It recently came to our attention that we have no policy against outright lying on this site (no, we're not going to discuss the background, we're just happy this was indirectly brought to our attention). Also absent were any guidelines around intellectual dishonesty as far as debating goes. Predominantly, MTS is a discussion/debate forum.
Since we doubt most regulars periodically review our Site Rules, we thought we'd call this out here.
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...l=1#post174027
I originally had some discussion points in this post (trash-talking is not subject to the guidelines, nor are we going to issue warnings for burning straw men), but have just incorporated that stuff into the site rules.
If you have any questions or suggestions for improvement, let us know.
- Staff
A rule against lying? On the INTERNET? Crazy talk.
I have an issue with this in direct relation to The Source; specifically in regards to hyperbole (see: ThunderBluff, Cheatyface Ichorid)
One of the greatest things about this site is it's members and admin's ability to relax normal mores in the face of that which is genuinely entertaining. This circumvents that in the name of "preventing lying". Well as long as the lying only could fool those whose opinion is held in derision anyway, who does it hurt?
For instance, I could in some relative context claim that a friend of mine has three......assholes. Anyone with a modicum of reasoning could easily conclude that there is likely little truth in that statement. But in a certain frame of reference, and with "suckers on the line', so to speak, it could create a hilarious situation.
Now stating this as open fact is in direct violation of these newly posted guidelines, but I can't imagine any of the general population of The Source not enjoying this type of situation. Hell, I know some who live for it.
I think this new rule was at least in part made in reference to an exchange that went like this:
~"I don't care how my cards look. Half my Dazes are from Jace vs. Chandra. I would gladly cash out Revised dual lands for anything cheaper, no matter how ugly they are."
Another guy quotes half a sentence and says, ~"Omg, this guy thinks Daze is on the reserved list. What an idiot." Which is like a straw man eating a red herring while discussing a non-sequiter ad hominem.
You're free to joke around and such, and Bardo specifically stated that mods won't crack down on this (since it doesn't violate any rules), but it's just so people are aware of what they're doing. The Source is at a higher standard of debate than *cough* salvation *cough* other websites, so it's nice that there's now some official statement about honest debate. I think he also said this doesn't apply to statements used for ironic value.
Does that mean that I can ask if Parcher's friend with the multiple rectums is single?
"Time you enjoy wasting, was not wasted." - John Lennon
ThunderBluff being a hyperbole?! I won't accept it! You probably think Nourishing Lich isn't viable... just wait til I win the GP in Columbus with it! Haha!
Actually, it isn't. While we understand that you like to take things out of context and attack them, this was actually triggered by the repeated but very amusing lies told by Magic_Fanatic in regards to his personal wealth, connections, business activities, etc.
Sorry to break this to you, but the world is not, in fact, all about you, Mr. "Quote One Line of My Post, Explain How the Metaphor That Had No Bearing On the Larger Point Being Made is Wrong, and Then Say Nothing Else of Value About the Post."
I think it's fine. I highly doubt this will be enforced (since you really can't... unless you cyber-stalk someone). I think most of the time, admins or mods won't have to do anything because people can see through bullshit easily and call the person out. It's nice to have just-in-case though.
Believe me, if it's entertaining, you're fine.Originally Posted by Parcher
Right, that's never going to be a problem. It specifically applies to "serious" [I just cringed when I typed that] discussion. The mods/admins aren't half-wits, and if something is both over-the-line and funny, we're not going to crack down or anything like that.For instance, I could in some relative context claim that a friend of mine has three......assholes. Anyone with a modicum of reasoning could easily conclude that there is likely little truth in that statement. But in a certain frame of reference, and with "suckers on the line', so to speak, it could create a hilarious situation.
Remember, as the guidelines around this are framed, it's "model posting," unlike, say, the no spam/flaming rules that we enforce with warnings. Except in extraordinary cases (nothing that you've described), the mods/admins are not going to intervene.
Again, they're "model posting" guidelines. Take that for what it means. There are a lot of people on this site who are fairly terrible posters, but we're not taking away their ability to post. (Though, I'm not likely to ever +rep them.)Originally Posted by Forbiddian
Absolutely. None of the guideslines around intellectual honesty apply to fun and assorted good times.I think he also said this doesn't apply to statements used for ironic value.
If someone has multiple rectums, why would they need to be single?Does that mean that I can ask if Parcher's friend with the multiple rectums is single?
I didn't want to go there, but yeah, exactly. I mean, the random tall-tale story is one thing, but repeatedly deceiving members is not something we want to see. Once we made that leap, it was an easy step create some guidelines around honest debate.Originally Posted by Aggro_zombies
Reading the guidelines again, I think they say exactly what we mean them to say, which is basically to be an intelligent debater that adds value to "important" [there it is again] discussions. There's no desire to take the fun out of posting smack or talking about the more inane points of a fantasy-themed collectible card game. We're keeping perspective here.
I can feel a cold gust of wind blowing across my e-peen.
C===================B
C=B
The only place this seems to have major significance is in reporting play results. Who cares about braggin otherwise because as Jak says, people always get called out on BS... those are usually the interesting threads.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)