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.

 

The 9/11 Conspiracies Forum is a Mess. And it’s The Fault of Many Members

page: 14
77
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Zaphod58

just ask them and do your due diligence? Damn, do you really want this place infested with paid posters? There goes credibility


Do you have any idea what a background check costs? We think we can tell who the foreign paid posters are but how would we check on them? [Super secret agencies would rig it anyway.]


Who said anything about purchasing a background check? Keep things real people


Was it you who suggested that members be screened as shills? How would you do that? Would it be worth the effort? Would you decide by the number of different forums that the suspect posted on? Maybe that individual is only interested in a specific topic. If you did institute such, shills could easily post on many forums while posting for effect on the target forum.
I think that in any discussion website, shills, if they are present, are something that has to be lived with. If they shill to excess, they may damage the website that they want to subvert. A true shill will plant the seeds and water the ideas occasionally, without antagonizing the shillees whose ideas are to be redirected. In my experience, vitriol and obnoxious personal attacks are not conducive to changing another's opinions but are the products of those desperately wanting to shout down dissenting opinions.




posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Shamrock6




I do think it's a bit shady that mods can't "police their own" though, as a small number seem to enjoy getting dirty about things on occasion.


If that's your experience, feel free to alert posts. As staff, we're always quick to point out that we're members first. As such, we are held to the same T&Cs as anyone else. Sometimes it's about interpretation when staff are expected (by some) to be neutral on issues when really we're as entitled to voice an opinion as anyone else.

Another thing is that sometimes we (staff) might be posting emotionally on an issue and not realising it. That's just human nature and happens to all of us.


I have. And was point blank told "it's a mod, I can't do anything."

So that would be my experience.


Usually, an alert goes to a staff forum that's visible to ALL staff. Decisions are then based on a consensus. Some of those can run to a couple of posts or several pages. I'm curious.

If it happens again please alert. In my experience, we've sometimes had to go back in and remove our own posts because the consensus has said so. I don't mean off-topics, specifically the 'getting dirty' style you refer to.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: uktorah
I don't see the 'Alert' button. Do you need a high level of stars to do that?


The little green icon underneath people's profiles is an icon which will bring up a list of options when clicked. You can click alert from there and report the offending post. Make sure you click the alert button on the profile corresponding to the actual post (i.e. if the member has posted more than one time, click on the alert button on their profile next to the post which is violating terms and conditions).



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
a reply to: SkepticOverlord
This may be a stupid question............but what the heck is an OSer?




Someone who supports the official story. Apparently it's an insult. It was news to me.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

An OSer is considered to be such if they:

Believe the official account of the events of 9/11, believe that the towers fell because of a plane impact rather than because of a series of controlled detonations set off to look like a random, but orderly collapse, and if they basically try to debunk any alternative theory.

Also, OSers tend to look poorly upon any suggestion that the attacks were allowed to happen as a lever against public opinion, with which to promote a war effort in the Middle East and surrounding regions.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: uktorah

No.

Bottom right corner of the thread. For specific replies, click on the small green man to the bottom left of someone's mini profile, ALERT! is one of the options. Bottom right, again.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Er, Brit, I believe the official explanation for WTC7 (the most commonly discussed one) states that the impact damage is negligible, and the collapse was primarily caused by fire damage.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
I have had a couple of good threads closed due to trolls and degrading debate to insult and name calling. What I find both amusing and a little frightening is that it is always the same few people responsible. And those same people are on this thread talking about how they think "the other guy needs to be educated on proper interaction". These guys are the first ones to attack a source rather than the topic, resort to name calling and insult, and cry victim if you dare to speak to them in their own language.

I have seen multiple threads immediately derailed with complaints about the source. "Oh, its the DM, it must be a lie and you are a fool if you believe anything you read there. Only an idiot would reference a DM article." And so on. And guess what? The DM was right. And so are a lot of other sources that are immediately attacked by the same people.

Everyone knows who these people are. I have reported these posts more than once. And I know others have also. When someone starts a thread that is anti-liberal in some way and the next three posts are the same three people attacking the source, you can bet the thread will be closed, not because it ran out of steam or was not worth discussing, but because it is so badly derailed and perverted into attack and defend that the original topic was lost long ago. That is not the OP doing that. That is the same few people who employ the same tactics over and over again. And they will continue as long as it continues to work.


This right here is actually highly accurate as well. You point out another problem many have been having.



These guys are the first ones to attack a source rather than the topic, resort to name calling and insult, and cry victim if you dare to speak to them in their own language.


In psychology, people who act like this are considered narcissistic. Narcissism is actually a sickness in the mind. Ask any psychologists out there and they will tell you the same. Narcissism and feminism, both are within the same category.

It is extremely vital and important to discern from the narcissist. It is, by definition, an extremely dangerous mindset. The best example of this is Adolf Hitler who was sick in mind. Sadly, that mindset, is still around in this world, and the best way to defend against it is to become aware of it and discern away from it.

I wanted to address this part though.




I have seen multiple threads immediately derailed with complaints about the source.


This is one of the reasons why I don't like giving sources within my threads. But if I do not post the source, (for example: ) then "there is no evidence, therefor the op is a liar." (character assassination right there.) But if I do post a source, if it is not CNN (or mainstream media) then it is invalidated, and is not credible.

I have one other reason why I don't like giving a specific source, and rather encourage people to research the info for themselves. (Not to blindly believe me, or anyone. I actually want people to get past their laziness and do some digging. No matter what the topic is about.) However, aside from that, many topics are not isolated to a specific article or source. A good investigator in any subject, be it science, conspiracies, medical, (you name it, if it can be researched, then it falls within this category) knows that it would be unwise to stick only to one source, but rather, look into as much sources as possible. See as many different views as possible, in order to identify the patterns, the truth along with the deceits.

I use the scientific method a lot when investigating a topic. It is in fact; a lot of hard work to do it, but in the end, it is worth it, because you gain a set of new eyes, and become a thinker outside the box.

As to the rest of your post, well, it was all well said. I couldn't have written it better myself. And you got to the heart of a few situations occurring within ATS. I found myself fighting them off, but decided to adopt another approach on dealing with them.

I will simply say:

"I don't wish to speak with you. So stop addressing me or following me."


And will simply copy paste the following source:





Harassment consists of the intentional crossing of your emotional or physical safety boundaries. You must have boundaries set in place clearly in order for that to apply. The legal definition of harassment, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is:

"A course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose" or "Words, gestures, and actions which tend to annoy, alarm and abuse (verbally) another person."

This is of course a very broad definition, which state and federal legislation and common law have narrowed and refined in various ways. However, for our purposes, WHOA defines online harassment as any actions that meet the qualifications of the above definition after the harasser has been told to cease



And if they think the source is not credible, they will find out the hard way, how credible that source is through legal actions.

Point is, I no longer wish to "feed" them anymore. And if someone does not wish to speak with a specific person, that person has to respect the boundaries that were set and go on their way. If they refuse stop, despite being told to "stop", then that right there should be enough to know who is causing strife.

I am guilty on this though:




if you dare to speak to them in their own language.


The mirror affect does not work and it only worsens the situation. And the main reason why is, because you get brought down into their level. Frankly I should know better because I am an educated person. But I am still also a human being with empathy (feelings) along with a sensitive heart. I don't take well to insults, because it is illogical, but at the same time, it does trigger something within me, and the "devil horns" come out, so to speak.

In a way, I am grateful to them, because they are helping me grow a "thicker skin", but the thing is, when I wish to discuss a topic with like-minded folks, it becomes a thread in defense of oneself, rather than a discussion of the topic. This in turn, derails the thread to the point of perversion, as you mentioned, and the original post is therefor "lost" within the garbage of derailment. It is utterly frustrating especially after one spends three hours posting a thread with over 2,000 words.

I know many threads posted on ATS is highly controversial, and I do post highly controversial topics that tend to be "outside" the norm. But I think, if a topic has consistent thoughts behind it, no matter the source, it should at least, be taken into consideration. When I post a topic such as these, my intention is not to convince anyone that the topic is true. What I am really asking people to do, is to at-least consider the possibility of it being true. It is because, "It is possible" that it should be looked at. You'd never know when the boy who cries wolf would be right.


Well spoken, my friend, and I share your pain. Though to be fair on the trolls, (as I mentioned in my own post on how to ID them) they are victims themselves when it comes to the grand scheme of things.





edit on nd2015000000Saturdaynd000000Sat, 02 Jan 2016 10:19:15 -0600fAmerica/ChicagoSat, 02 Jan 2016 10:19:15 -0600 by SoulSurfer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
9/11 has truly garnered the desired effect for those who perpetrated it. Average citizens, in a desperate and hopeless struggle for the truth now lash out at one another over arbitrary facts. The true culprits are as far displaced from the spotlight as one can get.

Oh, the depravity...



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Shamrock6




I do think it's a bit shady that mods can't "police their own" though, as a small number seem to enjoy getting dirty about things on occasion.


If that's your experience, feel free to alert posts. As staff, we're always quick to point out that we're members first. As such, we are held to the same T&Cs as anyone else. Sometimes it's about interpretation when staff are expected (by some) to be neutral on issues when really we're as entitled to voice an opinion as anyone else.

Another thing is that sometimes we (staff) might be posting emotionally on an issue and not realising it. That's just human nature and happens to all of us.


I have. And was point blank told "it's a mod, I can't do anything."

So that would be my experience.


Usually, an alert goes to a staff forum that's visible to ALL staff. Decisions are then based on a consensus. Some of those can run to a couple of posts or several pages. I'm curious.

If it happens again please alert. In my experience, we've sometimes had to go back in and remove our own posts because the consensus has said so. I don't mean off-topics, specifically the 'getting dirty' style you refer to.


In my time here, i can only recall one major problem with a moderator who closed a relatively popular thread of mine on false pretenses.I knew the thread wasn't violating any T&Cs, and i couldn't have a proper discussion with the moderator about it, so i went to Springer. The matter was resolved quite quickly and the thread was restored.

I think it's important that people remember that moderators such as yourself are human and can be prone to mistakes. Even though i had my fair share of problems, i was always treated fairly in the end.

edit on 2-1-2016 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Labels are abhorant. People that use them want to marginalize and discriminate. Both OSer and Truther are misleading, imo.

Both sides of the same coin.

If you are labeled an Oser you are on the governments side, and if you are a truther you believe the government brought the buildings down.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't, by design. Nether side focus on the bigger picture, just noses around in the rubble pile.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

You are absolutely right, however building 7, although the most interesting from some perspectives, is a whole subject unto itself and I did not want to make my response overly long and wordy, because it was an explanation of a simple bit reductive nomenclature, rather than an attempt at an expose on the entire event in question.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I agree intrptr, absolutely.

I was just making the member with the question, aware of the context within which the label was being used, rather than supporting its use.

I prefer to think of everyone as human first, as previously mentioned in this very thread. That does not mean that we should be ignorant of the terms used to divide us.

edit on 2-1-2016 by TrueBrit because: Grammatical error removed.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Point.

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing more interesting than No. 7 was the Pentagon attack, which is incredibly fishy (though sadly seldom discussed, to my notice at least.)



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: Kandinsky

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Shamrock6




I do think it's a bit shady that mods can't "police their own" though, as a small number seem to enjoy getting dirty about things on occasion.


If that's your experience, feel free to alert posts. As staff, we're always quick to point out that we're members first. As such, we are held to the same T&Cs as anyone else. Sometimes it's about interpretation when staff are expected (by some) to be neutral on issues when really we're as entitled to voice an opinion as anyone else.

Another thing is that sometimes we (staff) might be posting emotionally on an issue and not realising it. That's just human nature and happens to all of us.


I have. And was point blank told "it's a mod, I can't do anything."

So that would be my experience.


Usually, an alert goes to a staff forum that's visible to ALL staff. Decisions are then based on a consensus. Some of those can run to a couple of posts or several pages. I'm curious.

If it happens again please alert. In my experience, we've sometimes had to go back in and remove our own posts because the consensus has said so. I don't mean off-topics, specifically the 'getting dirty' style you refer to.


In my time here, i can only recall one major problem with a moderator who closed a relatively popular thread of mine on false pretenses.I knew the thread wasn't violating any T&Cs, and i couldn't have a proper discussion with the moderator about it, so i went to Springer. The matter was resolved quite quickly and the thread was restored.

I think it's important that people remember that moderators such as yourself are human and can be prone to mistakes. Even though i had my fair share of problems, i was always treated fairly in the end.


Yeah, we are humans and get tired or make mistakes. Whenever a member has a genuine grievance and doesn't think the staff have helped them, I'd always say contact an admin or owner.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Indeed so, although I recall many threads on that precise topic.

However, without wishing to cut short what could prove to be an informative interaction, we should probably keep this on topic for the thread, and the topic is not the event itself, but the quality and decorum of discussion relating thereto.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital




I think it's important that people remember that moderators such as yourself are human and can be prone to mistakes. Even though i had my fair share of problems, i was always treated fairly in the end.


I have to agree with you daas, the mods are pretty fair in regards to what gets removed and not. I myself have a few posting bans and they were with good cause, maybe not in the heat of the banning, but in hindsight they were well deserved lol. In fact I was lucky to have got posting privileges back at all in regards to the last ban. They are like everyone else on here, to enjoy the site but they have the added stress of having to deal and moderate all us lunatics. I know that if I ever get another ban (hopefully not) I'll probably deserve it.
edit on 2-1-2016 by sosobad because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I see numerous references on this thread (and elsewhere on ATS) around the theme, 'things have changed recently'

Well, things have changed, not only on ATS, but elsewhere as well. This trend won't change anytime soon either. So, what's changed you ask? Fundamentally, there are two significant developments over the past decade or so.

1. Social Media has become much more mainstream. Websites such as FB and the like are now the norm. Advances in mobile technology coupled with exponential increases in the cross sections of those who carry mobile devices (phones, etc.) has driven down the median age of people interacting across the internet. Cross linking technology while good for exposure (and 'hits') now makes it possible for people to interact with a website like ATS even when they are not actively traversing ATS proper (FB and tapatalk are great examples). Add to this the staggering increase in technology such as texting and other abbreviated messaging forms (Twitter, etc.) has lead to shorter and less responsible behavior in interacting across the board.

2. Online gaming has spawned an entire sub-culture. The competitive nature of the games themselves coupled with increased bandwidth availability as well as the worldwide acceptance of the same has lead to increasingly tense interactions between people and cultures which previously didn't exist (or was prohibitively expensive).

Remember, both of these development have really come to the forefront since 2003/4. FB was created in '04 and quantum leaps forward in gaming began to occur around the same time. Concepts such as trolling, and shilling (on a commercial level) have become prominent within both of areas of technology, and frankly they've become almost accepted in the mainstream (maybe as an unavoidable evil, but accepted none the less).

When you add all this together, and throw in the anonymity of the internet in general, you wind up with a culture of reduced maturity levels, opinionated abbreviated responses, tension, cultural misunderstanding, shills, trolls and an environment ripe for ad-hominem and/or personal attacks.

The solutions aren't easy unfortunately. Many of these force hard choices, some of which affect the bottom line. However, short of a paradigm shift in behavior / interaction across the internet as a whole (which is unlikely to occur in the near term), some of these choices like post/response caps on threads may be the only alternative.

One of the key themes I've seen in this thread is the notion that all posters are welcome and equal. If this is really true than the T&C's need to be equally enforced on ALL sides of a discussion. In the context of this thread terms like "shill" and "OS" should be no more offensive than "truther" or "9-11 conspiracy theorist". They are both directed at an individual, not a topic, and to be fair they both should be equally offensive (if this is where we're headed). If ultimately the decision is made that ATS as an entity has an absolute position on a subject, and that further debate will not be allowed, then the topic itself should be banned and all sub-forums associated with the topic closed.

It's a complex subject to be sure, one with no easy solutions. In any case, whatever the solution it is important it be implemented objectively and in a measured way across the entire community.



edit on 1/2/2016 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I cannot help but wonder if some of the snide remarks and personal attacks are somehow related to the fact that here at ATS, there is no ignore option. Maybe I'm just unaware of that option, but I've asked several times and apparently one cannot put an offensive cyber-personality on ignore, meaning that often one is forced to glimpse or read posts from individuals one finds somehow offensive?

All these years later there is no doubt the official narrative simply cannot be true, even as the burning tower in Dubai is still standing, yet some folks post as though it is September of 2001. It insults one's intelligence IMO.

Things are always more cordial and civilized when one can ignore certain posters.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Azureblue

When it goes on for page, after page, after page, after page...you see where I'm going with this?

It gets burdensome after about the second page.

When we're required to spend so much time, multiple mods, in one forum, the rest are neglected. So we can't spend as much time as is necessary there. When we come back? those pages and pages I mentioned earlier...

What we want is really very simple.

Agree or disagree with each other all you want. That's a discussion...or argument, if you prefer. That's great.

But when names begin to get tossed around? Or baseless accusations? That's where we draw the line. You know this. You may not know that there aren't very many of us, and we can't catch everything. Those posts that we don't catch are probably the ones that drive members away from the forum, members who might have something interesting to offer, but who aren't interested in being treated like an enemy.


If alerts would make moderating easier maybe the alert system has to be made easier to use. I don't use it often because of a thick skin. I wonder if it would it be difficult to put an alert button on the upper right of the post? Link, Quote, Reply, Alert. Weren't things like that at one time?




top topics



 
77
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join