reply to post by Springer
springer...i agree with you, i myself have had to apoligize to a poster for not considering a particular point of view, once thoughtful evidence was
brought up. skeptics, by there very nature, can go either way, they just need a reasoned, logical, approach to a given subject. and thanks to you for
responding to this particular thread, it shows that you are aware, that opinions of differnet people, can open one up to a different way of thinking.
Those who don't agree need not apply., page 2
privacy
reply posted on 27-2-2008 @ 07:35 AM by marg6043
reply to post by Blaine91555
To tell you the truth unless is a thread posted by the administration requesting certain members for a given project I will stay off of it if is not pertain to me but, If the thread done by any particular members is requesting, as an open board for members I will post and give the contribution to the thread even if I disagree with the post or not if the subject of the thread is attractive and interesting to me.
So no big deal.
To tell you the truth unless is a thread posted by the administration requesting certain members for a given project I will stay off of it if is not pertain to me but, If the thread done by any particular members is requesting, as an open board for members I will post and give the contribution to the thread even if I disagree with the post or not if the subject of the thread is attractive and interesting to me.
So no big deal.
reply posted on 27-2-2008 @ 08:13 AM by DancedWithWolves
reply to post by NGC2736
Newbie here. Your post and ZeroGhosts' post were very informative and thought provoking. Thank you. That's what I love about ATS. I do see some value in threads where the trolls have been minimized and deeper perspectives are allowed to emerge. I have a question I want to throw into this discussion based on your responses. Is there a better way to respond to/ignore trolls in a thread?
This question is from the perspective of the reader of a thread. When you read a post from a troll or someone questioning the validity of the premise itself which is not responded to by the op or other, it leaves the impression that the question may have had more value than it does. Think of the politician saying..no comment..which often means the question itself is where the "story" really is.
As a reader, you may question the avoidance as a weakness in the premise when it is actually the opposite. I would suggest that this is the appropriate place where a standardized one line post would be most beneficial. As a reader, I want to know that the op or other has read the troll question and chosen to ignore it intentionally. This could be done with a one line post saying read and ignored as insubstantial to this thread or something less abrasive. Optimally, the one line response would include a reference to an older thread where the validity of the premise has been debated before.
Trolls, in my experience, tend to keep agitating until they are acknowledged. Rather than an invisible ignore in the thread, there should be a visible ignore for the reader's benefit. It would add substance to the thread to know that the op considers the question "ignore" worthy. There could be a way to visibly ignore a post in a reply, rather than ignore the user forever. Referring a troll to a debate forum thread or prior on-topic thread which analyzes the premise would also be very helpful to the reader in understanding the larger picture.
Maybe if we had an interest(s) area personal survey on ATS we could opt to fill out, it would be helpful in linking newbies with an appropriate adoptive parent.
Peace
DWW
[edit on 27-2-2008 by DancedWithWolves]
[edit on 27-2-2008 by DancedWithWolves]
Newbie here. Your post and ZeroGhosts' post were very informative and thought provoking. Thank you. That's what I love about ATS. I do see some value in threads where the trolls have been minimized and deeper perspectives are allowed to emerge. I have a question I want to throw into this discussion based on your responses. Is there a better way to respond to/ignore trolls in a thread?
This question is from the perspective of the reader of a thread. When you read a post from a troll or someone questioning the validity of the premise itself which is not responded to by the op or other, it leaves the impression that the question may have had more value than it does. Think of the politician saying..no comment..which often means the question itself is where the "story" really is.
As a reader, you may question the avoidance as a weakness in the premise when it is actually the opposite. I would suggest that this is the appropriate place where a standardized one line post would be most beneficial. As a reader, I want to know that the op or other has read the troll question and chosen to ignore it intentionally. This could be done with a one line post saying read and ignored as insubstantial to this thread or something less abrasive. Optimally, the one line response would include a reference to an older thread where the validity of the premise has been debated before.
Trolls, in my experience, tend to keep agitating until they are acknowledged. Rather than an invisible ignore in the thread, there should be a visible ignore for the reader's benefit. It would add substance to the thread to know that the op considers the question "ignore" worthy. There could be a way to visibly ignore a post in a reply, rather than ignore the user forever. Referring a troll to a debate forum thread or prior on-topic thread which analyzes the premise would also be very helpful to the reader in understanding the larger picture.
Maybe if we had an interest(s) area personal survey on ATS we could opt to fill out, it would be helpful in linking newbies with an appropriate adoptive parent.
Peace
DWW
[edit on 27-2-2008 by DancedWithWolves]
[edit on 27-2-2008 by DancedWithWolves]
reply posted on 27-2-2008 @ 10:27 AM by marg6043
reply to post by ignorant_ape
He, he, I believe that is one of the main reasons the thread will say that those who don't agree need not apply
human beings are very
curious and if a thread starts with that . . . you bet that people will just link to it to see what the exclusiveness is all about.
BTW for the poster that talks about trolls the trolls tend to be banned very quickly in ATS, good members are always very watchful for trouble makers on agendas.
He, he, I believe that is one of the main reasons the thread will say that those who don't agree need not apply
human beings are very
curious and if a thread starts with that . . . you bet that people will just link to it to see what the exclusiveness is all about. BTW for the poster that talks about trolls the trolls tend to be banned very quickly in ATS, good members are always very watchful for trouble makers on agendas.
reply posted on 27-2-2008 @ 10:30 AM by NGC2736
reply to post by DancedWithWolves
Actually, many of our more intelligent posters do refer a troll to another post/site where the agitators viewpoint has been discussed. To avoid a one line response, the experienced ATSer will add this in as an aside to a reply addressed to someone else.
This allows the casual reader to look into the argument and tells the troll that he is not being ignored, simply given the amount of time and effort he was worth. As in anything else posted, it must be done in a civil manner.
Actually, many of our more intelligent posters do refer a troll to another post/site where the agitators viewpoint has been discussed. To avoid a one line response, the experienced ATSer will add this in as an aside to a reply addressed to someone else.
This allows the casual reader to look into the argument and tells the troll that he is not being ignored, simply given the amount of time and effort he was worth. As in anything else posted, it must be done in a civil manner.
reply posted on 27-2-2008 @ 04:54 PM by ZeroGhost
reply to post by jbondo
I don't think limitations should be imposed. Even by a mass of "Pennypackers"?). In many cases on a very long multi page thread there is no practical way to read it all, so quote if possible and comment or answer specifically. So it's good you qualify with a referenced header. Such a
post has been seen to put others back on the issues, where otherwise the Mod must remind everyone to avoid wandering topics.
I've come back after a weekend to see a thread I could have significant contribution only to find it started the day I left and had 10 pages of posts. Am I barred from contributing unless I spend an hour reading, following links and posted off-site materials. I hope not.
I just was on a thread I very much wanted to contribute, but someone referenced a video that was more than an hour long. What's the cutoff? I never finished the video because I got busy, so did not respond, citing incomplete understanding.
I have lots of topics authored to post, but no time to spend bottle feeding it with asked details or responders. I think it is considered rude and sort of point-stealing here to post something that gets people actively responding, but you don't take responsibility and are too sporadic, or worse, never return. So when I know I have a few days to sit and be vigilant, I can post one of the threads I am working up.
There is courtesy here that must be practiced or things can break down. We don't need more laws and rules, we just need more courtesy and thoughtfulness and that is education, culture and awareness. Can't impose that. Must cultivate by example.
ZG
I don't think limitations should be imposed. Even by a mass of "Pennypackers"?). In many cases on a very long multi page thread there is no practical way to read it all, so quote if possible and comment or answer specifically. So it's good you qualify with a referenced header.
Such a
post has been seen to put others back on the issues, where otherwise the Mod must remind everyone to avoid wandering topics. I've come back after a weekend to see a thread I could have significant contribution only to find it started the day I left and had 10 pages of posts. Am I barred from contributing unless I spend an hour reading, following links and posted off-site materials. I hope not.
I just was on a thread I very much wanted to contribute, but someone referenced a video that was more than an hour long. What's the cutoff? I never finished the video because I got busy, so did not respond, citing incomplete understanding.
I have lots of topics authored to post, but no time to spend bottle feeding it with asked details or responders. I think it is considered rude and sort of point-stealing here to post something that gets people actively responding, but you don't take responsibility and are too sporadic, or worse, never return. So when I know I have a few days to sit and be vigilant, I can post one of the threads I am working up.
There is courtesy here that must be practiced or things can break down. We don't need more laws and rules, we just need more courtesy and thoughtfulness and that is education, culture and awareness. Can't impose that. Must cultivate by example.
ZG
reply posted on 27-2-2008 @ 07:16 PM by Springer
reply to post by ZeroGhost
The T.A.C. address all of those issues/concerns as well, nobody is allowed to derail a thread or post for the sole purpose of disruption. A troll who seeks to derail a thread to quash discussion will be shown the door very quickly here.
A good example would be...
Anyone who comes to ATS with the hope of derailing a thread about "how to find UFOs" with a bunch of off topic demands for proof they exist in the first place, will be dealt with in short order since the topic of the thread is "how to find UFOs" and NOT "do they exist in the first place".
That member, however, is certainly welcome to start his/her own thread about whether or not UFOs exist beyond the human imagination but is NOT allowed to derail a thread about "UFO Hunting".
Make sense?
Springer...
The T.A.C. address all of those issues/concerns as well, nobody is allowed to derail a thread or post for the sole purpose of disruption. A troll who seeks to derail a thread to quash discussion will be shown the door very quickly here.
A good example would be...
Anyone who comes to ATS with the hope of derailing a thread about "how to find UFOs" with a bunch of off topic demands for proof they exist in the first place, will be dealt with in short order since the topic of the thread is "how to find UFOs" and NOT "do they exist in the first place".
That member, however, is certainly welcome to start his/her own thread about whether or not UFOs exist beyond the human imagination but is NOT allowed to derail a thread about "UFO Hunting".
Make sense?
Springer...
reply posted on 27-2-2008 @ 09:43 PM by jbondo
reply to post by ZeroGhost
I think you know what I meant. A 10 page thread is hard to read from beginning to end but many will do just that. In fact you will find that long time members will do that to be courteous as well as getting informed. However, if you skim each page and read as many posts as possible you can usually get a pretty clear picture and then intelligently post a response. To be perfectly frank, you further reinforced my point via the following: (paraphrasing) "I really want to post but I don't want to read the thread or watch the video." In other words, my post is more important than the others. IMO that is the basic mind set of most posters that can't be bothered and just want to be heard no matter what. If I don't have time to read a thread and I still want to post I either wait until I do have time or I just let it go. Furthermore, I identified my posts in this thread as rants and/or pet peeve's. I am in no way trying to lobby for rule modification. In fact the bottom of my first post mentioned it as members giving advice to members. I believe Springer covered the rest with his reference.
Regarding the other filler material; clarity can be found just by opening your eyes and fully absorbing the content (RMPL).
JMO
I think you know what I meant. A 10 page thread is hard to read from beginning to end but many will do just that. In fact you will find that long time members will do that to be courteous as well as getting informed. However, if you skim each page and read as many posts as possible you can usually get a pretty clear picture and then intelligently post a response. To be perfectly frank, you further reinforced my point via the following: (paraphrasing) "I really want to post but I don't want to read the thread or watch the video." In other words, my post is more important than the others. IMO that is the basic mind set of most posters that can't be bothered and just want to be heard no matter what. If I don't have time to read a thread and I still want to post I either wait until I do have time or I just let it go. Furthermore, I identified my posts in this thread as rants and/or pet peeve's. I am in no way trying to lobby for rule modification. In fact the bottom of my first post mentioned it as members giving advice to members. I believe Springer covered the rest with his reference.
Regarding the other filler material; clarity can be found just by opening your eyes and fully absorbing the content (RMPL).
JMO
reply posted on 28-2-2008 @ 10:51 AM by ZeroGhost
Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by ZeroGhost
The T.A.C. address all of those issues/concerns as well, nobody is allowed to derail a thread or post for the sole purpose of disruption. A troll who seeks to derail a thread to quash discussion will be shown the door very quickly here.
A good example would be...
Anyone who comes to ATS with the hope of derailing a thread about "how to find UFOs" with a bunch of off topic demands for proof they exist in the first place, will be dealt with in short order since the topic of the thread is "how to find UFOs" and NOT "do they exist in the first place".
That member, however, is certainly welcome to start his/her own thread about whether or not UFOs exist beyond the human imagination but is NOT allowed to derail a thread about "UFO Hunting".
Make sense?
Springer...
That's the Springer that got me feeling like this all was going to work! That also answers my concerns. Quit yer day job!
It does take sober and intelligent and at the same time compassionate moderating to do this. Like I said, I'm not cut from the same cloth and would not want me to be in the Mod Squad. Anyone know of on-line Anger Management courses???
reply to post by Blaine91555
Excellent point If only it were possible in such a diverse group of people. Rules will always be needed I'm afraid.
Thanks. I must cite however the signs of an advanced society are less laws, because it is basic understanding to be a good contributor to society. Creative awareness compensates for things like greed, anger, gluttony and other such entropic states of awareness. We don't need laws to enforce us to laugh at a funny joke, or, to help others in a crisis. We won't need as many laws in the future because instead of being written in the books, they will be written on our hearts.
ZG
