Deny Ignorance, Deny Replies?

Lately I have noticed a rash of threads that propose far from mainstream ideas and opinions. This is absolutely fine, that is what ATS is all about. What has been different in these threads is that either directly or indirectly (through use of rhetoric) the author states that anyone with a different opinion should stay away from the thread.

This Post is a good example of what I am talking about, selected from one today's popular threads. The problem seems to appear most in threads relating to 2012, Aliens, 9/11 conspiracy (although greatly reduced here thanks to new 9/11 forum policy - thanks mods ), and climate change.

I am just curious how this relates with board policy. Can I create a thread stating everyone who does not believe what I believe should not post? Has this issue ever been addressed? If someone says this should I ignore it and post a different viewpoint anyways?(and of course get subsequently jumped on - not that I mind) Where can I read the rules regarding what is considered on and off topic regarding replies? (Sorry I can't find this, although I have been trolling MOD sigs for a link(sure shot))

ATS is about denying ignorance. This mantra of "you must believe what I say to talk, for I am the OP" fosters the very ignorance we try to deny.

,WuTang

Post: Kinda OT but funny the irony in police state examples of this issue.
To Paraphrase " I can't believe the government silences those who don't believe what they are told. Don't reply if you don't believe what I have told you"

[edit on 16-10-2007 by WuTang]

I think sometimes certain "givens" may be necessary for certain topics to be discussed properly. Take my thread titled can intelligent life evolve without religion?. I don't want to spend time debating whether or not life on other planets exists, so I ask others to please refrain from arguing that point, as it doesn't pertain to the main topic of discussion.

I think it's ok in certain situations, and only when expressed properly in the OP.

Originally posted by WuTang

Post: Kinda OT but funny the irony in police state examples of this issue.
To Paraphrase " I can't believe the government silences those who don't believe what they are told. Don't reply if you don't believe what I have told you"

[edit on 16-10-2007 by WuTang]

Its hilarious that we do some of the same things we accuse the government of. I have noticed this on many ocassions. However, I think anybody should be allowed to post whatever they want if its within the T & C. They cant stop you from posting in their thread.

The Courtesy Of A Reply

Originally posted by WuTang
I am just curious how this relates with board policy.

It doesn't.

If a thread displays a "Post Reply" button, you can reply to it.

Assertions to the contrary are not supported by the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use.

However, replies -- like anything else -- are themselves expected to comply with the T&C.

And upon that social contract our online community functions.

While that particular example is a bit extreme ... I understand.


There seems to be some that are intent in derailing or destroying threads or find pleasure in tracking certain people/topics with an extreme passion that sometimes borders on TOS violation.


While discussion should be open, I do feel the OP and to a certain extent members debating should be allowed to set certain guidelines to prevent nonsense.


I don't have the direct examples, but the general idea is that people are seeking out threads that are in the proper places and demanding they shouldn't exist. That the OP should be banned. Things get refuted with no evidence, and sometimes those people don't even read the whole first post and most don't read the whole thread.

A great example is the demon face on the 5th grader fox show. Even after it has been known to be a viral ad, people are still posting one-liners that it is obviously a hoax, the op has lights behind the tv, etc.

Someone will post a personal experience about a ufo sighting, and say they have no video or pictures, but, wish to communicate with people about it ... they get inundated with attacks that they are a hoax ... or, ufos don't exist. They didn't post to be told they are a fool, they posted to try and have a discussion, share an experience, get something off of their chest, or understand it better. Remember, some members attack and don't show proper respect.

Just because there are sometimes hoaxes, doesn't make everything a hoax, and therefore, people should be given a certain amount of benefit of doubt. If they are just being silly, it will show in their lack of sincerity and the mods will deal with it properly ... if it is in the wrong section. Of course, skunk works gets much more leniency.

I have read things posted to skunk works that have been attacked because there was no scientific evidence ... it is in SKUNK WORKS.


Yes, open debate, varying opinions is a great thing and wonderful resource. Mods do their best to keep things civil, but they are volunteer and have a lot of stuff to sift through. Sometimes a modest request is a way of self-policing ...

If I started a thread to discuss the Revelation as proposed by the Bible and interpreting it in today's context ... I shouldn't have to deal with a bunch of posts that say the Bible is fake and they can't believe that anyone with intelligence would believe such a farce. That argument has plenty of threads already. Now if someone who doesn't believe wants to come in and compare images with planes or countries, great ... but not just come and nay-say just to push their agenda.


A great example of this is reptilians. It was a fringe topic, but, even now that it is in skunk works, the poster gets chased down and/or attacked. There are people who still ask that their threads be closed because it is 'obviously' ridiculous. Well, it is in skunkworks ... so, leave them alone. They don't have to believe, they don't have to be rude. In fact, still visiting and debunking with a mutual respect that the op is a human I feel is strongly welcome ... and just fyi, I don't really see or get the whole reptilian thing, but I don't hate on it.



I suppose some people take to the extreme example you made, because after many polite requests, in many threads ... they are stressed and saying it in a way that is a bit strong. I am not saying such a cold line is correct. But, if you have felt attacked indirectly many times when just trying to express yourself or reading others expressing themselves ... and don't want new people to be reluctant ... then I do see polite posting requests to not be a horrible thing.

I think if you post something on a discussion board, expect it to be discussed, so long as it's on topic and within the T&C. It's kind of silly to expect otherwise.

and the point I was trying to make, that sometimes, defining the topic you wish to discuss, and eliminating the topics that are irrelevant to your discussion is valid. To set the confines of what being on topic is for your thread, to a certain extent. Again, that example at the top is a little much though.

If someone wants to discuss the flying spaghetti monster, well, if they define the topic to not include how it never existed should be a rule allowed by the OP. Now I don't know if that would go in religion, conspiracies, or skunk works

In other words, if someone creates a topic about baseball ... someone shouldn't come in and say they think it is a stupid waste of time and money, anyone who likes it is a moron,and those resources are better spent going to college for a degree or a second degree ... or music is a better form of entertainment ... and being such the thread should be closed ... nor a 'baseball sucks' single line post. I used to like baseball, so that was just an example, not a personal opinion.

When someone wishes to discuss a religious topic in the confines of those who believe, it should be their right to have that discussion without the muddying up, if requested. If they ask a general question such as, do you believe in the Bible, then that is open and free for all to discuss how and why the don't believe/believe.

I do also see it sometimes transforming from a intelligent discussion to a heated debate, which is not conducive to intelligent discussion, and usually leads to personal attacks and the thread being lost and/or forgotten that could have been rather good otherwise.

Maybe that seems a little too respectful to an OP? It is in my opinion not restricting discussion on the board as a whole, nor limiting a individual topic much besides setting certain confines.

I try to understand where people come from as much as possible, and be relatively respectful. I am not perfect for sure, and there have been some spiteful/hateful comments and topics made by people that I may have put my two cents in on such as the bum topic in BTS.



I am just trying to explain the other side, and playing a little bit of devil's advocate on the issue. In fact, I am discussion and debating an opposing view

reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist


I got your point. Hence why I said 'so long as it's on topic'. I fully understand what you mean with defining the topic you wish to discuss. I don't however agree with eliminating topics that may seem irrelevant to the OP, because it closes the door on angles that might not be obvious to the OP.

If anything, the only disclaimer should be about keeping to the topic, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks. We are in the business of denying ignorance, are we not?

yep

and you get some good posts out there beachcoma

I think you just said it best ... "keeping to the topic, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks" ... which pretty much is the T&C

It's just a guess, but I think the OP is referring to comments like this?....

If you can't see a colorized bucket wheel excavator you need to move on. This thread does not concern you. You are not ready for whatever reason. And I have no idea what that reason could be. Thanks.

ie; your comments are worthless if they don't agree with me?

reply to post by MrPenny



Nope... That post is not asking people who don't agree to not reply, it's merely making an observation based on the poster's opinion. No where in that does it say "if you don't think a certain way your replies are not welcome".

I would guess that the post you quoted was probably written with the hope that those who stalk such threads only to deride and deny them or demand evidence where none exists would leave those who want to have a friendly and speculative conversation about such things alone long enough for them to have one.

Nice try though...

Springer...


[edit on 10-17-2007 by Springer]

Topical Aesthetic

One thing I'd like to point out is that the OP (Original Post/er) defines the topic of a thread, and basic ATS standards of discussion explicitly involve staying on topic.

Thus if a member wishes to discuss a rather specific issue, or just a particular aspect of it, that can be specified in the OP.

That doesn't mean other members must agree with the thesis of the OP, but it does mean that all replies to the thread should address the topic.

As an example, if a member starts a thread specifically to discuss the meaning and implications of using tasers on left-handed Nova Scotians, then comments -- pro or con -- should address the meaning and implications of using tasers on left-handed Nova Scotians.

Replies that don't would be off-topic and therefore inappropriate.

With this in mind, members can craft their OPs to be as general or specific as they want.

An excellent OP can serve as the foundation of an excellent thread.