hello

[Legs]

There can't, you have to find other people to have a civil discourse with I guess.

So you say there cannot be civil discourse with people who are habitual liars, yet hand out infractions for not having civil discourse.

People asked for Orwellian censorship, the Moderators try to deliver.
The customer is always king.

Since you're good at forum searches, you may be able to find the threads where people complained that moderation was too lax for a while.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't and all that.

Since the customer is always king then you will be satisftying this customers requests about people constantly repeating claims which are knowingly false, right?

[Husar]

So you say there cannot be civil discourse with people who are habitual liars, yet hand out infractions for not having civil discourse.

You forget the two other options:
a) the civil talking-to-a-wall
b) the civil not-having-a-discourse

There is noone who forces you to break the forum rules.

Since the customer is always king then you will be satisftying this customers requests about people constantly repeating claims which are knowingly false, right?

The customer is only a customer as long as he agrees to the Terms of Service, in this case called the forum rules.
Repeating claims does not violate forum rules, aggressive behavior does.
I'm well aware that it can be frustrating if the other side seems to just repeat arguments, I moved on to either just stopping the discussion or having fun with it in non-aggressive ways.

[Montmorency]

I notice the emoticon has gone out of common use in the past few years...

[Legs]

The customer is only a customer as long as he agrees to the Terms of Service, in this case called the forum rules.
Repeating claims does not violate forum rules, aggressive behavior does.

That isn't true is it.
It would depend on the nature of the claims being repeated.
That aspect is covered in the first 12 words of the relevant section of the forum rules isn't it.

I wonder, why is it you chose to the omit actual words I used? repeating claims which are knowingly false and instead cut it down to just repeating claims ........
Are you lying by omission?
I just called you a liar, is that aggresive or just accurate civil discourse?

[Husar]

I wonder, why is it you chose to the omit actual words I used? repeating claims which are knowingly false and instead cut it down to just repeating claims ........

You say it was my choice to omit something, are you incapable of assuming that I may have thought the other part less important or are you lying about my motives on purpose?

Are you lying by omission?
I just called you a liar, is that aggresive or just accurate civil discourse?

It's just rather aggressive because I was trying to help you.
If you think I'm a liar because I overlooked something or don't remember every single word of the forum rules (I'm not meant to moderate by the way), then I'm afraid I can't help you.

If you do care about what I have to say after all, I am not sure what you are referring to regarding knowingly false information. If it is about some holocaust denial, I think that material was already deleted. In many topics it is hard to make a judgement about what is knowingly false as both sides will claim what the other says is knowingly false. The moderation can not always step in and suppress what it thinks is knowingly false. I'm pretty sure that the rule is more about lying about something or someone than about suppressing someone's political opinion that they actually believe in (thus don't know that it could be false).

[Legs]

You say it was my choice to omit something, are you incapable of assuming that I may have thought the other part less important or are you lying about my motives on purpose?

Is there any reason why you chose to omit the words other than to change the meaning?

If you do care about what I have to say after all, I am not sure what you are referring to regarding knowingly false information. If it is about some holocaust denial, I think that material was already deleted. In many topics it is hard to make a judgement about what is knowingly false as both sides will claim what the other says is knowingly false. The moderation can not always step in and suppress what it thinks is knowingly false. I'm pretty sure that the rule is more about lying about something or someone than about suppressing someone's political opinion that they actually believe in (thus don't know that it could be false

Well that's simple.
If someone makes a claim about the content of a video then the video is irrefutable proof of its contents.
If the video does not contain what people claim it contains then the claims are false.
When challenged on the actual content you get further denials(excuse the pun) in response and insults.
Now if someone claims something isn't in a video when it is, and claims that they have watched the video then something doesn't ring true.
If that person then says that the lengthy interview is only 10minutes long it proves that they have neither watched the video or are aware of its contents.
Therefore everything that person has written on the subject is completely false and they have knowingly chosen to simply lie throughout the entire exchange

[Beskar]

Is there any reason why you chose to omit the words other than to change the meaning?

Brevity. I don't need to quote the rest of your post to respond to this question of yours. It is nice not to bombard others with walls of text pointlessly.

[Legs]

Brevity. I don't need to quote the rest of your post to respond to this question of yours. It is nice not to bombard others with walls of text pointlessly.

Bull, complete utter bull.
If it was to respond to the post it would have of responded to the content of the post.

[Lizardo]

[Thanks for this contribution, try again with something far more constructive and polite.]

[Husar]

Is there any reason why you chose to omit the words other than to change the meaning?

Is an accident a choice?
Am I an omnipotent, perfect god who cannot miss something without bad intentions?
I'm flattered but I'm afraid I have to disappoint you.

Also, which words? I'm not sure anymore whether you are referring to the quoted part or to the quoted part of the quoted part that the quoted part referred to orthe other quoted part that the part quoted in the quoted part referred to or something else entirely.

Well that's simple.
If someone makes a claim about the content of a video then the video is irrefutable proof of its contents.
If the video does not contain what people claim it contains then the claims are false.
When challenged on the actual content you get further denials(excuse the pun) in response and insults.
Now if someone claims something isn't in a video when it is, and claims that they have watched the video then something doesn't ring true.
If that person then says that the lengthy interview is only 10minutes long it proves that they have neither watched the video or are aware of its contents.
Therefore everything that person has written on the subject is completely false and they have knowingly chosen to simply lie throughout the entire exchange

At this point I cannot answer you because I have not watched said video, I can neither confirm nor deny anything about these allegations.
You are however the first person I'm aware of who seems to demand that someone get punished for lying in a discussion. It's not something we ever did as far as I'm aware and I think if taken too far, it gets way too subjective given the subjects discussed in the Backroom. I mean, technically we might have to ban everything the people on the "wrong side" of a political discussion say if we assume they have evil intentions (an easy assumption in a political debate...). I'm also not sure if that is intended by the spirit of the rules, I understand them more in the way of don't spread false information with the intention of harming other members.
Either way it does not excuse personal attacks. Two wrongs still don't make a right.

[Beskar]

You are however the first person I'm aware of who seems to demand that someone get punished for lying in a discussion. It's not something we ever did as far as I'm aware and I think if taken too far, it gets way too subjective given the subjects discussed in the Backroom. I mean, technically we might have to ban everything the people on the "wrong side" of a political discussion say if we assume they have evil intentions (an easy assumption in a political debate...). I'm also not sure if that is intended by the spirit of the rules, I understand them more in the way of don't spread false information with the intention of harming other members.
Either way it does not excuse personal attacks. Two wrongs still don't make a right.

Given Legs two responses to my own messages, it is a clear example of it being subjective. He has claimed "bullshit" and "omitting". I personally feel I have done neither. So who has "lied" ? Is Legs falsing accusing me, or is his interpretation different to my own?

I feel it is the latter example in his case. Legs has his subjective interpretation which is different to the other posters. So whilst he sees it as one way, they see it as another. Because they do not see it in his way, they must be "lying", because how else could they be getting a different take on a subject than himself?

[Legs]

Also, which words? I'm not sure anymore whether you are referring to the quoted part or to the quoted part of the quoted part that the quoted part referred to orthe other quoted part that the part quoted in the quoted part referred to or something else entirely.

That's simple

I wonder, why is it you chose to the omit actual words I used? repeating claims which are knowingly false and instead cut it down to just repeating claims ........

notice how one is completely different in meaning