The ATS Issues Thread

reply to post by AllTiedTogether


If you thought my words were unnecessarily harsh, I apologize. That's what it looked like to me; perhaps I was misunderstanding somehow.

Believe me, I know something about being called a disinfo agent here. One of the things that I consciously try to do is to respond to every thread I see that slams psychiatric medicines and especially SSRI antidepressants, since I think that they save lives. Try telling people that something good has come out of Big Pharma on these boards, even if the entire post is prefaced with things like "pharmaceutical companies are immoral, amoral, lying manipulators." So yes, I've been called a disinfo agent a number of times. I'm not one, so I don't let it bother me. People reading the thread can make up their own minds who to believe.

Part of my point in writing that post was to point out what I've seen work when people have complaints here, and what I've seen not work. I know that if you use the complaints/suggestions feature, it will start a thread in the mod-only forum and they can all chime in with their opinions. Since they represent the full range of ATSers, it'll probably get a fair hearing.

But my experience here suggests that while the staff appreciates having violations of the T&C reported to them as a rule, they are not impressed by it as an argument about why your post shouldn't be considered a violation.

Originally posted by americandingbat
reply to post by AllTiedTogether

 

Calling a specific poster a disinfo agent is likely to be a T&C violation, but not necessarily.

One would think it either violates the rules or doesn't. I see that as implying that the T&C is based on staff member opinion, case by case.

reply to post by roadgravel


You know what? I don't believe we've ever really considered that before... It's a valid point considering the topics discussed here, it's not much different than calling someone a fraud, liar and a cheat in the context of our topics is it?

This maybe something that we will make "illegal" within the bounds of seeking civil and polite discussion.

I'll raise it with the staff and see we get a consensus that calling someone a "disinfo agent" (or any variation thereof) is considered a personal attack/name calling and not something that encourages civil discussion.

The one huge issue I see is in the horrid realm of 9/11 conspiracies. that's where it happens the most as it seems to be some "Truthers'" favorite label for anyone who disagrees with them or happens to believe the "official story".

Policing this, if it is deemed a violation of the civility/no personal attacks section of our TAC, will require diligent alerting and use of the complaint forum from the membership.

With over 5,000 new posts a day there is no way the staff can actually see, much less read, 10% of them. That's why we depend the membership using the tools we've provided to keep things straight.

I'll bring this up to the staff and update here after we've discussed it.

Springer...

reply to post by Springer


Brilliant!!!

As a person who has been 'labeled' disinfo....it is a great response.

Reasoned, and civil.

Well....just brilliant!!!

reply to post by MyNameIsNobody


ad hominom attacks are supposed to be againts the rules or not?? very interesting that these pro debunkers get special treatment... I am starting to beleive that maybe this site is funded by the CIA...allot ???? surrounding ATS policy right now..

[edit on 23-3-2009 by thefreepatriot]

reply to post by Springer


Well its pretty much happening right now there Springer....

AS I stated earlier, all you need now is for the Mods to be level across the playing field instead of having an obvious bias towards anyone that disagrees with the government. That's what it appears to be here...

Your use of the title 'truther' also suggests a slight bias on your side when used in the context you've used. We truthers have proven again and again that we have produced the truth and that is what ATS is afraid of.

So maybe some unbiased moderating would be in order and then you don't have to go and do the big thing like your making some kind of major change to policy and having to create lots of work for ATS. You already have things in place and all it takes is adherence to your own policy...

Either it is or it isn't... If I got it right from your post, then it really isn't and then I shouldn't have been dealt with in the manner that I was and it was clear that it was because I was making sense as well as others within the thread. This happens all the time and is indicated quite well in my signature block....

Policing this, if it is deemed a violation of the civility/no personal attacks section of our TAC, will require diligent alerting and use of the complaint forum from the membership.

Is this like saying that if I believe I've been attacked then I should push the Alert button and let it be known??? I did four times and even in my comments within the thread and even the others within the same thread complained and then they had posts removed...

If you can't do it now because of bias on the mods part then how do you expect us to believe its going to happen because we will now be 'diligent'? I was diligent and alerted the mods the four times because I was told to do it that way and not deal with it myself within the thread posts.

I hope your solution to this 'problem' isn't as drastic as the mess ATS made of the drug talk here. Should be a good indication of what ATS really means when it comes to spreading the 'TRUTH'.

Rgds...

Signed A 'Truther'

any attacks on character and not the facts should be a violation ... people.... this is a serious problem on ATS and it seems some people get special treatment....

reply to post by thefreepatriot


Yes it appears that some on ATS are even held close to ATS and protected... coddled if you will... And I'm not the only one to say this in case someone wants to suggest that I have something against ATS etc... This is an ongoing theme here and its part of the CONSPIRACY as well as the one about ATS being CIA.

No doubt in my mind...

reply to post by Springer

Originally posted by Springer
I'll bring this up to the staff and update here after we've discussed it.

Besides calling someone a 'disinfo agent'..

I and many other members here have been called quote; closed-minded "believers", 'hypocrites', fundamentalists, etc.. and not once have the poster(s) who said these things get an 'off-topic' or any type of warn before.. I for one, would like to see a new rule regarding these types of derogatory remarks as well, in addition to the 'disinfo agent' accusation.

Kind regards,,

[edit on 23/3/09 by Majorion]

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
Your use of the title 'truther' also suggests a slight bias on your side when used in the context you've used. We truthers have proven again and again that we have produced the truth and that is what ATS is afraid of.

You must understand that our experience with self-proclaimed "9/11 Truthers" has not been favorable. More often than not, over the past five years, the "Truther" has been a belligerent element, seeming to have come more from the ranks of activists than conspiracy theorists. As Springer noted, and as I'm sure you've experienced, the "Truther" will often proclaim anyone that disagrees with them to be "disinfo agents" ... even other "Truthers" who happen to espouse an alternate theory for the various events on 9/11.

So yes... unfortunately, through a number of negative experiences, we have an unavoidably bad taste in our mouth when it comes to that relatively small segment of people who come to ATS.

You already have things in place and all it takes is adherence to your own policy...

I'm not referring to you when I mention the following, as I'm not versed in your contributions, but more often than not, "9/11 Truthers" mistake well-presented debunking or contrarian viewpoints as disruption... and assume it's something we should moderate.

For the purposes of a concise example we can discuss here, can you link to a specific example of where you believe someone opposed to 9/11 conspiracy theories received favorable treatment?

...if I believe I've been attacked then I should push the Alert button and let it be known???

Yes, please.

I did four times and even in my comments within the thread and even the others within the same thread complained and then they had posts removed...

I've looked at your recent complaints... and they are focused primarily one one member with whom you seem to have a long-running disagreement.

In one of your complaints, you mentioned you wanted us to have that member stop calling you a disinfo agent, yet in his post, he never really did. It appears as though you extended the members comments to mean he called you a disinfo agent. Unfortunately, this touches on my original point in this reply, your complaints appear to be more of an over-sensitivity to people who disagree with you.

I hope your solution to this 'problem' isn't as drastic as the mess ATS made of the drug talk here. Should be a good indication of what ATS really means when it comes to spreading the 'TRUTH'.

We made no mess of the "drug talk," a few members are responsible for that.

ATS really means an open and civil environment for debate on provocative topics. We make no warranty as to whether or not that will result in a truth, only that it's the best way to discover truth.

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
this is a serious problem on ATS and it seems some people get special treatment.

Can you link us to something that shows what you're referring to?

It's impossible to see every post, and similarly, it's possible that some things get missed.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

For the purposes of a concise example we can discuss here, can you link to a specific example of where you believe someone opposed to 9/11 conspiracy theories received favorable treatment?

How about my signature block and the person that I reported in the second thread? If that isn't obvious enough then I really don't think I feel that much will really be done other than you sugar coating the garbage to come to make it more palatable like you did for the drug discussion....

As to me having a long standing 'disagreement' with this person, I and others are continually called various things because of the views we present. All I'm saying here is that this one individual is coddled so obviously within this thread because he can say anything he wishes without being dealt with himself that it is shameful that you make it out that you are not biased....

But I await your hierarchies decision and how it will affect us all again... Just another way to shut down the intelligent discussion and focus on what the government tells you to let slide through....

The best way to "discover truth" is to be fair across the board and then the truth will have a chance to be seen by those that know how to sift through the crud... but ATS is not about that and really has a different agenda....

You are very obvious..

Rgds

rgds

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


From the second link in my signature block...

come back and post instead of peddling this disinformation, thanks.

That's exactly why no-planers are called disinfo artists. Matrix made false claims and even peddled them as "scientific facts" when they turned out to be scientific disinfo and his own video debunked what he said.

Real researchers will see right through the disinfo and see who is wrong and who is correct. It don't take much.

These are only the comments directed at myself.... almost every person is referred to as this throughout this and other threads like it....

Need more? I'll give you more if you like...

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
How about my signature block and the person that I reported in the second thread?

Could we focus on one post you feel is most egregious?

Just another way to shut down the intelligent discussion and focus on what the government tells you to let slide through.

No such thing happens here. And now you just insulted me in the very way you seek to end perceived insults to you.

If that's how you're going to be, this discussion with you involving site Admin is over.

Do what you say, please.

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
Need more? I'll give you more if you like...

You were never expressly called a "disinformation agent" in any way.

One of the comments was border-line, and was perhaps missed by a busy staff... but it was within the context of an otherwise contributory response.

You should be aware that there are several serious conspiracy theorists who feel that the "no planes" theory within the universe of 9/11 theories is a disruptive disinformation tactic. In the context of a serious discussion on 9/11 conspiracies, it's valid to express this widely accepted belief about that particular theory.

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
reply to post by thefreepatriot

 

Yes it appears that some on ATS are even held close to ATS and protected... coddled if you will... And I'm not the only one to say this in case someone wants to suggest that I have something against ATS etc... This is an ongoing theme here and its part of the CONSPIRACY as well as the one about ATS being CIA.

No doubt in my mind...

And yet you've repeatedly accused Masons of spreading disinfo as well, and I don't see mod edits on those either...

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


And yet when I apply the same tactic as you call it on another thread and suggest that they are providing disinfo my posts as well as others are removed completely because your mod saying its impolite and not courteous... are the statements that I've quoted above courteous and polite?

And now you just insulted me in the very way you seek to end perceived insults to you.

If you find that me referring to ATS as a possible Conspiracy itself and that it appears that you've got an agenda as an insult then I guess that shows what can be expected. Using your logic means that I've insulted everyone on ATS that I disagree with and others do the same.... Not everyone is going to think the way you do as well as I do.

The fact that I think that the mods and the staff could be intentionally making the threads one sided is a common belief here on ATS and I apologize if I've hurt your feelings but if the shoe fits...

I don't look at the examples as attacking me until I get my posts removed because I do the same thing... Again I say level playing fields will make this work...

Rgds

reply to post by JoshNorton

And yet you've repeatedly accused Masons of spreading disinfo as well, and I don't see mod edits on those either...

That is correct and a good example that in some of those threads I've used the term because it was used or alluded to against me... Just like I say... either tit for tat or be fair to both sides unlike what is happening now...

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
That is correct and a good example that in some of those threads I've used the term because it was used or alluded to against me... Just like I say... either tit for tat or be fair to both sides unlike what is happening now...

So the answer is, get yourself banned since you're consistently condescending to others? I mean, that's what you're asking for, right? If you're always posting with the same tone, and you've only been spanked for it a few times, while it's slid more often than not, and you're wanting consistent treatment for such behavior, that seems like the only recourse.

Or is there another option that might involve changing the way you reply to those who might challenge your opinions?

[edit on 3/23/2009 by JoshNorton]

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
And yet when I apply the same tactic as you call it on another thread and suggest that they are providing disinfo my posts as well as others are removed completely because your mod saying its impolite and not courteous... are the statements that I've quoted above courteous and polite?

It's very simple.

Calling a theory or idea "disinfo" is acceptable and well-within the normal discussion that occurs on the topics within ATS.

Calling someone a "disinfo agent" is an insult, and not acceptable. (However, I cannot locate where you were called that)

Proposing that ATS admin answer to "government" is the same type of insult as calling a member a disinformation agent. I would assume that any member who desires not to be called such derogatory terms would not use such terms themselves.


If you're going to present the notion that a contributor to ATS is engaged in purposefully spreading disinformation, you'd better be prepared to back that up with research and facts. We are sensitive to the idea that such people could be targeting ATS with disruptive contributions, and when discovered and confirmed, such people would indeed be banned.