You, ATS and Decision 2008.

Originally posted by MaynardisGod
I think that the owners of the site are more likely owned by those people in the media we all distrust

I don't think so...I've been with the ATS forums a looong time & never seen any indications to which you're referring. But you also have to realize that ATS is not a nation, the Staff are not pretending to be a government (board administrators yes, government officers no) & the T&C's are the closest thing you're going to get to having a Constitution here...Under the T&C's, when someone steps out of line, they need to get slapped. Just like America in the sense that when the Constitution gets violated, someone needs to get slapped (In comparison to the reality that it's increasingly the ones who are violating the Constitution are the ones doing the slapping).

Notice that Democracy is not an option. Democracies have always broken down to mob rule or weakening enough to invite invasion, all throughout history: So I'm glad it's not Democracy here on ATS. Neither should the USA be promoting the "spread of Democracy" either, because it should always have remained a Republic under inviolable laws by its Constitution...But that's beside the point...

reply to post by MaynardisGod

(in reply mostly to the last paragraph, in bold)

You make strong & valid points there, but the single most important point for anyone in Office...Will they uphold their Oath to defend the Constitution? Bush has done a real bang-up job of that so far, hasn't he? And also the same from nearly every single office holder (with extremely few individual exceptions) from both parties, back to the turning of the 20th century! It's the violators of that Oath that have run the USA into the ground, dragging the People with it into a "national grave."

Besides, isn't this a post/reply that should be more fitting to appear in the kind of threads that Intrepid talks about in the OP? Should this thread get derailed form its original purpose that Intrepid indicates that those political threads need strengthened with intelligence & thought-provoking debate...Rather than the constant mud-slinging tactics that derail important issues.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Some days it really pays to not be a mod that HAS to wade through them.

And that's a fault in that being a Mod literally doesn't pay...This is the main reason why I've turned down the offer to become a Mod twice over the years. I'd rather "tiptoe through the tulips" & enjoy the scenery than to be tasked with digging through the dirt to weed the garden. In short, I do not envy the Mods, but I respect that they willingly take on the tasks that they're charged with. More honesty than the average politician, I must admit.
That's also the same reason I'd never again willingly enter any kind of government office (I was in the military once, which is a government "office," but boy did that open my eyes)!

Originally posted by sos37
Are moderators supposed to be unbiased in their opinions or can they actively participate in discussions where there is clearly two or more sides?

From my understanding, Mods should be able to fully participate as they desire...As long as they can keep their heads together & the T&C's enforced. Tough job even without the emotional content typically accompanied with the mud-slinging. It seems, from my observations, that many Mods are reluctant to trust their own judgment & participate, because too often they catch flak from members who all-too-easily accuse them of being biased with enforcing the T&C's too. This is another reason why I don't envy the job, but respect those who handle it well. I fully understand that the Mods are human too (at least I think they are...It's sometimes hard to tell with only the internet to show me the clues ) & can make mistakes like anyone else.

But I think it's hard on them when, for example, a political pundit (who, by definition, has zero tolerance for anything outside their own bias-ness) are so quick to fling accusations at Mods as hard as they sling the mud in their "debates."

See that Intrepid, you crazy canuck? There's still somebody here who's been around long enough to really understand what Mods go through, even having never been one himself...And understands what it means to go through it voluntarily!

Originally posted by jamie83
Just today a thread began by slamming Palin with a blatant lie about her college education (it said she had a BA degree which is wrong), and instead of the mod stopping it in its track, the mod came in and said the OP was really a Palin supporter just trying to start trouble.

What is that???

You shouldn't have gone there, but since you did......

My quote:

Originally posted by Dr Love
I'd be willing to bet that this thread was actually started by a Palin supporter.

From this thread

Bolding mine. "I'd be willing to bet" is a lot different than me saying the OP was a Palin supporter. Political affiliations aside, believe it or not there are people who can see the trick, in fact there's a whole bunch of them around here at ATS. My post was just a public service message, not an indictment of one political party or the other.

Peace

There are no absolute truths in politics, only half truths and lies.

Somewhere between right and left lies the truth!

If a person commits themselves to either right or left, then they are forced to accept and defend half truths and lies that support their party choice. That is source for all of the contentious debate and attacks.

Force everyone to abandon partisanship for a centrist position and perhaps you will have more civil, meaningful and substantive discussions.

Good luck!




[edit on 6-9-2008 by The_Alarmist2012]

reply to post by The_Alarmist2012


That sort of clear thinking has no place on ATS.

Expressing such thinking invites double troller trouble, which inevitably, always will lead to you being labeled a Commie AND a Nazi.

reply to post by CreeWolf

Debate, I love to do. I do not like to quarrel. Debate is why I first came to this site. The high pitch of quarreling is why I now only visit about once every other week, instead of the previous 15 - 25 times a day. I thought that smileys were sufficient to communicate the absurd emotional feeling we get caught up in sometimes, but they aren't. Plenty of folks post simply because they are offended and not because they have anything meaningful to say. And I don't buy that "Just because you don't think it's meaningful, does not mean it's not meaningful" baloney.

A good point made is a good point made. Anybody that values debate and knows the difference between it and a quarrel concedes when good points are made by the opposition. Simply -- if a bad point is made, an opportunity to make a good point is created. Yet time and again lately, most of what I encounter is emotional trifle and discourteous banter.

Trolling is highly effective at driving away members who have something meaningful to say. That's why trolls troll. They know they have the upper-hand if they strike early. The only way that meaningful threads survive is if they're dominated by meaningful posts that drown out the whine of trolls. Otherwise, trolls significantly outweigh the number of members who give a damn to sit and craft meaningful responses. My solution to the problem has been to visit ATS less. It has proven beneficial to me on many levels.

Originally posted by The_Alarmist2012
Force everyone to abandon partisanship for a centrist position and perhaps you will have more civil, meaningful and substantive discussions.

I was right there with you up until that point of your post.

Thanks, but I'd rather be free and have to argue my points than be forced to do anything. Survival of the fittest... but, of course, there is never cause to be rude.


[edit on 6/9/2008 by kosmicjack]

Originally posted by Dr Love

You shouldn't have gone there, but since you did......

My quote:

Originally posted by Dr Love
I'd be willing to bet that this thread was actually started by a Palin supporter.

From this thread

Bolding mine. "I'd be willing to bet" is a lot different than me saying the OP was a Palin supporter.

With all due respect, give me a break.

Your posts as a "member" are as partisan as any other.

Accusing another member of trickery and misrepresentation, and then assigning a motive that is purely to cause trouble and not inspire debate IS part of the problem. It's not a public service, imo.

And couching this by saying "I'd be willing to bet" as different than saying the person "was" a Palin supporter is a lame rationalization.

Seriously, is it really ok to say something like, "I'd be willing to bet you're an employee of the Obama campaign and you are being paid to disrupt any anti-Obama threads" instead of you "ARE" etc., etc.?

Does putting in the "I'd be willing to bet" make everything ok?

As a mod, I would suggest you must hold yourself to a higher standard. Otherwise you won't have the credibility or moral authority needed for others to take what you say seriously.

I'm a bit late getting around to posting here, and I honestly have only read the OP's post, and nothing past that, so that is what I will respond to.


It seems that this sort of thing is fairly cyclical. It seems to run on about a 4 year cycle, though it may have started a bit soon this time around. Whenever politics are involved, things seem to devolve relatively quickly. Many people just can't discuss politics civilly. When ATS had a separate board for politics, I rarely ventured there, just for the simple fact that nearly every discussion, at some point, devolved into a "my dad is cooler than your dad" argument.


For the most part, I just try to avoid political topics around this time of year. Sadly, there is a lot of good information that many people are missing, simply because they don't want to read page after page of bickering just to get a post or two of actual good information. At least thats the way I feel.


EDIT:


For the record, I registered in 2003 with this username. I was registered once before also. Maybe 2000 or 2001, but I could never remember my username, so I had to re-register. Anyway, I just kinda miss PTS (like the person below me said). It kept things separate. Was kinda nice.

[edit on 6-9-2008 by Milk]

I personally miss PTS and especially the "mud pit" I even miss being called a "tulip walker". Those were the good old days!! Gnarly, good cyber fun!

reply to post by Dr Love


How about this for an idea:

We have both the Political Issues and Political Ideology forums which are seldom used.

Perhaps we could use those forums and keep the threads there within the strict definition of their title. That is to say, we take away the candidates, other than for reference, out of the conversation. They can act like a Bully Pulpit for everyone. If members want to discuss the candidates as we do now, keep it in the Elections 2008 forum. There's even a Politicians & People forum for those who wish to speak ONLY about candidates.

Just a little oversight and everything is close to where it should be.

reply to post by kosmicjack


Perhaps you missed the point in that line, of course no one can be forced to be anything, right left or centrist... Though being a centrist rather than a committed partisan leaves an individual the freedom of an open mind, and an opportunity to make the right choice.

The problem is that people who have committed themselves to either right or left will then attempt to FORCE everyone to fall for their party's rhetoric, half truths, lies and agenda.

Originally posted by jamie83
Your posts as a "member" are as partisan as any other.

With all due respect to you Jamie, you shouldn't have gone there either. I'm on record, many times over, trying to tell people it's all an illusion. If I've made statements in other threads such as the belief that I think Joe Biden is going to tear Palin apart in the VP debates, it's not out of partisanship, it's out of observation. If you consider that partisan, I can't help it.

Jamie, one of your feet is bleeding profusely, I suggest aiming at the other one.

Peace

[edit on 6-9-2008 by Dr Love]

Originally posted by The_Alarmist2012
Force everyone to abandon partisanship for a centrist position and perhaps you will have more civil, meaningful and substantive discussions.

Even WITH partisanship, people can have a meaningful and substantive (and even civil) discussion. Plenty of people do it. A person can be totally devoted to one party without demonizing the other ones. The problem comes with the idea of right and wrong. Everyone wants to be right and prove it. And if they make the other person wrong, they are, by default, right.

Recently, and not just on ATS, it seems that if people disagree, they lump "dislike" in with it. In other words, "If you don't agree with me, I don't like you." I don't understand it, but disagreement inevitably leads to suspicion and personal attack, even among those people who are considered to be friends.

Originally posted by whaaa
I personally miss PTS

Me too.

[edit on 6-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Partisanship = self imposed ignorance.

Deny ignorance?

I don't agree with your definition, but if that's how you define it, then I agree with you. To me, partisanship is just preferring the political ideals of one party over the other. And most of us are biased.

Ignorance comes in when people feel the need to make the other person wrong for having their opinion.

reply to post by schrodingers dog



I 'm not making this personal. But you have to admit that Deny Ignorance is our motto here. Going along with that is Deny Hypocrisy.

Saying things like

How incredibly perfect. The usual suspects and the piper posting on this thread with their hands up in indignity, tacking onto Intrepid's OP saying: "I know right it's terrible what's going on."

promotes divisiveness. You cannot say things like that and then say "I told you so".

I violently agree with the principle that Intrepid is making. Let's keep it on topic.

reply to post by The_Alarmist2012

Originally posted by The_Alarmist2012
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Partisanship = self imposed ignorance.

Deny ignorance?

Is preference for one set of ideals over another, or one candidate over another, partisanship? I would define partisanship as blind loyalty to a party. That does not preclude reasoned debate.

And I agree with BH - one can be partisan and still hold a reasoned debate.


reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And if they make the other person wrong, they are, by default, right.

Yes, BH, some of that thinking goes on. But there is also an element of wanting to present the facts, to refute a rumor or misstatement ( and sometimes an outright lie ). That's the key - being able to acknowledge that others may have a valid point while making your own point.

An example of where I have seen that done was in the oil drilling threads. Everyone has the same goals - energy independence. Once we get past the mantras, we see that. Then we can examine the plusses and minuses of each approach.

Edit: I just realized that part of my sig could have been offensive, so I "fixed it".

[edit on 6-9-2008 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by Dr Love

Jamie, one of your feet is bleeding profusely, I suggest aiming at the other one.

To my esteemed colleague Dr. Love, I would suggest that your final line of your post as quoted above reflects the type of personal insults that are unnecessary and are part of the problem, not the solution.

It's this inability for people to make their point without needless throwing superfluous commentary intending to insult their "opponent" is what leads to the low level of discourse Intrepid is referring to.

You see, just by adding that last line, it makes it personal. It makes the other person want to respond in kind with something like,

(example, not intended as personal insult)


"Dr. Love, how can you see my foot is bleeding with your head so far up your arse?"

See what I mean?


And whether you want to accept it or not, Mods have a higher standard they must adhere to. Mods are seen as leaders. If a Mod leads the way, then others will follow.

Mods should even error on the side of enforcing the TOS more strictly on those they agree with. This will go a long way towards eliminating the perception that there is a double-standard.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by The_Alarmist2012
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Partisanship = self imposed ignorance.

Deny ignorance?

Is preference for one set of ideals over another, or one candidate over another, partisanship? I would define partisanship as blind loyalty to a party. That does not preclude reasoned debate.

And I agree with BH - one can be partisan and still hold a reasoned debate.

Perhaps, however, when a committed partisan is involved in "reasoned debate" they will argue from that position with hardened exclusion and dismissal of all other points of view.

It is the base from which civility is lost in exchange for passionate defense of party policies, agenda and objectives.

If you divide the body politic into two sides with little room for a middle ground we ALL lose.

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

I 'm not making this personal.

Yes you did.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Please, sd. You are as guilty as anyone in that regard. I've called you out on it myself several times this week.

Next.

But you have to admit that Deny Ignorance is our motto here. Going along with that is Deny Hypocrisy.

Deny Hypocrisy:

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by jsobecky

 

Well I took "the pledge"
Unfortunately, though YOU came up with the idea, you were unable to keep to your word for more than four days.

Managing to break most of your "pledge" by getting "kicked" three times off the First page of one of Your own threads. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wasn't there something about apologizing?
Some kind of pledge you got there.

Anything else?




[edit on 9/6/2008 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Enough. Please stop. This thread is not about you or me. It is getting derailed with this silly tit-for-tat.

You win, OK? Will that make you stop?