Accused of lying -- no Mod action

Iwannahurl

I was accused of lying, twice, by the same poster, in the Speed Camera Mega-thread (Motors).

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82364765&postcount=3126

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82365231&postcount=3130

The second post goes as far as to accuse me of "lying yet again".

This is not acceptable, IMO.

I reported both posts. When no action was taken, I sent a PM to one of the Mods.

The Mod did not reply to my PM, though did find the time to write a jokey post in the thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82365660&postcount=3132

A second Mod, responding to a PM from me, declined to take action:

<PM removed>


The CMods cannot be contacted by PM.

Does the general Boards charter allow for members to be accused of lying?


.

LoLth

that depends. did you lie?

boards is a discussion forum, posters can post their opinion and have it discussed. As part of a discussion you presented a form of proof to support a fact that in turn lends weight to your argument. Another poster now claims that the fact you reference is not present in the source you cite as evidence that your argument is correct.

While I am sure the preferred wordign would be "you are wrong" the fact remains that if you post somethign that you know to be factually false then you are indeed lying (if you do not know it to be false, then you are just wrong) so in this particular instance, yes a poster can accuse you of lying but it should be a relatively simple task to shut them up and show that you are in fact telling the truth by showing that the report you cite does indeed contain the fact you are presenting.

Its not nice to be called a liar but if you are going to present a fact or engage in a debate or heated discussion then you have to allow for manners to slip a little.

Does the report contain data or a statement that supports your assertion? if so, post it. Its the quickest way to defend your point, or, if its not a direct quote then show how you reached your conclusion. If it does not contain data that can support your claim then you either linked to the report at random, linked to the report mistakenly or linked to the report as a way to support an unsupported statement.

This whole "where did I say that exact phrase" is just semantics tbh and just wastes time. in the end you need to either put up (show the data you are referencing) or admit that it cannot be supported and bow out of the thread gracefully (post your retraction) or silently (just stop posting in that thread).

LoLth

btw: does the charter allow a poster to be called a liar? no, thats personal abuse and attacking the poster not the post.

however the other poster involved here says that you are lying which , to me, is a reference to your post and not yourself.

Also, this is not DRP, dont post PMs without the other party's agreement please.

Iwannahurl

LoLth wrote: »

btw: does the charter allow a poster to be called a liar? no, thats personal abuse and attacking the poster not the post.

however the other poster involved here says that you are lying which , to me, is a reference to your post and not yourself.

Also, this is not DRP, dont post PMs without the other party's agreement please.

The phrase used was "you're lying yet again". That is a clear reference to the poster and not to any particular post(s). I'm surprised that you can conclude otherwise.

As for "posting PMs", how does an anonymous quote offend in this context?

Finally, what's DRP?

LoLth

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The phrase used was "you're lying yet again". That is a clear reference to the poster and not to any particular post(s). I'm surprised that you can conclude otherwise.

As for "posting PMs", how does an anonymous quote offend in this context?

Finally, what's DRP?

seriously, would it not have been easier at this stage to just disprove the other poster and show that the supporting facts do exist in the document you linked? I'm suprised that you are putting more effort into taking offense at the claim that a post contains a lie than you are at actually disproving the claim. Personally I would have disproved the claim and let other readers make of it what they wish. As it stands, its looking like you cannot disprove it and are instead trying to get the claim removed (after unsuccessfully arguing against it on thread) by leveraging a charter rule. I apologise if this comes across as being mean or uncaring but in all honesty I have no time for people that make a statement and then cannot support it and then seem to take it personally if someone questions their veracity. I agree that the use of the word "lying" is not my preferred response and that "wrong" or "mistaken" would have been better but if you deliberately posted a link to lend false weight to an argument then unfortunately "lying" or bluffing is what it is. From reading that thread (not the report, just the thread), it appears that you stated an opinion as if it were a fact and then , when called on it because someone took the time to read the linked report and discovered that your fact was not supported by it you changed tack to claim the report lead you to a conclusion which the opposing poster then challenged. At no point however have you actually shown proof or explained how you came to your conclusion. As I say, thats how it appears. not necessarily how it actually is, but thats the impression others reading that thread would get.

If it is simply the wording of the posts that offends you then I can ask the user if they would be willing to allow me to change the wording to something less inflamatory/personal (like lying to untrue or wrong).

also, "you're lying yet again" to me, references your subsequent post. as in, you were lying in teh first post (with the link to the report) and you were "lying yet again" in the post quoted. I'm suprised that you can take it as a personal affront tbh.

---

anonymous would be if it were from any poster on boards. that it came from a moderator of a particular forum narrows the field considerably and removes any pretense of it being anonymous. (the PM content was edited before I read this and I havent checked the edit so I did not know it was an excerpt and not a full PM text. doesnt matter though, you still attribute private communication to one of two or three users)

---

DRP: Dispute resolution Procedure (forum). its a sub-forum of Helpdesk where users can appeal a mod decision that affects them (infraction or ban).

Iwannahurl

LoLth wrote: »

As it stands, its looking like you cannot disprove it and are instead trying to get the claim removed (after unsuccessfully arguing against it on thread) by leveraging a charter rule. I apologise if this comes across as being mean or uncaring but in all honesty I have no time for people that make a statement and then cannot support it and then seem to take it personally if someone questions their veracity.

You're wrong.

No offence.

LoLth

none taken.