[Boats]

I do realize that I am one infraction from being "banned," due in large part to my own failing to rein in my utter contempt for the postings of certain members who possess no factual standards.

Along those lines, I'd like to get a better grasp on the moderation standards lest I run afoul of some other subjective taste or common decency standard. I am posting this because merely PM'ing one moderator does me no good in reading the style of others and what one will let slide another will infract.

It does seem to be the case that one can write ANYTHING, no matter how unsupported, outlandish, untrue, fantastical, etc., and sound as authoritative as one can make it, and so long as one says such things without demeaning other members, he has carte blanche to do so.

IOW, there are no repercussions on this site for lying through one's teeth in serial fashion, or for making things up, or for repeatedly SWAGing and claiming "statistics", and imply authority one does not in any fashion possess--so long as one is unfailingly polite in doing so, is that correct?

Lest you think I am doing so, I am not trolling the moderators here, because I have been a member without issues here for seven years up until very recently. It just seems to me that in the past, moderators quelled stylistic trolls whose method consisted of serial lying, often in unsupported or unsupportable declarations of one line, as doing such wasn't "high road," by starting arguments, misleading newer members, and being generally poor form. That type of moderation seems to have vanished over the years, and there are now in fact no other minimum standards a post must meet, even if it is part of a pattern of larger abuse of the truth, so long as those posts are "non-offensive" in any other respect.

Is that true? I am genuinely curious.

[kingpin008]

Just out of curiosity, can you point out a few threads that contain the kind of lying and misinformation you're referring to? I'm not enturely sure I see what you mean, but I'd like to get an idea.

[Boats]

Some of the moderators know what type of posting I am referring to, so as to give a taste of what I am talking about without naming names, which is not what my thread is about, I will give examples instead:

Studies of officer involved shootings indicate why most cops use pistols without manual safeties.

Care to link to said studies?

Isn't it self-evident that most cops in the US use guns without manual safeties?

This is an example of a "hide the ball" lie. The intention is to say something "authoritative and provocative" and when called on it, drop defense of the original "authority" and move to an irrelevant "proof," rather like picking a kid's hand when he asks you to choose which one the ball is in, all the while shifting it to his other hand.

Citing the obvious truth about the adoption of "safetyless" pistols in police service says NOTHING about the first implication that somehow some unlinked studies show that manual safety operated pistols might compromise officer safety. It's trolling.

Another example that was extremely annoying was the contention that the S&W M&P was designed in part by Walther. No proof was offered. When counter proof was offered up as to who exactly was responsible for the design at S&W, the rejoinder was "Prove what I said wasn't true." For some reason the blatant untruth is allowed to stand here on THR, to be propagated by search engine to convince the unwary in the future.

IMO, there is a difference between opinion. (The AK doesn't fit me or my shooting style well therefore I dislike it) and a totally false assertion (The AK rifle was almost wholly derived from captured Nazi Stg-44 rifles.)

In the first instance, there is no refuting someone's taste in rifles. In the second instance, if someone points out that the tilt block operation of the German rifle really has nothing to do with the rotary action of the Russian rifle and someone goes on insisting that their demonstrably false argument is true, "because dang it if they don't look similar," that person has crossed into deliberate lying as a form of trolling. There seems to be no regulation of such posting behavior.

[dovedescending]

People who post erroneous information and can't defend it are more to be pitied than censured. I will probably make such an error myself. That being said, calling people out has never been an issue in any kind of debate... it's HOW you do it. A soft answer turns away wrath and all that.

[Sam1911]

A Moderator's job is not to declare the winner of a thread, nor is it, specifically, to distill fact from fiction and deliver "the final answer" to every question to the readership.

A skillful debater will exercise great diplomacy and a respectful attitude while offering citations and whatever evidence he/she is able to muster to support his/her point.

Calling someone a liar -- or even believing them to be so with all your heart -- does not necessarily make them so.

Sure, they may be deliberately spreading falsehoods. That is not as common as people CLAIM it to be, but it surely does happen. Hence every other thread seems to feature some poor fall guy who gets tagged "TROLL" because he expresses views contrary to the dominant opinion. (It seems to matter not whether the "troll" really believes his statements or is really "trolling" for an argument. Calling him a "troll" is supposed to shame him into submission.)

They may be mistaken, and may have supporting evidence which is, itself, mistaken. That's no crime. In fact, many of us have strongly believed things that proved to be false upon later reflection or in the light of new evidence.

Maybe you can supply that new evidence. If you make a counter claim, then expect to have to show supporting evidence that disproves their assessment -- and the erroneous conclusions within their supporting documents if possible.

These techniques of debating -- the dialectic process, if you will -- only works when the arguments and evidence are presented clearly, succinctly, and without rancor and "noise." Belittling the opposing side, using impolite monikers, inserting rude and insulting images, and in any way employing scorn and condescension as part of your rebuttal makes your own argument look WEAK.

Having said all that, I'll return to what appears to be your original question: Why don't the Mods find the lies and scourge the liars from our rolls here in the hallowed halls?

Several reasons:
1) We are enthusiasts like you. We aren't encyclopedias of every firearms fact known to man. A lot of the facts and opinions being debated here at THR are at the cutting edge of firearms knowledge and practice. There are few resources available to truly "prove" or "disprove" many of these points, even if we had access to them all.

2) We don't have time. We cannot track down every source given by every debater and verify its authenticity and veracity. If someone cites a source and you don't like it -- do your own research and submit a counter point. POLITELY.

3) A large percentage of the topics under heated discussion are VERY controversial. The information is not truly, conclusively known by ANYONE. The arguments presented here are often reflections of opposing views presented by experts in the field. They don't agree -- fairly often -- so how is it right that we Moderators should defend the view you choose over one someone else chooses? Generally, IF we do have a strongly held personal opinion, we will try to express it within the body of the thread and let our words stand on their own merits or the merits of our supporting sources. JUST like EVERYONE ELSE.

THR is a community of contributors. The content here is only as good as the folks who come here of their own free will can make it. That means that everyone's contributions must be judged by each reader, individually.

A Moderator's job is to keep the discussions on topic and CIVIL. So, back to your statements, if a poster is POLITE and ON TOPIC, he or she may say whatever he/she likes/believes. Any of us may rebut their statements if we feel they are incorrect -- again, as long as we are POLITE and stay ON TOPIC.

You may prevail in the debate and change your opponent's mind. That's great. You may present a very compelling argument but not sway your opponent -- and yet educate many others who will read your words. That's great, too! You may present your best argument and be proved mistaken. That's just grand as well.

But do it like a gentleman engaged in an adult, civil discourse. THAT's "The High Road."

[Robert]

FWIW I have seen people banned from THR because they were lying through their teeth, were caught on it by a mod, and when confronted with the absolute truth but would not recant. More often than not it involves military record or knowledge that the member was false about.