It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Civility And Decorum Are Required on

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:58 AM
Hey, I got an illumination!

If you want to be a Mod, then you should be required to make an Oath of Allegiance:

They will remain awake during on-time.
They will administer T & C with fairness.
They will not give all applause to just themselves and favs, like is currently the procedure (even disliked people should receive it for quality posting).

You'd have to think twice before taking the position, also. Not everyone can qualify.

Trolls won't go away: neither will crabgrass n weeds. You have to kill the trolls, and cull the weeds, consistently.

But, with the green lights of civility currently On, things should get better. For about a week or two, or when the lights disappear, and people start thinking it's ok to sling abuse without respect just because they can.

My last post, this thread (pg. 1 or 2) seemed tuff: I noticed a number of posters coming on here and reiterating the same points. Same here. Let the knowledge, the ideas flow, and dump the insane ego thing. Some just attempt to protect themselves, because mods didn't do their jobs according to fair T & C rules; it got absolutely insane on here. One slip, and down you go.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by SS,Naga]

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by PhyberDragon

My concern is not to prove to them whether they're wrong or not. It's just the way they deny ignorance. They deny their own version of ignorance, which, is okay. But when I see these threads with overt racism or these very hate filled threads by the conservatives-- I just begin to wonder if we actually hated the conservatives like that or we just hated the Republican party when they were under Bush. Also, I just would like to see less of the Obama is a Muslim stuff or the Obama is not the messiah or is the messiah stuff and more analytical discussions of what he is doing.

[edit on 24-1-2009 by Frankidealist35]

I understand that completely. However, my understanding of a thing does not my agreement make. For instance, We are discussing civility and decorum, and the way we go about disagreeing on this issue is probably about as civil and decoured as it get's.
When one hate's something they have first loved something about it, like say it's equal and opposite contrast. If you are white and love that about yourself, it is easy to have resentment of anything or anyone which is not your tone of white, usually equal to the degree of your love of your own color. Is it not better to hate an ideaology than an individual? Perhaps their vent and blame on the party to which they are opposed are healthful in that they det it out of their system rather than direct it to the party members, themselves.
Denial of Ignorance, on the other hand, is a two way street. We all have a set level of knowledge and the rate at which it grows and develops is usually just as set. To blame others for an act one is naturally guilty of themselves is absurd. But, it just reinforces that those who want others to deny ignorance are guilty of that ignorance deniability themselves. Because you would put a restrictor plate on knowledge you feel is incorrect, shows that you are unaware of history's proof that facts and theories are always evolving and under fire from all sides. Could it be that even though it is conclusively proved that others views are wrong, that, it would take very little new information coming to light to uphold their views while shooting down the accepted worldview?
And, more for the Mod's and the discussion at hand. While civility is always a must, I am a cynic and sarcastic. I will use one's statements against them for the purpose of argument as a debate, sometimes. Now, I know there are those who believe an argument isn't a debate, I've seen that Monty Python episode, too. However, sometimes anger, as a natural healthy emotion, makes us reveal more about ourselves or others than the abcense of it does. I wonder at what point those lines blur?
As for staying on topic, where exactly is the line of logic which clearly defines the topic's boundaries? I've seen many a Court Case which would have injured or exonerated a party's case, if only the Judge or Administrator had not ruled certain evidences or claims to be off topic and therefore not admissable, even though they were directly related to the matters at hand, simply because one arbitrary rule or another says they are on in the proceedings to discuss this or that aspect of the issue, but, not other aspects of it. How many Supreme Court Justice's would be forced to truly decide their full position and ruling on the Laws and the Constitution, if what does or does not qualify as on topic weren't so arbitrarily imposed or dictated?
Just what defines on topic, if all things being equal are typically relatable to the issue at hand, even if only as a basis of measure for interprative aspects of the issue.
For instance, if the above quoted poster, and I have no personal knowledge of this nor do I care, I'm just limiting my view to what is written above, hereon this Reply, if the Posters concerns set the rules for Topic Moderation, then Obama's religious ideaologies and lifestyle choices would not be admissable for an overall overview of the mindset and predicating factors of his character and actions. Religious believer's of AntiChrist dogma, would have no forum of ascertaining whether their Messiah or his Adversary has returned or arrived, or whether they see other aspects to modify their assessments of such things, well, none of that would be allowed, and you would lose the entire Conspiracies in Religion Thread. Whether it were the Obama Muslim Aspect of Religious Conspiracy, or, if it was the Obama Messiah or AntiChrist portion. Which while othat may suit some, it would lose the membership of others. But, why stop there, if you say Obama's Muslim- Messiah (Anti Christ) topics only belong in Conspiracies in Religion, then, you have paved the way to destroy your other Topic Categories, because, I could argue, that such things belong only in NWO categories since he may be made to appear that way for other reasons, which paves the way for Conspiracies in Government, or Military, or Global affairs, if there is a Project Blue Beam type aspect to this false recreation of the Messiah and Armageddon by Man, well, that could walk me right into Conspiracies in Archaeology, and Technology, and Science, and that would mean that Global Environments would be staged or affected to that end, and on and on I could go with it. Maybe, something about Obama's Muslim or Messiahship qualities is just revealed, I could walk that Topic right into Current Events and Breaking News, maybe, I could even spice the 2012 and Prophecies and Predictions Categories up with the Topic.
However, since our limited assumption places it in the Conspiracies in Religion department only, I have just been stripped of the issues relevance in any other Category. And since those in that department could easily think of ways that it belongs elsewhere, I would effectively be censored out of discussing it anywhere.
Be careful what you wish for. If you jump to call someone off topic because, you feel they are too hateful or graphic to have any merit, they may find ways to censor every move you make as well, and that, my ATSer's leads us to a Conspiracy in ATS which could destroy it, and any last vestige of free communication and idea sharing with it, as other related and similiar sites would follow with it.
When I see an off topic post pulled sign, I wonder what secret is being kept. I'm a Theorist

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:31 PM

Originally posted by SS,Naga
They will not give all applause to just themselves...

We don't have this option AFAIK. We can only give ourselves golf claps.


posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:43 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:47 PM
I think the fact that the thread in which SO lays out the plan for civility and decorum has turned into an argument says it all.

This is needed in the worst way.

Some people can't even participate in a thread regarding a formal announcement of the rules without arguing about the very thing the thread was created to stop!

Some of you just need to accept the rules for what they are.

If you can't do that, I'm sure one of our kind staff members will gladly show you the door.

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 03:57 PM
reply to post by nyk537

There was no argument, nor was it a debate. It was a supposition of facts, albeit constructively construed, to illuminate the Topic of Civility and decorum as being subjective, relatavistic, objectavistice, Platonic vs. Aristolean, in nature as to it's Interpretive of what is Civil or decourative. As the Topic of the post was illustrating the potential interpretations of the Topic which could be so construed, was neither, as I've said, a debate, nor an argument, as that would require two side's to so be. As I made a supposition with no intended recipient, proves the point that it was interpreted as having a recipient.
I agree with the premise laid out by this thread and have in no dissented from it. What I have done is to extrapolate from the Topic it's interprative aspects. I neither know or am aware of what legal requirements are set out before the ATS Staff, as to, what does or doesn't qualify under their terms of this policy, further, I do not know or am aware of whether such decisions are arbitrary in Nature. i enjoy this site and look forward to a long and continuos use of it. That questioning such detail and potential nit picking interpretations of Civility and Decorum of fellow ATS user's who might or might not simply wish to suppress contrary thoughts and information, is a very real and potential concern towards the application and interpretation of this thread's declared intent.
If to question such motives is off Topic when interjected into a Topic on that very thing, is confusing to me. But, it's not my site. I do not make the rules.
I disagree that I am off Topic, and, while incorporating my concerns within the context of another post to illustrate my concerns was interpreted as a personal attack or argument with a fellow ATS'er, rather than seen as simply using the context of the user's statements rather than the person of the poster themselves to illustrate my concerns, well, it verifies my concern of the potential misidentification of an intended statement's recipient.
That would mean that this too is off Topic, despite it's application to the Topic and hand, so, I digress.
i agree. Civility and decorum. I may disagree as to the Interpretation, but then, it's not really my place to say either way, now, is it.

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 05:51 PM
reply to post by Dr Love

I checked thru members Search, and you are right.

It looked like you all had too many points, but then it averaged 50,000 to 100,000 ((give or take, of course) over a number of years. My mistake, and I apologize on the points point.

Still, a little more eveness is due: You pick favorites, and they get up to 1/4 and even 1 million points, while others sit with nothing. Me, I'm not saying this for myself personally: I think the system is corrupt; in fact, it's dead obvious. But what system isn't here on Earth, where the mightiest fall once they hit the atmosphere.

It doesn't need to be that way. Favoritism is what turned this planet into a butcher's hell-hole. It changes from the individual. I know some on here see this.

And I have to commend the bossdawg for attempting to improve the situation: it was needed. Can't wait to find some juicy thread to see if I get my feathers plucked, or am able to fly away fully fletched when done.

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 06:12 PM
While it is very agreeable, in my estimation, to have such viscously liquidic and visceral pleadings and responsives to the transcripted dissertations which are lain before us in this myriopical retisence of pocketed canvassing; what with the explicative, albeit, oft' times gregariously pontifical, usage and deployment of such grammatics and vernacularities, whether to usher in a novused approach to insightful beginings, or, to hold fast to an iterminable barrage of humble and idiosyncranatic origins. I must say, state, aver, claim, allege, dispose, and utter forth:

I find myself harrangued by dissentia for persons or personages whom feel, either through pompous and arrogance of vanitous charasmatics of the natural terminus of their deliniated and narrow understandings, or, the uncertainties of potentiating non incremental unvalidations of their own efforts.

Or, whom, by and through, the furthering of the magnitus of their indeferences (not "indifferences"); such indeferences so thus calculated or surmised so as to lay hold to such an ostentacious and emphatically empiracle imperiatical assertions of unprovable claims that only set standards of pre- or -post determinate impirical qualifiers of weight, standard, or formative substantive measure as the only determinative means of conculcating the desired outcome, goal or desirous acheivements, thus pressed thereon upon their fellow body of constituency, for obtaining that vestigial end of good report and form.

That adherance to such policy and politica, whereby, obtainance of such good report and form [as crafted through the, heretofore referenced, methodologia as transcripted, paragraphically, prior to this portional rhetoric and dissertationalism thereof ] are the only methods of transgressing the psychical territory of the informative and the debative aspects of learning throughout our culture; and the holding thereof and accounting inasmuch of all other forms of structure, vernacular, and usage as having should be held in vain.

Such adherances and values stemming and steeping, not from the rich tradition of our forebears and the hallowed institutionalisms of our sacremental halls of learning, but rather from passive- aggressive under- pinnings within the bi- cameral lobes of the offendingly offended psyche of the policy- holder. Such holder the charioteer of sentence structure and compositions being the only acceptable form of commitus between those already horribly seperated by the vagueries and deceptives of culture, colloquialism, heritage, tradition, and accesses or lack thereof to educational systems, and further, the assurances that such educational systems are reciprocative enough in design, function, form, and nature, so as to be accreditable by the party or parties recipricotive thereof the receipt of such formative transferrences of intelligentia and maximus passed on through the mandables of commuted knowledge. Some people are to Nicea (or Nice) while those are vulgar commodity to the vernacularly impaired in direct dispensation to the affects reversed thereof such animosities and pre cognitave jugementationalism.

Which is to say that I will type whatever I feel like saying however I feel like it shiould be said and if you don't like the way that someone communicates, perhaps, the civil decourative thing to do would be to see if their is any useful context within the body of their work, or, at worst, ignore such inconsitencies or posters all together.

i, and, i am sure others are sic of those who want to tell us because of how we type, we have nothing of value or that anyone would bother to read, much less consider.

Quit telling us how to communicate. it may well be that, for sake of making our views so all can understand, that we are doing you a favor.

And argue my words all you like, they are formed and rooted in valid etymologies and construction principles.

And for my usage of you, refer to my first post hereon this thread. I hate feeling like I have to justify myself on this. Maybe, I'll just make it my tag line quote.

The point here is be civil about how people talk and write. They are not ignorant, just diametrically opposed to your standard of conversing. But, tomaytoe toomahtoe, it's all a friggin' tomatoe.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by PhyberDragon]

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:21 PM
if you want people to respect the big rules... you have to enforce the small rules!

now where have i heard that before.

honestly i dont really care as long as every case is judged on its own merits to either stand or fall by them.
sometimes during a heated debate, in the heat of the moment, what has been written is taken out of context to mean something else.

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:16 PM
That reminds me: sometimes it takes one awhile to famliarize with a new forum. See the 'neon green message' that is now visible above all threads?

We all know it comes from the Top somewhere, no matter how new you are. It should be adjustable to have a few changes during a short period of time; like, say, 10 mins. and carry words like: ..."Be sure to read our T & C before you post any replies,"... "Here's Where you contact your Moderator,"....&c.

While generally obvious, remember, "real men don't need no rules..."

[edit on 26-1-2009 by SS,Naga]

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:13 PM

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Just as we've not applied immediate warnings or Political Trolling warnings over the past few years for slags similar to "you Bushies..." we're not going to immediately consider "Obamaites" to be an outright insult.

Let the legitimate and non-offensive word "Jesuits" become the arbiter supreme in your difficult decision regarding the possible abridgement of the creative writing style that the ATS members are renown for.

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 05:02 AM
i'm not so new here, but have only submitted a few posts. i'm an avid reader of fringe topic sites and, until recently, a frequent poster. i've left every site that i've ever joined because they became overwhelmingly saturated with one-upmanship, intolerance, overt/covert bigotry, elitism among veteran members/mods, and an endless onslaught of redundant bickering. this is probably my last dance.

... still holding out hope...

sure there is an ignore button. i see it as a cop out.

it seems the gap between so-called "skeptics" and "true believers" (or 'right' and 'left') will only be bridged with some sort of grand outing which would undoubtedly result in a big ol' fat "I told you so!" from whichever 'opposing' camp. oh, the humanity.

as far as american politics go:
there are many good reasons why your vote is supposed to be a Secret Ballot. 'civility & decorum' is reason enough.

perhaps this issue has more to do with human nature than what is happening up on captial hill. or maybe i missed something in the OP. i don't think this is supposed to be a us/them thread. (don't suckle the finger, look to where it is pointing.)

i'm sure many, if not most, of us have political, religious, or cultural differences that are diametrically opposed to those of people we care about...

the relative anonymity of the internet opens wide the door for the online alter ego.

here, we don't even have to look at each other, breathe the same air, or pretend to get along. it shouldn't be that hard to act like we have some home training.

i'll do my part.

[edit on 27/1/2009 by gravykraken]

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 05:47 AM
In essence the owners of ATS have nicely asked that we conduct ourselves like ladies and gentlemen. For that, I am grateful and in absolute agreement.

This thread seems to have turned into an argument or what my parents would have told my brother and me was...back talk. Why is that?

We have been asked by the owners of this site to simply respect others. It's a very simple request.

This is neither a republican, democratic, Asian, Mexican, caucasian or black forum. I'm sure I missed a few "types" but you get the general picture I'm sure.

Could we all put our egos back in our pockets and get on with discussing topics we are so famous for?

To those of you that do not agree with the T & C I suggest you move along to a forum that suits you better.

I don't care how many ten dollar words you fill your posts with it still sounds like childish "back talk".

Can we please put our energy back into solving the ills of our world and not into arguing about the request to be civilized?

Hugs to you all.

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:14 AM
reply to post by dizziedame

You can take your 'hugs' and shov...JUST KIDDING!

Hey, you should be a teacher, or World Moderator...

But, I remember two children once: "why did you hit him with a stick?" "he bit me." True story.

Human's will scrap and abuse one another. Friends will fight for the mere sake of conflict. Christopher Hill referred to it as "Creative Conflict." I wish it were all creative, rather then mostly ugly...We have a chance here on ATS to make it just that. Seems things are working. People are more apt to ignore lately, rather than run along side nipping at the heels.

But I like your attitude. It should be easy, with a little willingness to share, and allow to live.

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:35 AM
Wishing that human beings were always nice, is a nice thought, but I do not believe it is possible, no matter how hard an effort everyone puts into it.

In the end, and depending on our individual natures, the urge to just retaliate, smack down or abuse and abuser is going to explode out of us and we won't be able to hold it in. Even the best of us can turn another cheek just so many times.

Which is I suppose why the owners will be here reminding us again and again. They will have to. Expect it.

It probably has a lot to do with evolution (I know some of you don't believe in it) where being a crab or a bully or having a sharp tongue was helpful to survival -- and now we are stuck with the annoying trait.

Don't get me wrong folks. I am not saying don't bother reminding us to be civil, I am just saying don't think one reminder will do.

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 12:58 PM

...the civility and decorum we require...

But I thought a little chaos every now and then made ATS a more interesting site. :@

Actually if we can all post like responsible people then threads would more often stick to the point.

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:04 PM

Originally posted by wayno
I am not saying don't bother reminding us to be civil, I am just saying don't think one reminder will do.

Hey there. The best advice I can give is to ponder my signature. After getting into many scuffles on here, it took me a year to finally 'get it.'

And that is, before you submit a post, think of how you would feel if what you were about to post was being directed to you. If we would not want to be the recipient of our own posts, then that is a sign we need to make some adjustments. And there have been many posts of mine of which I'd have been pretty pissed/hurt to be a recipient. So that clued me in I need to make some changes.

I think if we all remember that, civility and decorum would be much easier.

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:08 PM
reply to post by Sanity Lost

"A little Chaos makes it interesting...?"

Read my first post (pg.1) on this thread, and tell me if chaos should be permitted here. People of this sort have no place on a public forum dedicated to understanding and shared knowledge.

Plenty of chaos out in the 'real' world of everyday life: step out your front door! You won't have far to go to encounter a bit of chaos.

I prefer to enjoy ATS as a center of learning, where people can gather for insight and increase the scope of their ideas. Lot's of other cruddy forums sites with plenty of chaos...

Of course, the Uncertainty Principle will always be with us....

[edit on 27-1-2009 by SS,Naga]

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 04:35 PM
I sympathize with those posters who get frustrated with "unhelpful" responses on their threads, but I'd rather have the free speech component intact at ATS then risk being "cut off at the knees" on threads without knowing why.

As in actual reality, people come to virtual reality from all frames of reference, which to me makes ATS more interesting, not less interesting.

I agree with drawing the line on name-calling, though. I was an elementary school teacher's aide for a school year, and had to deal with a student whose classmates complained to me (some in tears) that this one student was "singing mean songs" to them on the playground. I asked the offending student to sit down with me a minute on the sidelines as the rest of her peers were getting ready to return to class. I told her about how preschool teachers always say one thing to youngsters who are on the verge of getting physically agressive with peers: "And what is it the teacher always reminds the youngster to do? ... Use Your Words." I ended that story with the following comment: "Preschool teachers always give that reminder because they know that words have ... power." ... The elementary student's expression then changed from defiance to sorrow.

BTW, I never had any problems with her on the school playground for the rest of that school year.

As then, so now. On ATS, words also have power; do they ever! So I agree that namecalling is and should be verboten.

[edit on 1/27/2009 by Uphill]

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 05:07 PM
It is about time some basic civility principles are applied.
For some time now i have been dissapointed by the level of communication of some member when replying back to posts, sometime of my threads.
Sometimes it was insultive to my post or my personality but i closed my eyes and ears in order to calm things down.
I have questioned this phenomenon that took so long to be obesrved myself.
I even talked about it in an answer on one of my threads lately.

Do you want my opinion?

It is about time to fix this !

However i am troubled at the extend of being able to minimise this mass decline temper and communication quality.

Are some rules enough?
Is it matter and outcome of family, education, and psychological influence?

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in