Noted.

The bolded describes my view well.

I proposed banning the words "gaslighting" and "gaslight", because literally the only poster who used the term used it incessantly and it never did anything positive for any discussion imo.

So, are you are considering deliberately making bad faith posts to test the limits of the new rule?

I found these debating tips:

https://www.theclassroom.com/debate-...s-8736679.html

An Excerpt:

One of the most important tips when it comes to debating is to focus on attacking ideas rather than people. Attacking an opponent on a personal level only weakens the argument. Instead, debaters should look for flaws in their opponent’s reasoning and call the logic into question rather than the person.

Students should avoid the use of words like “always,” “never,” “often” or “generally” because they make their arguments more vulnerable to attack from opponents.

If they believe that their opponent is wrong about something, they should point it out in a tactful manner. For instance, instead of simply saying that an opponent is wrong, students should state that their opponent’s idea is mistaken and then back that up with support for why the idea is flawed.

Students should not disagree with truths that are obvious or try to exaggerate evidence to suit their case. While it is acceptable to present an opinion, students should be careful to acknowledge that it is just an opinion rather than trying to present that opinion as a fact.

Students should use appropriate tone of voice, maintain their composure throughout the debate and avoid bickering. If students remain focused on supporting their ideas and refuting the ideas of their opponents, they are likely to succeed.

In my opinion, following these guidelines would help this forum.

I will be addressing a lot of these points in a single response later, as there is a lot to cover.

But I want to clarify something immediately to prevent anyone from making a tactical error:

There is a difference btwn what uke did in his answer and the example of a totally unrelated, off topic response that cuepee did to Bobo. That was pure trolling. Posts like that will be deleted and the poster subject to banning.

I'm not going to get in a discussion now about the differences. I will cover that in my response. But I want to make sure everyone understands that there is no such thing as test posts to determine the limit that have some sort of amnesty. If your test is determined to violate a rule, it will be handled as any other post that violates the rules.

As I have many times before, I suggest everyone put their energy and efforts into participating in the actual main threads and stop getting worked up over a bunch of hypothetical situations that may or may not occur. Esp those trying to identify a hard, objective border at the extremes, as if we were debating what happens at the edge of a black hole. It's all a subjective call, and as the referee I will make the call.

Before i catch up on this thread, why should Trolly not be called out for his gaslighting or dishonesty or whatever you want to call in this exchange, where he is trying to create a fake narrative that cities and prisons have endless money for non priorities and like uke would say 'its easy'.

It is a wholly dishonest approach he is taking there.



And why should chillrob not be called out in this one where when Lucky pins him with a checkmate question/request to prove he DOES have free will, by simply giving him a simple test to put two fingers on a table and lift one, chillrob to avoid conceding says he literally cannot decide which to lift and thus they are stuck. His lack of free will does not allow it.

Laggy is arguing that to be 'nice' we must not call out that out as a lie or gaslighting and i guess, just go along with it? Indulge it?


People DO gaslight, lie and otherwise distort to avoid conceding, and this push for everyone to never call it out and say it as it is not 'nice' is just nutty.

Which forum? The BFi, no they pretty much all agree this forum is a cesspool and a place for group think only and that there more conservative views would get them banned here.

Is that what you were asking? Did i clear it up?

What is bad faith about it?

If the mod says 'it is perfectly ok for uke to reply with a complete non sequitur, that ignores what you asks and can easily create a perception with others that he is engaging a post and point you never made, and that is ok because 'we cannot make him do otherwise'...


Then i am saying, i accept that rule and will adapt to it to. Thx for clarifying. Before i stretch my wings and start deploying it.


Surely you do not think the mod is saying that is an 'uke rule' only, do you?

Yes ukes is WAY worse and your position is illogical.


Ukes has every ability to TRICK readers who are not following closely to THINK i actually made the post he is replying to. We have seen that play out here many times in the past.

If i take a bit of what you said and reply to another point, it certainly looks to others like he might be replying to your point. That would NOT happen in what i said with Bobo. As you say, it would be seen as silly empty posting trolling and not fool anyone.


BUt i am happy to take what you said and adapt to uke like deception which you have NOW stamped as ok.


I look forward to your next post when you return and my uke like reply to it.

I don't know who "we" is supposed to be, because I don't think you are, and I'm certainly not. The only person who I know for certain is calling for gaslighting to be banned is laggy, and he agreed with my interpretation of that: "Very few people (one or two?) are asking for an outright ban of it, and my suspicion is that those who are, are only doing so because they've gotten tired of the excessive and at times incorrect use of this kind of accusation, and believe banning it may be the only solution - I think that if we actually found a way to greatly reduce those accusations, they would be fine with them. But I don't want to speak for others; perhaps I have that wrong." So I think that would leave no one agreeing with "Even if you know it is untrue engage with it as if true".

Well, this long list of leaps doesn't seem especially relevant now given what I've said above, and with how I'll answer your next question.

Nope. "that summary is grossly misleading" makes no assumption of intent. I can post something misleading quite unintentionally. Much like I can post something untrue, without being a liar.

Of course.

I might be misunderstanding you here, but if you're suggesting that I'm saying no one should ever be called out, that would be incorrect.

I've certainly never suggested that I am some holder of standards on this, nor that it's about what's wrong for me.

This isn't about there being some people that can be called out, and others who can't. It's about what people post. And of course I can't give you some line in the sand where X is OK to call out, and Y isn't. That's going to be subjective, and that's why we have moderators - so someone can make those calls.

As I've said before, there are three ways to approach this issue. You could say that no one is allowed to call out lying/gaslighting/posting in bad faith; I don't think anyone has advocated for this. You could say that everyone can throw out such an accusation whenever they like; I didn't think anyone was advocating for that, but I'm starting to wonder if that wouldn't best align with what you're looking for. The third way is what I believe most people are in favour of, that lying/gaslighting/posting in bad faith can be called out, but not simply on a whim whenever someone likes. But if that's the approach taken here, someone is going to need to be the arbiter of that. To paraphrase you: That the moderator decides appropriateness and not QP.

Just ban him browser, it will save us all.

Almost every thread now has a "gaslight" derail. It's rather sad imo.

No, I don't really care what BFI thinks. I don't even know what BFI actually is. What I am asking is, if you feel this forum is an echo chamber, does that not suggest that we all have the same opinions (other than you)? So you are suggesting that no reg here is conservative or has conservative views?

It's rather hard to explain how this isn't gaslighting as it's just so far from gaslighting.

Here's a situation that started in the mod thread and then moved over here. Some of the posts are upthread. I am paraphrasing here to save time, but the points are correct and show the issue fairly well, I believe.

Chezlaw: is it OK to attack people who can't respond back?

Browser: dont like attacks at all, if you're referring to banned people, no you cant attack them.

Cuepee. Creates a scenario and claims that under the policy of banned people cannot be mentioned at all in any way, he couldnt adequately respond in his scenario.

So here's the problem: i never, in any way, stated that banned posters could not be mentioned in any way at all. I said they couldnt be attacked. So that statement by cuepee is false. It's called a strawman, as it doesnt represent my actual policy, ampnd it allows him to attack my policy based on his false description of what the policy covers. It's a textbook strawman, not gaslighting.

So, what to do now? Cuepees statement is false. So is it appropriate to post"cuepee that's a lie, and you're a liar!"? If I say "cuepee, you misrepresented my policy" is there really no difference between saying that and calling him a liar? Is it just a matter of being nice and using a less aggressive term? Is there a difference between saying "cuepee, you misrepresented my policy" vs "cuepee, your statement misrepresents my policy"?

Do I say, "**** it. He posted a false statement so he needs to be called out as a liar! " what if cuepee misread my statement, and so he actually believes I said that banned people cannot be mentioned at all. He read a meaning into the statement that wasnt actually there. So is it still a lie and he a liar? Or is misrepresenting actually not completely synonomous with lying? So on one hand, cuepee may have had no ill intent or bad faith in making his post. He just made a mistake.

OTOH, what if cuepee was clear that I did not say that banned people couldnt be mentioned at all. He altered the policy on purpose. He then created a scenario to show how bad that policy is. He created a strawman and attacked it. Should he be called out as a liar and strawman user right away? What if he claims he just misunderstood the policy, but actually knew full well what he was doing? Now he is lying to cover up his deliberate misrepresentation; he is lying about lying.

I'd like to hear peoples thoughts on how to handle this.

Is every false statement a lie? Every misstatement also a lie? Is every individual to be called out(ie you're a liar") Or do we just point out the problem with the statement (ie your statement misrepresents my policy)? Do we give posters the benefit of the doubt initially and assume an honest mistake or figure he must have known exactly what he was doing ie a deliberate attempt to deceive?

As a rule, I favor applying the Charity Principle; i.e. I assume that the putative misrepresentation was not intentional.

I learned some time ago that when someone misunderstands what I've said, that it was far more often than not my fault for not being more clear.

So, we can often just clarify what we really meant as clearly as possible. That should usually clear things up.

The problem we have at the moment is someone who repeatedly misrepresents the views of others, and accuses them of lying, trolling, gaslighting, and eating crackers in bed. (Okay, I made that last one up.)

Warnings and temp-bans are obviously a last resort, but it may have to come to that with repeat offenders that pretty much the entire community believes is not posting in good faith.

Just my three cents worth. (Adjusted for inflation.)

This.

And this. Whether it's really far more often than not, it's a great assumption to make. I'm sure like many of us, I could be better at this.

Accusing people of lying/gaslighting/arguing in bad faith should be the last resort, not the first response.

And as a sidenote, when using a specific term like gaslighting, a poster shouldn't be surprised if they get pushback when they use it in a way that most people don't understand the word. Finding a way to shoehorn in one's own interpretation of the meaning just ends up detracting from the point being made.

In general I think one should aim to critique the argument and not the poster, as per Rule 1. For example arguing that a position is false or misrepresenting or misleading or incomplete are all critiques of the argument, but accusation of tricking/lying/gaslighting/trolling are all speaking to the intent of the opponent. There might be exceptions and fringe cases (which you've previously asked us not to harp on iirc), but the guiding principle is to treat your opponents with good faith and when they say something even if their argument is very bad (or your interpretation of it, at least) then you critique that bad argument, but not cast all sorts of aspersions against your opponent.

I think there is two main classes of reasons for this. The first is about the conversation, that this kind of attack on a person's character is more likely to result in the kinds of entrenched and acrimonious exchanges you want to avoid. But secondly, most of these accusations are just wrong. For example in the flippant "gaslighting" from earlier ITT, I know I wasn't trying to deceive Cuepee it was just bad accusation, one that gummed up the conversation.

I don't do it particularly often, but I have accused people of lying on this forum before. Maybe only one person. My personal standard has been that I want both a quote of me saying the opposite AND a previous time where I've explained to that person that I don't believe the thing they are accusing me of yet again. That is, they have explicitly and repeatedly been told that this is not my position but are nevertheless still repeating that it is my position. In an era where the moderator is going to deal with such trolling themselves, I don't think there is much need for posters to be making those kinds of lying accusations themselves, but the point is even when that wasn't the case my personal bar was pretty high before I would ever accuse someone of lying.

Finally, I'll caveat this that in general I've advocated less hands-on moderation. So all of this is in the context of a more hands-on moderation then hopefully that hands-on moderation is internally consistent and focusing on what I consider the most egregious and common types of personal attacks which is all these accusations of lying and gaslighting coming out of, well, one person really.

All very well said.

Especially important is your closing observation: "...all these accusations of lying and gaslighting coming out of, well, one person really."

I believe this to be arguably the most important point of all. Accusations of lying&etc. isn't a tactic being utilized by a large number of posters. Or, to put it another way, this is not a problem endemic to the culture of the Forum community. As such, it should be much easier to fix and/or control.

Of course you don't. They don't care what you guys think either.

The commonality is this 'not me... you' belief as you both follow the exact same paths.


Do you think that the far left cares what the far right thinks about them smearing people with "...ist" or the far right cares what the far left thinks about them smearing people with 'groomer', 'pedophile'.

Of course both sides say "I don't care what the other thinks', as you do. That does not make it wrong to call BOTH sides out even as they want to pretend they are not like the other.

Do you think i am expecting an admission from EITHER?

I am open to argument.

We are discussing there, a very real situation where there are items that would fall under Volunteer Work, as no one has any priority to find a budget for them.

Trolly is creating an entirely false narrative to NOT discuss it that there is a budget and they could simply be paid and he keeps repeating to the other readers.


It is an alternative narrative being pushed that is not based in reality. So why is that far from gaslighting?

You need to read the exchange as Chezlaw clarified to me he was pushing for a 'no mention of former or banned posters at all, as it is possible you can be misrepresenting them or accusing them of something they cannot defend'.

You are not summarizing these well which is a form of ....

FWIW if you look to exchanges such as the one with uke or Trolly it is not done up front. It is done when the argument progresses, does not go their way and SUDDENLY they start misrepresenting what was said or creating a fake narrative to reply to.

Trolly knows very well, at this point, as i have stated it numerous times, that unlimited budgets are not a real thing and just because you say 'then can just pay inmates to do XYZ work' does not make it so.

Sometimes work only gets done as volunteers step up, or in the case of inmates, super low paid individuals, because no one is prioritizing that work especially at the cost it would take to clearn every single rural side road with proper wage labour.

A form of what? I'm assuming that letting it trail off is your way of implying gaslighting/lying/posting in bad faith, or else you would have just left it at "You are not summarizing these well." If my assumption is wrong, then perhaps you can clarify.

But if my assumption is correct, then this is a nice succinct little summary of the problem, which is making the immediate conclusion that someone is posting in bad faith. There's zero reason to make that your conclusion here, if that's what you're doing.

FWIW I replied to your earlier response to me. Not that you're required to respond to it if you've already said your piece.

Lol, if you are trying to accuse the mod of gaslighting at least be brave enough to finish the sentence.