Infraction in Politics for accusation of lying without proving

turgon

I received an infraction a few minutes ago in the EU forum from Bonkey:

Infraction Notice wrote:

Reason: Breach of Forum Charter

---

The charter is clear regarding accusations of lying.

---

Original Post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=62307955

I accused Jim Corr of lying in his original post on that thread. However I did not back up these allegations, which makes the supposed post breach the charter, quoted here:

Politics Charter wrote:

If you are going to level allegations of lying at another poster, please be willing to prove that they are lying - that they deliberately intend to deceive. Simply calling someone a liar is not acceptable.

However, the simple reason I did not back up said accusations of lying was that poster Seamus made an extensive rebuke of the original post here. When it comes to threads where lying is happening, I think it is utterly counter productive to prove this lying again and again. This merely clogs up the thread as everyone is tripping over each other saying the exact same thing. I think its sufficient for one poster to show up the lies before that fact is generally accepted.

Thats basically it. I know I am far from the perfect poster on Politics where I have an unfortunate history of infractions, but I think that Im not as bad as some. I just hope for some clarification here and obviously will do my best to make sure I dont annoy the Politics mods again.

BuffyBot

Multiple posts claiming "lying" without proof clog up a thread just as much, I suspect.

turgon

Indeed, but my post was along the same lines as ones I have posted in the past few days; that is trying to understand and expose the underlying psychology behind advocating No.

My post was different to others there.

bonkey

turgon wrote: »

However, the simple reason I did not back up said accusations of lying was that poster Seamus made an extensive rebuke of the original post here.

While I admit I didn't make it clear in my infraction PM, I tried to do so in the thread itself...

the distinction I am making is exactly the difference between what Seamus did (attacked the post) and what you did (attack the poster).

Even if you genuinely believe the poster is lying (as opposed to merely wrong, misinformed or deluded), then there is an appropriate way to register your complaint...that being to report the post.

I know the other Politics mods have been coming down hard on posts which are spreading misinformation since before I (re)joined the team...so I accept your point about having to constantly re-address the same misinformation, but would note that its already something the team have been trying to deal with as fairly as they can.

We have to bear in mind that we can't just be seen to be censoring points of view. The casual reader would come to the forum and see only that people are being stamped on merely for advocating a perspective. That's not what the regulars would see in the same situation, I know, but whether we like it or not the forum isn't just a playground for its regular members.

I accept that an infraction for your comment was harsh. Unfortunately, the reality is that as the Politics forums get busier and busier coming up to the referendum and we have "hotbed" threads like this one cropping up, we have to come down a bit harder and faster than we otherwise would, or else everything spirals out of control far too quickly.

turgon

Thanks for the reasoned response bonkey, and I accept all that you are saying. I should have been more reasonable and considerate on the thread in light of the obvious tension in the run up to Friday.

I try my best to be good poster, however sometimes I tend to lose perspective, especcially with the campaign at the moment which has been annoying my greatly. Ill try and make sure it doesnt happen again

sceptre

As a quick note on to bonkey's post, we've always been pretty picky about accusations of lying against other posters in the forum.

I can only remember making the accusation once myself and I jumped through quite a few hoops to satisfy myself that I could justifiably do so (essentially you've got to demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that the person knows what he/she is saying is not true and that they are deliberately attempting to mislead by knowingly making an untrue statement - that's a pretty high standard of proof required).

And yeah, the tension is mighty and people are beginning to lose the rag a bit on the posting end so we have to clamp down. Either side, doesn't matter which obviously.

Do you know what's a great word? Misinformation. Or others like it. Next time out we'll all need a new one but that's the buzzword for now in my head.