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

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:31 AM
link   
I think this is being WAY overanalyzed.


It's as simple as "do unto others".

It's possible to make a point without attacking someone.
It's also easy to see when someone is being over sensitive.

Discuss, without being disgusting.
Retort, without being repugnant.
Moderate moderately.




posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1

Take notice of this post.

It will be strictly enforced by staff.


How is it that this is still an issue years after the evil likes of DrHoracid and many others were banned?

"Can't we all just get along"? RK-Genius



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Your new rules or baton enforced methods for someone(s) mentioning something political may lead to to an outright member-moderator feud. Your example and words to moderator enforcement seem vague and may begin poisonious relations once people starting getting kicked for expressing what they feel in a post.

I agree with the motive but stand very unsure of your methods to control
a member's written thoughts. On any given day in almost any given newspaper there will be more said publically than here.

ATS is not a security state I feel and other members might voice what they may really be thinking about the repercussions of making political statements open to Your penalties.

The rules of what a member can do without reprisal is not clear enough or defined enough within your post.

Lastly, is it necessary to direct members in a My Way or the Highway - way?

Members deserve more respect from a Moderator or Administater Thread than reflected in your post.

Dallas



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
See the irony?! There is NO irony in a one sentence slam on the President.

curme, if you are going to admit something why not admit ALL you wanted to do was get a dig in at the President?! There was NOTHING in your one sentence that had ANYTHING to do with the topic of the thread, it was nothing more than a political jab.

This is EXACTLY the "time to discuss it" that's the whole point of this thread. No one has cast any dispersions upon your character either. YOU typed the post, not junglejake.
This post of yours, that junglejake linked is Definately among the type I am speaking of in the opening commentary of this thread.

Simply understand that political jabs like this are NO longer cricket. That's all.

Springer...


Springer, you seem to look at things strictly among two political lines. I'm sorry if I have an opinion that doesn't fit into any one party, but I like to be a free thinker.

If you can't see a letter writer getting chastised for expressing an opinion, and a woman protesting getting chastised for an opinion, I would love to explain it to you, in that thread. I am currently discussing that with a mod right now, on whether I should continue to post, so I'm sorry if I don't have the luxury of self-policing myself.

I dig what you are saying, but you seem to be so caught-up in some kind of witch-hunt, that you are being somewhat overzealous. Since this all started in public, please post a response. After that, I think we should continue this in U2U.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Carefree Highway


Originally posted by Dallas
Lastly, is it necessary to direct members in a My Way or the Highway - way?

Yes, it is. The staff have been asking people nicely to knock it off for months, and it hasn't been working.

So now what was previously a request is now a requirement.

This change affects only those who haven't already gotten the message.

Everyone else can breathe a sigh of relief that this is finally being addressed, because as unpleasant a task as it is, this has to be done.

People who cannot keep an agreement do not belong here.

The Meaning Of Respect


Originally posted by Dallas
Members deserve more respect from a Moderator or Administater Thread than reflected in your post

The only people who deserve respect are those who respect the rights of the ownership and management of this website to run things as they see fit.

Those who disagree with this concept should not be members here, because it is a requirement for membership here.

I don't know how anyone can make it any clearer than it has already been made.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
I don't know how anyone can make it any clearer than it has already been made.


I do, couldn't it just go back to how I used to ban members instead of not.
Many of the staff have refrained from just up and getting rid of certain individuals, instead we have been allowing discussions and peer groups within the staff forum to decide.

However, in some cases it works and others it don't. With people being more selfish, than not, the problem will continue to exist.

Not enough mature minds, this is a problem with 40,000 people interacting.
There will always be a rotten apple in the orchard unless the farmers keep up fastidious crop harvesting technique.

Perhaps it is an ISP problem, Ignorance Selection Protocol. Some thing more should upgrade or get patched.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Majic ATS-C: "The only people who deserve respect are those who respect the rights of the ownership and management of this website to run things as they see fit".

Majic
As far as I'm concerned I respect both Management and Members, if that's where your headed above.

Are you saying some Members don't respect the rules or management at ATS? If yes they may be in need of Counciling.

Or perhap's if a member expresses views on a post that is in disagreement with "Management" - that's wrong?? Wrong.

I was replying to Springer's post as others have. And hope Springer responds to my concerns.

Thanks

Dallas



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Psychological Counciling


Originally posted by Dallas
Are you saying some Members don't respect the rules or management at ATS? If yes they may be in need of Counciling.

Yes, and that's what this is about.

I guess I should clarify something. I may come across as some sort of fanboi in this thread, but I am speaking strictly as a member -- at least, that is my perspective on this. Although I suppose I am also speaking as a Councilor, because until my term is up, that's what I am, but that's not what drives my opinion here.

I have been following this problem since last year. It's a real problem, and it has gone on for far too long.

I am sure the staff wish just as I do that such drastic measures need not be taken, but the alternatives have been thoroughly exhausted.

So now it has come to this.

Civil Disobedience


Originally posted by Dallas
Or perhap's if a member expresses views on a post that is in disagreement with "Management" - that's wrong?? Wrong.

Not at all. I encourage you to express any dissent you wish. It would be on topic, after all.

I'm simply observing that when it comes to matters of policy, Springer's decisions are binding, and that it is a good idea to bear that in mind. People can have different feelings about that -- and express them candidly in this thread, which is what we're doing right now.

But until such time as they can persuade Springer to change his mind about this (and I wouldn't recommend holding your breath waiting for that), the policy is official and will be enforced.

There have been and will be bannings over this, which is inevitable. My point is that it would be wise to be mindful of what is going on, respectful of the need for action, and aware of the inadvisability of antagonizing the staff during a difficult time.

Like I said, this ain't rocket science.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   
To clarify...

There is some moderate "buzzing" that this stance might make some politically charged topics off-limits for discussion within ATS forums (such as topics critical of the current administration). This is most certainly not the goal of this stance.

There are a multitude of difficult politically motivated issues that demand examination from a conspiratorial viewpoint that can and must be examined on the face of the issues without political name calling and mud slinging. This is how politics should be discussed on ATS, not through knee-jerk insults of "the other side". We're see far too much knee-jerking, and far too little consideration of the issues.

Lucid criticism, from a conspiratorial viewpoint, of liberal or conservative political motivations and actions have always and will always be an important aspect of ATS current event discussion forums such as the war on terrorism forum. However, when political hacks and trolls derail an examination of the issues into insults against post authors and/or their sources, our response will not be kind.

Soon, a new level of warning will be in place for ATS-only. When we see obvious derailment of the discussions of issues on ATS, a 2,000 point warn will be applied with a stern warning that the next such warn will result in immediate banning.

With that in mind, we understand that current environment of political polarity inspires many members to find an outlet to vent their frustration against the "other side". Please do so within the PTS forum where open debate about political ideology is both encourage and embraced. But from this point forward, no not derail issues on ATS forums.

Thank you.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
Religious diatribe and anti religious diatribe for the sole purpose of continuing or starting ludicrous argument is not welcome here either.


THANK YOU! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!!!!
Seriously ... Thank you!!



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Oh, thank god. Those sorts of things really make me question the future of humanity - glad to see there'll be a stop to it.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   
I'm new to ATS, but am not new to forums/message boards. I believe in attacking the hell out of ideas, theories and everything that isn't human.

I didn't join until I was tired of lurking lol From an outside perspective, I have to say there is more personal bashing on this board than is necessary. When we talk about freedom of speech, we also have to look at the responsibility that goes along with that right. Personal bashing is actually battery. Battery hasn't been a legal form of free speech as long as I can remember..and that's almost 50 years of remembering lol

I think it's a good idea to be strict on the verbal abuse policies of any board so that people feel safe enough to express their views. Speaking purely for myself, I stop hearing when someone is bashing me. I go into defense mode. I no longer feel safe to express my opinions/thoughts on an issue because I'm more focused on defending who I am than what I'm trying to express.

Just my 2 cents worth



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Let me try to appeal to the conspiracist in people: We are being had.

Political partisanship is the integral part of a very large and very old conspiracy. Its a conspiracy that is designed to pit otherwise good and knowledgeable people against each other.

This is done so that the real issues are covered over completely because we cant get passed superficial labels and insults. It so simple and it has been working like a charm since the creation of political parties.

Please, please, please snap out of this trance. You can believe in any thing you want but dont play this game. You know yourself you cannot easily be slotted into a specific category. You are more complex than that. So understand that others are equally as complex.

Remember, when ever you tow the party line you are being loyal only to those who wish to devide and conquer us all. It serves no other master than the very puppet-master the vast majority of ATS threads pertain too.

Dont play their game! Stop watching the partisan puppet show!

[edit on 20/8/05 by subz]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   
SkepticOverlord summed it up clearly but since a few have asked for me to respond here goes...

This policy is not a limitation on the ability to talk about politics, it is a warning to those who would derail threads by using political partisanship as a means to degreade conversation to a liberal versus conservative diatribe that it won't be tolerated any longer.

I don't know how many times I have to say the same thing to be clear but in my original post I stated

I know a certain amount of political infusion is unavoidable in many conversations, that's fine. The rational input of a political perspective or ideal is a normal course of discussion. The insertion of anti-liberal/conservative diatribe in a discussion about another subject is NOT fine. The insertion of pro-liberal/conservative diatribe in a discussion about another subject is NOT fine


There is NOTHING in that statement that seeks to limit the content of political conversation only the intent of said political insertion.

Dallas:

I too regret the need for my "hard line" stance on this but like Majic said, we've been "asking" for months to no avail. I never said we'd do anything to someone for "merely mentioning something political" see above...

You will never be chastised for disagreeing with staff or admin PERIOD. We are human and very subject to err, I would hope ALL opinions on matters relative to the board's policy would be brought up for consideration. This thread is a good example, nobody is getting any flack for expressing their displeasure with this policy shift.

Hope that answers some of your concerns.


curme:

There is nothing to discuss via U2U, your thread was a classic example of what we are talking about here and there's not much either of us can do about that. Bringing this issue out in the open/public is exactly what this thread is for. The ball is now in your court, use P@ATS for your purely political discussions and save ATS for the conspiratorial aspects of politics (talk about a "target rich environment") or don't, it's completely up to you.

There is certainly not a "witch hunt" underway here. If there was there'd be no "discussion" there would be out of hand site-bans which doesn't do anything to address the cultural issue...

Overzealous? How about overtired of the sniping, baiting and thread de-railment? That's more the case.


Springer...






[edit on 8-20-2005 by Springer]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I didnt know there was a difference between liberal and neoconservative democrat or republican 2 sides of the same coin (to control the masses)



What if one is to call it like they see it?, namely, many that are in power whether republican or democrat, are greedy and criminal. That they have created this polarized system for the very reason you speak of...."getting us all into a bicker fest and political bashing fest amongst one another" so that we are all too busy trapped in our emotions to fight the real enemy. The very ones that say they represent us all.




[edit on 20-8-2005 by magnito_student]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   
About time, I noticed this awhile ago, I can tell you right off the bat the NWO forum has the most of this.

politics.abovetopsecret.com...

You guys should have a rehab forum for people who do it to much were they can learn to respect the views of others.

[edit on 20-8-2005 by iksmodnad]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I agree with you springer



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Let me try to appeal to the conspiracist in people: We are being had.

Political partisanship is the integral part of a very large and very old conspiracy. Its a conspiracy that is designed to pit otherwise good and knowledgeable people against each other.

This is done so that the real issues are covered over completely because we cant get passed superficial labels and insults. It so simple and it has been working like a charm since the creation of political parties.

Please, please, please snap out of this trance. You can believe in any thing you want but dont play this game. You know yourself you cannot easily be slotted into a specific category. You are more complex than that. So understand that others are equally as complex.

Remember, when ever you tow the party line you are being loyal only to those who wish to devide and conquer us all. It serves no other master than the very puppet-master the vast majority of ATS threads pertain too.

Dont play their game! Stop watching the partisan puppet show!

[edit on 20/8/05 by subz]


a hardy hear hear! the dividers and conquerors are always busy. ALWAYS the myth is molded into the archetype, and the people accept the archetype as cliche, at which point they will battle to the death to defend it.
the extreme polarisation and new language lexicons for dems and repubs looks like an OBVIOUS puppeteer move. the illusion is lost once you've seen the strings, team america, world police.


E_T

posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
And not a moment too soon...

And remember to keep eye on religious fanatics as tightly as on political ones, I've seen enough of their stories in science threads.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by E_T
And not a moment too soon...

And remember to keep eye on religious fanatics as tightly as on political ones, I've seen enough of their stories in science threads.


It's everything, from the cryptozoology threads to the religious threads. If you don't back up your standpoint but instead throw out a soundbite designed to disrupt conversation, you're out. That doesn't mean the religious can't participate in the science forums if they have reasoning to back up what they're saying.

From what I understand, this ruling is not to prevent conflict or certain ideas from entering various forums and threads. It is to encourage intelligent conversations rather than "my soundbite is better than your soundbite" pissing contests. No one has to agree, no one has to respect, no one has to like, we just have to express the why, not only the what.

Nothing changes with this for most members, except you'll be able to enjoy conversations more. You can still have the same wacked out crazy ideas as I do, and most members explain themselves. This is going to target the individuals that attempt to hijack a thread by throwing an inflamitory statement out there contrary to the topic as they sit back and smile, knowing they stopped a conversation that they had no reasoning to dislike, but they disliked it anyway. This will force people to dismiss a topic through the topic, instead of dismissing a topic by changing the topic.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join