This is an incredibly important section because others will by habit or by intent want conflict resolution to fail for many reasons. Recognizing the intention to distort arguments and rally support with falsehoods is quite comment. These are techniques that corrupt how people determine what is true.

 

Note that distorted evidence may come about due to purposeful intent driven by things such as loyalty, fear, malicious focus. One's perceptions can also be fluid when under stress and over time.

​

By recognizing and calling out these approaches, you may be better able to move toward conflict resolution. You might:

 

• Keep conflict resolution on track

• Guide conversations

• Help with accuracy of outcome

• Stop weaponizing of conflict resolution

• Understanding when resolution is not possible in the moment.

​

[1] Accusation treated as proof

The claim itself becomes sufficient evidence, especially when the accused person is unknown, disliked, or socially expendable. People regularly attribute likelihood of truth based upon how controversial or irritating an individual behaves, even in areas irrelevant to the claim of harm.

​

[2] Evidence standards that shift depending on the target

Friends, leather family, clans, and members of organizations often receive patience, allowing or excusing wide latitude of behavior, providing forgiveness, and nuance. Others, including enemies or unknown individuals, receive no grace or leeway in behavior and likely obtain punishment.

​

[3] Cherry-picked evidence

Screenshots, quotes, timelines, or rumors are presented selectively to create the most damaging possible interpretation. They may remove important context or exonerating evidence.

​

[4] Context stripping

Ambiguous statements or messy interpersonal histories are flattened into simple villain/victim narratives.

​

[5] Rumor laundering

“I heard” becomes “people are saying,” which becomes “everyone knows,” which becomes “the community has concerns.”

​

[6] Misinformation & Misdirection

Misinformation = presenting false or inaccurate information. Misdirection = steering attention away from the central question toward distractions, side issues, emotional triggers, or irrelevant accusations. They are often used together, but they are not identical. They confuse the conversation or debate with false information that confuses those trying to understand and seek fair conflict resolution.

 

[7] Omission

Omission is worst when deliberately leaving out important information to mislead an audience and support a desired conclusion. This is a type of deception often classified as an informal logical fallacy, as it invalidates a conclusion by ignoring evidence that would undermine the argument. It should be pointed out that memory may be fluid, people forget. People may also not know a particular detail and it may seem that they are omitting it.

​

[8] Ad hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. While character of the speaker does matter in the end, intent of "Ad hominem" approaches is here is to dismiss the opinion of the speaker, which may be true. Attacking the character of the speaker can also be a misdirection.

​

[9] Straw Man Fallacy

A straw man fallacy is an informal fallacy where a person misrepresents an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack and refute, instead of engaging with the actual position. The name comes from the idea of an easily destructible scarecrow, and this tactic is often used in debates, politics, and media to discredit a viewpoint by exaggerating or distorting it into an extreme or unpopular position. It lets someone “win” against a false version of the other person’s position rather than address what they actually said.

​

[10] Defamation / Libel

Defamation includes false statements presented as fact can damage a person’s reputation, credibility, relationships, or standing in the community. Libel is the legal term for a written or published false statement of fact that harms someone's reputation, a form of defamation. It can occur in various media, including print, online platforms, and other permanent records.

​

[11] False Equivalence

When one treats unequal things as if they are equivalent, a falsehood can arrise that can be useful as a deception. For example, one might say “Both people were rude, so both are equally responsible,” even though one person made a minor insult and the other made a serious threat.

​

[12] Motive Attribution

When one claims to know someone’s hidden intent without evidence, they are presenting misinformation that may distract or misdirect others. Examples include “They only apologized because they got caught,” or “They asked for evidence because they support abuse.”

 

[13] Timeline Manipulation

Arguments might reorder events or hide the sequence of events to change who appears to have escalated, retaliated, or caused harm. This is especially useful to add because many interpersonal conflicts turn on sequence. This is also may be common because memory can be fluid and people are biased to order events to fit their own narrative. Having solid evidence is important.

 

[14] Guilt by Association

This approach is about discrediting someone because of who they know, what events or venues they attend, who they dated, defended, played with, invited, or stood near socially. While there can be much truth in the motto "Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are," guilt by association will try to use one or few instances of association to discredit a person with otherwise strong standing. This is common in community conflict and can become a proxy attack.

​

Examples of this can be: Pressuring an event organizer to ban a person by attacking the venue, presenter, partner, or friend group connected to them. Discrediting someone’s statement by saying, “Well, they are friends with person-x,” rather than addressing whether their statement is true.

 

[15] Emotional Reasoning as Evidence

This is about treating the intensity of someone’s emotion as proof that their account is accurate. We should realize that a person may be genuinely distressed and still mistaken, incomplete, exaggerating, or misinterpreting. Conversely, a calm person is not automatically truthful.

​

[16] Selective Credibility

Selective Credibility is believing or disbelieving people based on status, popularity, identity, attractiveness, insider position, social usefulness, or prior dislike rather than evidence. This overlaps with “evidence standards shift depending on the target,” but it is broader.

 

[17] Moving the Goalposts

"Moving the Goalposts" involves changing the standard of proof or acceptable resolution once the original standard has been met.

 

As example #1, All parties agree to an exact set of evidence needed to prove a situation. Once that evidence is provided, one of the parties wants more.

 

As example #2, situations may exist where evidence is not well defined. Person A: “Show evidence.” Person B: Evidence is shown. Person A: “That evidence is not enough.” Person B: More evidence is shown. Person B: “The fact you kept records proves you planned this.” So, once evidence is clearly defined, one party may shift to a new conflict or need for other evidence.

 

[18] Poisoning the Well

This is similar to ad hominem, but is a specific strategy used to manipulate opinion of others about a person involved in the conflict. It usually biases an audience against someone before they can respond or speak. For example: “Before you hear their side, remember this person is manipulative.” This is often done in advance of a group conversation, in secret, to bias others against an individual.

 

-- Manipulated Process --