Originally posted by SkepticOverlordAs has been said before... and continues to ring true... those who have enjoyed attacking the political ideologies of other members seem to be the only ones finding reason to complain about this new crack-down on what is essentially preexisting policy.

That's a convenient possible answer. Another might be that you have a combo of folks who have been here awhile noting the "uniformity" of political opinion on the staff ( remember the ATS Poli Debate teams...team GOP was what, like 99.9% staff? ) and how that is a concern in the policing of this directive, as well as people who visit other boards and are relating how board debate is proctored elsewhere.
Remove "political" from political ideologies - anyone stubbornly holding onto points universally vetted to the contrary will endure everything from pointed disagreement to disdain, regardless of the subject matter. A pocket protector scientist can be a beyotch on wheels, given a disrespect of weighed facts over ideology.
Plus, I've hit 40......what the hell else do you want besides "back in the day" analogies!?! I've no gripe with the vector of what ATS is positioned as, just noting that demeanor & tenor are what keeps engaging posters posting.
A suggestion? Use unrelated staff for Troll penalties. It will have the intent more altruistically reviewed and penalized.
The another observation as to the genesis of this action: those whose arguments are built upon ideology like cement over sand had been the ones to claim "insult" or "attack", while the respondants to that strawman typically splay their argument without biting on the diversion.
I said "MudPit" was a bad idea back then too & look what's happened!

This is a very long thread and I'm sure some variation of what I'm going to say has already been said. It's worth repeating though.

Yesterday, as I was sifting through my usual (international) news compendium sites, I ran across links to two threads from ATS/ATSNN. Imagine my pride! One of those threads was Valhall's Katrina/FEMA thread. (Congrats to both authors. ) As I mentioned to Val, more eyes see these threads than any of us can imagine; therefore, it is encumbant upon all of us (and we are all human!) to represent this site in the best possible light. That means treating each other with respect and not devolving into petty arguments, using foul language, and generally going off the reservation of reason.

ATS will grow and become more and more a place people turn to in the Cyber world for information and discussion - as long as we present ourselves credibly and reasonably. Credibility comes from excellent member-participation and the promotion of credible information that we pass along.

It's pretty simple! So, let's do that and watch this place grow! I don't know about you all, but it felt great to see ATS linked on those NEWS sites! Strangely, it felt just as good to see that, as it does to see my work in print. Keep up the good work, everybody!

ECK

[edit on 9/10/05 by EastCoastKid]

Me tryer hardest to be more...like...u know...smarterer and everything and like more nicester to all the people that post rubbish. Green Day rulez yo!!!!!!!

[edited for grammar and spelling and coherence and musical taste]





[edit on 11-9-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]

[edit on 9-11-2005 by Springer]

As we rethink the responses made on the open forums, we might also consider what we have in Sigs and Avatars. I've seen perfectly legit posts then hit the sig and flash back at the Avatar only to get a different perspective of the post. I see this as a secondary baiting practice that extends beyond just a personal view. Statements such as I'm Liberal or I'm conservative or I love the consititution the way it is are only views. But statements such as ranting "4 more Years" and "Fumigate the WH" are deliberate taunts baiting people into thread trashing "Thrashing". Some of these are by moderators!

Someone takes seriouse action, thank you Springer, ATS

good call, sweeping generalisations weekens the whole forum

I've been around the net long enough to know (I mean a LONG time) that the only way to keep political discussions peaceful is to eliminate them completely. I think we all know that religion and politics make for bad dinner time conversations. What will likely happen?

People will get better at sneaking in shots cleverly disguised as conversation.

People will quit posting for fear of being embarassed by a warning because the line between debate and baiting is fine.

I won't go into the 3rd option because it will surely start a flame war

Look around the net. I have never seen political discussions that have been peaceful for more than an hour. They almost without exception turn foul. Its politics. You are going to get "Clinton loves interns" and "George makes funny faces" or "Clinton is a liar" and "George is a warmonger"

I feel the staff here will end up wasting endless hours editing posts and ultimately people will simply stop posting. If it has gotten so bad that it has come to this then I think it would be best to just kill political discussions. As I said earlier... religion and politics make for bad dinner time conversations.

Originally posted by Indy
I feel the staff here will end up wasting endless hours editing posts and ultimately people will simply stop posting. If it has gotten so bad that it has come to this then I think it would be best to just kill political discussions. As I said earlier... religion and politics make for bad dinner time conversations.

It's pretty hard to eliminate politics from conspiracy. What one person may consider conspiracy another may consider politics. Take, for instance, the 2000 election. Some say it was conspiracy to get Bush elected, others that saying it is conspiracy is simply politics. If you limit political discussion you take a greater risk in losing members because people on both sides of the spectrum will suspect the website is biased against their political views and silencing conversation on conspiracies they're aware of.

Maybe we have to start paying for politics again? return to pay-per-view mudpit? members who abuse it, could be banned from buying access to it?



[edit on 22-11-2005 by infinite]

I think this is a very good development. But I don't think the stupid Christian Conservatives are going to like it!

(note: this is a JOKE, folks. Don't get your temple garments in a twist.)

Seriously, this is a joke, but the way personal attacks have permeated political and social discourse is a serious problem. Worse, it's not just a matter of obvious slams like the one above, but rather a way of presenting opinions that is clearly meant to be confrontational and overtly agressive. I'm working on a wide sample of such comments, crossing all political and religious boundaries, that demonstrate what I mean.

If I believe women have a right to decide for themselves whether to carry a fetus to term, I am simply considered evil by the people who don't believe this. Whether or not they call me a baby-killing spawn of satan or not, their views that one opinion is ABSOLUTELY good, and the other is ABSOLUTELY bad, is by it's very nature agressive, transgressive, and an affront.

So, unless ATS is going to forbid all ABSOLUTIST arguments (that would disqualify most of the people on one extreme or the other when it comes to politics or religion), personal attacks are going to be woven through any discussions of the most touchy issues. Is it possible to demonize a point of view without insulting the individual? If I say that Intelligent Design is superstious, magical thinking, how can a believer NOT take this as a personal affront?

Still, I applaud this effort, and I commit to avoiding offending when I'm simply trying to engage.

I wasn't here when there was "pay for politicals" but this doesn't sound like such a bad idea. If people are unable to moderate their interactions so that it doesn't become personal, a flame or mud pit that costs a little bit sounds about right. It's sort of like the swear jar that my mom used to have. Sometimes, it was worth the dollar to curse out my sister.

Originally posted by Indy

I feel the staff here will end up wasting endless hours editing posts and ultimately people will simply stop posting. If it has gotten so bad that it has come to this then I think it would be best to just kill political discussions. As I said earlier... religion and politics make for bad dinner time conversations.

Well, history has proven you wrong... In the months since I made this thread and policy change we have enjoyed pretty incredible success with this.

I haven't seen 1/10th the complaints we used to get about this and coversation/discussion has returned to the boards in all it's glory.

Just goes to show you no matter how long you've been on the net (Skeptic and I have over 15 years each) AboveTopSecret.com will always break new ground and old rules.

Springer...

I agree with that Springer (the opening post). I feel that as the famous quote goes, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion." But not to the point as to get off subject and snipe out a member. So, good job on that. Everyone should have a say so in a lot of things, but not attack another person or member for it. Usually when I reply I try to picture myself talking to someone face-to-face.

bb

[edit on 11/22/0505 by brodband]

Originally posted by Springer
Just goes to show you no matter how long you've been on the net (Skeptic and I have over 15 years each) AboveTopSecret.com will always break new ground and old rules.

15? Thats pretty good since one of the oldest sites on the net.. pizzahut.com will be celebrating its 12 birthday on December 7th.



Or are you including the glory days of the BBS systems? I actually miss those days. I think I was 19 or 20 (36 now) and I was running a BBS on my old Amiga 2000 with a 2400 baud Prodigy modem. The software of choice when I started out was Tag BBS for the Amiga. The good old days.

Ofcourse I am incuding BBS... That's where everything started. Unless you count the original Univ. email systems then I go back 20 years plus.

Whatever... The point was, I don't care if you've been online for 100 years or 25 minutes, the community at AboveTopSecret.com never fails to surprise me.

Springer...

My questions is this... whos is checking to make sure the moderators are not biased themselves and who issues warnings to them

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
My questions is this... whos is checking to make sure the moderators are not biased themselves and who issues warnings to them

In general, you take it to the next level...if you're having trouble with a moderator, talk to a super, if you have a problem with a super, talk to an admin.

If you have trouble with an admin, though, you're pretty SOL

Originally posted by djohnsto77
If you have trouble with an admin, though, you're pretty SOL

Whatever

We always have the option, in the event that we have a problem with an admin, to go to the alien masterminds controlling the administrators here.

Originally posted by junglejake
Whatever

We always have the option, in the event that we have a problem with an admin, to go to the alien masterminds controlling the administrators here.

Why at this very moment my coffee is being served by "Thhftttpppzz" who is a very amicable little dude from the Zeta Reticuli system.

While saying his name causes a whole lot of spitting, it's been worth having him here, if for no other reason than his ray-gun is real GOOD at warming up a cup of coffee.

I'll have to say that his mind control abilities are pretty sad though. Last time he tried HE ended up running down my street clucking like a chicken and spitting all over the place.

Springer...

[edit on 12-6-2005 by Springer]

Oh krump, I forgot about Springer...

If you have a problem with Springer, you are, in fact, SOL. Not because Springer is above the alien masterminds...Springer is the alien mastermind...