Misstating member's views & then arguing against those misstatements - A problem

**Devil505** · 14th February 2012 09:48 AM

I've brought this up before but here's a problem I see all the time:

Member "B" will claim member "A" said or believes "X" & then rail against "X" without providing any evidence that member "A" actually said anything of the kind. (Most of the time, if member "A" denies ever saying it & demands proof, it will be ignored by member "B")

I propose a new forum rule that if someone claims something was said.... & a dispute arises over it..... the claiming member MUST provide proof in the form of posting the actual quote or a direct link to it or be penalized in some way. (I would suggest a Thread Ban in egregious cases)

Here's a slightly exaggerated example I'll make up:
Member "A": "Beautiful day outside today, eh?"
Member "B: "Well obviously member "A" could care less about the suffering going on in Syria because he just said so!"
Member "A" "I never said anything of the kind!. Let's see your proof?!?"
Member "B: (Silence)

This is a recurring problem & one that could be easily rectified.

**Oscar99** · 14th February 2012 10:01 AM

we cannot ban strawman comments. that would be silly.

let the idiocy of the stawman stand on its own.

**Devil505** · 14th February 2012 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Oscar99

we cannot ban strawman comments. that would be silly.

It's basically lying with the intention of insulting a member & we can certainly control that, imo.

To make it easier for staff. member "A" must formally report member "B"s post & refusal to provide proof.
Then it's just a matter of enforcing the new rule.

How many threads deteriorate into childish arguments over claims of who said what?
(Are we going to expect readers to wade back through pages of text to find out who's lying?)
I think it's worth doing to cut short those silly arguments.

If you claim someone said or believes something......attach a quote of link to your accusation!...Simple!

**Mordent** · 14th February 2012 10:06 AM

Just make it against the rules to start a sentence with "So you're saying ****".
We can call it the SYS fallacy.
There's no need to use that when you can quote exactly what was said...

**michaelr** · 14th February 2012 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Devil505

It's basically lying with the intention of insulting a member & we can certainly control that, imo.

To make it easier for staff. member "A" must formally report member "B"s post & refusal to provide proof.
Then it's just a matter of enforcing the new rule.

How many threads deteriorate into childish arguments over claims of who said what?
I think it's worth doing to cut short those silly arguments.

I don't like McDonald's, so knock it off.

**johnflesh** · 14th February 2012 10:41 AM

Member "A": "Beautiful day outside today, eh?"
Member "B: "Well obviously member "A" could care less about the suffering going on in Syria because he just said so!"

Funny, this is THE DEFINITION of trolling.

Trolling (with respect to PH): attacking the MOTIVES of a poster.

We've moved on though to say that trolling is pretty much anything of disagreement, thus that the original meaning is lost.

So with that said I am totally against new rules, and totally against more punishment. It is what it is and we need to define it as such and stop going in circles trying to find new ways to punish and write new rules.

**tubig** · 14th February 2012 10:45 AM

The last thing I want to do is spend my time looking up and searching my past posts. What does any of this really matter anyway? It's all make-believe land.

**Devil505** · 14th February 2012 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by johnflesh

Funny, this is THE DEFINITION of trolling.

Trolling (with respect to PH): attacking the MOTIVES of a poster.

We've moved on though to say that trolling is pretty much anything of disagreement, thus that the original meaning is lost.

So with that said I am totally against new rules, and totally against more punishment. It is what it is and we need to define it as such and stop going in circles trying to find new ways to punish and write new rules.

I have no problem with using the old rule then.
The problem is this goes on all the time & is not punished.

If you think it's trolling then let's start punishing it as trolling.

**beatleboy** · 14th February 2012 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by tubig

The last thing I want to do is spend my time looking up and searching my past posts. What does any of this really matter anyway? It's all make-believe land.

I'm with you. Links put out are not always right anyway, you have to consider the source. I say, debate, and if you think you know better, do your research and find out. No more rules, please, there are enough of those. Let us all speak, but of course, without personal attacks.

**johnflesh** · 14th February 2012 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by Devil505

I have no problem with using the old rule then.
The problem is this goes on all the time & is not punished.

Speaking for myself alone, the remedy is fairly easy to deal with as a member with rules, mods, or punishments. Ignore it. Its ridiculous on it's face and paying heed to it by acknowledgement furthers the act.

For instance:

Devil505 once wrote (paraphrasing): "I guess that is how it is for you righties..." to me... of all people.
What did I do? I trumped this up to your ignorance and the fact you know dick about me, and simply replied "Yeah, I'm a righty" and moved on.
Problem solved.

If you think it's trolling then let's start punishing it as trolling.

This should be directed at moderators first and members second.

I get your point Devil, but after being here for 2,493 years, I've learned how to handle situations like this without so much as a report, an infraction, a warning, or a threadban. Ever.
(This doesn't include my moderator days, to be fair.)