Option 3.
Unfortunately, the only thing I would like to see moderated more is the one thing that is the most difficult to moderate: intellectual dishonesty.
I don't care about profanity, personal attacks or the like. We aren't in grade school. We don't need to be coddled. Everyone here is capable of defending themselves from unwarranted attacks without running to tattle to teacher.
I wish intellectual dishonesty wasn't so prevalent, as I like to avoid the need for moderation as much as possible. But it is so prevalent you would be hard pressed to find a single thread that does not have any present. The problem with dishonesty is that it blocks the ability to have meaniful conversations and debates. It's easy to 'win' an argument if you just lie and present those lies as facts, and then ignore others' arguments showing that your evidence is a lie.
After all is said and done, though, if it boiled down to a choice between keeping it as is or moderationg everything to the letter of the law, I'd choose the former. I'd deal with the annoyance of liars rather than see this forum turn into a watered down version of its former self.
Option 3.
Unfortunately, the only thing I would like to see moderated more is the one thing that is the most difficult to moderate: intellectual dishonesty.
I don't care about profanity, personal attacks or the like. We aren't in grade school. We don't need to be coddled. Everyone here is capable of defending themselves from unwarranted attacks without running to tattle to teacher.
I wish intellectual dishonesty wasn't so prevalent, as I like to avoid the need for moderation as much as possible. But it is so prevalent you would be hard pressed to find a single thread that does not have any present. The problem with dishonesty is that it blocks the ability to have meaniful conversations and debates. It's easy to 'win' an argument if you just lie and present those lies as facts, and then ignore others' arguments showing that your evidence is a lie.
After all is said and done, though, if it boiled down to a choice between keeping it as is or moderationg everything to the letter of the law, I'd choose the former. I'd deal with the annoyance of liars rather than see this forum turn into a watered down version of its former self.
Dishonesty is not subjective. It is, however, difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.We might as well form a mob and lynch the mods now if they decide to try this. It's almost completely subjective.
Did I say anything about posting links? Do you even know what intellectual dishonesty is? WTF man?Let me guess --What your really trying to say is if somebody posts and they post a link that contradicts your post then they are guilty of intellectual dishonesty?
That is a very slippery slope...just look at all those who believe that 9/11 was a government plot........lolol
Can we say non -sequitir?? What you just posted does not make any sense! Opps...my bad I would bet by your standards that was a personal attack!!
Please define in your opinion what a personal attack is construed of.....
Just want to add one thought regarding Locking of Threads: Too many Threads have been locked because non-OP posters have come into them and derailed the thread. It just seems to me that by doing so it just promotes shenaniganism, aka - Posters who don't like the topic of discussion know how to remove the subject from being discussed.
Instead, Delete/Vacate Posts/Posters who cause Derailing.
Did I say anything about posting links? Do you even know what intellectual dishonesty is? WTF man?
By whom? By the person posting the false info. If a person posts something false because they don't know it is false, that is not intellectual dishonesty. If some posts something they know to be false in order to support their position, that is intellectual dishonesty. Black and white.So lets delve into what you call "intellectual dishonesty"....
Here are two definitions --
Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving in academia, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways:
One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
References are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided
Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception."[1]
thats from wikipedia....
**********************************
This is taken from the Urban dictionary --
Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false. -- by whom? An argument which is misused to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary. -- who decides the argument is being mis-used?? What if the other person honestly believes the argument is valid??
The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably frames an opponent in a negative light. It is a round about way to say "you're lying".
*************************************
It would appear as if ones definition of "intellectual dishonesty can also another persons truth......again -- slippery slope....
In other words I see no black or white way to combat this...
Criticise away, there is a different between criticising and calling an entire nation "barbaric racist subservient delusional peasants with an inbred whore for a monarch" If someone posts "I seriously think that x countries foreign policy needs re-evaluating as it is causing extreme tension in the region" that's different.
As I said, your signature will be changing.What about people that think and act like they are Administrators of AT Forums but are not?
What about people that think and act like they are Administrators of AT Forums but are not?
Why don`t you worry about how your going to deal with things?
Quit worrying about others....
By whom? By the person posting the false info. If a person posts something false because they don't know it is false, that is not intellectual dishonesty. If some posts something they know to be false in order to support their position, that is intellectual dishonesty. Black and white.
The only problem, and it can be very big problem, is determining what the poster knows and when he knows it. However, if someone posts some bullshit and is then called out on it and shown in a logical manner that what they posted is patently false beyond a shadow of a doubt, and then they later post that same bullshit again, well then the fact that they are being dishonest is also in black and white now isn't it?
As I said, your signature will be changing.
So are you a Mod?
I can act like a Mod too then?
So does that mean you will be self moderating yourself?
This does not deter an offender from derailing a discussion and trolling in those who are not ignored.If someone on this forum simply can't stand another poster, the ignore list is available for a reason.
An absolutely rotten idea for a political forum, where by its nature blocks are often defined by partisan ideology rather than your apparent ideal society composed of members standing by with honest pragmatism.I'd be all for some type of community-based rating system where participants on this forum could "like" or "dislike" certain comments and/or posters...
This does not deter an offender from derailing a discussion and trolling in those who are not ignored.
Moderation is required to maintain control and a civilised forum. It does not take many anti-social posters to trash this society and threads. Those few disproportionately ruin an unregulated society.
Speaking of which, your signature is a member call out. Are you going to voluntarily change it or must you be forced to? I have not reported it, as I think you're capable of self-correction.You nailed it. I had the two worst offenders on an ignore list and they continued to post after every one of my posts completely ruining threads with their trashing of me with lies and personal attacks instead of addressing the thread itself.
Speaking of which, your signature is a member call out. Are you going to voluntarily change it or must you be forced to? I have not reported it, as I think you're capable of self-correction.