Content Tagging is Here!

So... Let me get this straight.

* biased reporting
* anti-americanism
* war crimes
* enemy propaganda
* false reporting

aren't biased tags.

But "slander" is?

I think it is in the best interest of the moderators, who decide what is and what is not an acceptable tag, to read the entire thread before making their decisions. Dude... Why you gotta pee all over my rug man?

[edit on 20-12-2005 by LostSailor]

Originally posted by LostSailor
Why you gotta pee all over my rug man?

This is not Nam. There are rules. You've entered a world of pain.
(just riffing on the Big Lebowski reference)

Tag on, brother. You'll have the points back in no time.

Originally posted by yeahright
Tag on, brother. You'll have the points back in no time.

yeahright is right, go forth and tag. The points will quickly become inconsequential after you've tagged a few hundred threads.

I don't want to take sides in this debate because the mods will win in the end. I've yet to get a penalty from all my tags, but I understand your frustration. I'm still bucking the system a bit, as you can see from my post on the previous page of this thread. (page 8, near the middle)
SkepticOverlord had to clear up a missunderstanding I had on the new tagging system, but it was handled through the u2u system and posts in this thread.

If I could slide you a G worth of points, I would. But that not being an option, tag on my friend, and follow the rules laid down by the mods. You'll soon have more points than you know what to do with.


EDIT: If all else fails, please visit the link below. Planet Urine has a solution to removing pee from your rug............
www.planeturine.com...

[edit on 20/12/2005 by anxietydisorder]

[edit on 20/12/2005 by anxietydisorder]

Originally posted by LostSailor
So... Let me get this straight.

* biased reporting
* anti-americanism
* war crimes
* enemy propaganda
* false reporting

aren't biased tags.

But "slander" is?

I hate to butt in, but it says "deny ignorance", so I'm gonna give it a shot.

Define: Slander

Can you see where it says: "Verbal or spoken defamation."

I think that may hold a clue as to why it is totally out of place as an accusation on an Internet forum.

Points aren't a big deal at all...sure theres a few nice things you can do with them, but in the end, after you buy all of the cool upgrades for your profile, they just start to add up, and (to be quite honest) become useless.

I have close to 11,000 and what are they doing other than just sitting there?

Originally posted by LostSailor
slan·der P Pronunciation Key (slndr)
n.
Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

One step ahead of you bud..

I'm pretty sure that since we can't literally talk to each other on this web site. That written communication could be substituted in for oral. Sorry.

Originally posted by LostSailor

Originally posted by LostSailor
slan·der P Pronunciation Key (slndr)
n.
Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

One step ahead of you bud..

I'm pretty sure that since we can't literally talk to each other on this web site. That written communication could be substituted in for oral. Sorry.

My bad. You're wrong about substituting written for oral. Written is quite plainly Libel.

I LOVE being pedantic, it makes me feel all big and clever.

Damn... Wonder if I would have lost points for using "libel." Bet the moderators wouldn't even know what that means.

Originally posted by LostSailor
"libel" Bet the moderators wouldn't even know what that means.

I wouldn't bet on that.
We've got a pretty smart bunch of bananas supervising all us monkeys........

Originally posted by anxietydisorder

Originally posted by LostSailor
"libel" Bet the moderators wouldn't even know what that means.

I wouldn't bet on that.
We've got a pretty smart bunch of bananas supervising all us monkeys........

You got that right.

LostSailor,
I'd advise you to not worry about the penalty you got. It's not a big deal, and if you do have problems with the action, it's advisable to deal with it privately than in many posts in this thread.

Defamation of an individual or individuals in a published work, with malice aforethought. In litigation, the falsity of the libelous statements or representations, as well the intention of malice, has to be proved for there to be libel. In addition, financial damages to the parties so libeled must be incurred as a result of the material in question for there to be an assessment of the amount of damages to be awarded to a claimant.

Slowly, does the picture as to why the tag was removed begin to make sense?

Originally posted by parrhesia

LostSailor,
I'd advise you to not worry about the penalty you got. It's not a big deal, and if you do have problems with the action, it's advisable to deal with it privately than in many posts in this thread.

Yeah... I tried dealing with it privately. Never got any response. It is a big deal to me, maybe not to you. Sorry.

Libel is published defamation; slander is spoken.

That might help to show you a bit more as to why they removed it.

Originally posted by LostSailor
Yeah... I tried dealing with it privately. Never got any response. It is a big deal to me, maybe not to you. Sorry.

It seems quite obvious why it was removed - it was innapropriate for the reasons mentioned by several members here, the most recent of which is Odium.

Originally posted by Odium

Slowly, does the picture as to why the tag was removed begin to make sense?

I'm sorry, but no, it is not making much sense to me yet. The term was removed because it was thought to be biased, as pointed out by the "Dude." Not because I should have used "libel" instead. Yet every other tag on the thread is practically identical to what I put.

Ok... going to put libel instead. As if anyone besides us knows what the heck that means. I thought tagging was used to help people in searches. How many people do you think might do a search for the phrase "slander" as opposed to "libel." Which I'm sure the average person has no clue as to the meaning.

The dictionary definition of words doesn't always reflect exactly how they are used in modern english. This is a perfect example of this.

LostSailor, neither of them should be used.

The article in question, is not about a legal case dealing with slander and that is when the term slander should be used. It will only cause the system to be clogged down when someone is searching for articles in relation to slander, they will get threads that have nothing to do with it.

can someone commit libel, by quoting a spoken slanderous phrase?
In text only

I'm lost again...











I'm really lost now...

Originally posted by spacedoubt
can someone commit libel, by quoting a spoken slanderous phrase?
In text only

No.

It would never stand up in court, even in this day and age as long as the person really said that. [If they didn't that's a whole different kettle of fish.]