In practice, for me, it means that I avoid deception - in myself or others.
Literally, it is more complicated. I am really more sort of a “no faith” participant, in that I think people are more or less separate from their ideas and opinions. Discussion is a brainstorming session where we offer many possible interpretations and strategies, and I think that investing one view with lots of conviction does not help this process. But unlike with “duplicity”, this is not done to deceive. Ambivalence is a virtue and being able to juggle dozens of models of a scenario is good exercise. I think that persuasion is overrated and that debates function better as exercises in “comparative realities”.
But this approach sometimes grates with those who insist that there must be One True Way to understand things. Or who insist that certain social conventions be accepted from the outset. It can seem to be bad faith if one assumes I am deceiving myself, as a consequence of having quite fundamental differences. I am sure that it all sounds too subjective. I do believe that there is a solid objective reality underlying everything, but the human mind is unable to directly perceive it, so we simply use the best models of it we have at the time. But both our circumstances and our models change over time.