It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hypothetical Change in the Terms & Conditions

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jennyfrenzy
a reply to: Mary Rose
I wouldn't take it too personally or get upset about people questioning sources, if you think it crosses the line report it, if it does staff will handle the situation.

I want people to question sources.

What I object to is flippant name-calling of public figures named as sources in my OP.

That is not against the terms and conditions.

Do you think it should be?




posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose

If it's not a personal attack, no it shouldn't be against T&C.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Jennyfrenzy

Aren't public figures people, too?

Don't members feel indirectly attacked when the sources they cite are called idiots, for example?



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
What do you think of my idea of including all ridicule, for example name-calling, regardless of the target, member or anyone else, in the category of unacceptable posting that is against the terms and conditions?

I agree 100%...

I believe that some of the staff agrees as well: Community Announcement re: Decorum

Yesterday I saw two members banned in a thread as a result of violating that announcement.

I was encouraged to see that because I know MANY here are also sick of the ridicule and hatred that has turned ATS into a cesspool.

This is precisely why I have never once created a thread on ATS.

Ever try to carry on a normal conversation in a room full of screaming children?



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

Thanks; I needed that.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: Jennyfrenzy

Aren't public figures people, too?

Don't members feel indirectly attacked when the sources they cite are called idiots, for example?


I have never made a thread but I would not feel attacked. You have to expect some attacks as long as they are respectful, to you, not your source. If they call you an idiot that is wrong. If they call your source an idiot in the course of a longer rebuttal of your source I would not take it personal. I would not think it is in good taste but I would not take it personal. Now if all they said was your source is an idiot with no explanation as to why they think that or they keep posting over and over about your source derailing your thread. Then take it to the attention of the mods and let them handle it.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid
Yesterday I saw two members banned in a thread as a result of violating that announcement.


But was the target a member or a public figure?


This is precisely why I have never once created a thread on ATS.

If I didn't feel so compelled to write I wouldn't be doing it either.

But sometimes I have to avoid reading the replies just to keep my blood from boiling.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: karmicecstasy
I have never made a thread but I would not feel attacked.

I challenge you to give it a try as an experiment.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: karmicecstasy
I have never made a thread but I would not feel attacked.

I challenge you to give it a try as an experiment.




I would if I actually had something to say that was thread worthy. I have yet to come up with anything that I think would meet the standards of this website.

I have had people disagree with my reply's and it does not bother me. If we disagree too much and civilized discourse can not be maintained. I walk away. I have said on here before. No one in the history of mankind has been convinced to join the other side through arguing. Debate, yes. Arguing and yelling, no.

I hope you have a better time with your thread making in the future. I hope people will be more polite to you if in fact they were rude. I wish you the best of luck and hope the people you disagree with, do not cause you to stop sharing your unique perspective with us.
edit on 30-7-2014 by karmicecstasy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: karmicecstasy
I have said on here before. No one in the history of mankind has been convinced to join the other side through arguing. Debate, yes. Arguing and yelling, no.

Very true.

And in my opinion when people are having honest, clean debate they're not resorting to name-calling of anyone.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose

Of course public figures are people too, meaning sometimes they will lie, completely make up stories in order to perpetrate a hoax, or are biased and only tell one side of the story.

I can definitely see where you are coming from. Before joining ATS I would read stories on the internet posted by known hoaxers, I can be gullible, lol. It wasn't until after joining and reading threads based on topics produced by known hoaxers, I realized how silly I was.

If I had posted something, and someone attacked the source, I might have taken it personally because I got duped, and consequently would feel embarrassment. Not because of anything said about the source, but because I would feel silly for buying in.

I'm in no way saying that's the case on your situation, but if someone is attacking your source just remember they're not attacking you.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose

Not sure because the posts were removed as well as the posters...

I believe it was the actual forum posters being attacked though.

It appears to have been related to the absence of decorum as mentioned above.


edit on 30-7-2014 by Murgatroid because: Added link



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jennyfrenzy
a reply to: Mary Rose

Of course public figures are people too, meaning sometimes they will lie, completely make up stories in order to perpetrate a hoax, or are biased and only tell one side of the story.

Absolutely true but if they are it can be exposed calmly and rationally and in good taste. There is no need for name-calling in the process.

Would you agree with that?


originally posted by: Jennyfrenzy
It wasn't until after joining and reading threads based on topics produced by known hoaxers, I realized how silly I was.

You mean because ATS put the threads in the Hoax bin?

Known hoaxers according to whom? Majority rule?


originally posted by: Jennyfrenzy
If I had posted something, and someone attacked the source, I might have taken it personally because I got duped, and consequently would feel embarrassment. Not because of anything said about the source, but because I would feel silly for buying in.

Never forget the possibility that you could be right in your opinion and the majority or the staff at ATS could be wrong.

That's my take.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Howdy,

I'm very much against this hypothetical change (and I'm probably a bit late to this thread) for a very simple reason... I don't think it would accomplish anything.

Consider the following... If you post a thread, you are presenting information you believe to be correct, yes? If I happen to disagree, and if I so choose to open myself to being called incorrect, I will post my position. In both cases, the poster is choosing to support and defend their positions, yes? Why should someone have to post a thread if they can accomplish the same thing (posting their position) from a reply to an existing thread? It is a choice to post information and a choice to support it... If you enter a forum and make a post, expect to be debated, always. Discussion is at the heart of any forum.

Obviously I have not posted my own thread, as I have very little I can present to others. What I can perhaps do is clarify things for others. I have a very limited set of knowledge (I'm still young...) but perhaps the limited knowledge is useful in certain situations, relevant to certain posts. I am uniquely my (limited) experiences, and I may be able to thus provide a rather unique perspective...

If I were forced to post, or forced to do anything really, I would certainly leave these forums in favor of... well, there are unspeakable alternatives, should I so choose(although ATS is by far my favored forum).
But I honestly believe people should be free to choose, and if you remove that freedom, you risk negatively impacting the forums by losing unique perspectives.

As for the matter of hoaxes... There are many known hoaxes. Sometimes the hoaxers admit to hoaxing, sometimes a bad photoshop picture is seen to be made from stock photos. Likewise, people who spread disinformation or misinformation are also knowable and their claims can often be tested. Do not take offense if I say a source is demonstrably wrong, just look for better sources, peer reviewed or otherwise.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: nugget1
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.

If it's name-calling against a member, we can alert it and a manners violation is effective, I think.

If it's name-calling against a public figure, we can't.

I think if those posts were removed, too, the overall climate of ATS would change for the better.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Ridiculing is a way to shut you up, I think it is in rules for radicals

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions."


That is almost profound.

I'm not familiar with "rules for radicals."

The quote you cited is in a document of some sort about rules for radicals?
edit on 07/31/14 by Mary Rose because: Change to singular



new topics




 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join