New Political Forum Coming Soon: The ATS Bully Pulpit

"I, Caballero, an ATS member concerned about real and important political issues in this 2008 election season promise to do my best to elevate the tone of political debate through my participation in the ATS Bully Pulpit Forum. I will not post insults. I will not engage in divisive political rhetoric. I will focus on the issues important to the American public and the world at large. I will support my statements with confirmed facts. I will conduct myself in the best example of superior participation and fully embrace the spirit of 'deny ignornace."

I think this will turn out to be a lot of fun, and major plus we learn to better deny ignorance in the new thread.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


What a terrible idea...

I would have loved to hear the discussions on HOW you guys came up with this one...


"Hey, Free speach sucks..."
"Yep, why don't we make a NEW fourm, where we can just ban anyone we disagree with"
"Excelent IDEA Billy... The Unwashed Masses don't know whats good for them..."
"Then we must decide, what is, an what is not, acceptable speach..."
"Yea, screw the First Amendement... Those old white supremistists didnt know what they were talking about..."
"Only we know the truth, and can decide what the truth is..."




This is the WORST idea ATS has EVER had...

Ands worse... The supposed 'intelegent' members of ATS are aplaauding this...

ATS dies a little more by the day...

Instead of opening a New fourm on the Russian-Georgian conflict, they open a fourm so they can systematcly BAN those that they disagree with...

Is it a Bannable offense to state the truth...
Becasuse you are offended by it...


Pretty pathetic to me...

Originally posted by LiquidMirage

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

In that case I'll have to pass. One thing I've learned as a member here is that there's always a contradictory source for political information and even with the best intentions you can never guarantee the accuracy of information. All political parties have experts to spin the facts, we're just the dumb suckers that parrot them.

Agreed! There is a reason why, when writing a college level research paper, professors look down upon Internet sources in favor of good old library work. Very few Internet sites truly meet the required criteria.

To SkepticOverloard:

I fully respect your effort to attempt to make ATS a better place but the penalties for simply making an honest mistake are really going overboard considering the point I made above.

Both of these thoughts mirror my first feelings. I really don't hang out on Political threads, but I've noticed what you are upset about SO and probably inspired by the emotion of the moment went overboard myself. I like the idea but am skeptical of the outcome.

Political discussions have always been heated even between the candidates themselves, who often have nothing to back up their rants. A forum of unpolluted discussion of relevant facts on the subject of Politics is an incredibly lofty goal for which you have my approval and blessing combined with my utmost sympathy all wrapped in one bundle.

I foresee many cases of two well meaning people presenting opposing facts with both having what they believe to be good evidence; because that is the nature of Politics is it not? In some cases valid political topics can have two contradictory points of view based solely on a set of personal morals or beliefs. When those come up as they should, moderating will indeed be interesting task considering the rules.

I will be reading the threads, hoping it works and perhaps take the leap if it does. Since Moderators are just as prone to letting emotion overrule their common sense when it comes to politics as anyone else on earth, this will be doubly interesting to watch. You will have to give the Moderators a trip to Vegas for willingly holding ALL of their emotions in check on these topics.

Edited due to a total innability to type more than a couple of lines with errors

[edit on 8/22/2008 by Blaine91555]

[edit on 8/22/2008 by Blaine91555]

Who am I kidding. Just in case I decide to post

"I, Blaine91555, an ATS member concerned about real and important political issues in this 2008 election season promise to do my best to elevate the tone of political debate through my participation in the ATS Bully Pulpit Forum. I will not post insults. I will not engage in divisive political rhetoric. I will focus on the issues important to the American public and the world at large. I will support my statements with confirmed facts. I will conduct myself in the best example of superior participation and fully embrace the spirit of 'deny ignornace.'"

I think this is a great idea, but it does make me a little wary. Following SO's post on the problem ATS faced in the political forum, I noticed that pretty much all I saw in response was a heap of Obama praise and ridicule for the false accusations against Obama...but nothing about the same exact tactics being used against other political players, and, even worse, many of those singing the Obama song were some who had been propagators of inappropriate behavior towards other political entities.

Why this makes me wary is because it is going to be strictly policed, which is good...as long as it is impartially policed. One can hope that will be the case. Also, I am a bit curious as to how certain details will be managed. Both candidates in this election have some questionable associations and indistinct details about some aspects of their lives that pertain to their candidacy. Will discussion of these topics be permissible, if in a proper manner with presentation of corroborating evidence, or will posters be required to adhere to just the well-established facts?

I see it as beneficial to keep it real, as it were, but, given that nature of politics in the US these days, and the secretive nature of various connections these candidates appear to have or have had, that some discussion in a structured manner about those topics is very important. After all, through corporate influences and political interest hedge funds, we aren't electing just a president, but we are also electing the goals of the interests that have enabled to candidate to be in the race.

I usually do much more reading than posting here. I get so caught up in reading and following all of the links that are in the posts that I tend not to have time to make my own posts. I have learned much more by just reading, so I will probably stick with what has been working for me. There is always a chance that I'll want to participate, however, and am willing to sign in case I feel I have something of value to add.

"I, Glencairn, an ATS member concerned about real and important political issues in this 2008 election season promise to do my best to elevate the tone of political debate through my participation in the ATS Bully Pulpit Forum. I will not post insults. I will not engage in divisive political rhetoric. I will focus on the issues important to the American public and the world at large. I will support my statements with confirmed facts. I will conduct myself in the best example of superior participation and fully embrace the spirit of 'deny ignorance.'"

It is an interesting idea and I hope to see it work in the best way possible.

Take care,
Cindi

"I, Inannamute, an ATS member concerned about real and important political issues in this 2008 election season promise to do my best to elevate the tone of political debate through my participation in the ATS Bully Pulpit Forum. I will not post insults. I will not engage in divisive political rhetoric. I will focus on the issues important to the American public and the world at large. I will support my statements with confirmed facts. I will conduct myself in the best example of superior participation and fully embrace the spirit of 'deny ignorance.'"

A lot of positive feedback and member's voicing their intentions to participate in this new forum. I am very excited to see what our member's come up with in an environment where the issues are what is finally being discussed.

Great job on all of you.

Originally posted by TKainZero
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

What a terrible idea...

Thats your opinion

I would have loved to hear the discussions on HOW you guys came up with this one...


"Hey, Free speach sucks..."
"Yep, why don't we make a NEW fourm, where we can just ban anyone we disagree with"
"Excelent IDEA Billy... The Unwashed Masses don't know whats good for them..."
"Then we must decide, what is, an what is not, acceptable speach..."
"Yea, screw the First Amendement... Those old white supremistists didnt know what they were talking about..."
"Only we know the truth, and can decide what the truth is..."

I'm positive it didnt go this way. My guess is it went something liek this

"Hey, we have a lot of upset members in the political forums right now"

"Yeah - you're right, and my guess is things will only get worse as we get closer to November, like they did in 2004"

"Maybe we should listen to the majority of our members and allow them a venue to discuss things important to them"

"sounds good, we could make this a restrict forum, like the Member Debates forum, so that those who WANT to compete have to do so within strict guide lines that our member base has already expressed is important to them"

"Good idea, i'm glad we thought of it.....now go get me coffee"

This is the WORST idea ATS has EVER had...

... :shk:

Ands worse... The supposed 'intelegent' members of ATS are aplaauding this...

Whats funny is you misspelled intelligent

But seriously - why can't the "intelligent people" --- who dont want trolls and morons posting asinine comments in their threads totally derailing the discussion --- have their own venue?

ATS dies a little more by the day...

How in all that is logical and agreed upon can you come to this conclusion? ATS grows every day. In what backwards world do you live in where growth = death?

Instead of opening a New fourm on the Russian-Georgian conflict, they open a fourm so they can systematcly BAN those that they disagree with...

They're not going to ban anyone who doesnt first take the oath, and second adhere to it.
Its not like a fresh out of the can newbie can create a new account and go post there. You have to first give your word that you'll participate in the guidelines set forth (just like the member debates forum) and you're given access. This is a very widely accepted form of admission in our modern society.

You can join ATS - but you have to accept the T&C and check a box to agree to it

You can join a country club - but you have to pay your dues

You can join the home owners association - but you have to adhere to THEIR rules and guidlines

the list goes on and on.

Is it a Bannable offense to state the truth...
Becasuse you are offended by it...

No. Its not. If you refer to the truth as something that cannot be proven - well - then i believe you're a poster child for opposition of your own argument

Pretty pathetic to me...

Well, once again. Its your opinion. Nobody is forcing you to participate in this new forum.

There are plenty of forums which exist to discuss the Georgian/Russian conflict.

There isnt a single political forum where you wont find threads like

"Obama is the devil, and i can prove it with documents given to me by Usef Alli Bin Gaba, who was his 1/2 brother (twice removed)'s cousins uncle's room mate from college who had the strange spot on his neck.

Its even signed by Obama's childhood dog groomer. You know its authentic.



or



"john mccain is too old" (simply put)




I believe the staggering similiarites to the above examples, and the feces smeared on the decision 2008 forum is enough proof of what i say.

I'm curious as to why you're so offended by it?
If you contribute to the forums in a manner in agreement with the T&C - why would you be offended to begin with?

The trolls still have their decision 2008 forum

now everyone else has a venue that's troll free to express what really matters in an election season.

Its called preventative measures to "nip in the bud" a recurring problem.

You should be applauding them, instead of smearing them

edit to add:

Freedom of speech is an ideal, not a solid force. Nobody is restricting freedom of speech. You are FREE to sign up and go post anything you want, but by doing so - you are also FREE to accept the consequences of your actions in the event they do not comply with the guidelines for that forum.

What is freedom of speech? It means you won't be incarcerated or executed for speaking your mind.

What to see where freedom of speech DOESNT exist?

The Great Firewall of China


'nuff said

[edit on 8/22/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
If you contribute to the forums in a manner in agreement with the T&C - why would you be offended to begin with?

The trolls still have their decision 2008 forum

now everyone else has a venue that's troll free to express what really matters in an election season.

im sorry im using your post as an example of what I was tiring to refer to.

you have just displayed the "group within a group, a cut above the rest, more intelligent than the others" mentality I was talking about.

by making a "pledge" to be apart of this, you now claim the others are trolls. that is a mighty big brush you have there.

this is different than the debate forum, or signing the T&C. the debate forum is a game of wits. why else would you have points, and a clear winner. sure it may inspire constructive conversation, but lets be real, its just a game of wits. and, the T&C is just a set of website rules that you follow to be a part of the site. yes, it is a set of rules. however, making a "pledge" adds greater consequence to the T&C rules already in place. none of those things you are pledging to do is any different than that which you have already pledged to do by singing the T&C. you have just given the staff permission to give you less latitude, and a more restricted speech, by virtue of the possible punishment for making a mistake.

I just seems people are trading freedoms for protection from "trolls".

like another poster said, it will be only a matter of time before all other forum regulars request the same of their favorite forums.

this has no doubt been put in place, and ready to go. there will be no changing this. I voice my opinion about this, because I feel I must.

good luck to the mods who have to police this new forum. it is quite the slippery slope of freedom verses control.

I know my post will be cut up and picked apart. please consider the totality of the post, and not individual sentences.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by JSR]

"I The_Alarmist2012 an ATS member concerned about real and important conspiracies in this 2008 election season promise to do my best to elevate the tone of political debate through my participation in the ATS Bully Pulpit Forum. I will not post insults. I will not engage in divisive political rhetoric. I will focus on the issues important to the American public and the world at large. I will support my statements with confirmed facts. I will conduct myself in the best example of superior participation and fully embrace the spirit of 'deny flatulence."

Okay seriously, don't add me! I will however agree to be a good spectator.

This could be interesting, looking forward to it.

reply to post by JSR


No. Its not different.

The guidelines for the new forum don't require a higher degree of intelligence to adhere to.

The only thing that is not allowed, as set forth in the new guidelines for this new optional forum, is mud slinging, trolling, and topic derailment.

Why does it offend you that the ATS community doesnt want to deal with "mud slinging, trolling, and topic derailment" when it comes to a presidential election season?


If you feel that intelligence plays a role in being able to adhere to the T&C and specific guidelines for various different forums - then it is you who is creating the "group within a group, holier than thou" concept


not the people who adhere to the new policies.\

like another poster said, it will be only a matter of time before all other forum regulars request the same of their favorite forums.

Maybe you misread the OP. There is a NEW FORUM being created. These rules are not being imposed on any existing forums.

The reason for this NEW forum is because of how the 2004 presidential elections went on ATS. Its called preventative maintenance.

If you don't post garbage, lies, un-credible information, and lousy sources to back a claim, then why would it bother you?

I really am curious





[edit on 8/22/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

let me be frank here.
im not saying intelligence is a prerequisite for this new forum. what im saying is, you will create a group of political snobs within ATS. the political elite if you will. all others will be deemed not worthy of "real and important political issues".

and, as I understand it, this forum is being created because of the situations currently happening on ATS. not because of some preventative measures. otherwise, there would be no need for the a new forum because the problems would not be happening. but, as we all know, they are happening now.

all of these reasons you have listed below for having a new forum, with a greater consequence for infraction are already covered in the original T&C. if these rules are being broken, then the proper corrections need to be made by the staff. work with what is already in place, don't create new venues and ignore the problems that exist. the mods just need to do a better job of enforcing existing rules.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
The only thing that is not allowed, as set forth in the new guidelines for this new optional forum, is mud slinging, trolling, and topic derailment.

--------------edit----------
correct spelling.
correct grammer

[edit on 22-8-2008 by JSR]

[edit on 22-8-2008 by JSR]

"I, jhill76, an ATS member concerned about real and important political issues in this 2008 election season promise to do my best to elevate the tone of political debate through my participation in the ATS Bully Pulpit Forum. I will not post insults. I will not engage in divisive political rhetoric. I will focus on the issues important to the American public and the world at large. I will support my statements with confirmed facts. I will conduct myself in the best example of superior participation and fully embrace the spirit of 'deny ignornace.'"

Over paranoia. Problem is, any member can post an outright lie without a source and slander a ploitical figure, without violatin the T&C.

Thats right. It technically is not against the T&C to post an outright lie as truth, in your opnion of course. It is also not against the rules to make up lies and scaremongering about some political figures.

So then when these problems arise, it instantly causes a heated debate where people thus begin violating the T&C by going at it with each other, and half the time completely derailing the thread from the topic.

Do not pretend like you do not see this happen. The Mods do an excellent job, but they can not edit problems that are on the fringe of the T&C and not a direct violation.

So then you know, we get this. A place where we hopefully dont need to sift through eighteeen pages of personal attacks, ignorance, derailed posts and posts already having been edited. Get my drift?

"I, Hallberg Rassy, an ATS member concerned about real and important political issues in this 2008 election season promise to do my best to elevate the tone of political debate through my participation in the ATS Bully Pulpit Forum. I will not post insults. I will not engage in divisive political rhetoric. I will focus on the issues important to the American public and the world at large. I will support my statements with confirmed facts. I will conduct myself in the best example of superior participation and fully embrace the spirit of 'deny ignorance.'"




[edit on 22-8-2008 by Hallberg Rassy]

reply to post by JSR


I don't really see this as an issue of freedom versus control.

History dictates that our agendas get in the way of true discussion. Our terms & conditions protect the rights of our members to freely express themselves in a manner that does not attack his or her fellow members. When applied to politics, it really opens the door to rhetoric that prevents true discussion. While it can be painful at times, our terms & conditions dictate that it is their right to say as such.

However, this new forum solves this problem. Members who want to discuss actual political issues can do so freely.

We're not seeking to take control.. I see it as us giving control back.

But it is a matter of opinion.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Exceptionally strict rules will apply, one post containing divisive political rhetoric or deceptive information about candidates will result in:
1- immediate removal from the Bully Pulpit access.
2- a five-day posting ban from participating in ATS.
3- immediate forfeit of all ATS points
4- if a member has fewer than 200 ATS posts, their account will be terminated

Sounds like the kiss of death. Or like playing Russian Roulette. Considering the nature of politics, I'll be sure to stay away from that forum, unless I'm in the mood for getting terminated.

Originally posted by JSR
what im saying is, you will create a group of political snobs within ATS. the political elite if you will. all others will be deemed not worthy of "real and important political issues".

I just want to add my opinion here. I will still post in the Decision 2008 forum! I don't always want to show sources. Sometimes I don't have them. And sometimes I feel snarky and sarcastic and want to say something that wouldn't be permitted under stricter Bully Pulpit rules. So, it's not like I will look down on the Dec2008 posters, for I will be one.

I see this new forum as in line with the formal debate forum. We have debates all over the board, but in there, the rules of debate are structured. Those who wish to participate are held to certain standards that aren't placed across the whole board. I have never posted in there, but I don't think of those who do as some sort of "debating elite" or anything. Not in a bad way. Do you? I don't feel they look down on me because I don't choose to do structured debate.

all of these reasons you have listed below for having a new forum, with a greater consequence for infraction are already covered in the original T&C.

No, they aren't. In the T&C: There is no requirement to show sources or be certain of facts before posting. There is no rule about rhetoric. Nothing about conducting one's self in the best example of superior participation. In fact, very little of this new pledge is contained in the T&C.

And remember, TKAin, this is voluntary. If you don't want to sign up for restricting your own speech, you don't have to. If you sign up for it, then you should make darn sure you follow the rules. Otherwise, it's like going into a movie theater, where there's a tacit agreement to be quiet, and shouting all through the movie. Your free speech rights are in tact. But there are rules everywhere you CHOOSE to go.