03 PM
Disagreement with opinion does not equal lying. Everyone is entitled to their opinion be it right or wrong.

Not when a person uses their opinion as fact. Then it is worth nothing.

If a person comes to a different conclusion, I want to know WHY they did; not THAT they did. If they can't explain why, then their opinion has no teeth in an argument. If they still submit it as evidence, then they are lying.

Jae Onasi
06-12-2009, 11:52 PM
Lying is a very specific verb. If you are intentionally misleading someone, then you are lying. If you are sticking to your opinion based on information you believe to be true, that's your opinion. It may or may not be an incorrect opinion, but being mistaken is very different from lying.

This is a discussion forum. If you want to know why someone has an opinion different from yours, then ask them politely why. You might learn some interesting things, even if you don't end up changing your opinion as a result.

mimartin
06-13-2009, 12:12 AM
Sounds like you are saying that anyone that does not agree with you or your sources opinion is lying. With all due respect I disagree. Someone can disagree with me and my sources and that does not make them a lair. I don’t even see that as making them less intelligent. However, disagreeing with fact is a different matter, but most of what we discuss here are opinions, not facts. Where is the fun in debating facts?

Darth_Yuthura
06-13-2009, 12:37 AM
Sounds like you are saying that anyone that does not agree with your or your sources opinion is lying. With all due respect I disagree. Someone can disagree with me and my sources and that does not make them a lair. I donít even see that as making them less intelligent. However, disagreeing with fact is a different matter, but most of what we discuss here are opinions, not facts. Where is the fun in debating facts?

That is not what I am suggesting. Anyone who 'disproves' a source without offering an effective counter argument and proclaim that they are right is lying. Or at the very least, that person supplants the opposite side by pouring sand into their argument and offering nothing of value to the debate.

I'm not one to easily change my opinion, but only because I make one based on a solid foundation of proof. When I don't have that much proof to go on, my opinion is very flexible to change, and I don't put much value in that belief. If I did, I would be lying.

CommanderQ
06-13-2009, 02:57 AM
That is not what I am suggesting. Anyone who 'disproves' a source without offering an effective counter argument and proclaim that they are right is lying. Or at the very least, that person supplants the opposite side by pouring sand into their argument and offering nothing of value to the debate.

I'm not one to easily change my opinion, but only because I make one based on a solid foundation of proof. When I don't have that much proof to go on, my opinion is very flexible to change, and I don't put much value in that belief. If I did, I would be lying.

I think perhaps we are delving too deep into the idea of lying. Now, if you had no value in an opinion you were stating, why are you stating it?

As Jae said, lying is a very specific verb. It's simply not truth. {That is the basic}

On the internet, as we've all found, it is extremely difficult to tell if someone is lying, especially if they are clever. But when it comes to a debate, everyone is entitled to an opinion, and to me, that in itself is a point. Do they need some sort of link or video to prove that point? They could, but then again, they don't have to. The only person they really need to prove it to is themselves, and that's all they need.

Now, it is good to have a firm foundation, and to know what you believe in, a good debater would do well to have sources at hand. But we cannot implicate someone to be lying if they do not provide ample proof online of their point.

Because they cannot provide ample proof, we can't just assume that they have no value in their opinion, or rather that their opinion has no value.

Astor
06-13-2009, 03:47 AM
That is not what I am suggesting. Anyone who 'disproves' a source without offering an effective counter argument and proclaim that they are right is lying. Or at the very least, that person supplants the opposite side by pouring sand into their argument and offering nothing of value to the debate.

The problem here is that everyone is going to have a different idea of exactly what an 'effective counter argument' is. Is it right to say they're lying if you don't agree with their argument?

It's also the same with judging whether someone has added something to the debate - it's entirely opinion based.

It doesn't make them a liar.

I'm not one to easily change my opinion, but only because I make one based on a solid foundation of proof. When I don't have that much proof to go on, my opinion is very flexible to change, and I don't put much value in that belief. If I did, I would be lying.

Forgive me if I misunderstood, but isn't that basically saying 'i'm right, and if you disagree, you're wrong?'

Darth_Yuthura
06-13-2009, 09:03 AM
Forgive me if I misunderstood, but isn't that basically saying 'i'm right, and if you disagree, you're wrong?'

I'm saying that I wouldn't submit an opinion if I didn't know the subject very well. If the issue were in regards to biology, (A subject I don't have any aptitude for) I wouldn't place much faith in what I know.

It's basically 'If you disagree, I'd like you to prove it before submitting it as proof.'

I assume everyone else would form their opinions based on their experiences, but if they submit something that I don't find convincing, I'm going to assume they're wrong. Likewise if I don't make a convincing argument, I assume they're going to believe I'm wrong.

What actually happens though is that one who can punch holes in an argument will say their own statement must therefore be right. I would respect another person submitting evidence, but not when they proclaim their evidence counters my statement without convincing me.

When I start a thread, I aim to present evidence and let readers decide for themselves. What usually happens is that the other side submits something and then says that my sources are incorrect. I don't want to say the opposite side of an argument is incorrect, but I feel I have to when they undermine my side.

I am guilty of doing this as well, so this is hypocritical of me to complain. I would like to get the opposite side's perspective on the matter, but when it seeks more to undermine my evidence... I won't respect an opinion more if it says 'Could it also be this?' rather than 'I'm right/You're wrong'

igyman
06-13-2009, 09:58 AM
I have to agree with Jae - lying is a very specific verb. The example that you mentioned - a person who offers a counter-opinion without immediately explaining how they formed that opinion isn't lying. You can question the value of their argument, but you can't accuse them of lying. Also, sometimes the explanation a person offers for their opinion simply doesn't satisfy our own requirements, in which case you either ask that person to clarify the confusing part, or you simply agree to disagree.

Now, when it comes to the main question of this thread - sanctions for lying and to which extent should they go (if at all) - I think it depends on the nature of the lie.

For example, (this actually happened very recently on another forum) a member posts art in the art section of the forum, but he lies about him being the author of said art. Other members who have already seen said art somewhere on the net begin to suspect something, some outright accuse him, others ask in a more refined manner about some details, others find actual evidence that the art isn't his and provide links. In the end the thread is locked and deleted and the offending member was (as far as I know) punished (most likely banned, but I can't say for certain). Now, while this isn't the best way for members to behave (I personally think it would have been more civilized to report the thread to a mod and present evidence directly to them, instead posting them in said thread), the infraction was handled (and it definitely should have been handled) and the offending member got even more than he deserved - he was exposed in his own thread, which undoubtedly caused some humiliation and hopefully that person won't repeat the deed again.

In conclusion, yeah, some forms of lying should be sanctioned, but the trick is in recognizing them.

EnderWiggin
06-13-2009, 10:10 AM
That is not what I am suggesting. Anyone who 'disproves' a source without offering an effective counter argument and proclaim that they are right is lying. Or at the very least, that person supplants the opposite side by pouring sand into their argument and offering nothing of value to the debate.

I'm not one to easily change my opinion, but only because I make one based on a solid foundation of proof. When I don't have that much proof to go on, my opinion is very flexible to change, and I don't put much value in that belief. If I did, I would be lying.
What are you hoping to accomplish with this thread, besides making a large scene?

If you could tell us, then perhaps we could work towards a resolution (or at least an end) and you could get off your high horse? :)

Seems like a soapbox instead of a discussion thread.

_EW_

Darth_Yuthura
06-13-2009, 10:54 AM
Quote: Igyman: The example that you mentioned - a person who offers a counter-opinion without immediately explaining how they formed that opinion isn't lying. You can question the value of their argument, but you can't accuse them of lying.


If a person offers a counter opinion to mine, there is nothing wrong with that. If proof is requested and they don't present a compelling counter argument, then it just goes to the credibility of their case. If I'm the only one who doesn't agree with that, then the way I respond goes to my credibility.

If people are convinced that the opposite side is right, then they clearly made a better case than I did. If the opposite side did nothing more than attack my credibility by creating a circular argument, I would consider that a personal offense because it was not backed by anything of intellectual value.

Example: It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about
Example: If you actually were there, you would see it's different from what you get in a book. It's obvious that you've never been to ******, so there's no point in you trying to argue.
Example: Given as you are wrong here, then you could be wrong about ****.

Both of these have actually been thrown at me before and they were insulting because they weren't true.

igyman
06-13-2009, 12:26 PM
I think that a person is lying if they create a circular argument, or one meant to discredit the person on the opposite side.

A circular argument is a logical fallacy and you can definitely argue its validity, but I still don't think you can consider it lying.

Example: It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about

An argument of this type, without any further elaboration as to why someone has no idea what they're talking about is obviously an argument of practically no value and as such shouldn't even be commented on, IMO.

Example: If you actually were there, you would see it's different from what you get in a book. It's obvious that you've never been to ******, so there's no point in you trying to argue.

When someone offers this kind of argument, it's pretty obvious that they are taking the topic at hand very personally and because they've been in that type of situation, or live/have lived in a particular place, or whatever, they are convinced to know more on the subject than someone else (and are right in a lot of cases). I know because I've used this kind of argument at least once in a very emotional topic for me. I'm still convinced I was right, but I realize that it wasn't the best way to present my case. First hand experience should count a lot IMO, but it doesn't seem to for some reason.

Darth_Yuthura
06-13-2009, 01:24 PM
Maybe. I know a certain professor who lives in Milwaukee (an urban geography professor) who I would trust to know his field. The problem is that I can't exactly call on him as a source and expect people on a forum to take my word for it, as I could very well have even gotten his logic wrong. Not to mention that no one else on this forum knows this guy, but I could point to something he's published.

And being first person to something holds a higher level of value than second-hand evidence, but the conflict I often encounter is really how much of the debate that person really participated in. Someone could have been in the military for 10 years, but that doesn't mean that they fully understand what escalated the conflict they were in. If they were a witness to an event, they can talk about their experiences and what they've done, but if they debate on a subject that they didn't participate in directly, they can't use themselves as a first-person source in that regard.

That's where first-person sources get difficult to debate.

CommanderQ
06-13-2009, 01:31 PM
Maybe. I know a certain professor who lives in Milwaukee (an urban geography professor) who I would trust to know his field. The problem is that I can't exactly call on him as a source and expect people on a forum to take my word for it, as I could very well have even gotten his logic wrong. Not to mention that no one else on this forum knows this guy, but I could point to something he's published.

And being first person to something holds a higher level of value than second-hand evidence, but the conflict I often encounter is really how much of the debate that person really participated in. Someone could have been in the military for 10 years, but that doesn't mean that they fully understand what escalated the conflict they were in. If they were a witness to an event, they can talk about their experiences and what they've done, but if they debate on a subject that they didn't participate in directly, they can't use themselves as a first-person source in that regard.

That's where first-person sources get difficult to debate.

Well, first person accounts can be accurate, but on the internet, it would be difficult to prove. Unless the person giving the account is extremely trusted {which is slightly hard to find online}.

But also, first person accounts are influenced by that person's point-of-view and opinion, and that in itself can deteriorate the validity of their statement.

EnderWiggin
06-13-2009, 02:09 PM
Why did you quote my post and then choose to ignore it?

Either quote it and reply, or just ignore me altogether. The half-and-half thing you're doing is odd.

_EW_