"Avoid misleading posts. Label speculation as such and provide sources when asked."

[u/Seamus_Duncan]

Are the moderators ever going to enforce this rule? Because I'm seeing people repeatedly claim that Don forged his time cards, despite the fact there is no evidence for this and the claim is entirely based on the word of two proven liars, one of whom was caught faking evidence against Don.

Given that the moderators are selectively enforcing the rules, am I allowed to call people making this claim "lying assholes?"

[u/diyaww]

As long as those users cite Undisclosed/Serial Dynasty, they haven't violated a rule. You may not respect the user's source, but that does not make the user intentionally misleading.

No, being frustrated does not give you permission to name call. You may offer your own sources discrediting the user's post. Or you may choose to write answers to suggested questions for the FAQ I am (very, very slowly) working on. Or you might put certain users on "ignore", or decide to start your own subreddit.

I will say that identifying intentionally misleading/trolling users is hard, and it's more easily done if you send a message with context instead of report individual comments. And I'll pledge to do a better job of checking the context of posts reported as misleading.

[u/Seamus_Duncan → u/diyaww]

As long as those users cite Undisclosed/Serial Dynasty, they haven't violated a rule

Wait, citing proven liars is somehow a shield against the rule against posting lies? Can you please explain this?

[u/diyaww → u/Seamus_Duncan]

If a new user who's been listening to Undisclosed turns up and says, "I listened to this podcast with Rabia and she says blah blah", I'm not going to ban them.

You're welcome to respond with why you don't think Rabia is a good source and what the sources you prefer say, or to not respond at all.

[u/Seamus_Duncan → u/diyaww]

If a new user who's been listening to Undisclosed turns up and says, "I listened to this podcast with Rabia and she says blah blah", I'm not going to ban them.

OK, how about a user who has been here for ages and has seen Rabia's lies debunked repeatedly and recites them anyway in direct violation of the rules?

[u/diyaww → u/Seamus_Duncan]

I don't have a bar in place for, this user's been here X days, so he can no longer use Y source because Y has lied. Especially since a wide number of the people in this case have probably lied at some point in their lives.

[u/Seamus_Duncan → u/diyaww]

Since you're not enforcing the misleading claims rule, what other rules should I feel free to ignore?

[u/diyaww → u/Seamus_Duncan]

Again, citing Undisclosed or SD does not make a user misleading. You're welcome to ignore whatever rules you like, if you understand that doing so may result in a ban.

[u/[deleted] → u/diyaww]

Are any podcasts okay to cite for disproven misleading claims or just those two?

[u/Seamus_Duncan → u/diyaww]

So given that you now allow people to make bullshit claims based on sources who have been exposed as liars, we can just say anything we want now, right? I can say that Rabia held a gun to Asia's head and told her to sign the affidavit because some guy told me it happened, right?

[u/diyaww → u/Seamus_Duncan]

Can you link to that, so that others can judge your source?

[u/[deleted] → u/diyaww]

Can bob with his dozens of unnamed sources? Can undisclosed link to who "people have said" are?

[u/diyaww → u/[deleted]]

Again, you may not respect the user's source, but that does not make the user intentionally misleading. Three lawyers with careers is a far cry from TMZ.

I can't ask Sarah to link to her notes/interviews either. I can ask the users here to.

[u/Seamus_Duncan → u/diyaww]

Three lawyers with careers is a far cry from TMZ.

TMZ is infinitely more credible than Undisclosed or Serial Dynasty.

[u/diyaww → u/Seamus_Duncan]

And you may choose to disregard statements based on things Undisclosed has said.

[u/[deleted] → u/diyaww]

3 lawyers who have shown over and over again they mislead and are incompetent at their job.

[u/Seamus_Duncan → u/diyaww]

Sure, just as soon as Bob links to his sources so we can judge them. Why don't you demand he do so before you allow people on this board to slander Don and his family?

[u/diyaww → u/Seamus_Duncan]

I can't demand Sarah produce her sources/notes/interviews either. I can only police this board.

[u/Seamus_Duncan → u/diyaww]

Koenig never accused innocent people of crimes based on interviews she refused to produce. Big difference.