Hypothetical Change in the Terms & Conditions

I was wondering whether it might be a good idea to require members to post at least one OP by some point in time after joining.

The purpose of this would be to force people to find out what it's like to have their sources ridiculed with impunity.

Human nature being what it is .. nothing would change ..
It would be a pointless addition.
When online one needs a thick skin.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
I was wondering whether it might be a good idea to require members to post at least one OP by some point in time after joining.

The purpose of this would be to force people to find out what it's like to have their sources ridiculed with impunity.

Why would you want to force people to be ridiculed?? That's kind of an odd request I think. There are some members here who have been members for years and have not posted one single thread of their own. Why? I've no clue. That's the way they like to spend their time on ATS and is their prerogative. Other members post threads several times daily and participate more that way than through individual posts. Again.... It's their prerogative. People participate in the ways they choose to do so, and in ways they feel suit them best.

It's your prerogative to do either/or, both, or neither.

I'm not trying to be rude in any way and hope it doesn't come off as such... I just found the request to be somewhat odd.

Gee Mary Rose this is the second thread you've started today on this subject. Sounds like you had your feelings hurt. Sorry for that but really kid toughen up just a bit. a reply to: Mary Rose

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Actually, it's not.

The first thread is about off topic posts and whether or not the staff is more burdened by having them alerted than they are assisted.

a reply to: Mary Rose

I can see where you are going with this. Sort of make folks walk in mile in the shoes of those trying to add to the discussion. Right now they can be lazy, shoot from the hip, and deteriorate the value of everybody else's contribution.

Unfortunately, that is life. Whether it is ATS or just people you run into everyday. I don't like but I know they are out there.

If it is any comfort, when I read threads, I am fully aware of those posts which fall into the 'no value' category and I pretty much skip over them.

I enjoy making threads when I find something interesting,I like to share it, and hear/read other members' opinions.


But I wouldn't want to be forced to do a thread.

a reply to: Mary Rose

There are people that lurk for years before posting.

No one should be forced to post anything.


Especially if it is to face ridicule.

That part of your post I don't get.

a reply to: Mary Rose

BUT THAT'S ALL THE FUN!!!

The Thrill of Others opinions arguing yours! Yeah, sure, people will not post or over post. But for you to condemn them for it, Shame On You.

When you start to "force" your ideals on others, you, yourself become less of a person and more or a radical "dictator".

The people replying here, including myself, are common posters and threaders. So find solace in US (Ha, third double acronym posted today.lol. hashtag Repeat.lol)

Mary Rose, I think you have the sweetest intent, you want to read more, learn more, and when you do, ATS'ers are not Threading. This is dull - yet expected. Go Yahoo (Replaced for Google, bc who Yahoos anymore.lol) something that will tickle your fancy. CNN, FOX, BBC, theses keep me occupied. Or use this link to my DOOM PORN threads, DOOM PORN Update #3

Regards,

Twenty one threads about board business speaks for itself. I thought in the first thread that you were looking to be what we used to call a tattle tale. . Never the most popular kid on the playground. Now this. Sorry just saying. You're not a new kid on the block by any stretch. a reply to: Mary Rose

Well I happen to be one of those people.

I have no problem whatsoever being ridiculed as that happens regularly if you actually engage in discussion.

The way I look at posting personal threads is, well, a lot of senior members do a much better job of presenting a topic.

There's been times I've been in the middle of editing my thread just to have some one beat me to the punch. Most of the time I'm glad they did.

This is the deal. If you suck at it or someone else can do it better; why impede that?

Consider the whole board not just yourself.

Now I'm off to go get ridiculed in another thread.

originally posted by: Darkblade71
a reply to: Mary Rose
Especially if it is to face ridicule.

That part of your post I don't get.

I expressed my opinion about ridicule of public figures being allowed in the terms & conditions in the thread "Sarcasm, Ridicule, Obfuscation, and Ad Hominems on Threads."

I am of the opinion that ridicule is a big problem on forums.

And I consider it a loophole that ridicule is not okay when you're directing it at a member, but it is okay when you're directing it at a public figure. As far as I'm concerned, both are a fallacy of reason.

I think it's too easy to be a member of a forum if all you do is criticize others but never subject yourself to criticism yourself by stepping up to the plate and starting a thread.

a reply to: Mary Rose

One could argue that an introduction is an OP.

Not to mention that it's first come best dressed when it comes to OPs from an external source; I've received the dreaded 'Thread closed' message on numerous occasions because someone else beat me to a story.

However this is a forum and a comment is still a contribution, even if you don't agree with it. IMO there shouldn't be an obligation because we are all here for the same reason.

a reply to: Mary Rose

It's not a "fallacy of reason" to be critical of who and more importantly where your information comes from. It's actually the mark of proper critical thinking.

For one to know they are being lied to, a lot of the times they have to be told and shown the truth. Telling anybody tr source they are using is crap, when in fact it is, only helps the conversation along. As it allows for a disregard of bad information or data which can then be replaced with good and proper of the same.

-Tenth

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Twenty one threads about board business speaks for itself.

Why is that a negative thing?

Could it not also be a positive?

originally posted by: Mary Rose
I was wondering whether it might be a good idea to require members to post at least one OP by some point in time after joining.

The purpose of this would be to force people to find out what it's like to have their sources ridiculed with impunity.

We suggest all members start a new thread in the introduction forum. Beyond that, we won't force anyone to make a post or start a new thread. If we did, the volume of off topic, nonsensical posts and threads would be vastly increased, making our work that much harder.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Mary Rose
It's not a "fallacy of reason" to be critical of who and more importantly where your information comes from.

Absolutely.

But the criticism should be objective and not include name-calling, for example, which really only amounts to a cheap shot.

a reply to: Mary Rose

Are you saying that you are offended when somebody calls Alex Jones a charlatan, for example??

I can see how focusing on the person takes important light away from the issue, but individual and organizations who have a mission statement that includes deception and lying, must be called out.

-Tenth

a reply to: Mary Rose

People only share what they have to give in their heart. Unfortunately, some people don't have much happiness inside of themselves and will interject negative, critical and insulting comments all throughout some threads.

It's our choice how you react to someone who has nothing kind to share. We can take it personally and get upset, or we can pity the person whose life is so miserable that they have nothing kind to offer the world. It's obvious they're not happy with their lives; happy people have a hard time hiding how they feel.

Some people just like to fight; they express their opinion in unkind ways hoping someone will take the bait, and give them the attention they wouldn't get by being polite. Someone always does.

I would also like to add that the members here are not stupid. They see the other members who don't contribute anything of their own, who troll, who post constant propaganda, who always rides the fence, etc. etc. etc. When members see behavior that is negative or disruptive to the board they tend to ignore those members and avoid engaging them in constructive discussions knowing that it will disrupt any headway that may be made.

I have seen it happen many times in my time here. A lot of times a seriously problematic poster will not need to be banned for their behavior because the members will ignore their attempts after a bit and the disruptive poster will leave on their own in search for greener pastures.

Not all... But most.

A member does not need to be forced to post threads because their behavior will become apparent to all who read their regular posts and that will either earn them respect or it will cost them any respect they may have already earned. That is by far better than forcing everyone into something they may not want to do.

We've all been trounced a time or two anyway regardless if we started a thread or not. Posts are not off limits and they will be called out just as quickly as a big thread if your sources aren't credible and you fail to make a valid point.