The difficulty with your approach, ordinarily salutory though it is, is summed up in the old saw, “A lie is halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on.”
There are a few posters who commit this sort of lie on a fairly regular basis (not every day, but certainly more than once a month).
The problem is, it only takes a few minutes to propagate the falsehood, but it can take a very long time to respond to it.
In the non-virtual world, such a person would be excluded from the community. In the academic world, this sort of falsehood is actually a form of academic dishonesty, and many universities will suspend after one instance, and will usually expel after a small number beyond the first. In fact, many universities treat this form of dishonesty when they go over the rules concerning plagiarism.
It is part of what all the “climategate” stuff is about - taking data that says “X” and saying that it says “opposite of X.” I see that the folks at Penn State may actually be liable to civil suits as a result of their doing this. With multi-million dollar damages.
In an ideal Religion Forum, posters who committed this breach against the Eighth Commandment more than a set number of times (I'd vote for three, as in “three strikes, you're out”) would be banned. They offer nothing worthwhile in advancing discussion here at Free Republic.
Indeed, I know of at least one poster who was... er,... "strongly encouraged" not to post any longer in the Religion Forum, at least, for saying things about themselves which weren't completely true, but neither were they entirely false. That seems to me to be a little bit of a moderating double-standard.
But failing that, if we're not to approach the ideal of what moderation should look like here, it should be possible to hang the badge of “liar” [or “poster who regularly falsifies data” if that makes folks happier] around someone's neck after a certain number of offenses against truth so that folks can know whether or not someone's word should be trusted.
Impeachment of the reliability of the veracity interlocutors is a standard and respectable method of finding the truth in the public square. Pointing out a habitual record of falsifying data is a basic method of debate.
sitetest
It may well be a common practice in town square debate for one to call another a liar. Nevertheless, I cannot and will not tolerate it here on the RF - if for no other reason than flame wars compound work for all the moderators, not just me.
On the other point, the forum has a history of not tolerating Freepers making false claims about themselves, whether false military service records or false theological credentials or identities.