**POLICY STATEMENT FOR THE 9/11 FORUM: ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ**, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times
Topic started on 5-8-2006 @ 05:03 PM by wecomeinpeace
It has come to the attention of ATS admin and staff that the quality of discussion in the 9/11 forum has been steadily declining over the last few months, and that this has been in no small part due to the derailing of discussion by some members implying or directly stating that those who disagree with their point of view are stupid, "conspiracy nut jobs", or "government agents". Included in this category are posts such as "conspiracy theories are ridiculous bunkum", "only an idiot would believe that...", and the like - comments which have nothing to do with the discussion of the facts and associated theories, but rather are designed to stifle rational discussion through ridicule and intimidation.

In an effort to curb this worsening phenomenon, to improve the quality of discussion, and to encourage the spirit of cooperative research and respectful debate that ATS was founded on, staff have been notified that as of this post a zero-tolerance policy is to be effected in regards to all such comments in the 9/11 forum. Members derailing discussion through such comments will be post banned, THIS IS YOUR WARNING.

Borderline cases will result in first a U2U from staff, but a pursuit of the same protocol for repeat incidences.

The events surrounding 9/11 are complex and myriad, and only through rational, cooperative, adult discussion can we hope to discover the truth, whatever it may be, and whether it conforms with our own personal theories or not. Ridicule, labeling, and blanket aspersions contribute nothing towards this goal. If you disagree with another member, please feel free to explain why you disagree by outlining the facts as you or your sources see them, not by labeling - whether by direct statement or by implication - those who hold certain views as "nutcases", "sheeple", "disinfo agents", "idiots" and so forth. If you think that the investigation and discussion of conspiracy theories is purely a pastime of the unintelligent, the paranoid, and the mentally imbalanced, then perhaps ATS is not the place for you. If you think that the investigation and dismissal of a particular theory from one's personal belief set means that one is a government agent, an idiot, or a "sheeple", then the same applies.

ATS is THE place to come to for informative, adult discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theory. It is our hope through the enactment of this policy and through quality contributions and discussion from YOU, that we can continue to claim that accolade.

All policies are effected with the singular goal of making ATS a more enjoyable and productive environment for you, the members, and hence we welcome discussion of this policy in this thread.

Thank you.

[edit on 8-5-2006 by Springer]


reply posted on 15-8-2006 @ 03:33 PM by Mirthful Me
As we rapidly approach the five year anniversary of 9/11, it may lead to renewed interest in the subject, and some of that "interest" may be rife with invectives. ATS is here for civil discussion and the pursuit of "Deny Ignorance." Members must post within the Terms & Conditions Of Use, no exceptions. The rules set forth by the site owners are there with the intent to foster the pursuit of all conspiracies at the highest level, the 9/11 conspiracy probably being the greatest since the JFK assassination. Please respect the guidelines as outlined, and even more, respect your fellow ATS Members.



reply posted on 17-8-2006 @ 12:11 PM by SkipShipman
Now wait a minute here lets look at this further

Just to be fair let's look at another angle.


So what do you do, facing the fact than boards such as ours have paid bloggers?

What is to keep this all honest? How does one politely suggest the tone of what people are saying has an artificial look? Are you saying "no whistle blowing allowed?"

Surely most of the neo cons favoring the official story on 911 have no scientific evidence, and resort to ad homonym attacks on those who seek the truth of the matter. When people have an argument, it should make sense, not being just a priority to "swift boat," others. I agree with your civility issues on the board, yet I suggest that those who defend the current official position provoke such responses as "government shill," and "paid blogger." The fact is however such things are real.

Maybe the solution is simply to send U2U messages to the staff when you think a message is contrived and paid?
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 14 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 7 days ago with 13 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 14 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Official Maine Caucus Results Thread!!
  2012 US Elections, Posted 7 hours ago, 93 replies
Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 17 hours ago, 69 replies