------FORUM GUIDELINES------

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I understood the situation to be that specific moderators have certain forums, it definitely used to be that way in the past, not sure how many each, and super moderators have more leeway.

a reply to: Jonjonj

I thought that might be the case for smaller forums.

If it's across the board, I can't think of many other ideas personally.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Well it seems as if the problem for now is being mitigated. I never used the 9/11 forums, far too bloody technical for me.

My sympathies to any and all mods who have been tasked with moderating that particular forum.

Someone needs to convince the boss that y'all deserve a free case of bacon double cheeseburgers...

a reply to: Jonjonj

Hmm I don't hold out much hope for a 30 day trial period to be honest.
Not with a lack of help for the mods.

That place became a cesspit so fast.

It's the reason I joined originally in 2011 (different name), but I haven't been in that forum for a long while now.

We shall see.

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
Some members put forward the concept that if moderators 'cannot be everywhere' then more mods could be recruited.

Because our members can't behave when we ask them to behave we need more staff?

I don't think so.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
And will Truther be banned as well?


Thanks.

Curious about this as well. I've never used either term with the intention of insulting.

a reply to: AnonnieMuss

I only found out it was in insult today.

Live and learn I guess.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Interesting move, I like it. Lets say after 30 days the forum does not reopen and if someone did want to start a thread on 9/11, say with new information (it could happen), could they create that thread in another forum, like BAN? If so, I'm sure the rules surround 9/11 threads still holds.

a reply to: Swills

IMO you shouldn't get your hopes up. Did you see the other thread? If people had just calmed down and agreed that calling others names is not what we should be doing on here the threads probably would have been reopened.

Instead from what I read there were a few insisting that they should be able to call people names because they were certain they were correct. I have seen children more understanding. That is not the way to start off a new year.

a reply to: Grimpachi

It'd be interesting if 9/11 threads were banned in the future altogether. If you do subscribe to the theory the gov't has people on the internet working against any 9/11 discussion then you could say they have won. But they didn't win alone, because they brought their opponents down to their level they won, and that blame lies on their opponents for allowing it to happen.

And it's been reported already all gov'ts have their online armies so it's not so much a theory.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

It's just that, while you might personally use it to refer to a political movement in general, not everyone does that. And i mean this in the nicest possible way, but even doing that is a form of discrimination, because it is saying that this particular group of people are to be singled out and labeled (and thusly marked) for simply having doubts about something else that the majority seems to accept. Essentially, it is drawing a line of priviledge; "You don't believe the story word for word, so you much be one of those Truthers, and you're not allowed to play in our sandbox anymore". It's using a person's opinion to define their character, and it's degrading, whether by design or by accident...it makes no difference.

a reply to: Invisus

I don't think its the name calling but rather the overall degradation of any discussion in that forum. Basically it's people's attitudes and personal attacks on each other. You're not allowed to attack anyone on this site in any forum but it's run rampant on the 9/11 forum so much so it's been taking up all the Mods attention and they're sick of it.

Blame the people, this is a user driven site and that's the cesspool they created.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Remember when you were a teenager and you first got your driver's license? It was a privilege and it came with responsibility. Then daddy gave you the keys and told you to obey all the traffic laws or that privilege would be revoked. You got away with speeding from time to time then one day you got a ticket. Okay, this is your first warning, do it again and you are going to be grounded. Then you decided to test the premise and you got another ticket, only this time you cussed out the cop. The cop took you to jail. Daddy grounded you and your privilege was suspended.

In other words, there are basic ground rules to follow and being held accountable for infractions is to be expected. ATS gives you the privilege to drive the car, but speed or cuss out the cop and you pay the consequences.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

An obviously well thought out and therefore excellent decision.
This will save some members from having their accounts terminated
on the merry go round of redundance.

Clean up, isle 9-11!

The interesting question is; WHY the forum is this way?

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
Some members put forward the concept that if moderators 'cannot be everywhere' then more mods could be recruited.

Because our members can't behave when we ask them to behave we need more staff?

I don't think so.

Thats's right.
A lot of it gets out of hand though because there aren't always mods around to be able to step in.
It's always going to get difficult in that forum, but limiting it so that members can only post in 9/11 threads that already exist won't change a thing.
Members are probably already posting all the usual content in those pre existing forums right now, getting into the usual arguments and caring very little for T&C.
I would submit that having more mods available to be able to censor that specific forum cannot hurt.

If we have a shortage of policemen and women in a city do we ask the public not commit any crimes and 'be good' ? Or do we recruit?

Bravo S.O. and much needed. The 9/11 forum is one of the few forums I steer clear of. The baiting, trolling, insulting and general poor behaviour from both sides of the argument gives me a bitter taste in my mouth and stops me from posting. It is an important topic, one that needs to be debated, but not in the way it has been for the last few years now.

Let's hope this is a wake-up call for the worst of the offenders. Either tone it down or enjoy your ban!

Perhaps, then, in time I may feel better about contributing to that forum.

The forum in discussion was one of the ones that drew me to ATS in the first place. After joining and reading Pro, Con, This, That or the other opinions, threads more often than not would deteriorate to mud slinging, name calling with facts and interesting information on either side being shoved aside and it became very apparent for me a forum to avoid.

It has stayed that way for most of my years here at ATS.

Sad really.