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.

 

ATSNN Respect.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   
ATSNN, our news site, is an important part of ATS. Many people come here for their news. Many others discover ATS via this route. It requires a higher level of decorum. Swearing, censor circumvention, blanket accusations about whole races, name calling, etc, are not wanted in this forum.

This is not the first time that this has been brought up, nor have there been a lack of verbal nudges in the ATSNN threads by staff. The problem still remains with some members. We can not allow this forum to continue in this manner. If further action is needed by the staff to ensure that ATSNN remains a cut above the rest of the Net, including ATS, we will have to take it.

If you're not sure if you should post something, don't. Or check this thread out. Also helpful are these:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let's work together to raise the level of the News Forum up to where it should be.




posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
This almost seems as if you're saying if you dont agree with the post, keep off.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Disagree all you like but use decorum. I pointed out some of the things that have been a problem in the thread post.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I understand


Not that i look forward to disagreeing with people.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
This almost seems as if you're saying if you dont agree with the post, keep off.


dgtempe, you totally miss the point.

Intelligent on-topic debate is encouraged on ATSNN, but recently many articles have turned into personal flame and bashing fests.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I think that certain comments don´t belong in ATSNN at all.

Like: "I don´t think this belongs in ATSNN"
Or: "Your intro is biased or too short"
Or other comments regarding the formatting or layout of the submission.

If it is still a submission, then use the buttons provided for voting.
If it is already upgraded, u2u the member instead of messing up the thread.

My 2 cents regarding ATSNN



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by dgtempe
This almost seems as if you're saying if you dont agree with the post, keep off.


dgtempe, you totally miss the point.

Intelligent on-topic debate is encouraged on ATSNN, but recently many articles have turned into personal flame and bashing fests.
I realize this now. Intrepid clarified it for me. I guess i've kind of lost touch of the daily goings on with my move and all.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellmutt
I think that certain comments don´t belong in ATSNN at all.

Like: "I don´t think this belongs in ATSNN"
Or: "Your intro is biased or too short"
Or other comments regarding the formatting or layout of the submission.

If it is still a submission, then use the buttons provided for voting.
If it is already upgraded, u2u the member instead of messing up the thread.

My 2 cents regarding ATSNN


Valid point Hellmutt. Sometimes a story gets jacked by editorial critisism. Not as often as it used to be, guess you guys are getting better.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Yes, that's another disturbing trend...many people putting in their 2 cents on why or why not they voted for an article.

People should just vote without commenting on their vote.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
ATSNN, our news site,...
There is a rather simple solution. If it is a news site, then treat it as one. Print the article in a closed forum. What legitimate news organizations allow commentary to be made on their news reporting pieces?

ed to fix BB code

[edit on 22-7-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   
SWIB, this forum has been helping ATS to grow since it's inception, it works. It just needs a little TLC. What you are suggesting would radically change the forum. You know what they say, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it". We just want a new coat of paint.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
What legitimate news organizations allow commentary to be made on their news reporting pieces?


Anybody can broadcast (or re-broadcast to be more precise) news items.

One of the things that makes ATSNN unique is the commentary and debate around the story. Don't want that? Read a newspaper.

I don't log in from work but today I kept checking in to read the thread on the events in London and got much more bits of information in real time than I could have on any other site, including the BBC! Same thing happened two weeks ago and during the tsunami.


I have to add that some of the behaviour in today's London thread was not worthy of ATSNN so I applaud intrepid's (one of our hardest working mods btw) attempt to sort this out.

.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   
It's necessary and I feel getting better over the last few months. But perhap's it is not yet where the moderators want it and I respect that for sure.

Dallas



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoolsAnybody can broadcast (or re-broadcast to be more precise) news items.
Yes, and in fact that is precisely what ATSNN is doing. It is not writing its own story, it is rebroadcasting already written news items and allowing a personal spin to be placed on same by the contributor, necessary it seems to ensure plagairizm is avoided as much as possible.

I have seen numerous times in here where it is flaunted that ATSNN is a leading news site, well reputable news should not be tainted by personal opinion within the reporting. So if the purpose of ATSNN is to become a leading site for news, it stands to reason that same should be void of all personal commentary, or the contribution is reduced to nothing but an opinion on an article.

Which leads me to why there are opinion pieces and editorials; in newspapers are often in response to news articles; unattached from said news articles and displayed as opinions. Imagine what the daily news sites and or newspapers would be filled with if before final publication anyone and his brother is allowed to critique the news item.

This site has left the posting of ATSNN news pieces open to editorials and opinions, and as everyone should well know, no two people think exactly alike, hence, it cannot leave that door open then reprimand those opinions it takes offense to beacuse of its own singular or plural bias.

My solution is not only reasonable it makes much sense, where I left the reading between the lines up to the powers that be, and that would be to create the closed forum news item, and initiate a separate editorial page where the opinions on all such news can be placed. This would be representative of the online version of newspaper sections.


One of the things that makes ATSNN unique is the commentary and debate around the story. Don't want that? Read a newspaper.
Actually while there was no need for that sarcasm, since it is obvious that Administration takes issue enough with the current scheme of things to start this thread. I do read the newspaper thank you, and will continue to first and foremost, just as I do the letters to editor in same and understand that these opinions are separate and apart from the facts in the news stories, and are not based on individual interpretation of same.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
SWIB, this forum has been helping ATS to grow since it's inception, it works. It just needs a little TLC. What you are suggesting would radically change the forum. You know what they say, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it". We just want a new coat of paint.
It must either be broken or severely fractured, or you wuld not have posted as you did in teh initial thread.

Just because something is implemented in one way, it does not mean it was implemented without flaw.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by intrepid
ATSNN, our news site,...There is a rather simple solution. If it is a news site, then treat it as one. Print the article in a closed forum. What legitimate news organizations allow commentary to be made on their news reporting pieces?


I would like a shot at this one. The ones that aren't us. That was the entire point of ATSNN, to have an interactive community-driven news portal.



[edit on 7-21-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   
SWIB, I see where we are missing each other. It's the Author that should remain unbiased. The input of the members is going to be different, like you said, no two people think alike. However, it's the discussion of opinions that achieve the greatest input. The more civil posts, opinions, the closer a reader will come to the truth. It's been said that all media is biased. We aren't because all points of view are heard. It lets the reader to decide for him/herself.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
SWIB, I see where we are missing each other. It's the Author that should remain unbiased.


Actually I have abit of experience with this. The Intro is supposed to be completely free of Bias. However, as it has been pointed about before I am not shy about my opinions (most of us here fit that statement) and the commentary section is for my take on the story. Thats why the NO:BIAS u2u's are so frustrating because people often vote on the commentary and not the summation on the top.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Valhall-The ones that aren't us. That was the entire point of ATSNN, to have an interactive community-driven news portal.
And ATSNN has achieved that, unless of course it is ATS’s decision now that such interaction is to have limitations and bounds, where those limitations and bounds are defined as non-contradictory to the prevailing powers that be. For to be contradictory in even the politest of terms will still offend the sensibilities of some.

Now the ones that “aren’t us” are the ones who we hope will one day become “us,” which implies that once they are “us” we no longer care that they are“us” since their membership has already been acquired. Gools made the statement:

One of the things that makes ATSNN unique is the commentary and debate around the story. Don't want that? Read a newspaper.
Implicit to someone that is already a member of ATS. Dare he attach that sentiment to every ATSNN contribution, I doubt that: “Many others discover ATS via this route.” would actually happen, and Intrepid would not be so concerned with presenting a professional face for attracting new customers. What is more important, attracting membership on the pretense of professionalism and moderate opinion, or keeping them active after they sign up?


Intrepid- SWIB, I see where we are missing each other. It's the Author that should remain unbiased.
No, you still miss the point. A creditable news piece includes no personal opinion, therefore no bias by the reporter. Once the contributor offers his sourced piece and link, it is a requirement that s/he offer their own twist, which is likely to be from a biased perspective, and subject to other biased opinions, no matter the voting requirement. The commentary of the contributor can be influential to the reader and especially to those who choose to use the link as verification of their position. Too many minds are malleable, so it begs the question then: does ATS care only for market share or does it truly stand for denying those who hide behind ignorance?

What you are attempting is to give the impression that members have the right to post their opinions freely, where it is implied by the course of this thread that you in fact then subjucate those opinions to a mold which you forged. And further, you are depending on the silencing of dissent (based on moderator perception) to attract non-members into the fold, who, were they to then voice an opinion that either of you deem to be unsavoury, is all of a sudden no longer the customer you solicit but the employee you read the rule book to.

Now you can take my criticism in the constructive vein within which it is meant, or you can discard same and assume that your reprimands are and always will be righteous simply because you believe you know best.

I stated my case once before about PTS, after a drive to solicit contributors was posted, which went unheeded, and yet I still witness numerous failed campaigns to raise backing in that site. I tell you now your focus here is blurred, and you do nothing but find excuses, and as with PTS your appeal is not the one to take.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   
I can respond to your long post with a comparatively short one.

I would hope not.

I don't think




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join