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

I am quite a prolific OSer poster on the 9/11 forum. I know that this type of behaviour works both ways but I have to say I have been subjected to these kind of insults. It's not so much that I find them offensive but rather that they derail the thread. I also think that members who persistently go off topic also need to be included in this. It's so frustrating to start a thread on say wtc7 (or a fire in Dubai) only for it to turn into a debate about about a passport or the pentagon and so on.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I understand and agree with you in this context. But the truth for me is that a discussion builds a life of itself and goes in many directions. Personally I find such discussions enlightening when the grow, split, etc.

But that probably has little to do with this topic. Just sayin'

originally posted by: Debunkology
It has already been established in this thread according to various members that we have a small dedicated group within this forum whose sole objective is to spam official narrative and to hijack threads that go against the official narrative.

It works both ways.

We've had extensive experience, in the past, here on ATS with "bad actors" from various factions of "9/11 Truth" hijacking threads and disrupting discussion... with often much more intensity than the current complaints about those promoting the so-called "Official Story." Some of that is clearly still happening today.

Why then don’t we have a dedicated “official 9/11 conspiracy theory forum” in which only the official conspiracy theory is discussed.

Because ATS is a place where such speculation is both embraced and challenged. If a certain theory cannot survive the simple scrutiny of amateur debunkers online, then there's something wrong with the basics of the conspiracy theory.

The goal here is to discover truth, not a mutual self-appreciation back-slapping echo chamber of ridiculous conspiracy theories that cannot stand up to examination.

Would ats ever consider banning members who break these rules but only from the 9/11 forum. I don't know if that's even possible

a reply to: SoulSurfer

I see your point...but this idea has my attention. A forum where you can start private or self-moderated threads...encrypted threads and maybe even branch threads so that if an original topic "takes a turn" you can spawn a child thread to follow the new path.

Hmmm...I'm going to have to look into writing something like that. Something more "real life".

originally posted by: Debunkology
There is already a process of gatekeeping in ATS. This after all is the “9/11 conspiracies forum”. We do not post about big foot or aliens here.

It has already been established in this thread according to various members that we have a small dedicated group within this forum whose sole objective is to spam official narrative and to hijack threads that go against the official narrative.

Why then don’t we have a dedicated “official 9/11 conspiracy theory forum” in which only the official conspiracy theory is discussed. Members who believe in discrepancies can go and debate the official theory there and these dedicated members who believe in the OS can defend their beliefs.

People who attack the members who believe in the 9/11 story will have their privilege to post in this forum revoked.

Then why don’t we have an “alternative 9/11 conspiracy theory forum”. Where the official narrative is not allowed. Threads would develop rather than being constantly derailed.

People who talk about the official narrative in this forum will have their privilege to post in this forum revoked.

This will resolve tensions IMO and even bring more members towards the 9/11 forum. It is not "gatekeeping" or a form of backslapping.

Creating a fork in the road where one side can't see the other side, thus information isn't shared / discussed / debated ...... what's the point. Personally i like to see / read both sides, i have my own opinion based on various reasons both from the OS and the Truther side, to deliberately stop me from reading both sides is counterproductive .......... what about the Non OS and Non Truther, those that sit on the fence and have no common ground between either? do we get our own threads? if so, what do we discuss as we can't see the other sides opinions / comments.

We can all be opinionated, strongly or otherwise however, as is the point of this thread though, do it with manners, decorum and respect, if you don't like a comment because you don't agree with it, move on and ignore, don't throw your toys out of the pram to use an English analogy

CbG

originally posted by: corblimeyguvnor

originally posted by: Debunkology
There is already a process of gatekeeping in ATS. This after all is the “9/11 conspiracies forum”. We do not post about big foot or aliens here.

It has already been established in this thread according to various members that we have a small dedicated group within this forum whose sole objective is to spam official narrative and to hijack threads that go against the official narrative.

Why then don’t we have a dedicated “official 9/11 conspiracy theory forum” in which only the official conspiracy theory is discussed. Members who believe in discrepancies can go and debate the official theory there and these dedicated members who believe in the OS can defend their beliefs.

People who attack the members who believe in the 9/11 story will have their privilege to post in this forum revoked.

Then why don’t we have an “alternative 9/11 conspiracy theory forum”. Where the official narrative is not allowed. Threads would develop rather than being constantly derailed.

People who talk about the official narrative in this forum will have their privilege to post in this forum revoked.

This will resolve tensions IMO and even bring more members towards the 9/11 forum. It is not "gatekeeping" or a form of backslapping.

Creating a fork in the road where one side can't see the other side, thus information isn't shared / discussed / debated ...... what's the point. Personally i like to see / read both sides, i have my own opinion based on various reasons both from the OS and the Truther side, to deliberately stop me from reading both sides is counterproductive .......... what about the Non OS and Non Truther, those that sit on the fence and have no common ground between either? do we get our own threads? if so, what do we discuss as we can't see the other sides opinions / comments

CbG

I think you have both misunderstood my point. I don't believe in creating a forum were information is not examined or scrutinized and where people just backslap each other and agree.

I am not saying we should not debate at all. All I am saying is that there should be a separation of ideas. We can examine, debate, and scrutinize the official storyline in the forum dedicated to just that. The official conspiracy theory forum.

Then we have a forum dedicate to alternative theories were the official narrative is not allowed. It is simple.

a reply to: Debunkology

Sorry friend, added a last paragraph to my post as you were responding, please comment on last paragraph, and in answer to your last point, i did misunderstand, apologies

CbG

I haven't participated in any 9/11 threads, but have combed this one pretty thoroughly. I think some very good advice has been offered, which I myself have followed in the past, recently for several years.

Take a step back, check yourself, log out, walk away for a while.

It works.

a reply to: Debunkology

Because ATS is not GLP.

Both forums would quickly become ghost towns, after all the back slapping in either case.

Questioning each (conspiracy theories and official stories) is what drives discussion.

There is absolutely no reason why it can not be done with civilty and decorum. No insults or name calling is needed, wanted or allowed.

That is how all the forums here on ATS are. People post things, others either agree, question it or disagree.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Kandinsky

Calling someone a shill or a paid poster is in NO WAY an insult for crying out loud.

The roll of the shill is now much more proffessional than it used to be. They are simply online reputation managers. Anyone can hire one or be one. They could be promoting a music album, a sugary cereal, or an OS. Its all the same. Its reality today. There is no way to fairly discern whether a poster is a "shill" or not so to attack them will always come across as a childish foot-stomp against anyone that doesnt agree with you.

I am with you, I see them too but as soon as you accuse them of being a shill, you have already lost. Be a better shill for yoir "truth" is your only option. It is no different. You selling to people that 911 was a lie is no different than someone selling that it wasnt.

If I'm debating someone over and over and realize it's not an open exchange of thoughts and opinions, but rather just continuous contradiction, lies, based on an agenda to tire an opponent to win favor with your side, that's a shill.

That is acceptable, to me at least. Honestly, the debate would be no fun if there wasn't some adversary there to tee me up for a homerun. It doesnt feel as good to hit one out of the park when a team mate pitched the ball to you.

It's a tactic worse than ad homs and strawmen. It's a methodical plan based on being disingenuous to perpetuate lies to a naive audience.

Nearly everything that is sold to people by paid professionals is bad for you. Not just lies about events like 911. Your mortgage, your belief that a gym pass will make things better, starbucks, everything. Its ALL bad for people and its up to peoples better judgement to figure that out. There is no "whats good for you" police. Thats up to the individual.

Who's derailing whom then? I will yield you one point though, using Shill as a means to "Win" an argument is wrong. But using Shill is only brevity for saying "I don't believe you are who you say you are and I think you are paid to contradict anyone who disagrees with you for the sake of causing confusion" What's the point in debating then? It's already over before it starts.

Ill do you one better. Every argument you have made against the OS has been analyzed and millions spent on a rebutal along with a method to disgrace who ever used that argumemt. You built the OS defense with your skepticism and debate. Congradulations!!

Look at the difference we have made.

Yay!

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

if an original topic "takes a turn" you can spawn a child thread to follow the new path.

The odds are that the ATS forum is 'canned' software.
Features like you suggest are not likely to be included.

a reply to: FlySolo

na naa man. I admit when I'm wrong but when I smell a rat I know it. I'm 100% on this. Never been so sure about a member in my life

Notice I didn't say you were wrong stud. But take it from experience
you are only going to cause yourself trouble if you persue this.

originally posted by: corblimeyguvnor
a reply to: Debunkology

Sorry friend, added a last paragraph to my post as you were responding, please comment on last paragraph, and in answer to your last point, i did misunderstand, apologies

CbG

I do think that this mess is created with a complete lack of respect for one another.

Maybe the 9/11 forum especially should be dedicated to those posters who comment with the utmost respect for one another. And very high standards are needed to post there.

Posters who do not adhere to these high standards have their privilege to post in the 9/11 forum removed. But can read the information there.

This way the 9/11 forum remains open at least. And I am sure more enjoyable to read.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

if an original topic "takes a turn" you can spawn a child thread to follow the new path.

The odds are that the ATS forum is 'canned' software.
Features like you suggest are not likely to be included.

No. ATS forum is not "canned" software.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: randyvs

It's when you start a thread and say only certain people can post in it. Or ask people to stop posting in the thread for whatever reason, etc.

When you try to control the thread, it's gatekeeping.

Honest question. Can you ASK to have a focused discussion within reasonable guidelines of a specific topic (or point of discussion) when a member creates a thread? It is not barring members, only an attempt to ASK members to keep the discussion focused on the point of the thread. If any posts wildly stray from that, a port alert is generated for the mods to decide.

I think reasonable people, even adults in a heated debate would understand that request (and it is only a request to set expectation on what is to be discussed). Would the listing of examples of "on topic" areas in the OP of the thread be an acceptable approach and not considered "gatekeeping"?

I am really interested, since IRL if you walk into an existing conversation of folks, you should have some expectation of what is being discussed in order to develop your own opinion and collect sources to back up your ideas. At that point you will likely frame your thoughts/questions within that set of discussion point guidelines and have a reasonable expectation you would be on topic.

Or, am I mistaken and this would still be considered a form of "gatekeeping" within a thread?

a reply to: Krakatoa

Yes and no. "Keep it on topic" could be considered gatekeeping. "I'm asking politely that we keep it on topic, please" wouldn't be per se, and would be far less frowned upon. It may still be removed, but it's got a much better shot at staying than just about anything else.

originally posted by: Debunkology

originally posted by: corblimeyguvnor

originally posted by: Debunkology
There is already a process of gatekeeping in ATS. This after all is the “9/11 conspiracies forum”. We do not post about big foot or aliens here.

It has already been established in this thread according to various members that we have a small dedicated group within this forum whose sole objective is to spam official narrative and to hijack threads that go against the official narrative.

Why then don’t we have a dedicated “official 9/11 conspiracy theory forum” in which only the official conspiracy theory is discussed. Members who believe in discrepancies can go and debate the official theory there and these dedicated members who believe in the OS can defend their beliefs.

People who attack the members who believe in the 9/11 story will have their privilege to post in this forum revoked.

Then why don’t we have an “alternative 9/11 conspiracy theory forum”. Where the official narrative is not allowed. Threads would develop rather than being constantly derailed.

People who talk about the official narrative in this forum will have their privilege to post in this forum revoked.

This will resolve tensions IMO and even bring more members towards the 9/11 forum. It is not "gatekeeping" or a form of backslapping.

Creating a fork in the road where one side can't see the other side, thus information isn't shared / discussed / debated ...... what's the point. Personally i like to see / read both sides, i have my own opinion based on various reasons both from the OS and the Truther side, to deliberately stop me from reading both sides is counterproductive .......... what about the Non OS and Non Truther, those that sit on the fence and have no common ground between either? do we get our own threads? if so, what do we discuss as we can't see the other sides opinions / comments

CbG

I think you have both misunderstood my point. I don't believe in creating a forum were information is not examined or scrutinized and where people just backslap each other and agree.

I am not saying we should not debate at all. All I am saying is that there should be a separation of ideas. We can examine, debate, and scrutinize the official storyline in the forum dedicated to just that. The official conspiracy theory forum.

Then we have a forum dedicate to alternative theories were the official narrative is not allowed. It is simple.

Would that not be then more of a thread for the research forum? If it is a thread that you want to research the evidence from either side without the mud slinging from the other side.... I do not know if threads like that are even allowed in the research forum or not, maybe a mod can clear it up but it was the first thing that popped into my mind when reading your post.

a reply to: eriktheawful

ATS forum is not "canned" software.

How about a simple idea.
Ban the offending poster from posting in the 911 section for progressively longer periods of time for insults.
1st time 3 days
2nd one week
3rd one month
4th six months.
People do learn if it hurts enough.
Having a thought and not being able to post hurts.

If the time frame can't be automatic how about the member having to request to be re-admitted to the section after his ban time has expired?
Humility can be humbling too.

But I feel being able to read the section while banned is important.
It's like watching the kids play in the street when you are in time out.

It would be nice tonsee the 9/11 forum broken up into different topics.

No planes - if thats even allowed anymore.
Thermite
Explosives
Who knew
Media cover up
etc.

It really sucks when a thread about "who knew" turns into a thermite bash-fest.

Thereis nothing wrong debating the OS in either one of those, but when they get crossed is when it gets ugly and what likely triggered this thread.