Should misquoting or half truths be alert-able and lockable?

[DFab420]

I often find posters using half-quotes and misrepresentation of facts and quotes in a manner to either prove a point or demonize the current administration.

Should the veracity of someones argument be something alertable, i.e. if someone is not arguing the facts in good faith should their posts be removed or locked?

Perhaps it could be called "Intellectual dishonesty"?

Just curious as the to Admins view on this.

Thank you for your time.

[Skinner]

1. It depends.

In political discussions, it is very common for participants to, um, embellish or spin the facts to suit their point of view -- not necessarily lying but creatively massaging the truth. I think that it would be impossible for the moderators to have the job of checking the veracity of posts here, particularly in cases of stretching the truth rather than outright lying. If someone posts something of questionable veracity, there is a solution for that: Others can post to set the record straight. (Having said that, if someone is just posting bald-faced lies, we might want to be aware of that so we can figure out what their deal is.)

However, if someone is deliberately and maliciously misquoting another DU member, that could be considered a call-out and/or a personal attack, and the moderators should be made aware of it so they can decide whether it should be removed. I can't say that it would always be removed, but if it is done in a maliciously false way then I think it probably should be.

[DFab420]

2. Very fair, and well thought out answer to a topic not easily answered.

Thank you