It's that time again. We have to address the conduct in this forum.

reply to post by NGC2736


Uhh - what? Are we reading the same thing? Am I missing something?

1) I never claim to be a victim. Being hostile =/ Victim. It just means the board welcomes hostility directed at Masons. I don't have a problem with that, it comes with the territory.

2) I have never claimed any sort of anti-mason abuse.

3) I have never claimed that any of the mods are anti-mason.

4) I am personally offended that you would dare compare me to someone like twitchy. It is very disrespectful. I am serious. I take that comparison to the level of personal insult.

reply to post by LightinDarkness


Gee, See how biased I am. Now both are upset with me.

I call 'em like I see 'em. There was no intent to insult. I just see more commonality than difference. You don't. But to someone outside of the love/hate relationship of the mason/anti-mason face off it sounds more like a lovers quarrel. I'm not about to defend, complete with point by point quotes, what set that tone for me since I started listening to this bickering.

And I could care less if it seems unfair that I think it all borders on the juvenile and pointless. As long as both sides understand that civility will be the order of the day. It will be applied to both sides the exact same way.

reply to post by NGC2736


Of course, calling them like you seeing them somehow includes literally making up things I didn't say?

Wow. Just...wow. Would you care to tell me where I said any of those things you just made up? Or would you prefer to just "call em like you see em" and make up something else I didn't say? This is..fantastical.

If I insulted you, I'd be warned/banned. You insult people, your calling 'em like you see 'em.

Interesting.

[edit on 1-2-2008 by LightinDarkness]

I would like posters to

go back to the front of the thread and reread the inital post. Its clear that many of you are not taking the message to heart.

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
2) I have never claimed any sort of anti-mason abuse.

Well I've got to say that I disagree with that wholeheartedly, I've seen you do exactly that on the SS forum in Masonic related threads, almost all the masonic related threads in fact.
I'll take an opposing extremist view here in response to the situation, and say that I feel like this site is on the verge of some kind of precipice here, and I'm of the opinion that if people come to a Conspiracy Related forum espousing their masonic affiliations with one another and ganging up on threads to shut them down, then they need to be banned.

I'm no Angel, I've apologised publicly on this very thread for getting personal, and being objectionable, but how can you reconcile that when you just to get compared to a nazi, literally on the very next post.

Conspiracy is Meat and Potatoes for ATS, and I'm sure the SS forum draws the numbers here so it's logical to conclude that it's going to continue to be a conspiracy related discussion in the SS forum and you guys should be required to leave your aprons at the door IMO.
If you haven't noticed already, they just don't impress people here that much. We might be here to discuss Freemasonry, and what it's involved in, we might be here to investigate it, decry it, demonize it, debate it, argue with you about it, call it out, expose it, blow it out of proportion, but I can assure you that we aren't here to sing your praises.

[edit on 1-2-2008 by twitchy]

reply to post by LightinDarkness


OK, I was in error. You have my apology in the matter.

I was replying to tone and not actual quotes. I did say that you "seem to", as in this was the way it seemed to me.

I would think that I am allowed an opinion of how things may seem to be, in an overall sense.

It also seems that whenever I leave this thread, I return to find new drama.

Originally posted by FredT
I would like posters to

go back to the front of the thread and reread the inital post. Its clear that many of you are not taking the message to heart.

That's because the paranoia (on both sides) is showing. I've posted many times in threads that they are not discussions but paranoid rantings.

Unfortunately it's the nature of ATS, in that it is anonymous, that "encourages" such behaviour. If the respondants were sitting in a pub face to face then a few would end with table over their head!

Anonymous bravery.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Thank you SkepticOverlord

You show the exact responce i would excpect from an ATS moderator, Respect for that.

I have to say i cant say that about all the Moderators in this and the "other" topic.
There have been more than one Moderator responding to "tone" instead of content, and those reponds did mostly not help the discussion at all.
And i found that a matter of concern.

The "other" topic "Interesting Place to Find a Masonic Obelisk" had many pages of posts, most of them repeats of what was said allready.
Is that not the main reason why the discussion went wrong.
How many times is it allowed to play the yes/no game before presenting more content to the subject beside that sole statement.
Maybe everyone should have to contribute more content to the discussion and not be allowed to only play the yes/no game.

Playing a yes/no game for 20+ pages will create frustration on all sides and will quickly end up in personal attacks or in a "i dont like your tone" discussion.

Personanly i think the "other" topic could have been better moderated.
Maybe by not allowing to many repeat posts and more quickly responds to personal attacks.

Thats just my view on it after following the discussion for the last two weeks.

[edit: some spelling]

[edit on 1-2-2008 by jaamaan]

Originally posted by NGC2736
reply to post by LightinDarkness

 

You must not read these threads. Twitchy had his thread shut down because he couldn't contribute anything except near trolling posts. He now feels that all the mods are pro-masons.

This seems to be quite a personal "attack" i would expect better from a Moderator.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Seems to me the applauses are more of an ATS click thing than actual rewards for good posts.

I can think of maybe one instance where I received applause for a post that I was really proud of and am often at a loss as to why I have received applause for other posts. I haven't found there to be a great deal of consistency. Those I have asked though, Cuhail included, have stated that it is more for keeping the discussion going, or throwing something new into the mix. Either way it is subjective and relies upon the moderator or FSME being interested enough to read your post or to have the time to read your post. If you're 'good' you don't attract attention - the more contentious the issue though the more attentive the moderation, so a good post is more likely to be spotted...but it will depend upon the moderator whether they think it is good or not.

You were peer reviewed and your peers approved - that is about as good as it gets The rest is just dressing.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


So what you are basically saying, SkepticOverlord, is that you should change the motto for the secret societies forum from "Deny Ignorance" to "Embrace Ignorance."

Got it.

While we're at it, could you explain to me why this post was warn-worthy? How did I violate the T&C's?

Furthermore, can you give me one (1) example of an ATS member who does *not* fit into category 1, 2, 3 or 4, as delineated in my post?

Apparently... many are either not understanding the point we're trying to make, or are simply refusing to accept the point. Let me attempt to be as crystal-clear as possible.

AboveTopSecret.com is a social content community with a distinct and historic focus on conspiracy theories, government cover-ups, political scandals, and paranormal phenomena.

That being said, the environment that is AboveTopSecret.com will be inherently antagonistic toward Freemasonry and a long list of secret groups and fraternities.

Those who belong to such groups should not expect this website to be a fair environment where removal of speculative material they believe to be false, but is based on well-known and sourced research on the subject to be removed or restricted.

All participants on the subject, both those who are critical of the groups discussed in our Secret Societies forum and those who would defend these groups, are bound by the terms and conditions of this website.


If you belong to one of these groups and believe this to be an unfair stance, I'm sorry. But you must understand the environment in which you're participating.


If you're a conspiracy theorist who is highly critical of those in these groups and feel they should not be allowed here, you're wrong. While we have a distinctly biased leaning toward speculation on conspiracy theories, we also seek to foster discussion and debate that embraces, encourages, and protects all sides of an issue.


IMPORTANT! READ THIS

This is our final official say on this matter. From this point forward, any response within the Secret Societies forum that does not focus on the issue, and instead directs attention toward criticism of ATS members will be removed, and the author will receive a posting ban. No warnings. No recourse.

I'll be assigning more staff to this forum, and you can fully expect that our response to this issue will be swift without regard to which "side" a member might represent.









This thread is now closed, and this aspect of the management of ATS discussions is no longer open for questions.