Reported post

[the0ni0nking]

I'm chilled out in all of this.

I hesitate to say the facts of the matter are x or y - because for me it was simple. One person said something that was a lie. I said it was lie. I problem posted the post that was a lie

[csearle]

I'm chilled out in all of this.

I hesitate to say the facts of the matter are x or y - because for me it was simple. One person said something that was a lie. I said it was lie. I problem posted the post that was a lie

I value your integrity. My personal opinion is that a straightforward post refuting the other poster's assertion is the best you can realistically hope for in a situation like this. All the best, Chris

[the0ni0nking]

I'm chilled out in all of this.

I hesitate to say the facts of the matter are x or y - because for me it was simple. One person said something that was a lie. I said it was lie. I problem posted the post that was a lie

I value your integrity. My personal opinion is that a straightforward post refuting the other poster's assertion is the best you can realistically hope for in a situation like this. All the best, Chris

I appreciate that (I might disagree but who cares) - thank you for engaging in the debate.

[servodude]

Yeah, I get that. And I'm sympathetic to those arguments.

The fact in this case was about the number of postal votes in the Rochdale by-election. That's a number. And it was stated. But the poster chose to claim some other number.

Didn't the poster in question just make a simple mistake?

Simple mistakes are what simple people do
- factually incorrect posts don't always mean they're lying, just that they're ignorant, and possibly a bit hard of thinking
I think it rather reflects on the point they were failing to make

[JohnB]

Better to leave the posts and refutation. Then others can judge who's wrong and they suffer reputational damage.

[Dod101]

Which of the posting guidelines do you assert this post breaches?

You make an entirely reasonable point. But, I would position my view as this:

1. if you state something that is factually incorrect then that is unacceptable and should be called out as such
2. I f you have an opinion which differs from mine then so what - such is life.

In this case, I think it was 1. not 2. I think any bulletin board has an obligation to reflect the truth.

If the guidelines aren't aligned with that then so be it/

Where I would be concerned is your assertion that the comment was a lie, that is, a deliberate distortion of the truth. It could have been a genuine error. Are you perfect? I am not and errors can creep into comments I might make.

A better response might have been to point out the error and leave it at that.

Dod

[the0ni0nking]

I did point out the error and he doubled down on it

[Mike4]

Where I would be concerned is your assertion that the comment was a lie, that is, a deliberate distortion of the truth.

I have been musing over this point all night, and decided the dividing lines between a mistake, a deliberate mislead and an outright lie are so blurred that a thread on the philosophy board might be in order.

But now you've raised the point we might as well dissect it here...

[XFool]

I have no skin in this particular game (didn't even see the posts it relates to), however...

Where I would be concerned is your assertion that the comment was a lie, that is, a deliberate distortion of the truth.

I have been musing over this point all night, and decided the dividing lines between a mistake, a deliberate mislead and an outright lie are so blurred that a thread on the philosophy board might be in order.

No!

Why is there any blurring of the dividing line between "a deliberate mislead and an outright lie"? They are one and the same thing.

I'm quite hot on this topic. Ever since "Tony Blair 'lied' about WMD"...

A lie is not "Saying something that is false" - Though it very frequently is the case. You can lie by saying something that is 100% true.

A 'lie' is one thing and one thing only: An intention to deceive. Get a dictionary for Christmas, people!

It is precisely because a 'lie' depends on a person's intention that there is no easy, simple way of telling whether a person is or is not lying. Despite a large proportion of the population being entirely convinced, in their own mind, that they do 'know' whether somebody is or is not lying. Because of this problem of lying being to do with a person's (generally unknown) intentions, in practice the issue is often short circuited to whether a person has said something that does later prove to be false. i.e. Falsehood = Lying.

Which is itself false. (Though not necessarily a lie... )

[XFool]

I did point out the error and he doubled down on it

Ah. That takes is into murkier waters. As well as "error" and "lying" there is also "denial".

That is where things do get complicated and 'interesting'...

[chas49]

Moderator Message:
Please stick to actual suggestions to improve the site. Discussion of 'what is a lie' and other wider debate is off-topic here (chas49)

[servodude]

Moderator Message:
Please stick to actual suggestions to improve the site. Discussion of 'what is a lie' and other wider debate is off-topic here (chas49)

Plenty of online fora have adopted "Fact Check" policies - that leave a post but annotate it as <warning contains nonsense>

Perhaps that might occasionally be warranted here?
Especially given that one of the "reasons" in the "report this post" drop down is "contains claims not validated, cited, or bias"

In cases such as the one discussed here, where the reasons for the obvious falsehoods in the post could be some combination of innumeracy, illiteracy, and motivated reasoning, upon the report it might be worth dropping in an "Editors Comment" box to the effect?

This is done for some other moderations - and worked for the Beano

[Lootman]

Plenty of online fora have adopted "Fact Check" policies - that leave a post but annotate it as <warning contains nonsense. Perhaps that might occasionally be warranted here? Especially given that one of the "reasons" in the "report this post" drop down is "contains claims not validated, cited, or bias"

But that presupposes some clear consensus on what is right and what is wrong. It implies that in any debate there is an agreed-upon arbiter of truth whose decision is final and universally accepted.

Now that might work in some formal process like a court case with a judge or jury deciding. Or in parliament where there is a vote. But to do that here either requires that every topic is structured as a poll and Lemons then collectively decide what is "true". Or the moderator role needs to be expanded to include "finder of fact" determinations. And that begs the question of us all agreeing that Moderator X is an acknowledged expert in subject Y.

I just do not think that is practical and so all we are left with is what we have now - a discussion where the truth is slowly uncovered via Socratic back and forth. And frankly I always feel a little uncomfortable when someone claims with absolute certainty that X is true. If only because historically I have not noticed a reliable correlation between someone asserting "I feel certain that X is true" and X actually being true.

[XFool]

Plenty of online fora have adopted "Fact Check" policies - that leave a post but annotate it as <warning contains nonsense. Perhaps that might occasionally be warranted here? Especially given that one of the "reasons" in the "report this post" drop down is "contains claims not validated, cited, or bias"

But that presupposes some clear consensus on what is right and what is wrong. It implies that in any debate there is an agreed-upon arbiter of truth whose decision is final and universally accepted.

Now that might work in some formal process like a court case with a judge or jury deciding. Or in parliament where there is a vote. But to do that here either requires that every topic is structured as a poll and Lemons then collectively decide what is "true". Or the moderator role needs to be expanded to include "finder of fact" determinations. And that begs the question of us all agreeing that Moderator X is an acknowledged expert in subject Y.

I just do not think that is practical and so all we are left with is what we have now - a discussion where the truth is slowly uncovered via Socratic back and forth. And frankly I always feel a little uncomfortable when someone claims with absolute certainty that X is true. If only because historically I have not noticed a reliable correlation between someone asserting "I feel certain that X is true" and X actually being true.

Depends what it is about (I have no idea...) but, if it is something about the natural world then there IS an "arbiter of truth": Nature.

e.g. If you believe the earth is flat then you are just wrong...

Not everything is like that. However, reasonable people (whatever happened to them?), ought to be able to agree on a reasonable standard of practical "truth" relating to say, quantitative matters, in human affairs. If such exists.

[servodude]

But that presupposes some clear consensus on what is right and what is wrong. It implies that in any debate there is an agreed-upon arbiter of truth whose decision is final and universally accepted.

Now that might work in some formal process like a court case with a judge or jury deciding. Or in parliament where there is a vote. But to do that here either requires that every topic is structured as a poll and Lemons then collectively decide what is "true". Or the moderator role needs to be expanded to include "finder of fact" determinations. And that begs the question of us all agreeing that Moderator X is an acknowledged expert in subject Y.

I just do not think that is practical and so all we are left with is what we have now - a discussion where the truth is slowly uncovered via Socratic back and forth. And frankly I always feel a little uncomfortable when someone claims with absolute certainty that X is true. If only because historically I have not noticed a reliable correlation between someone asserting "I feel certain that X is true" and X actually being true.

Depends what it is about (I have no idea...) but, if it is something about the natural world then there IS an "arbiter of truth": Nature.

e.g. If you believe the earth is flat then you are just wrong...

Not everything is like that. However, reasonable people (whatever happened to them?), ought to be able to agree on a reasonable standard of practical "truth" relating to say, quantitative matters, in human affairs. If such exists.

I don't think this forum is suitable for the pair of you to indulge in one of your mutual tugging parties - so can that stop please

I am not suggesting that we censor the hard of thinking, I think it's a credit to the site that we allow the diversity hires to post (and allows us to more or less ignore them)

I was just pointing out a solution used elsewhere for the occasions one puts forward a figure ("a fact") of public record and incorrectly attributes it
- one that protects the publisher while avoiding the issue of stifling speech

Given we already have the stated reasons for reporting the post, an annotation in cases where the post is objectively wrong (such as the case in point) might serve the community better than a deletion?
- it would leave any ensuing chat in place and, to be honest, it's often more interesting to see what comprehension difficulties lead to public windowlicking

[RockRabbit]

I am not suggesting that we censor the hard of thinking, I think it's a credit to the site that we allow the diversity hires to post (and allows us to more or less ignore them)

I was just pointing out a solution used elsewhere for the occasions one puts forward a figure ("a fact") of public record and incorrectly attributes it
- one that protects the publisher while avoiding the issue of stifling speech

Given we already have the stated reasons for reporting the post, an annotation in cases where the post is objectively wrong (such as the case in point) might serve the community better than a deletion?
- it would leave any ensuing chat in place and, to be honest, it's often more interesting to see what comprehension difficulties lead to public windowlicking

I think that is an excellent idea since it would actively discourage 'fake news' as no-one would want their posts flagged in the way that Servodude suggests. However might be tricky to implement given that the LF uses off the shelf software phpBB (unless there is an existing add-on) and presumably would mean more work for the mods?

What on earth is a 'diversity hire'?

[servodude]

What on earth is a 'diversity hire'?

One who gets the job to fill a quota rather than on merit
- you've probably noticed some posters are there to play a role in this pantomime (cue "oh no we're not!" from the cheap seats )

[tjh290633]

What on earth is a 'diversity hire'?

One who gets the job to fill a quota rather than on merit
- you've probably noticed some posters are there to play a role in this pantomime (cue "oh no we're not!" from the cheap seats )

There are some posters who seem to have an irresistable urge to take part in many topics, often because one of their previous adversaries has commented. In many cases such intervention does not contribute in any meaningful way to the discussion.

TJH

[XFool]

I don't think this forum is suitable for the pair of you to indulge in one of your mutual tugging parties - so can that stop please

Funnily enough, I did not perceive it as such, in this instance. I thought I was trying to contribute helpfully and sensibly to the debate. Albeit in a somewhat abstract way.

Bear in mind, for better or worse, I still do not know the actual basis for the disagreement - as I said initially - so have no reason to take sides.

[Lootman]

I was just pointing out a solution used elsewhere for the occasions one puts forward a figure ("a fact") of public record and incorrectly attributes it - one that protects the publisher while avoiding the issue of stifling speech

Given we already have the stated reasons for reporting the post, an annotation in cases where the post is objectively wrong (such as the case in point) might serve the community better than a deletion?

But again you have ducked the most important question of how we reach this supposed consensus on "objective" truth or falsehood. And that is the hard part because reasonable people can and do differ about what is "right".

Unless you can prescribe the process whereby the community reaches that agreement, your idea is in danger of creating a lot of dispute and hot air without any real illumination. Somehow the idea of "fact police" here does not inspire confidence that it does not involve more time, effort and contention for the moderators and administrators.