The Issue Of Religiously Inspired Topics on ATS and BTS, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 20 times


reply posted on 11-6-2008 @ 03:51 PM by NGC2736
As many off you know, I'm one of the newer mods, so my perspective has remained more one of a member than anything else, and I intend to keep it that way. So while I'm seeing the problems and disputes from the position of a moderator, I want you to understand that I'm speaking as one member to another.

Everyone thinks their own "problems" here are all staff have to worry about. Because you sit alone at that keyboard and interact with only a limited set of other posters, it seems like any problem you see should be obvious.

But we had between 5000 and 6000 posts in 24 hours. Figure that math out. I'm not sure how many mods are here at any given time. But trust me, sometimes staff is busier than a one legged man in the middle of a square dance.

We tryhard to give each decision our full attention. To discuss it and reach the right action, or non action, that we can. You may not agree with what the results are, but these actions are taken to keep things moving as smoothly as possible.

The perception of gangs can form in every forum, not just the CiR or SS forums. When a poster comes in and makes some hardcore definative statement and eleven more agree, like nodding bobble heads, and the statement gets 22 stars in a half an hour, people tend to see gangs.

When the positions, and even the speech patterns and idioms, reflect more in common than is thought normal for individuals from diverse areas and backgrounds Then people see gangs.

Now what we percieve may not always be true. But mods are people too. They see it much like it appears to the average person.

There's a cure for this though. If you agree with someone else, fine. But you don't have to say so unless you have another point of reasoning to bring up. It looks like piling on when seven people point out that the video of a UFO seems to have bird wings.

Don't use stars just to say "You Rock". To me these are for posts of exceptional quality and depth, showing good reasoning or research. I don't cheapen them, or myself, by handing them out like party favors. And look for a post every day from someone you don't agree with that's worth a star. (You'll be surprised.)

But most of all, moderate yourselves. The less we have to do, the better you'll like us. Half of our tasks are to keep people On Topic, and not on each other. And another fourth is to make people stop/slow down when posting in anger. If there was a 30 second delay, where you had to hold down a button to post, I think a lot of the anger here would abate. Don't force us into the role of keepers; be keepers of yourself.

Why do I say all these things as if I knew them to be true? I've been as guilty as any of you. I'm speaking from experience. We can all learn by experience, or we can remain as we are, basking in a false sense of perfection.

But in the words of Dr. Phil, "Hows that working for you?"


reply posted on 11-6-2008 @ 04:03 PM by weedwhacker
reply to post by AshleyD



This is specific to Ashley's post of 11 June, 2008 at 1605 EDT.

I like Ash, very good writer, even when I never agree. I am pained to hear that there was a posting ban imposed.

The 'tag-teaming' concept is something that I've seen others accuse me of....falsely, I might add....

I've been called a troll, simply because I have a wide range of interests, and dare to have an opinion and post it.

So, I have decided to take a new approach.....more reading, less talking.

To Ash, welcome back! As I said, you write very very well, and are extremely knowledgeable on your subject.

I look forward to reading your treatises.....



reply posted on 11-6-2008 @ 04:06 PM by Rockpuck
reply to post by NGC2736




The perception of gangs can form in every forum, not just the CiR or SS forums. When a poster comes in and makes some hardcore definative statement and eleven more agree, like nodding bobble heads, and the statement gets 22 stars in a half an hour, people tend to see gangs.


And if we allow such logic Liberals would have to be considered a giant gang stalking group eh?

Just look at any anti American, anti Bush, anti Conservative, anti "neocon" thread. Stars out the wazoo and 100 replies saying "I agree! Bush sucks!"

Which is why I limit my self to the SS forum and economics. I wouldn't alert a thread and start a new thread complaining about it.

IMO the entire notion of "groups" is absurd, and completely unavoidable. And ATS shouldn't pander the idea that "groups" need to be "separated"..

It's like rewarding childish behavior and discouraging debate.


reply posted on 11-6-2008 @ 04:07 PM by Skyfloating
reply to post by madhatter3113



Look at the "Paranormal" Forum, you´ll see thousands of threads on it.


reply posted on 11-6-2008 @ 05:26 PM by Rockpuck
reply to post by Skyfloating



21, indeed.

This is off topic, but hey in the spirit of problems with ATS ... let's go off topic.

I meant to hit "profile" and I accidentally hit "foe" ...

How do you unfoe someone?

Unless you like being my foe?


reply posted on 11-6-2008 @ 05:31 PM by Skyfloating
reply to post by Rockpuck



I thought you hit "respected Foe" because I wasnt responding.

Anyway...you dont have to un-foe it...its respected foe afterall.


reply posted on 11-6-2008 @ 05:55 PM by dr_strangecraft
I'll be interested to see what these new fora develop into.

But I have to add that I think the real problem is not how threads are divided, but how members conduct themselves, regardless of the specific content of their belief-systems.

I see the mgt. trying to set precedents and guidlines to limit the amount of trash-talking and ill-will. This is like a government, trying to build up a legalistic body of "case law" and "precedent" for explaining their decisions.

Personally, I'm in favor of another tack: make some threads "by invitation only." Leave them open for everyone to read, but not postable unless you've been cleared.

At first, I know that this sounds horrible--limiting what some people post. But I think most members will agree that we have a number of folks who join ATS and last about six months. In that time, they derail countless threads, generate lots of drama, and generally dumb down the whole site. They REFUSE to search for pre-existing threads on any given topic, and jump right in without even responding to previous posts.

While I have definite opinions on most topics, I'm less bothered by opposing views than I am by folks who don't respond to other posters and generally "dumb down" discussions.

Until ATS addresses this, the "short-term members," there will continue to a sort of collective senility at ATS: the same threads, the same debates, the same dramas, over and over.

Unless membership means more than "I wanna post in your thread," the conversation will never rise above the level of an elevator or a dentist's office---the same old routine, over and over with no progress or collective memory.

.


reply posted on 11-6-2008 @ 06:08 PM by Allred5923
reply to post by meanmug



There should be a seperate forum for this kind of argument, where it would be acceptable, but religion is a choice and it should not and really cannot be infringed on!!
Open a thread, "A question about Freemason's" other than questioning here on this thread!!
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^