A Call To Action: Ending The Political Game on ATS

Originally posted by Skyfloating


ATSers should be happy about this. There are hundreds of political discussion forums in the Internet.

People who come to ATS come here to talk and read about alternative subjects...not those spoon fed and dictated by mass-media-culture. Regular-Reality should be discussed elsewhere. People wishing to do so, should find appropriate websites for that.

ATS is not for everyone. There are millions of sites that cover mainstream reality. Why would we want to cover the same thing everyone else does?

We dont. ATS main target group is people interested in conspiracy-theory, UFOs, Paranormal, secret societies, hidden agendas.

Most politicians have hidden agendas, wouldn't you agree? But from what I am gathering concerning the new rules is we can't post anything that candidates do not claim themselves. Is that true? If it is and if it was applied to all of ATS there would be absolutely nothing to talk about here. This whole site is built upon the idea of unsubstantiated claims and applying your own "twist" to something. I believe it was i this thread that I saw SO say that...don't quote me. I'll see if I can find that.

A question: in many of the other conspiracies, political actions are a major part of the evidence to point out said conspiracy. Is it allowed to point out third-party information on a political figure (true or not, since many times a 'truth' is later found to be not so true, or vice-versa) to indicate a bias toward or from such a conspiracy?

An observation: apparently politics is not the only thing to get heated around here.

Yeah, still watching...

TheRedneck

Originally posted by LiquidMirage
As it stands right now, I feel like I'm in Soviet Russia or North Korea where the PTB have agents in the field ready to kill you if you say anything they don't like. ATS was a great place when we had Freedom Of Speech but that is gone now.

Wrong.

First off - as you are well aware - ATS is a private forum with its own rules of decorum and a right to community management. As such you are bound by the terms and conditions you agreed to when you signed up here.

In that respect, your freedom of speech has not been taken away from you.

What has been removed is the childish, immature, pointless rhetoric, resorts to name calling and trivial rubbish.

No one is stopping you discussing proper political issues at all.

If you were in North Korea, or the old Soviet Union, you and I would not be having this conversation, because its highly unlikely either of us would have been allowed internet access in the first place.

So, instead of complaining that people can't post with all the sensibilites of a schoolyard taunt anymore, why aren't you actually discussing some politics?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I think that you're wrong.
"Rules are always bad" does suffer from being a rule BUT IT'S ALMOST TRUE.
Be more like Chairman Mao, let a hundred flowers bloom, and also, if the water in the river is too clear, no fish can live in it.
Not to be too negative, ATS still rules okay, yup.

reply to post by neformore

What has been removed is the childish, immature, pointless rhetoric, resorts to name calling and trivial rubbish.

Discussing a legitimate book that was just released, and will almost instantly make the best seller list does not fall into those categories at all. It is an insult to be told that to seek clarification of the new, apparently ever-changing rules is whining or childish behavior. I don't think that many Europeans can understand WHY American posters are so repelled by these rules, and arbitrary deletion, since most Europeans, by their own words in ATS admit to having socialist governments, where individual is subservient to the state. It is one of the reasons that the United States broke away from England-freedom of speech.

The Kernel is getting fatigued by the whining of the Neocons. Yes Neocons. The Kernel can say this because he's a Paleocon and getting tired of the whining that the "new" way of politics is being disallowed. The Kernel's advice? Become well read on the issues. Be civil and use your brain. God didn't give you one to become something that just occupies your head. If you are offended by these words you have a problem. Reach above todays politics.

reply to post by LiquidMirage


Just to add: Yes, from this point forward Decision2008 threads are not allowed to be smear-rumour based.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Skyfloating

Just to add: Yes, from this point forward Decision2008 threads are not allowed to be smear-rumour based.

I don't disagree with that. Please see my concern above. I just feel that the delete button has been used way beyond what you stated.

SO, with all respect, I have to disagree with you this time.

I understand fully that things are getting out of controll. However, ATS has always been a place where I could come and read everything that was out there and form my own opinion. ATS helps me find truth. If I hear a rumor, it is already being discussed here, and typically its snuffed out by someone who backs up what they say with facts rather quickly. I love that.

When I first joined here almost 4 years ago, the T&C was enforced. No one could just post something. They had to have something to back it up. There was no name calling, no cussing, it was a respectable place of discussion because of the hardworking mods.

I understand that there are more people on ATS now. That is no surprise.

Right now we have two canidates at two opposite ends of the spectrum. This election is crucial. Our country is facing serious financial problems, wars, natural disasters. This could very well be one of the most important elections in our history. Its no wonder everyone is rushing here to debate, and voice opinions. This is the best place on the internet to get it all.

This comes with a lot of responsibility, and work on your part on and those who work for you.

I completely understand the closing of threads that are not based on anything. That is normal, expected, and needed. I understand censoring a post because of foul language. I understand threads being moved into better fitting catagories no matter how upset the author gets.

BUT The moment a post is removed when someone posted an opinion in a civil manner is the moment I can no longer trust ATS.

People need to be able to discuss everything. So what if the thread is "unrelated to platform". The moment you remove a thread that has any real basis is the moment ATS is no longer the best place to get it all. We need those conversations. Those debates even if it is over something most think silly. That is what makes this place worth while to come to every day. Right now I understand that moving and watching threads is going to be A LOT of work. But you can not just toss your hands in the air and say that those conversations are not allowed.

If I miss understood you then please correct me.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Once election time is over and this board is no longer under attack from paid democrat and republican provocateurs and their rapid-fire campaigning, things will ease up for sure.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating


reply to post by LiquidMirage

 

Yesterday the front page of ATS was indiscernable from many other discussion Forums and Newspapers across the world.

The reason for this is that - behind the scenes - the democrat and republican campaigns are trying to advertise their agenda as THE agenda we are supposed to be focussing on.

However, there are some people who differ from the mainstream consensus. They seek out websites on alternative information. Free of partisan bickering on pigs wearing lipstick and Matt Damons opinions on the presidential race.

If you think freedom of speech entails abusing a board for something other than its intended purpose, I have to disagree. I wouldnt go to a website covering clothing for cats and start talking about how to produce malt.

No disrespect and my posts do not reflect the opinion of staff or admin but only my opinion.

I respect your opinion and I would like to add you as a friend.

Sorry for the one liner...

reply to post by Skyfloating
Clothing for CATS, malt based beverages?
Struck a nerve, as I possess both


I do welcome the new guidelines and in fact consider same to be overdue, as I was running out of Duct-Tape.
I despise the politics as usual being foisted upon this great nation.
I stand with you

I would like to add you as a friend

You go right ahead

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Oh please. Don't try and patronise me that "you Europeans don't understand" rubbish.

IF SO had said to you "you can only discuss the Republicans, the other lot are right out, and anyone who has posted about them will be banned" then you can bet your backside on the fact that I'd be first out of the door, because that IS a restriction of freedom of speech.

But he hasn't said that.

What HAS been said is that ATS - a private messageboard with its own rules - will NOT play the partisan political game of smear, snipe and bicker. Simple as that.

Its exactly the same as expecting people to discuss conspiracy subjects in a civil manner without Ad-Hominem attacks, personal slurs and bickering.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

ATSers should be happy about this. There are hundreds of political discussion forums in the Internet.

People who come to ATS come here to talk and read about alternative subjects...not those spoon fed and dictated by mass-media-culture. Regular-Reality should be discussed elsewhere. People wishing to do so, should find appropriate websites for that.

Then why not remove the political forums entirely?

Wow, reminds me of a time a Target employee suggested I go shop at WalMart.

reply to post by skeptic1

Originally posted by skeptic1
We CAN debate, discuss, and converse on the issues of these candidates and their character and judgement to a point, but we CAN'T insult, degrade, or mud-sling about rumors, innuendos, half truths, and/or blog entries.

Am I on the right track or have I totally misjudged what this is all about?? This is my take on what I have read on this thread.

I would say one of your assumptions is wrong; discussing character:

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Dronetek
So, you're basically saying that character has nothing to do with policy? That hundreds of years of tradition in the US, are now void because SO said so?

No. Only that "character" topics are out of control, and no longer tolerated.

Emphasis added.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Also, does this mean that legitimate discussions about things like Obamas association with Ayers are off limits?

Within the normal political forums, unfortunately, yes. Within the strict environment of the Bully Pulpit, however, it would be allowed.

This quote from SO is where I came up with the "discussing certain character and/or judgement issues" in the Bully Pulpit. I didn't mean rumors and innuendos, but rather serious character and judgement issues.


[edit on 9/11/2008 by skeptic1]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
No Innuendo or Rumor Threads regarding the candidates for the 2008 election will be allowed from this point forward in any of the ATS forums.

I find this to be very hypercritical in the face of the presence of the Skunk Works and the The Grey Area forums on ATS . The kind of political discussions you are looking for have been going on for years its just that they were largely ignored up until now . I don't care that this is the case I'm not here for recognition. But I do take issue with the fact that suddenly every four years the topics come under the microscope a bit like a kid who only behaves well in the lead up to Xmas .



These rules should apply across the board if they did I would be inclined to visit the 9-11 conspiracy forum more often . You just cant keep regulating political topics more and more while leaving the others at the old standards .





[edit on 11-9-2008 by xpert11]

reply to post by Skyfloating

I understand.
I have a question that I don't think was asked. SkepticOverlord said that he had definite proof that Smartech network activity was coming from the RNC. According to several sites, only about 25% of it's traffic involves politics, the other 75% are used by companies such as IBM, etc. So how can you be sure that the activity is RNC operatives? I do understand that such activity may be suspicious, but not proof, in my opinion.