Is it acceptable in the rules to accuse other members of lieing?

[Leffe]

What I find odd is that calling someone out for lying is not OK, but persistently insulting entire demographics is somehow OK. This is the wrong way around IMO. The latter clearly causes far more issues in terms of having a debate board where people act like adults towards each other.

[CanadianEye]

What I find odd is that calling someone out for lying is not OK, but persistently insulting entire demographics is somehow OK. This is the wrong way around IMO. The latter clearly causes far more issues in terms of having a debate board where people act like adults towards each other.

I don't follow your term demographics.

It would cease to be a political forum at the point in which a demographic could not be targeted, along the lines of this example. You probably couldn't even field the topic of OWS, as the demographic of "rich people" is hurled with furious insult as a point of cause.

Same with god/religion. Liberalism, conservatism etc.

[cenydd]

The important thing to remember (and the rule on Personal Attacks is carefully worded to reflect this) is that whether something is 'truth', 'fact', or 'proven' can very often be subjective - as moderators, we should not be in the business of trying to judge whether an insult directed at a member is 'true' or not. If it's a derogatory comment aimed at another member, it's not allowed - it's as simple as that.

There is also obviously this rule, relating to that issue:

(5) Flamebaiting.

DELIBERATELY INFLAMING OTHERS IS NOT 'RESPECTFUL DEBATE'

Threads, posts or comments that appear (in the judgment of the moderators) to have been expressed in a manner specifically designed or intended to elicit emotionally charged responses or personal attacks from others are not permitted. This applies to the topic, title, images, language and any other content, and is especially true of any extreme abusive language or slurs directed at racial, religious or other groups, or anything involving threats of violence. Members are allowed to express ANY opinion on the forum, even if others find that opinion itself 'offensive' in some way. However, comments must not be constructed deliberately just to offend or inflame, and abuse is not 'just an expression of opinion'.

We do not restrict the freedom of people to express views that others may find personally 'offensive' in some way, and we do not stop people from insulting politicians, public figures, political groups, etc.. The Personal Attack rule is specific to attacking other forum members, to keep the debate between members 'respectful' (as detailed in the forum's Mission Statement). However, we do not allow posts which are simply extreme abusive rants, threats of violence, and so on against racial or similar groups - that goes beyond the expression of an opinion in a discussive or 'respectful' manner, and is only ever likely 'to elicit emotionally charged responses or personal attacks from others'.

In the same way as one the Personal Attack rule, whether a particular stated opinion constitutes something 'racist' (or 'bigoted', or whatever) or not can often be a subjective opinion (open to debate and discussion - while members can't call each other 'racists', they can obviously denounce a post as appearing to be 'racism', as long as they do so in compliance with the rules, not simply to inflame the other member, by explaining their view), and it's not for us as moderators to decide whether a viewpoint should be dismissed as 'racist' or not (or even whether 'racist' views are themselves 'right' or 'wrong' - that is a matter for members to debate for themselves, obviously). If it is a discussive and 'respectful' post in the way it is worded, it is allowed, no matter what opinion it may appear to express. If it is simply a nasty and extreme abusive rant against a particular racial (or similar) group, it is considered to be 'flamebait', which is not allowed.

[Leffe]

I don't follow your term demographics.

It would cease to be a political forum at the point in which a demographic could not be targeted, along the lines of this example. You probably couldn't even field the topic of OWS, as the demographic of "rich people" is hurled with furious insult as a point of cause.

Same with god/religion. Liberalism, conservatism etc.

Other political forums I've been a member of would not allow the sweeping and insulting generalisations of groups of people, which is allowed here.

[Leffe]

Threads, posts or comments that appear (in the judgment of the moderators) to have been expressed in a manner specifically designed or intended to elicit emotionally charged responses.

I know you guys have a large work load, but it's pretty obvious that a small number of people, constantly refer to anyone who is not hard right "Libturds", "Libtards" etc.... all the time.

This rule is not being enforced IMO.

[cenydd]

Other political forums I've been a member of would not allow the sweeping and insulting generalisations of groups of people, which is allowed here.

There are indeed other forums where moderators take a far more judgemental stance on what opinions are 'permissable', according to their own particular political opinions. This is not one of those places.

[cenydd]

I know you guys have a large work load, but it's pretty obvious that a small number of people, constantly refer to anyone who is not hard right "Libturds", "Libtards" etc.... all the time.

This rule is not being enforced IMO.

There are regular terms flung generally and non-specifically at political opponents by both 'sides', but if we start to try to ban every one of those terms, applied to political groups in particular, where do we stop? Do we start to ban such terms when applied to political figures, and try to stop people from insulting politicians? It could very, very quickly get out of hand!

It would all be pretty futile anyay, because as fast as we banned one set of terms, they would invent new terms for 'the other side', and we'd have to start all over again (and our time for doing such things is not limitless, obviously!)! As long as the terms aren't being aimed personally at other members, or being used deliberately to directly inflame other members in purely inflammatory posts or comments (and that's about the context in which they are used), as general terms they are not in themselves 'banned'.

[Leffe]

There are regular terms flung generally and non-specifically at political opponents by both 'sides', but if we start to try to ban every one of those terms, applied to political groups in particular, where do we stop? Do we start to ban such terms when applied to political figures, and try to stop people from insulting politicians? It could very, very quickly get out of hand!

It would all be pretty futile anyay, because as fast as we banned one set of terms, they would invent new terms for 'the other side', and we'd have to start all over again (and our time for doing such things is not limitless, obviously!)! As long as the terms aren't being aimed personally at other members, or being used deliberately to directly inflame other members in purely inflammatory posts or comments (and that's about the context in which they are used), as general terms they are not in themselves 'banned'.

I understand you guys have a hard time in this, but this board is incredibly angry and these types of insults drive others to retaliate (which I understand is dumb and wrong) but it's reality. The worst possible way to start a "debate" is to blanket insult everyone who might disagree.

But like you said, moderating this introduces other issues of where the line is drawn.

[m81]

could be flamebait there but would have to read more of the thread

well here you go , take a look

Serbs Desecrated Jewish Cemetery in Sarajevo
Why Do The Serbs And Albanians Hate Each Other?

Also using racist slur over and over again by the same user

Serv
(English-speaking world) Serb (based on similarity of the word with servant)
from : http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Coon#S

serbian terror against Christian Germans in Vojvodina
Atrocities against Voivodina Hungarians
serbian terror against Christian Germans in Vojvodina

that's just small example, there is a probably hundredths of same types of posts by the same user. They are reported but mostly ignored

so i'm not sure if forum rules apply for everyone, looks to me it depends on who is the target of attacks .

[hiimjered]

You can say that a post is a lie, an opinion is a lie, but you cannot accuse the poster themselves of lying.

I did mean to say that the distinguished poster was a liar, I simply wanted to show that the words he was typing are a pack of lies.