A Call To Action: Ending The Political Game on ATS

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

I would like you to explain how posting an article about a legitimate BOOK:

On the same day Barack Obama is releasing a new book touting his appeal for change, bookstores are bracing for the impact of another book's release: "The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values," an exposé that promises to reveal just how Obama's proposed changes would radically redefine American life and government.

is considered trolling.
Banning book discussions is going WAY over the line, in my opinion.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Banning book discussions is going WAY over the line, in my opinion.

The new guidelines are clear. Only new threads discussing specific items of the platform of the candidates or their parties will be accepted.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Again I ask you then.

What was wrong with the thread discussing options for VP?

Also, does this mean that legitimate discussions about things like Obamas association with Ayers are off limits? Because I find that to be a serious issue, and one that is devoid of mudslinging.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by nyk537]

reply to post by nyk537


Right. I hear what you are saying. Perhaps someone got a bit overzealous and closed it. Or maybe he has a reason for it. I'm not sure. Asking is the right choice.

But that doesn't appear to be the agenda of most. Most are not asking why one thread was closed, and I don't think you are actually concerned about that thread. Most seem to feel like this is directly attacking republican threads.

That is unfounded so far. No one has any real reason or proof to believe that republicans are getting a raw deal here.

So fine, if there is a question about a thread in particular, that makes sense. But everyone who just keep saying republicans are being attacked needs to just relax and see how things go.

reply to post by Sublime620


That, and the one posted above regarding a new book that would examine Obamas policies and how they might affect the country. That was closed as well.

I think this is going to get out of hand quickly.

And by the way, I have been asking in regards to that thread. I've asked SO 3 times now with no answer.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by nyk537]

reply to post by sensfan


I can't answer your question, but I have seen this happen outside the political topics also,

I am just a newcomer here, I have never posted on a forum with so many rules,

When I joined I thought this was a forum about openness and exploration, it seems to be rather closed and one sided,

Don't get me wrong I don't like the far out spam and smear either.

But alas I am just one of the peons.

My voice may be silenced with the winds of change, always there are those who rule and those who must submit to those who rule, even on forums.


Broken lines, broken strings,
Broken threads, broken springs,
Broken idols, broken heads,
People sleeping in broken beds.
Ain't no use jiving
Ain't no use joking
Everything is broken.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

Dylan

reply to post by Sublime620

Well, it goes beyond that. My post informing the readers of the new book "The Audacity of Deceit" was deleted, even though in my OP, I suggested that regardless of which side you are on, you should read the book. The book discusses the ISSUES and positions that Obama takes and will implement. The post was there to INFORM ATS members of the book. If that is such a threat, then such a policy is no different from what Germany did in the 1930's, when they burned books, or what many countries do, by banning Bibles.

I thought that part of what ATS stood for, was INFORMING members of issues. If we cannot even inform people of books, that is absolute censorship.

reply to post by nyk537

That was my thread. See my post right above this one.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Also, will we be discontinuing the bully pulpit then? Because as far as I can tell, almost all of those threads, which still contain legitimate discussion by the way, have nothing to do with specific policies of the candidates.

Honestly I can't see how with that strict of a guideline, there could be more than a couple of threads going on at any given time now.

Originally posted by nyk537
What was wrong with the thread discussing options for VP?

Why is it not clear that such a thread is unrelated to platform?

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.

Well, I guess I'll just let you all brood and fret about it until it gets old and everyone gets over it.

And, ProfEmeritus, I didn't see the thread. But sometimes it's not just what the OP says in the post, but how the readers react and whether the thread takes an unproductive turn.

The same thing happened in the Religion forums on a thread about evolution. But I didn't see it, so I don't know why it was deleted.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Why is it not clear that such a thread is unrelated to platform?

I understand that. But that thread was also not in violation of any T&C. It was not baiting anyone, or making false claims. It was not attacking anyone, or using partisan rhetoric. It was just a civil discussion.

I can understand limiting posts and deleting threads that contain the things I mentioned above, but that was a clean thread. I still see no reason to censor something that isn't violating any rules.

BRAVO!

Another good move.



Nice to see you guys have been working on a solution to the issue behind the scenes.

I was worried for a while that this was becoming the norm and wondered whether an exist on my part was in order.


- Lee

Originally posted by nyk537
I understand that. But that thread was also not in violation of any T&C. It was not baiting anyone, or making false claims.

Unfortunately, our staff is unanimous in the need to strictly enforce the new guideline. Only policy-based threads will be accepted.



The Burning Question: why are there no new threads on candidate or party platform policies/issues in the hours since this announcement? We've made it clear that quality threads of that nature will be rewarded.

I actually think politics should be banned from ATS altogether. Many members rack up tens of thousands of points just talking about politics and regional issues - bereft of any conspiracy angle.. it's just the same old drivel we see and hear via other channels.

To me, ATS is a place for discussing UFOs, the NWO, the paranormal and the alternative. I just think that we have a significant percentage of members that don't care one iota about conspiracy / paranormal topics, and they congregate in the political areas of the forum. Unless there is a specific conspiracy component to their post, I believe they shouldn't be allowed to post in any shape or form... or take it to BTS.

Just my opinion.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Understood. I suppose a simple, "because we said so" would have done all along.

And in response to your question, people probably don't' expect to get much discussion about it. I've created a couple of threads in the Bully Pulpit begging people to use positions and platforms to defend their candidate, and got virtually no response.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

I thought that part of what ATS stood for, was INFORMING members of issues. If we cannot even inform people of books, that is absolute censorship.

Well this is not a democracy, lol

the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

this is organization, group/privately owned forum in which absolute power is so concentrated

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

why are there no new threads on candidate or party platform policies/issues in the hours since this announcement? We've made it clear that quality threads of that nature will be rewarded.

The big answer: because there are no issues being discussed in depth by the politicians in question. The only way to approach such issues without actual endorsement by the candidates would be to make assumptions based on past statements... which I seem to understand, is against the new rules? Or am I mistaken?

Yeah, still watching...

TheRedneck

This is amazing... a community that actually cares and a leader that is willing to take a stand and attract more leaders to be in alignment with the cause.

I stopped looking at political threads, articles, and movies long ago. Because I have found most of it is time wasting propaganda. So truly, you won't find me in those political threads. Perhaps if someone puts in the title soething about policy, I may be tempted to take a look. Who knows.

Also,

I wonder does my signature fall into the new parameters?