Cyclone Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 It doesn't say that you have to prove they're true, presumably you just have to think that they are true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 It doesn't say that you have to prove they're true, presumably you just have to think that they are true.Somewhere in-between, I think: (as posted by Phanerothyme) 14. You must only post contributions to the Website which are factually accurate or which are your genuinely held opinions based on true facts. = you (as the poster/opinion-bearer) do not have to prove that the facts are true (sub: at the time of posting your genuinely-held opinion), but the facts on which you base your genuinely-held opinion must be true (since a clear and explicit reference is made to 'true facts'). Objectively, that amounts to (IMG-HO ) "It doesn't say that you have to prove they're true, presumably you just have to think know that they are true when expressing your opinion" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 True facts is an over qualification though, if it's not true, then it's not a fact, QED all facts are by definition true. Knowing something is no different to thinking something, although one might be used to express more confidence in the belief that the fact is accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 True facts is an over qualification though, if it's not true, then it's not a fact, QED all facts are by definition true. Only commenting on the semantics of SF's Rule 14, me old chum - fee free to interpret them to your heart's content It's not going to make much difference to the average factual accuracy of the average post on here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 We're both interpreting them, and trying to work out what exactly it was meant to mean... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 We're both interpreting them, and trying to work out what exactly it was meant to mean...I am not interpreting R.14, I am transliterating it in the context of your earlier question (about the meaning of 'untrue facts') 14 You must only post contributions to the Website 14.1 which are factually accurate or 14.2 which are your genuinely held opinions based on true facts. Not being argumentative here, but what's to interpret? It's plain enough English, I'd have thought After that, of course the degree of moderating permissivity about 14.2 will be open to plenty of discussion I'm sure, considering the plentiful amount of posts expressing both genuinely and not-so-genuinely held opinions clearly not based on facts (true or otherwise) (EDIT - though you'll not find me engaging about this particular debate, (i) because I genuinely believe Mods do a plenty-good-enough job, and have for a very long time and (ii) because, ultimately, it's likely to prove very sterile). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 I don't think "true facts" are anything other than "facts", if they aren't true then they aren't facts (by definition). So my point wasn't an interpretation, it was a comment on how the word "true" was redundant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 I don't think "true facts" are anything other than "facts", if they aren't true then they aren't facts (by definition). So my point wasn't an interpretation, it was a comment on how the word "true" was redundant. Have you considered that, rather than be redundant, 'true' might have been put in there deliberately, as an antonym for 'misrepresented'? (I am mindful that I am now bordering onto interpretation, btw - no need to remind me! ) Whereby we go back full circle to your original question (what is an untrue fact?) and my original reply (one which is relied upon for motivating an opinion until it is debunked) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 :-) Deliberately misinterpreting would mean the poster knew it wasn't true (and thus not a fact) and accidentally misinterpreting would mean they thought it was true (and thus a fact). It's an over qualification IMO (based on the true facts of what the word true and fact mean). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 :-) Deliberately misinterpreting would mean the poster knew it wasn't true (and thus not a fact)Indeed, thereby breaching R.14 deliberately, and falling subject to a Mod sanction ("yellow/red card") and accidentally misinterpreting would mean they thought it was true (and thus a fact).Indeed, thereby breaching R.14 accidentally, but still falling subject to a Mod sanction (equitably, "play the advantage" ) It's an over qualification IMO (based on the true facts of what the word true and fact mean).Agreed, for the sake of my sanity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.