You didn’t ask me directly, but..
FWIW, I think the rules are fine as they are. There are more inflammatory posts possible within the rules and less inflammatory ones possible that violate the rules. Outlawing “bearing false witness” is ok, but I don’t think it would make much difference.
Effectiveness of the rules comes down to moderator judgement, and the current rules plus the catch-all tools of warnings, time-outs, banning, nuking the thread are sufficient when wisely used.
There was an “all” at the end of the ping list. Your opinions are welcome.
Accusations of *bearing false witness* are essentially calling someone else a liar, just not in so many words. And again, that implies an intent to deceive. Prohibiting that is a good idea.
If someone relates what they’ve experienced and know to be true among people they encounter, like the things that I know the Catholics I grew up with believed, that is not bearing false witness about the Catholic church to state that. It may not be in line with what someone else believes Catholic church doctrine states, but that is not bearing false witness, or lying, about Catholic church doctrine. It’s merely relating what I know to be true from personal experience, and there’s simply no way to *prove* the statement to be true so accusations of lying unless I do are out of line as well.
Relating personal experience cannot be supported with the same standard of proof that discussing actual church doctrine can. And in those cases, the *I don’t believe you* line is the same as calling the other person a liar.
If someone tells me of experience they’ve had with non-Catholics, I see no reason to not believe them or tell them they are lying. There is no reason for anyone else to do that to me or any others.
Again, a lot less controversy would be generated if someone simply stated that what the other person said was wrong, if it is and provide sources to demonstrate that and what they think the correct situation is.