The End of Political Baiting and Sniping on ATS (was ALL MEMBERS READ)

This is a very good move, me thinks.

I have avoided to post in way too many threads because of posts that end with "so you bleeding heart liberal terrorist lovers, what do you think?"
You cannot reply to something like that in civilized manner.

This might be also a good time to ban the use of term "political correctness", probably THE most overused, misused and misinterpreted term in all political discussions

Originally posted by paperclip
This might be also a good time to ban the use of term "political correctness", probably THE most overused, misused and misinterpreted term in all political discussions

Hehe Now that, believe it or not, I raise contention against. Political correctness is a term that, to me, means speaking, behaving, and believing that we should not say anything that offends another person. I do not believe any term should be banned. Call George Bush a Nazi, if you'd like (not saying you do this, just using another term from the other side of the political spectrum). As long as you justify your use of such term, it should be totally acceptable. A conversation like this:

Bob: I don't believe we should hold all Germans accountable for the actions of Adolf Hitler

George: That's a bunch of political correct bulls*** you tulipwalking pansy

is absloutly unacceptable. If you can use a term and justify its use and not hijack a thread, why ban it? Because it makes people uncomfortable? Bad news; most political conversations and debates make people uncomfortable. Just take a look at EastCoastKid's thread trying to promote PTS after he was elected council member.

Moderators have been asked to go to "STRICT ENFORCEMENT" mode....

I guess the moderaters are going to busy for a long time.
The War on Ignorance will be a never ending battle here.

This subject has been going on for more than weeks, it been over a year now.
It's just the times we live in... right? Ignorance is with us and there is nothing we can do about it... right?

Hmmm...trying to make the looming future of Ignorance better in the times we live in... I'm sure there is hope!

Good luck

So i suppose having a difference of opinion, or saying something that gets a negative reaction is considered "baiting"? How are you supposed to know what will get a negative reaction? I mean reasonably it could be anything. This just sounds like a way for mods to slap some warnings around when you say something that they do not 'agree' with. I mean if your seriously going to go through with this you better shut about 90% of the board down.

About Damn Time

ATS is a moderated website.

This fact seems lost on certain members.

In accordance with the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use, an administrator has published an official policy of this website.

I agree with and support this policy decision 100%.

I encourage those who may disagree to feel free to do so, but I strongly advise against violating this policy.

Those who are unable to live with it should seek entertainment elsewhere.

Those who think the staff is kidding and wish to throw tantrums about this may well be left with no choice but to seek entertainment elsewhere.

Good riddance, as far as I'm concerned.

It would be unwise to assume the staff is bluffing.

I myself do wonder how we'll decide what "baiting" is.

Will the mods be given a "Set of Guidelines" or will it be up to them to decide?

Originally posted by junglejake

Political correctness is a term that, to me, means speaking, behaving, and believing that we should not say anything that offends another person.

Thats not PC, imo. Political correctness is simply a guideline of speech and it has nothing to do with offending a PERSON.
The actual examples of PC would be the use of term firefighter instead of fireman, simply to say that women are there too by using a neutral term.

The MISUSE of the term is in politics, usualy right-left wing discussions or discussions about terrrorism.
A lot of people assume that political correctness does not allow them to critize society or terrorists. Example: "Damn politicaly corect liberals, they do not allow us to say muslims are bad".
First, PC is not a law, it is a guideline. Second, it has nothing to do with criticizing a WHOLE GROUPS of people, that is called generalizing and just because a lot of people disagree with that doesn't mean they do not allow you to say it and it most certainly has NOTHING to do with political correctness.

Just because we have freedom of speech doesn't mean all will agree with what you say. Their disagreement has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with their view of the whole situation.

Some posts even insinuate that PC ( the misused and misinterpreted PC) is a horrible weakness and only those who disregard it are "strong" and speak some "hard truth". Load of crap is that, I say.

So yeah, thats what I am talking about. The overuse and misuse of the term.

Political correctness can certainly seep into policymaking.

If I say:

Politically correct concerns prevent the TSA from using racial profiling when assessing possible terrorist threats to transportation systems in the United States.

I think that's a pretty defendable statement. You may disagree on some level, but it's not a way-out proposition.

[edit on 8/20/2005 by djohnsto77]

papreclip, your comment proves my point. If I were to talk about political correctness and qualify it as I did in my post you quoted, it would mean something different than a "snipe" or "zing". As you said, "The MISUSE of the term". If we force people to explain themselves instead of saying the one liner and then replying "prove me wrong", we will know if the term is being misused. That, I think, is the whole point of this change. It takes away from those inflamitory statements because we have to qualify them and people can say, after reading them, (to themselves) "what an idiot", or "oh, that's what they mean when they use that term".

We shouldn't ban a term, we should ban a method of debate, and that's exactly what Springer is doing. PC is going to be safe now, because the mods are going to make sure that anyone who misuses it without inadvertantly explaining they misused it is hosed.

NOTE: I hit preview on this post and forgot about it, because I meant to hit post I ain't too bright....

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
So i suppose having a difference of opinion, or saying something that gets a negative reaction is considered "baiting"? How are you supposed to know what will get a negative reaction? I mean reasonably it could be anything. This just sounds like a way for mods to slap some warnings around when you say something that they do not 'agree' with. I mean if your seriously going to go through with this you better shut about 90% of the board down.

I'm hoping things won't be considered baiting if you validate them with an explanation. If it's not like that, but rather things that upset people or whatever, XphilesPhan, you and I will have to find ourselves another BBS to play on. I think, if I understand Springer's memorandum correctly, you can say whatever the heck you want, as long as you have justification for it and it fits with the topic. I don't think it's as bad as you're percieving it will be, XP. If it is, we move on and let the (sorry paperclip ) politically correct get off on one another with no opposition, much as DailyKos and DemocraticUnderground work, banning members who don't fit in with the political thought of the founders.

However, I don't think ATS is capable of this. The moderators all have a wide gamit of personalities, from the ultra liberal to the ultra constitutionalist, from the uberskeptic to the die hard believer. They have their own forums, and they discuss issues amidst one another. No one individual has sweeping authority with the possible exception of SkepticOverlord and Simon, and they stay out of the moderation business. Don't worry, you'll still be able to express your opinion, you'll just have to pay extra attention to explaining why it is.

This is a good move for ATS. It qualifies the deny ignorance motto. Now, instead of doing the media sound bite conversations, we're going to have to delve deeper into the issues. That's going to create even more interesting debate than what we have today, and is going to force all of us to really understand why we believe what we believe. If you continue to participate in this forum, all that will happen is you better yourself. You will no longer base your opinion on emotion, you will be forced to add logic to it. I'm not addressing you specifically here, XP, but everyone at ATS. It's going to be nice to be able to focus on the subject instead of doing damage control for a thread when someone inadvertantly or on purpose destroys the thread.

This is a good thing, for both conservative and liberal, for skeptic and believer alike. This is a good thing.

people who take debunking to an crazyness in the ufo form?
also, dose this mean that if you post something in the freemason
part of the site, that the mason, will stop gang up on peolpe ?
both of these things have made me really nasty to many people
in the last few months, also what about people who , don't use
good english or english is a second lang, and members are making fun all
the time about it?,
therer are mods who are major debunkers, and mods who are masons too,
how can we trust that we can post anything?

Originally posted by Fiorina 161
therer are mods who are major debunkers, and mods who are masons too,
how can we trust that we can post anything?

You can trust it because this ruling doesn't give a krump about ideology. If you explain yourself, you're fine. If you simply state an outlandish comment: "Did you know that George Bush and the Quewen of England are reptilians? Prove me wrong!" your thread will be done. As you said, some mods are debunkers, not all, and they need to clear with one another before they close or delete a thread, from what I understand. There is no autonomus power here at ATS, as I said, that participates in moderating our conversations. If you don't believe me, post a thread extremely critical of all the things you have commented about, explaining yourself fully and presenting the evidence that has caused you to believe what you're saying. I can assure you, it will not be touched.

Originally posted by The Axeman

Originally posted by sebatwerk

Originally posted by Fiorina 161
.well that sucks, ya so i don't spell well, ya my public schooling ant well,
but your peeps ran the public schoole system were i lived, so,
all the money thet spent on thereselfsm and lack of books and other stuff
we need learn , never having enuff stuff to help the students...

I'm not going to pick apart the rest of your claims because it's too convoluted and senseless, but I will tell you that if you stopped being so gullible, believing what you want to believe or whatever makes the best story, and actually started doing your own homework then maybe you wouldn't be so full of misconceptions.

Maybe we might be able to understand your ramblings if masons had actually ran your school.

Not to mention a little thing I like to call personal accountability. Yeah, it's all someone else's fault that I never applied myself to my studies and I didn't learn to spell or articulate my thoughts into plain english... Give me a break.

I have never set foot in a college classroom, but you don't see me crying about it. I choose to educate myself. Furthermore, if I was a numbskull I'd have no one but myself to blame for it, either.

Get over yourself. Try reading a book sometime; if you see the words enough, you'll remember how to spell 'em.

[edit on 8/18/05 by The Axeman]

ok so i got mad at some comment by some peeps, they and i went back and forth ok, but i don't know this axeman, if you are going to start warning and banning, i won't mine if you even ban me , but there are alot of peolpe like this axeman , what's going to happen?




[edit on 20-8-2005 by Fiorina 161]

Personally, I would ask Axeman why it is, then, that I am an awful speller.

As to disciplinary action, it is for the mods to decide. This idea hasn't been enforced in the past, and comments like Axeman's last statement have been permitted. The rules just changed. We'll see who abides by them and who doesn't. Those who can't adapt to the rule of no zings will get tired of being warned or else get completely banned and they will disappear. Those who can change their debate tactics or their conversations will adapt to the rules will not have a thing to worry about. If someone can't make a point without insulting another person or can only make a point through a charged one liner, why would we even want them here?

XphilesFan, Fiona, it just so happens that I speak English fluently, so I'd like to attempt to answer your questions, although since I am in fact NOT Springer, you should probably hold out for his confirmation before you take this as gospel:

This new policy seems to be directed towards the phenomenon of virtually every thread with a political aspect being diverted from its subject to either a much broader partisan debate or a specific tangent subject which arises because one or both sides find themselves unable to intelligently discuss the topic and hand in its own context.
In other words, as I already said (with Springer saying that I had "nailed it") DON'T CHANGE THE SUBJECT. "Ganging up on somebody" (also known as simply agreeing with another member), offending somebody (also known as simply disagreeing with another member) etc are probably still OK. Persuing a tangent discussion, especially one which consists mainly of partisan rhetoric, is not OK.

Example:

I start a thread in Weaponry about how some certain piece of technology can be used in Iraq.
XphilesFan says that it wouldn't be humane.
PROBABLY OK
.
I start the same thread
XphilesFan says it's a moot point because we shouldn't be using ANY weapons in Iraq because it's an illegal war started because Bush lied.
PROBABLY NOT OK

See the difference? When the thread topic was changed from something legitimate to partisan rhetoric, that was a violation- that's thread-jacking.

If I'm mistaken somebody tell me, but as I said, I consider myself fluent in English (afterall I've been around it every single day of the last 22 years) and the above was my clear understanding of the new policy. It's not that hard guys.

Apart from politics, there are other types of subjects on ATS that turn into pure slugfests rather fast.

The Evolution/Creation board is an incredible good example of that.

The most ironic part of it is that alot of those threads first go awry on bashing between evolutionists and creationists and then after a while when things really start to heat up, political affiliation is dragged into it too.

Other examples that have nothing to do with politics is the influx of new and old members that seem to be on ATS for any of the following reasons:

* Preach a religion, in a recent case going as far as calling ATS full of sin and full of depraved people that need saving.

* Specific signups so they can call everyone nuts and crazy for believing in UFO's, Evolution, Creation, the paranormal, superhuman abilities and so on.

* People here to spread Pure and unadulterated propaganda, posting nothing but news threads from rather questionable sites with the soul intent of spreading hate or disinformation.

* Sometimes mysterious total turnarounds from people who's posting resume was civil and moderated, but now have turned into the utter extremes of whatever it is they are supporting.

The new signups to cause mayham problem is addressed pritty well most of the time. Especialy when the person takes the time to make an introduction post with his intentions(yeah, some trolls are as nice as to announce their arival these days!) Others do the thread spree tactic where they post a douzen threads with their insults in a really short period of time, usualy resulting in superfast global ignores and bans.

There are offcource others around that are a bit smarter and blend in before they start causing trouble, I guess some of the people I mentioned in the 4th point could fall under that category. Although I've seen people with 30k and more points do the same sudden total change in attitude. I doubt they originaly signed up for that reason.

I hope the ATS modsquad is up to the task of combatting this. On a big forum like ATS, you shouldn't really expect the problem to totaly disapear at any time, the member size and traffic the site gets brings this problem with it if you like it or not, you could say its kind of an internet standard . The only thing you can do is make sure your moderator staff is up to the task of keeping the boards clean.


ps. Fiorina 161 sebatwerk and TheAxeman are 2 guys that post only in Masonic related threads. They are rather nasty in defending Masonry at all costs. I just ignore them these days, I actualy decided to keep myself out of any and all threads on ATS related to Masonry.

They always turn into slugfests, its their tactic.

Some might say that because I decided not to even read those masonry threads anymore, they won. But well, I've got time and the way they've been acting, they won't be around forever. I am however surprised about how long they've been around already. Since there isn't a single Masonry related thread around that didn't turn into one of those goons trashing whoever oposes masonry.

[edit on 20/8/05 by thematrix]

Executive Summary

For those having difficulty with the concept:

Don't Do This

This is not rocket science.

Originally posted by thematrix
* Preach a religion, in a recent case going as far as calling ATS full of sin and full of depraved people that need saving.

This, according to Chrsitianity, is true, though. Everyone, including members of ATS, are sinners, and, if you don't believe in Jesus Christ as your savior, you're going to Hell according to the Bible. The statement may be offensive, but it is founded in our religion. We have reason to believe this, and I don't believe this should be considered off limits as long as it's explained.

* Specific signups so they can call everyone nuts and crazy for believing in UFO's, Evolution, Creation, the paranormal, superhuman abilities and so on.

I joined for this purpose. Check out the thread Time Cube. That was the first thread here on ATS I started, and the whole purpose was to get the paranoid-o-meter that has disappeared a while back to go up to "Running to the hills". I don't mean to toot my own horn (actually, I suppose I do...), but I think I've contributed quite a bit to this website despite my dubious beginnings.

* People here to spread Pure and unadulterated propaganda, posting nothing but news threads from rather questionable sites with the soul intent of spreading hate or disinformation.

But how do you see into someone's mind to know if they actually believe that or are spreading propaganda and disinformation?

* Sometimes mysterious total turnarounds from people who's posting resume was civil and moderated, but now have turned into the utter extremes of whatever it is they are supporting.

An aspect of our conversations here in ATS are to deny ignorance. That doesn't mean, "come to agree with me." As more evidence is presented in a thread, a person could go from a moderate leaning to, after reading all the cases presented, becoming a hard winger extreamist. I know I have become an ultra conservatve though I was a moderate on many issues just 3 years ago. Since going through ATS, my mind has been changed on some issues through members, and others have made me believe what I did believe even more. As you become more educated in your opinion, you will solidify it. If you tend towards one side of the political spectrum, as I do, you will appear to be a radical. Yet you have your reasons for this, though most disagree with at least an aspect of your opinion.

I'd just like to say that I'm participating so much on this thread because, as I've tried to sell ATS to my friends and the like, this issue has been the problem that I have told them is the biggest issue with having a truely enjoyable BBS. I've even talked with a moderator or two about this outside of ATS (though they weren't moderatiors when I spoke to them). I had a mind of what I would like to see here. amd Springer pretty much captured it. What I am saying is in no way endorsed by the mods, unless you consider refuting or silence as an endorsement, unless they publically say so on the thread. Thsi is my opinion on how we can make ATS a better place; I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who saw this critical weakness.

Originally posted by junglejake
An aspect of our conversations here in ATS are to deny ignorance. That doesn't mean, "come to agree with me." As more evidence is presented in a thread, a person could go from a moderate leaning to, after reading all the cases presented, becoming a hard winger extreamist. I know I have become an ultra conservatve though I was a moderate on many issues just 3 years ago. Since going through ATS, my mind has been changed on some issues through members, and others have made me believe what I did believe even more. As you become more educated in your opinion, you will solidify it. If you tend towards one side of the political spectrum, as I do, you will appear to be a radical. Yet you have your reasons for this, though most disagree with at least an aspect of your opinion.

Dude, your like totaly showing what Springer is saying in this thread.
Who said anything about political or religious leaning?

When I say moderate and later extreme I say in the way they act and discuss. It has nothing to do with politics or affiliation, but the way a person acts.

I don't need anyone to agree with me, but I do like it that they are civil and moderated in a discussion about the disagreement. I don't take it well when people start calling me names or start nullifying everything I say because its of their opionion I'm not even worth having an opinion because I don't think the same as they do.

How can you have a discussion when the other party is not even in the slightest willing to listen or try to comprehend what your saying?

Its one thing to disagree, but its another thing to just disregard everything someone else sais because of the disagreement.

You can't disagree on everything, yet some people will turn to disagree on everything one person sais, because they disagree about something unrelated to the subject at hand.

Then:

Originally posted by thematrix
* Preach a religion, in a recent case going as far as calling ATS full of sin and full of depraved people that need saving.

This, according to Chrsitianity, is true, though. Everyone, including members of ATS, are sinners, and, if you don't believe in Jesus Christ as your savior, you're going to Hell according to the Bible. The statement may be offensive, but it is founded in our religion. We have reason to believe this, and I don't believe this should be considered off limits as long as it's explained.

I think Springer was quite direct in saying he will not have this kind of thing on ATS. ATS is to discuss conspiracy's, not to propagate or preach your views.

* Specific signups so they can call everyone nuts and crazy for believing in UFO's, Evolution, Creation, the paranormal, superhuman abilities and so on.

I joined for this purpose. Check out the thread Time Cube. That was the first thread here on ATS I started, and the whole purpose was to get the paranoid-o-meter that has disappeared a while back to go up to "Running to the hills". I don't mean to toot my own horn (actually, I suppose I do...), but I think I've contributed quite a bit to this website despite my dubious beginnings.

Good for you, but your the exception to the rule then.

[edit on 20/8/05 by thematrix]