The Hard Balance Of Trying To Be Balanced: Hoaxes, Frauds, And Truth, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 20 times
Topic started on 7-6-2007 @ 09:20 AM by SkepticOverlord
Over the past six months, we've had a significant increase in the rise of provocative topics that solicit divisive responses from our members. In many cases with these types of topics, the division of opinion weights heavily in the category of fraud, hoax, lies, or grossly inaccurate.

These topics have no favorite category, as we see the subject matter spanning the spectrum from UFOs to holocaust denial. Lately, the divisive topic is 9/11-related "TV Fakery," three weeks ago it was UFO photos, three weeks from now, it will be something else.

With the rise of these topics we're also receiving an increase in complaints from long-standing members bemoaning "what ATS has become." Most of these complaints tend to understand that we (admin/owners) have no editorial guidance in promoting topics such these. However, there is an increasing expectation that topics such as these be quickly shut-down and/or labeled as a hoax or fraud.


On Being Well-Outside The Box

First, I'd like to remind everyone that it's important to have the ability to support topics outside our normal sensibilities that push the envelope of speculative theories. Engaging in productive and collaborative debate on topics such as these hone our ability to fathom the upper limits of what's possible, while conditioning our all-important critical analysis skills.

While it's human nature to react negatively to ideas we personally feel are silly, it should be "ATS nature" to contemplate and discuss. Consider that if one in ninety-nine "wild ideas" results in either a spectacular extraterrestrial epiphany or earth-shattering paradigm-shift in 9/11 conspiracy theory, then it's well worth our time to filter through the crap to find the diamond.


Outside The Box Does Not Imply Insolence

Unfortunately, all too often, the purveyors of the theories causing the most schismatic discussion also tend to push the boundaries of our Terms & Conditions, often to the breaking point. This phenomenon of combined churlishness and sensational theories seems to occur most often in the 9/11 topics, perhaps because of the high incidence of "angry activists" who have adopted 9/11 conspiracies. The results are predictable, abusive contributors are banned and improperly assume we're censoring their ideas.

If you truly believe you have a new and fantastic idea (especially in an arena as potentially important as 9/11 conspiracies), then you should also be able to find a way to present your ideas without behavior that creates a problem and further aids the divisive response. Those who become confrontational when their eccentric theories are not embraced tend to be more focused on the entertainment value and excitement of confrontation than the promise of promoting their ideas.


So What About The Hoaxes And Frauds?

We have a history of clearly identifying some of our hoaxes and frauds by modifying the thread title with a qualifier (most often, this has been in UFO/aliens topics). We're working out a way to give our members complete control over topic qualifiers such as these. In order to better plan what we do, and how we do it, we're likely to launch a members-only survey to zero-in on a few currently active topics, and give an additional layer of editorial labeling to our members.

Stay tuned.


reply posted on 7-6-2007 @ 12:18 PM by brotherthebig
Credibility ranking?


Hi,

Every post as a Star from 1 to 5 so every ATS Member could vote, my suggestion is to put aside a “Credibility” icon, but in a pair (2, 4, 6) number of scale or choices (in odd numbers say 1 to 5 [0 to 5 will be pair, 6 choices] we could choose the middle and that is not clarifying because is in the middle and equivalent of “maybe”, in a pair chose simply we do not have the middle to chose, so the result will be more on the “no” or “yes” side).

A concrete example:
In the thread Pentagon plane crash by Loutty we are discussing the Pentagon part of 9/11, the ATS Members had posted different opinions and sources, documents, sites, videos, books, etc…, imho a Boeing 757 (big plane) simply couldn’t disappear from all frames from all available videos, so imho no plane crashed at the Pentagon, and I started by this post where I say that imho that vapour/smoke trail (in the frame) that is near (or almost in) the ground could be from a fast car or missile, I could add something small but not (!) a Boeing 757, last post. So if I had to rate in Credibility (say an hypothetical 1 to 6 range) a post or thread that tries to prove that a Boeing 757 crashed at the Pentagon I will give a certainly “no” (1, 2, or 3, because 4, 5 and 6 belong to “yes”, no middle so no “maybe”), now I need to choose the “no” grade, I will give 1 if the member only posted arguments without any evidence or document to support that, I will give 2 if he gives some references but I consider that of dubious value and I will give 3 if he gives good (imo) resources but I don’t agree with that. I will have a similar but reverse attitude for something that I agree.

The thread Credibility could be an automatic calculation based on the individual post Credibility, but that is not a perfect system because if someone states “X” and everybody thing “Y” they will give a Credibility of “no” (1, 2 or 3) to the “X” thread or post (idea, argument, demonstration or theory), and if some days, weeks, months or years after if we have a new and definitive evidence that “X” is the right thing, the Moderators need to change the wrong Credibility and put that right, and the poor member (a real genius in that case) was all the time right and everybody else was wrong, for that reason this is not a perfect system, but is something to start (an elaboration of a good system) and could be improved. Ok, not voting will be the middle or “maybe”.

For an evident Fraud or Hoax, the Moderators could classify as “Fraud” or “Hoax” in the title and close the thread, but we have some thread already in that status, so is working.

Another thing I like to say is that the open mind and free speech policy of ATS is very good and honest, imho, because allows one person to express is opinion independently of others opinions, and in an adult and civilized behaviour a group could discuss (from dialog) anything and different opinions could exist in that discussion (thread) with respect from each other different opinions. Very good to ATS (a 6 star)!

More references:
. en.wikipedia.org...
. credibility.stanford.edu...
. www.altruists.org...
. changingminds.org...

brotherthebig.


reply posted on 7-6-2007 @ 12:38 PM by Fett Pinkus
Originally posted by thebox
OUTSIDE THE BOX

John Lear thinks "Outside The Box".



Yes lets not forget that holographic projector which was responsible for 9/11

As long as he keeps writing things like that, well then expect people to have a go at him.


Unfortunately, all too often, the purveyors of the theories causing the most schismatic discussion also tend to push the boundaries of our Terms & Conditions, often to the breaking point.

<-- And as for this then why is it that Jack Tripper is allowed to spam his dvd that he is peddling on the internet and also gets his whole own forum as well?

And he also seems to get away with slagging of other members such as Caustic Logic & Nick7261 who are rightly showing holes in the animation sequence and backing it up with facts?

Clearly it's all too complex for your simple mind so I will explain it to you yet again.


You have basically put on a show for everyone that perfectly demonstrates your naive and simplistic mindset.


Just THINK about what a slimebag you truly are for THAT being your contribution to 9/11 truth.


You do realize what a repugnant tool that makes you if our information is valid don't you?


Well guess what? As long as you keep up that illogical, uninformed, badly written, off-base, ignorant, transparent, deceptive, out of control hit-piece on us you have exposed yourself as an attention starved irrelevant traitor who has the blood of countless 10's of thousands on his hands.


Source


And someone like that has his own forum to peddle a Dvd? Using ATS to make money? Against the T+C isnt it? Or are some people more equal then others?



[edit on 7-6-2007 by Fett Pinkus]

[edit on 7-6-2007 by Fett Pinkus]


reply posted on 7-6-2007 @ 01:15 PM by Ahabstar
While user imput as to a thread's credit and value in the realm of Fake, Unsure and Real (to us a simple scale) I feel that it has potential of deliberate abuse. In the recent TV Fakery threads I have noticed definate groups forming both pro and con that support each other.

If an opposing faction starts a thread and is discovered and marked Fake out of spite or legitamately then the thread may not recieve the attention it deserves by people just skimming thread topics. Now that said, the member may enter and decide for themselves the merit of the topic or they may not. Legitimate work and thought would be lost.

I like that heavy flagged threads on top and hot topics are listed to the left as a promotion, but many threads that deserve attention are often missed and buried from lack of promotion. I know that this promotion is completely member driven by replies and flags. To add positive and negative promotion power to the members is not a good idea in my opinion as the reader is subjected to preconception before entering the thread to draw their own conclusions.

I hate to use names, but we are all adults here. I saw today's thread from bsregistration when it was freshly posted and guessed accurately that it would become multiple pages of "yes it is" and "no it isn't" replies. I like debate of subject matter. I like good debate even more. Sometimes I enter the debate and other times I just read the opinion. I fear that prelabeled threads will hamper that debate.

Despite the work and sometimes gut feeling of finding and labeling threads as Hoax or Fraud or other labels. This power should remain in the hands of the staff of ATS and not be a power of the members, even if it is a general majority vote.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^