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

[Bowerbird]

Yes, I see your point and agree with you.

It would be common in occurence in making an attack, to say "you CONtards" and attack the person under the blanket radar of saying it was attacking "their" ideology....when it is clearly personal.

Or even "CONtards" in the midst of debate/discussion (with a singular poster) without the "you" is still an attack.

It doesn't bother me personally though BB. Call me a CONtard, hatemonger, racist...whatever. My skin has grown thick over the years, and I understand the mods have standards to keep (which has nothing to do with me not caring the words flung about by anyone)

What bothers me, and has done for years is the division it is causing in American society. That and it reduces political debate to "us and them" rather than focussing on the issues

I guess it is me being Aussie we have a saying, courtesy of the late Don Chip "Lets keep the bastards honest!" (okay so we swear a lot!)

In other words we accept ALL politicians have the potential to be crooked and work from there - that means we don't really align fully with any party. I think some of this has come out of mandatory voting - we are a nation of swinging voters and therefore you get a lot more focus on issues rather than parties and a lot lot less focussing on the followers of a particular ideology than on the ideology itself

[cenydd]

See this is where I disagree with the mods in how they operate.

If you are poster #1, and you ask that question, obviously based on a previous comment to you by poster #2, you shouldn't be tagged as flaming him b/c poster #2 has set in motion a negative retaliation, that in my book is warranted and should not be tagged as flame bait.

By tagging both as flame bait, you turn the victim into a perp and that isn't right, especially not knowing when and if a moderator will come in in a timely fashion to get rid of the troll.

People who are trolled and flamed by others, should be given a 1 comment leeway.

Frankly, trolling and flaming should carry a heavier penalty then it currently does.

As I said in my previous message, we would have to look at the context of the entire conversation before making any decisions, exactly as you describe here. If the comment were based on previous accusations which were also violate the rules, we would certainly look back to that. We wouldn't look at the post in isolation (as I was doing in my previous comment, where I had no context to look at, of course!), but consider the whole context of what was going on.

That said, it is important to realise that every member is responsible for their own posts. While we certainly consider context, a rule violation posted in response to another rule violation does not necessarily excuse that violation, or mean than no action will be taken against the member posting it (in addition to the other member also posting violations, of course).

People who are trolled and flamed by others will have the context of any violation that they post taken into account, but will not be simple given a 'free pass' to violate the rules because they believe that others might have violated them first. As already stated, each member is responsible for their own posts, and their own rule violations.

People who believe that they are being trolled and flamed by others, should report those posts and NOT respond to them. Quite apart from ensuring that they don't violate the rules themselves in response, it's quite well known that the best way to get rid of 'trolls' is not to feed them. Not only are they more likely to give up and go way, but it makes it much, much easier for us to deal with their rule violations (and without having to deal with multiple rule violations from multiple members).

It is important also to note that 'troll' and 'trolling' can often be very subjective terms in their use. We regularly see 'opponents', particularly over more contraversial subjects, assuming that each other must be 'trolls' or 'trolling' simply because they are posting opinions that their opponents cannot understand people possibly holding. They seem to assume that someone supporting an opinion opposite to their own must be doing so as 'wind up', or 'trolling'. In such contraversial areas, it comes from both sides, because some people on both sides cannot seem to contemplate the idea that there are people in the world who don't see things the way they do.

Attacking or baiting someone because you believe that they are 'trolls' or 'trolling' is against the forum rules - you should report them (for the moderators to determine whether they are actually breaking the rules), ignore them, and certainly not violate the rules in response to them. If you find that you can't engage with any member in 'respectful debate', you shouldn't engage with them in any debate at all!

[Nosferax]

As I said in my previous message, we would have to look at the context of the entire conversation before making any decisions, exactly as you describe here. If the comment were based on previous accusations which were also violate the rules, we would certainly look back to that. We wouldn't look at the post in isolation (as I was doing in my previous comment, where I had no context to look at, of course!), but consider the whole context of what was going on.

That said, it is important to realise that every member is responsible for their own posts. While we certainly consider context, a rule violation posted in response to another rule violation does not necessarily excuse that violation, or mean than no action will be taken against the member posting it (in addition to the other member also posting violations, of course).

People who are trolled and flamed by others will have the context of any violation that they post taken into account, but will not be simple given a 'free pass' to violate the rules because they believe that others might have violated them first. As already stated, each member is responsible for their own posts, and their own rule violations.

People who believe that they are being trolled and flamed by others, should report those posts and NOT respond to them. Quite apart from ensuring that they don't violate the rules themselves in response, it's quite well known that the best way to get rid of 'trolls' is not to feed them. Not only are they more likely to give up and go way, but it makes it much, much easier for us to deal with their rule violations (and without having to deal with multiple rule violations from multiple members).

It is important also to note that 'troll' and 'trolling' can often be very subjective terms in their use. We regularly see 'opponents', particularly over more contraversial subjects, assuming that each other must be 'trolls' or 'trolling' simply because they are posting opinions that their opponents cannot understand people possibly holding. They seem to assume that someone supporting an opinion opposite to their own must be doing so as 'wind up', or 'trolling'. In such contraversial areas, it comes from both sides, because some people on both sides cannot seem to contemplate the idea that there are people in the world who don't see things the way they do.

Attacking or baiting someone because you believe that they are 'trolls' or 'trolling' is against the forum rules - you should report them (for the moderators to determine whether they are actually breaking the rules), ignore them, and certainly not violate the rules in response to them. If you find that you can't engage with any member in 'respectful debate', you shouldn't engage with them in any debate at all!

OH please...

We all know that PF has a few select members who can post just about any racist and anti-semitic nonsense and get away with it... You know and we know who they are...

They are the reason 99% of the Latest World News is about Israel or jews in one form or another. If there was a real moderation authority those thread would end up in the Middle-East or conspiracy subsection.

Same with the religion subsection where a self admited troll is now going on his 9th thread about the merit of the evolution theory while never proposing his own alternative theory or even a link to religion!

I'm sad to admit that PF has been going downhill for a while, the bad hosting service doesn't help much but it doesn't explain everything that is going wrong.

[Tram Law]

So let me get this straight, if somebody is spreading lies about you, you can't call them a liar because it is insulting to them and yet the lies they are spreading about you are hurting in many different ways?

Doesn't make any sense to me. It's utter nonsense.

And seems like a huge double standard.

Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.

[Tram Law]

OH please...

We all know that PF has a few select members who can post just about any racist and anti-semitic nonsense and get away with it... You know and we know who they are...

They are the reason 99% of the Latest World News is about Israel or jews in one form or another. If there was a real moderation authority those thread would end up in the Middle-East or conspiracy subsection.

Same with the religion subsection where a self admited troll is now going on his 9th thread about the merit of the evolution theory while never proposing his own alternative theory or even a link to religion!

I'm sad to admit that PF has been going downhill for a while, the bad hosting service doesn't help much but it doesn't explain everything that is going wrong.

If there was any real moderation going on, no racist posts would be allowed, period.

[DA60]

If there was any real moderation going on, no racist posts would be allowed, period.

At the very least - they would be looked upon as what they are...flame bait.

You would have to be a total moron to not know that starting blatant racist threads is going to inflame all decent human beings that read it.


If it is considered potential flame bait to ask someone if they are calling me a liar (as a mod above stated).

Then it is - imo - CERTAINLY flame bait to start threads that are blatantly racist in nature.

[CanadianEye]

What bothers me, and has done for years is the division it is causing in American society. That and it reduces political debate to "us and them" rather than focussing on the issues

I guess it is me being Aussie we have a saying, courtesy of the late Don Chip "Lets keep the bastards honest!" (okay so we swear a lot!)

In other words we accept ALL politicians have the potential to be crooked and work from there - that means we don't really align fully with any party. I think some of this has come out of mandatory voting - we are a nation of swinging voters and therefore you get a lot more focus on issues rather than parties and a lot lot less focussing on the followers of a particular ideology than on the ideology itself

The division in American politics has reached a seeming zenith of us vs them because one ideology has been winning through gradualism and tactical advantage which has produced a rigid stance from those losing (who enjoyed an effortless natural advantage for centuries), who now view themselves and their country at the cliff and are stubbornly refusing to be pushed over.

I think political forum reflects that vehement stalemate, and there will be no healing of the rift between the two...and just a buttload more work for the mods to keep it somewhat civil.

[The Judge]

OH please...

We all know that PF has a few select members who can post just about any racist and anti-semitic nonsense and get away with it... You know and we know who they are...

They are the reason 99% of the Latest World News is about Israel or jews in one form or another. If there was a real moderation authority those thread would end up in the Middle-East or conspiracy subsection.

Same with the religion subsection where a self admited troll is now going on his 9th thread about the merit of the evolution theory while never proposing his own alternative theory or even a link to religion!

I'm sad to admit that PF has been going downhill for a while, the bad hosting service doesn't help much but it doesn't explain everything that is going wrong.

This is incorrect. Neo-Nazis and white supremacists usually get banned before they have much to say. Those who didn't get banned are still around because they don't say much.

[The Judge]

If there was any real moderation going on, no racist posts would be allowed, period.

How exactly does one define "racist post"? The only race is the human race, and hostile generalizations are expressed against all groups of people for various reasons and with differing arguments. Heck, I just criticized some unnecessary hostility against liberals and got insulted for criticizing a generalization which responded to a generalization, while you insulted me for pointing out that ad hominems don't do much good in proving a point.

[cenydd]

If there was any real moderation going on, no racist posts would be allowed, period.

The Mission Statement of the forum says this:

PoliticalForum.com functions as a public forum website open to all individuals of all political persuasions that is centered on the discussion of politics in general. All walks of life are welcome to join the discussions in the tradition of vigorous respectful debate. The purpose of rules and guidelines for the forum is to help create an environment that is inviting to as wide a spectrum of people as possible from all parts of the world, but that does not restrict the ability of users to express their political views, even if those views are inflammatory or unorthodox. In a world often filled with intense political turmoil and polarization of beliefs, PoliticalForum.com attempts to bring opposites together to relate their views and learn from one another.

Expressing views that other people happen to find 'inflammatory or unorthodox' is NOT against the forum rules. The moderators do NOT censor opinion here, and do NOT decide what actual opinions are 'permissable' on the forums.

Expressing a potentially 'inflammatory opinion' is NOT the same thing as 'flamebaiting':

(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'.

There is a clear distinction between these things.

Expressing an opinion that other people (including the moderators themselves, obviously!) happen to not like, or might personally find 'inflammatory or unorthodox' according to their own personal opinions, IS permitted. Expressing any opinion, or constructing any posts, 'in a manner specifically designed or intended to elicit emotionally charged responses or personal attacks from others' is NOT permitted.

In simple terms, people ARE allowed to post opinions that other people might consider to be 'racist' (and people inevitably do not agree about what is 'racist' and what is not, of course, depending on their own points of view), for example, but people are NOT allowed to specifically bait members by, for example, posting things that are nothing but simple and nasty racial abuse.

It really shouldn't be a distinction that is too difficult to grasp.