Very quiet in here

I think you are reacting to a symptom not the cause.

The benefit of the doubt only goes so far. I think in general there is benefit of the doubt but it is on a short leash. Quickly exhausted by similar pattern from same poster or similar style of claim from a new poster.

Maybe the posters have been paying closer attention to the threads and have read every post. They have followed the duscussion in context. Mods dont or rarely follow every post on a topic.

And they can see the patterns in posts and can tell when someone isnt giving an honest account and deliberately misrepresenting things. I dont think it is an accusation that should be thrown out lightly, it should come with justification but nor should it be blindly sanctioned by a mod.

I have called out other posters for lies on different forums on the site, backed up by specific references either to their previous posts or articles they cited and plainly did not attempt to honesly present.

Its social media in 2025. There are bad faith actors out there pushing agendas. It is a hostile environment.

Isnt that one of the reasons the no anecdotes rule was brought in on a topic in CA? It is unverifiable, it is open to abuse to invent false rumours.

Posters react to that environment with shields up and a wariness of dubious claims.

And allowing posters to go around being able to claim another poster said X, without any expectation of backing that up with reference to posts - well I can think of few things less likely to improve the quality of discussion or reduce hostility than that.

Allowing posters to lie and not be subject either to mod overview or be challenged robustly for it likewise would lessen the quality of any discussion. "That is not accurate" doesnt come close to challenging such conduct imo.

I can honestly say I have never seen a poster asked by a mod to back up what another poster claims is a mistruth, a not accurate claim or a lie. The interest therefore it would seem is not in fairness in moderation.

Ok, I can't say it is a satisfactory response but it is fairly clear.

I just came off a three months ban and I just can't bring myself to post in CA anymore. I suppose that's the expected result so it's all good.

I think that's the issue: the poster is suggesting that they are the victim of a deliberate campaign of reporting by posters with a grudge against them, leading to unfair sanctions, as described below:

I don't get this logic: how is a one-liner post calling someone "Cathy Newman" more offensive than saying "No that's not what I said"? Seriously?

And surely the post itself has to be offensive no matter who posted it? Otherwise it means you moderate posters differently depending on who they are?

if they were unlucky enough to attract a couple of "stalkers

😁 Aye. Have several of them. One of my regulars appeared here as soon as I commented. 😁
Sad bunch, no opinion of their own that they are prepared to debate but righteous to a tee about opinions they don’t like. Even in the self reverential ‘higher quality’ politics forum all that happens is their one line flame posts are removed quietly, no boldy text for them and they are free to like posts and after a while fire in the one liner personal arrack. But the charter is fine, nowt to worry about.

I know my simple 'change of attitude' to posters who use the lie/liar word was rejected but here is another simple change that might improve the place, only allow the 'victim' to report single post personal attacks.

What business is it of anybody else's unless it turns into a forum disrupting spat.

Multiple times over the years I have seen posters sanctioned for 'insults' they fired at me which I wasn't bothered about and didn't report. Others I did report. Why a third party is allowed to feel umbrage on my behalf I don't see as having any value and it can be abused.

Poster felt this was a personal attack. Mod Agrees, Warning applied.

Took me 2 secs to type the above.

Allegations are happening anyway.
What you claim 'will happen; is happening as outlined by a poster here already.

My suggestions are based on the mod having to intervene anyway and I still see no reason why they would not result in fairer outcomes and less time consuming moderation.

*A personal attack is only an attack if someone takes it personally. And that someone should not be a randomer who may have other motives.

There was a dedicated Political Satire thread before.

The majority of posts in it seemed to be Anti Trump posts, most of them were deeply unfunny, crude and vitriolic.

It was closed just before the US election if memory serves me correctly as it was becoming toxic.

Which was a pity as there has been an abundance of excellent memes since then that would actually be worth posting for both sides of the political spectrum.

There isnt much room for humour or sarcasm in some CA threads, it definitely could do with a bit more lighheartedness instead of the vitriol.

I have never seen a case a random person took on behalf of someone who doesn't feel a crime/defamation/insult was committed.
Which is what I said.

We are also not talking about murder, rape or robbery here either.
One person's personal attack is another's 'banter' 'robust debate' or 'fair remark' even.
To me it's the 'rule' that is wrong. A personal attack should not be defined as such until the person supposedly attacked, (and only that person) takes it personally. It's then up to a Mod to decide if it is actionable. Reduces work and reduces the possibility of abuse of the report function in that instance.

Repeating myself so will leave it there.

The mods decide what gets to stay. Nobody else.

You keep saying this as if I have said something different.

You have already set up a system to ignore ban or warning appeals.

Ignore 'reports' too if they come from random posters insulted on somebody else's behalf?
Adopt the Stephen Fry approach, 'You're offended? So what?'