*** ALL MEMBERS *** Ending Rudeness, Hate, Bigotry: Getting Back to Basics

a reply to: Daedalus

Hmmm... want to take this particular 'hint' to a private message? I'm willing to look at what you mean by that mysterious statement.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Seamrog
...and the heavy hand of an agenda-driven moderator.

And again.

Last frickin time.......

EVERY action that staff does is logged. Every action is seen by every staffer. On the staff are conservatives, liberals, anarchists, socialists, Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, seniors, 20 somethings, EVERYONE!!!! If all is seen how could there be "an agenda driven moderator?" Cripes.

Without going so far as to call out specific mods by name, I know they exist.

EVERYONE has an agenda...to deny this, is foolish. To deny that staff are any less fallible than the members they police, is also foolish. Despite our best intentions, our personal beliefs, biases, and agendas have an impact (be it subtle, or overt) on EVERYTHING we do, as human beings.

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: purplemer

and illegals,

ban people for the hate speech against illegals

Hate speech against any peoples should not be tollerated. With freedom of speech comes responsbility

question how is it hate speech to point out illegals are criminals and dont deserve a free pass? Now if you mean stupid slurs sure i agree,but its not hate to want them to play by the rules we all play by.

As to the thread I too agree that the stupidity needs to end and the state sponsored shilling as well.

Just my two cents, that aren't worth much since a cent costs more to produce than it is worth.
But any who, heads up Mods, I would like a more civil tone so I, again, can refer people to "Our" site.
Thank You
WIS

a reply to: Daedalus

Yes... every staffer is human and has their own biases and ideas.

That's a given.

But what is not so easily seen is that no single staffer acts on their own without other staffers knowing about it.

For example, if a Christian staffer started to action posts of atheists that do not cross the T&C's, then I would be very upset and quite insistent such behaviour stop immediately.

I am a very outspoken person and don't hold back if I see unfairness, no matter where it is.

a reply to: yuppa

Pointing out someone is doing something illegal isn't hate speech. Pointing out that someone is doing something illegal in a derogatory way is.

Mexicans that come here illegally are criminals. Not hate.

Those damn Mexicans that come here illegally are criminals and all deserve to be shot coming over the border. Hate.

Does this apply to derogatory speech against all women, belittling speech against all women?

Such as in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's a good topic to use as an example. The topic itself is excellent - but most of the responses are sexist drivel.

How is this going to be handled. Frankly, I don't find it cute or 'intelligent'.

I think that opening post is an excellent topic.

The way to handle it is to not do as you did publicly here, but to alert staff to posts that you think cross the line.

This way, the posters that do cross the T&C's won't know that you were the one that blew the whistle (if you catch my drift).

Staff cannot read every thread... it's impossible for us and we depend on you, the membership, to let us know where the T&C lines are being crossed.

For instance, I've sat here at my computer publicly dealing only with this thread and have had no time to read anything else.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: yuppa

Pointing out someone is doing something illegal isn't hate speech. Pointing out that someone is doing something illegal in a derogatory way is.

Mexicans that come here illegally are criminals. Not hate.

Those damn Mexicans that come here illegally are criminals and all deserve to be shot coming over the border. Hate.

Got ya. Thanks zap.

originally posted by: masqua
I think that opening post is an excellent topic.

The way to handle it is to not do as you did publicly here, but to alert staff to posts that you think cross the line.

This way, the posters that do cross the T&C's won't know that you were the one that blew the whistle (if you catch my drift).

Staff cannot read every thread... it's impossible for us and we depend on you, the membership, to let us know where the T&C lines are being crossed.

For instance, I've sat here at my computer publicly dealing only with this thread and have had no time to read anything else.

He's got a point -- ATS is HUGE and there are corners of this community I never venture into. I have only so much time a day, and it's super helpful when the members hit that complain button.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Actually, the topic itself is rather sexist....If it were up to me, I'd see the whole thing binned..

It's a thinly-veiled attempt to make an untrue blanket statement about an entire gender, with no actual citations, or anything resembling proof that the assertion is anywhere near correct. It uses weasel-words to give it an air of legitimacy, but it couldn't be any more crap. I haven't bothered reading the rest of it, as I'm sure it's de-volved into some idiotic gender-politics slog-fest by now..

a reply to: tothetenthpower

You guys should write a guide:

-If you disagree with a statement someone has made, explain why, and maybe followup with your own beliefs, instead of making a sweeping negative generalization or personal attack.

-If you are debating someone who refuses to debate fairly (will not address your points, etc.), politely end the conversation, or simply do not reply.

-etc.

-etc.

Further, I think a lot of people lack all respect for something(s) and so they don't feel like they're being rude when they make negative remarks.

e.g. Because people self-identify with their passions, if I thought politics were useless, without even realizing that I am making a personal attack, I might say, "people who entertain political notions, in our era, are delusional" - thus personally insulting all who are passionate about politics. When instead, so long as it is fair to the topic, I should have explained why I think politics are useless, while also expressing my alternative to the idea.

But yeah, basically I am suggesting that you don't just tell people to stop. Instead, you tell them what they're doing wrong in such a way that they can understand. And just like weaning a baby, you need to give them some alternative as a pacifier. (If you take something bad from someone you have to replace it with something good -- you can't just tell people "no".) (If you give people something good as an alternative, some understanding which benefits them, they will want to reproduce it if it is good, and then it will become a self-correcting forum.)

Anyways, just some thoughts.

a reply to: tothetenthpower



Ummm...Cool...Now I do admit to using sarcasm...BADLY...once in a while...but I have to agree with everything you stated...Quite frankly there is not a one of you MODS or fellow members that deserves anything short of respect from me...

If I stray...say suffer a head injury or suddenly develop dementia...and forget...I hope any and all of you would respectfully remind me...
Thanks for the reminder Tenth...(I wasn't including myself in that black list you mentioned...really I wasn't)...we could all use a fresh breath now and again...




YouSir

a reply to: Daedalus

You do know, I hope, that there was a time when women made the final decisions for a tribe or nation. Still do in some cultures.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Finally!!! The only thing that scared me from joining was all those posts who were just attacking for the sake of attacking, while not providing an actual opinion. And they were getting more and more popular. Now that I joined since a week, I'm finally glad to see stricter measures will be taken against those.

One can discuss, and be passionate; but now many are going too far.

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: reldra

I hope it is uniform. I have had a warning in a U2U about a recent reply in a thread that was not any of the quoted things, and made little sense, logically or otherwise. I asked for further explanation and was ignored. The same mod moved an entire thread of mine to The Trash Bin- it was none of the things noted either and could have gone to general chit chat as far as I am concerned- but it just gets trashed. I am feeling a little picked on by the same mod.

I was quite disturbed recently when a mod deleted a post in which I admittedly reacted with anger to another member who was openly mocking myself and others with relentless impunity on a thread regarding something paranormal. This member had apparently written a lengthy, completely and utterly off-topic post (on the same thread) about recovering from a psychotic episode that caused him to have to stop visiting ATS forums. Apparently he was a long-time member previously and was "reintroducing" himself by hijacking someone else's thread. Apparently, for this particular member, that was acceptable behavior.

I still haven't read the entire post because it's self-serving and attention seeking, which is why I didn't read it in the first place...those types of things irritate me and it was irrelevant to the thread. There was no reason for me to think he had done this, because it was not the topic we were discussing. I made a reply to something he said to me, and in that reply said something along the lines of "someone must have forgotten their meds today", in reaction to the mocking, rude things he was saying to me.

I didn't log back on until the following day, and when I did I had a U2U waiting for me. "Ill-mannered post removed". Yet a post in which yet another member was calling me out, by name, publicly "shaming" me for "using this person's mental problems against him", etc. was left there. I don't even know these people! The off-topic posts (there were several) were left there.

I contacted the mod, questioning why posts that blatantly violated the T&C were left on the thread, including the one specifically directed at me. I stated to the mod that I had no reason to know that this person was taking meds of any kind. Why would I? The thread was about a paranormal encounter, not mental health. Yes, what I said was very sarcastic. Against the T&C? No, it wasn't. And I got absolutely no response to my U2U; it was ignored. I know all of the mods aren't like that, but it only takes one to make the rest look bad. Maybe it wasn't favoritism, but it sure looks that way.

People don't like to feel as if they're being picked on. We should all have equal value here.

I like the idea the mods are trying to instill here.

But what tigertatzen above states is true and it touches on another problem.. mostly seen in the more esoteric forums here.

We get trolled constantly, for simply discussing the topics of the forum we are in.. someone comes along (normally more than one/tag teamers) and throws the entire thread off track, injecting doubt and berating the rest of the posters for being negligent or just plain crazy.. this leads to chaos as now everyone's angry and fighting or responding emotionally to the.. well.. it's either bait, or a beatdown.

My question is thus.

What will be done with the habitual offenders, I'm all for free speech and 2 sided discussions but a certain few have utterly destroyed the more interesting parts of this site with a very closed minded and rather abusive approach to just about every post in those forums.

They go into open minded discussions, and subsequently dismantle everything with closed minded copy/paste one liners.. or long winded rants.. like tigertatzen was discussing (i saw it too..)
We can't fight them ourselves, we can't build a list then out them... so what.. do we do?
At this point we are left with only two option... close thread.. back to board.. and cross our fingers hoping they get bored.. or just give up entirely, stop searching for anything not inside the box.. go back to kitten memes

We do report, when it gets bad.. but my experience hasn't been all that great in those forums with reporting.. it normally bites me in the backside or nothing is done.. days latter the attacks still stand, or it's all thrown in the bin due to the same crew in the same sections utterly destroying the OP.
When Deny ignorance turns into "Deny & Ignore" those ppl have no place in the esoteric sections of this forum, yet they have overrun them..

That.. is what I'd like to see change.. The OP here gives me hope for that change..
We'll just wait and see.. and hope.

I may sound frustrated at times, i may get a bit lippy.. & the above is why, some days it feels like we are all alone in those forums.. left to defend ourselves (within the T&C) and prove the impossible.. i don't come here to fight.. I come here to learn and wonder.. many others do as well.

Thank you mods for what you are trying to do, I just felt the above needs to be addressed ASAP, as it's far deeper than just a few ppl having disagreements in the esoteric forums.. it's becoming a war..

originally posted by: masqua
a reply to: Daedalus

Perhaps there was an something going on which was not publicly obvious. The T&C's are what we act on and it is never because some single staffer takes exception to a reasonable topic.

Any staffer that did something like that might not last too long.

We don't discuss how or why members get banned.

The not discussing reasons for banning members is something that's been on my mind for a while.

If, for instance, someone is banned because staff have reason to believe they are a disinfo agent or shill then wouldn't it be wise to alert members? After all, a lot of damage could have been done by such a member.

I'm sure many members are puzzled when a long standing, popular member ends up being banned and, much as I appreciate that you wouldn't want to embarrass a banned member by publicisiing bad behaviour, an explanation would be helpful.

If someone has been here for years, posting polite and thoughtful content it's hard to think they could be banned for a momentary lapse, especially when warnings are available. Even more hard to understand when we are told that the decision to ban is made after discussion by the entire staff and that members are generally banned with great reluctance.

Could there not be temporary bans rather than permanent bans?

Also, could there not be an Appeals Process? I can think of a couple of people I'd like to speak up for and would welcome back because they are sorely missed.

a reply to: berenike

There are temporary bans. That's one way we get a members attention.

Bans are a last resort. There's a lot that goes on to reach that point, and the reason we don't discuss them is because it leads to a lot of unnecessary drama on the boards that could lead to trouble for other members.

a reply to: berenike

There are post bans and account bans. The first is to have a conversation to resolve issues and the other is when all else fails.

As far as discussing account bans are concerned, the rule is staff does not divulge why unless there is a good reason for the wider membership to know. That has happened in the years I've been here, but very very seldom.

Anyone that has their account banned has the right to make another account and return as a member, but if they repeat the same behaviour that got them banned in the first place, they will likely get banned again... and again... and again.

Also, if a member gets banned and they wish to appeal, there is a way contact the owners to put forth your case in the hope of being re-instated without losing their current username. I've seen that happen as well.

For reference from Scientic American:

www.scientificamerican.com...

A perfect storm of factors come together to engender the rudeness and aggression seen in the comments' sections of Web pages, Markman said.

First, commenters are often virtually anonymous, and thus, unaccountable for their rudeness.

Second, they are at a distance from the target of their anger — be it the article they're commenting on or another comment on that article — and people tend to antagonize distant abstractions more easily than living, breathing interlocutors.

Third, it's easier to be nasty in writing than in speech,

noted another cause of the vitriol: bad examples set by the media. "Unfortunately, mainstream media have made a fortune teaching people the wrong ways to talk to each other, offering up Jerry Springer, Crossfire, Bill O'Reilly. People understandably conclude rage is the political vernacular, that this is how public ideas are talked about," Wasserman wrote in an article on his university's website. "It isn't."