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.

 

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

page: 9
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Most of us here are perfectly fine with a spirited debate about one issue or another, but sometimes
The subject of the thread also encourages things to get out of hand.

For Example:
It's rather difficult to discuss the events of 911 in a conspiracy forum without taking sides.
If you believe certain people are at fault, it's natural to defend your perspective.
If you believe those same people would never dream of misleading their own countrymen,
you're likely to defend that position.

Either position will naturally fuel a political debate on this sort of issue, but personal attacks are not warranted.

Another problem I see are the countless retreads of previous discussions where the author has obviously not bothered to search for a similar thread.

I see many MANY threads that should be either merged with other previous similar threads or deleted altogether.

For example:

Free Masonry.

I read so many threads where it's clear that the posting author is simply attempting to bait another argument rather than posting something new or important in subject matter.

Perhaps it might help the Mods here if we adopt a strict SEARCH or be destroyed policy


In other words PLEASE SEARCH before starting a new thread.

This would also help greatly to reduce the Mod's workload and the load on the ATS servers.

Enjoy!




posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
It's all the fault of those @#$%&* moderates.

(laughing)



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
In debate classes, the first things taught are the illicit techniques, how to recognize them and how to avoid them. One of the most common is kind of an 'attack the attacker', in which the issues aren't addressed but instead the opponent is blasted, in effect hijacking the debate.

I've noticed that talk radio use these techniques consistently. Of course radio hosts control what gets said, but beyond that, when they defend untenable positions, they regularly fall back on techniques that would be disallowed in debate forums.

I'm gratified that ATS is addressing this issue.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   
So in a nutshell, its perfectly fine to discuss Bush being a repitillian, or to sing the praises of "Profit" Yahweh, but calling them out on partisian views or posts will not be tolerated??

This is something Ive never understood here. Posts like "I'm a demon-hunter and was wondering..." are more than welcomed, but dissenting views dont seem that welcomed.

I understand that its a bad idea to hijack the "Bush is a reptillian" thread with "its just the left that thinks that", but isnt the original post a bit retarded? Isnt it begging for trouble to begin with?

Not much of a debate board, when you cant call someone out on obvious biases. Id like to see the thread that started all this hoopla.....



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020
I understand that its a bad idea to hijack the "Bush is a reptillian" thread with "its just the left that thinks that", but isnt the original post a bit retarded? Isnt it begging for trouble to begin with?

Not much of a debate board, when you cant call someone out on obvious biases. Id like to see the thread that started all this hoopla.....


Not just one thread started all of this hoopla, as far as I know. It's a pervasive problem.

This is a conspiracy/paranormal site. Some of the stuff we discuss is out there- and quite possibly wrong. I'll grant you that. At the same time let's not be entirely closed minded. Maybe Bush is a reptilian. Maybe there is a Nazi base in Antartica where exotic technology is still being tested by whoever inherited that agenda after Germany fell. We have beleivers and we have skeptics, and this is the place where the believers can state their case and the skeptics can try it by fire. I don't see that as being unworthy.

If every logical explanation is eliminated, then all that is left is the illogical. ATS is really a wonderful thing the for conspiracy theorist world in that it offers the chance for skeptics and beleivers to discuss, and if the logical explanations do not hold water, we may indeed find that the improbable is in fact true. More often, we will at least discover what is not true- As Edison put it, we will find plenty of ways not to make a lightbulb.


Now it has been said and said and said, and some people can't seem to absorb it, yet I'll try again- There is no limitation on topics of discussion. I could start a thread about the conspiracy between various corporations and the Bush administration to use the war on terror as an excuse to raid the treasury. I could go to PTS and say whatever I like about whoever I like pretty much.

The requirement is simply this: I can not simply exhange flames and rhetoric with my ideological opposites. If I were to start a thread which had a strong political overtone to it, I would have to craft it very carefully, with extreme attention to EVIDENCE and REASON. Making a point in a scholarly manner is allowed here. Inviting a pissing contest is not.

If I go on a huge tirade, making generalized and/or unsubstantiated accusations against "neocons" or "the Bush cabal" or "tulip walkers" or "the wild-eyed left-wing fringe" or what have you, the only thing that could possibly come of it is a flame war. There is no potential for an intelligent, civil discussion there.
If I posted about the exact same topic however, and methodically demonstrated evidence of specific conspiratorial actions by specific people without resorting to name calling, baseless assumptions, partisan rhetoric, etc. it would be a whole other matter.

Above all, examine your own motive when starting a thread. Are you trying to show that something is happening, or are you trying to change people's political views? Then examine your writing- do you make your intentions clear? Do you come across as discussing a conspiracy, or as promoting a political agenda? Finally, consider how people are likely to react. If a reasonable person with different political views from yours were to read your thread, would he perhaps be forced to concede to the logic of at least some of your argument? Would he be inclined to discuss your post with civility? Or was your post worded in such a way that he would be inclined to go on the defensive?

To summarize what I am trying to get across in just a few words: TACT, FACTS, and MOTIVE.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   
For some reason I just got slapped with this "new rule" in the slugfest area of the Political Board.

Apparently some of the Moderators don't entirely understand this rule as it is supposed to apply to "ATS-Only."

Here's a recap



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



I'm confused what does "ATS-only" mean? What do they mean when they say "vent your frustration within PTS" apparently I don't understand.


[edit on 28-8-2005 by imas]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Deleted post- I guess he already did what I suggested.

[edit on 28-8-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Are you saying that you got a 2000 point warning in PTS, or did you just get the standard 250 point warning? Warnings ARE given in PTS, even the mudpit. A certain level of decorum (read: not being a jerk) is expected.

If you got a 2000 point warning in PTS, use the gripe feature and include a link to the post you quoted from (about that warning being for ATS only) and ask the mods to clarify. Just be tactful when you do. Asking for clarification can work. Accusing the mods of not knowing their jobs usually doesn't go over well.


It was a 2000 point warning.

I did use the complaint feature to point out this was to apply only to ATS posts.

The thread in question was in response to another thread of mine on ATS which HAD been derailed by political ideals. But there were no warnings given out for that thread and 10 minutes after I complained they just moved it to the political forum. If you ask me it was the one who derailed my thread who should have been penalized 2000 points. But instead I got penalized for creating a very sarcastic political overflow thread.

The mods have been strangely silent. The only response was moving the thread that made a certain mod look biased. What is going on?

Conservative viewpoint WITHIN the political forum gets slapped with 2000 point deduction and is given last warning.

Liberal derailment of ATS thread gets ignored and thread is quietly moved to the political forum even though it obviously doesn't belong there.


I have been penalized for all sorts of silly stuff and coincidentally it has always been when I expressed a conservative view point. A few times it was for "one line post" once or twice I got hit for "excessive quoting" even though liberals in the same thread were allowed grace. A now this crock. I get hit with a penalty that doesn't even apply to my situation.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
The original thread was about guns what members carry guns and what kind.

Well some members decided to come in and derail the topic by talking about political aspects of guns. (guns are bad)

So I got irritated and started a thread in PTS. My posts in it were very sarcastic and in response to the gun thread. I posted a link in the gun thread and asked those who wish to debate the topic to take it to PTS.

Well RANT came in used me as a conservative whipping boy.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by imas
The original thread was about guns what members carry guns and what kind.

Well some members decided to come in and derail the topic by talking about political aspects of guns. (guns are bad)

So I got irritated and started a thread in PTS. My posts in it were very sarcastic and in response to the gun thread. I posted a link in the gun thread and asked those who wish to debate the topic to take it to PTS.

Well RANT came in used me as a conservative whipping boy.


Who are you talking to? I thought based on your u2u hours ago that you'd now had your fill of venting given the multiple complaints and off topic posts in multiple threads about your warn. Yet you persist.

I saw a troll and shot it. I didn't know it's prior history. I didn't know it had issues. I didn't know it's other thread had been derailed and moved. And I still don't care. Not the issue!!!

Again, I saw a troll and shot it. Why won't it stay dead? Does it need another bullet?



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by imas
So I got irritated and started a thread in PTS. My posts in it were very sarcastic and in response to the gun thread.


So you're not really a troll, you just play one on the Internet.


Well, guess what? I'm not really a psychic.

Absent divine intervention, your warn stands. Please pray quietly.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Instead of banning people or whatever, for derailing a conversation you guys at the top should just put a big red cross over the post in which the derailing occurs. then maybe a little message telling everyone to backtrack to the original topic in question or they just get a red mark over there quote.

As annoying as it is I think people should be able to talk openly about anything they choose as long as they dont offend or starting throwing evil profanitys and remarks around as this is one of the few rights we have left. Ooops gettin a little political there.

Hope i haven't repeated what others have said as i didn't the whole thread through.

Byeeeeeee



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Quick question,
how is


Absent divine intervention, your warn stands. Please pray quietly.

outside of the rules as to attacks etc?
I have asked in the past but not received an answer.
Thank you



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by imas
The thread in question was in response to another thread of mine on ATS which HAD been derailed by political ideals. But there were no warnings given out for that thread and 10 minutes after I complained they just moved it to the political forum. If you ask me it was the one who derailed my thread who should have been penalized 2000 points.


I just spent the last 20 minutes or so studying up on your recent threads. You started the problem in the "who carries" thread, and you were clearly looking for a fight when you started the second thread. That post was not tailored to invite respectful or intelligent debate- you were looking for a flame war. That is not allowed, even in slugfest. Decorum is important.


The mods have been strangely silent. The only response was moving the thread that made a certain mod look biased. What is going on?


I checked out the discussion in complaints. What is going on is that everyone can see that you were trolling. I know RANT a little- he's not the sort to pick on people. I'm a decent conservative myself and I've advocated gun ownership in threads before, and he never picked on me. Care to 'splain that?


Conservative viewpoint WITHIN the political forum gets slapped with 2000 point deduction and is given last warning.[


Nonsense. I get most of my applause when I'm preaching my conservative views. I don't go trolling though.

As for your feeling that you have been singled out for minor warnings, it could be a matter of pattern. A violation here and there may or may not go ignored, but a pattern of misconduct usually will not. Also, when you go looking for trouble, the mods tend to make sure you get it. That could be another reason you got warnings.
Nobody is beating up on conservatives. If they were they would have come after me a hell of a long time before they came after you.

No offense friend, but the cause of and sollution to your problem starts and ends with your own posting practices.

[edit on 28-8-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Quick question,
how is


Absent divine intervention, your warn stands. Please pray quietly.

outside of the rules as to attacks etc?
I have asked in the past but not received an answer.
Thank you


Dude, you are incredibly and inappropriately sensitive.

On what plane of existence is that a personal attack?


"Divine intervention" is administration. "Please pray quietly" is use the gripe and U2U features.

Maybe all your concerns have been repeatedly responded to in a timely fashion, but you just don't like the answers you keep getting.

Mods work in mysterious ways. Analogy is mother of objection. A gripe in time will save nine. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Thank you RANT
Your answer to a very simple question was very succinct and direct.
I am sorry that asking a question has upset you.
The reason for the question is such statements generaly have been made and posters received warns. My question was as to what is the difference so as to NOT get a warn.
I am sorry that I did not make that clear.
So instead of questioning and saying that I am overly sensitive, A direct answer would have sufficed. This thread is on about the new warn system and the way that it is implemented so I do not see why my question to the populace should engender such a reply. If questions are not to be responded to in a civil manner then, it is really going downhill.
I thank you for your response


[edit on 28-8-2005 by kenshiro2012]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Ok,
Mayhaps, I did not make my request clear. The reason for my request for clarification was due to Springer's opening as below:


TextThis is not limited to politics either. Religious diatribe and anti religious diatribe for the sole purpose of continuing or starting ludicrous argument is not welcome here either.
This has gotten so far out of hand that the Moderators have been asked to go to "STRICT ENFORCEMENT" mode.
This means ANY POST deemed a "bait" a, "snipe" or any post that has the above mentioned interjections mixed in it when they are utterly out of place will be edited, the member will be warned.


Reading post such as the one that I pointed out (sorry RANT) seems to me to fall into the category of baiting or sniping. reading not only the words that I quoted but also the way in which they were delivered seems to me that there was baiting / sniping at imas.
My question was and still is to get clarification as to what can be considered a bait or a snipe. This information I beleive would help not only myself but others since if someone were to make a post that another considers a snipe or bait, the poster does not have the ability to clarify what they meant (as RANT did) before they are awarded the warn.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I totally agree with this policy. An extreme case of "Americanitis" is the Yahoo message boards, which are now useless because of the political mongers. Boring.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by namehere

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


and theres nothing to prevent a moderator from construing things a person might say as violating this new role, you guessing ones intent easily will cause problems, mods are never 100% correct or unbiased so how is giving them power of unilateral descretion of intent a good idea? your rule has no clear declaration here, we're supposed to trust no mod will abuse this power either on purpose or by having a bias and assuming intent based on it?


Actually, you're just supposed to get the point of this thread and let the checks and balances in place in the moderation of this site work its own problems out. I think the short story is that what they review and say "yeah that was a good moderation move" is what we'll have to live with. This isn't a democracy.


Namehere: Spot on!


Several important factors have presented themselves over the years with this board, most importantly its drive to own a portion of the internet and grow/retain, sustaining costs. The 'cost' here being it's original demeanor & tenor. A collateral damage cost is the weakening of the member gene pool - the site's then new milquetoast demeanor spurred an exodus of some stalwart members from regular posting, as well as making the marquee ATS brand a sterile receptacle to corporate advertising, devoid of the type of heated debate which drove site traffic during the most dangerous political climate of our respective life times.
The Yanks back in those days who posted in the political forum were 90% conservative. They all became staff during the growth spikes. And because of the illusion that is American politics ( the proverbial “Ying/Yang” two poles model), picking a “side” with the loquacious jingoists who found an icon in 2000 was a natural. This current initiative had its root need to be enacted at that very point in time, but given the moral depravity we all endured for the 1992 to 2000 period, there really would have been a disservice in quieting such ‘righteous’ belligerence.
The traffic grew more robust with the news portal addition, at the same time of the manufactured neo-conservatism/Puritanism in America + the logical opposition to it + the media marketing of the perception that it was really more than it actually was + the willful divide of the populace ( see: Divide & Conquer). Thus the birth of the splinter sites ( BTS, PTS and so on) in order to placate the desire to be sanitized enough to accept advertisers.
What should be obvious to those of critical thought is that this is solely a business decision. It’s not the altruistic desire to preserve a genteel discourse that was not there at inception; because true argument is predicated on a type of Darwinism where transparent sycophancy and bleeding team colors is drawn-measured-found wanting, and derision is a swift retort to the lunatic fringe flight of fancy examples suffered upon us. (The exact opposite outcome then occurs: people think the board is counter to real life when it’s actually representative of it – people are never too gracious to vociferous stupidity, yet we’ll enforce that they should be here! ) No, it’s the only logical response to a rock/hard place business scenario: the CURRENT EVENTS FORUMS don’t belong on ATS, yet are the big traffic drivers to ATS and are the very ones that need to be on the ugly kid sister, PTS, where the type of spirited discourse is more readily accepted.

If you’ve been here long enough, you’ve seen the above and understand you’re now a guest audience member in an infomercial more so than an unexpurgated contributor.......just don’t tell Ron Popiel his “hair” is sprayed on!!
It’s still a great product by virtue of the membership’s diversity on interests....other sites just don’t have Libertarian practitioner of Santeria who’ve seen ghosts and can recite the periodic table while telling you about the latest death ray the US military is rolling out.

In brevity & eloquence, a better summation of my point, just swap the obvious keywords:


Originally posted by Odium
Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, a book by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky.
..."the pressure to create a stable, profitable business invariably distorts the kinds of news items reported, as well as the manner and emphasis in which they are reported. This occurs not as a result of conscious design but simply as a consequence of market selection: those businesses who happen to favor profits over news quality survive, while those that present a more accurate picture of the world tend to become marginalized."



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   
More discourse in the current wave of "ATS ain't what it used to be."

-sigh-


Intense attacks on the political ideologies of members, at the expense of important topics has spiraled out of control. If we are to remain a valuable resource for the consideration of conspiracy topics, we must control this unsavory online phenomenon.

The intent of this thread and policy has always been, and will always be just that simple.


No one is suggesting that our content be sanitized... very contrary... only that we end the ideology-inspired member attacking member crap that has infected many threads.

No one is pandering to "corporate sensibilities" for the sake of advertising. As a matter of fact, if we had, we'd be making much more money and wouldn't have low-paying ad networks providing our banners and ad revenue.

No one is limiting the topics of discussion in any way beyond what has already been made clear in the long-standing terms and conditions.


As 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.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join