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.


We must end the rising "culture of negativity" (SOLUTION POSTED)

page: 17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in


posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:03 PM
An interesting proposal, not exactly where I would stand on this issue. I always try to see things from as many sides as possible, sometimes from angles that no one would perceive. I suppose that is why people find me to be both socially open and fairly objective when they meet and talk with me.

To avoid my traditional posting style of irreverence and sometimes humorous to some, I will state that I encounter people through work that live in their own version of reality. This does include MRDD to senility to sanity all of which is in varying degrees.

Often times perception of a subject or event is a matter of an acceptable explanation to the individual observer. Take the classical stoner staring at wonder of a lava lamp or the marvel of the human hand. The thought process involved is far different than what a casual and dispassionate observer would see. But subtract altered states or permanent mental conditions from the equation and even "normal" people can perceive only to the extent of what they comprehend to be a valid answer.

Twenty people could all see the same light in the sky, with nineteen of them dismiss it as an airplane but surely to the twentieth it was undeniably a UFO. The passion of such a belief will determine how hard they argue their case. Other examples is of course 9/11 or the G.W. Bush Administration or even Obama's legitimacy of citizenship.

Civility should be every member's upmost concern when posting. But we should all keep in mind how a person's perception and personal life experiences shape our opinions. Such as a rape victim or person of sexual abuse in their history would have some very strong feelings against any legislation that may eliminate pro-choice in abortion. Just as a person unable to have children of their own nor the "stable lifestyle" required for adoption would have some pro-life feelings. But again, civility should always be paramount.

On the other hand, I often am repulsed by what I would consider some absolutely out there threads and even some of the cold-hearted replies to what even my objectivity considers absolute tripe. As a member I can just click on another thread and put it out of my mind other than the mental note of don't visit that thread again. As a mod or owner, my passion and pride would not allow me to know that others are reading that blemish. It would pick at me a bit. So I can see where SO is coming from.

So I guess I must say that you must do what you feel is best, and should the heavier hand come down then I suppose I will accept our new (Skeptic) Overlords. ---yeah, I didn't think I could go a whole post either without some minor joke somewhere.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:04 PM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Gees when are you actually going to take a stand and say enough is enough ?
Look providing I stay with in the T&C I deserve to be left alone to pursue topics in what ever manner I see fit . Those who are unhappy need to harden up because they are bound to encounter far worse else where on the net and beyond the keyboard .

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:11 PM
reply to post by Seany

The OP is probably suffering bad nerves due to being surrounded by many skeptics over a case that is remarkable. There are many people who do not have nerves of steel and thick skin and so what I notice on the thread is they're ganging up on the OP and he or she is having a hard time keeping level headed.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by mystiq]

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:13 PM
Totally correct.
Good will to all man kind helps solve alot of problems before they occur

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:21 PM
reply to post by mystiq

You're right that thread is full of negativity.

It started right from the get go from the OP, who by the way is a known troll.

Those kinds of opening posts are what need to be weeded out, much like this one:

It sets a negative precedent from the start by marginalising a certain 'group'

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:27 PM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
SO, just maintain the high standards that ATS has had for so long; after being a long time reader i joined a couple of years ago, and as the economy and the reality of most folk has become more of a burden it has been reflected in some posting; the mods do a good job, but also members need to realiise the sheer volume of threads that have to be looked after, and as Springer pointed out, use the alert button;

passion and belief are all well and good, but jumping to conclusions or direct verbal assault i.e. suggesting seeing a shrink or needing medication is not in any way,shape, or form denying ignorance, but promoting bigotry and should be reported.

If anything, change some of the sign posts and allow the mods to post a specific reason why a post was removed that is slightly more detailed than the norm; some of the mods go to great lengths to try and enlighten some of the more verbose posters, in particular one I can think of that was still attacking the poster and showing 10,000 negative points over a span of time.

The staff does well, and if anything the members need to use the alert button more, and remember we are all one people, not just words on a screen, and act in a courteous and civil manner instead of something more reminescent of a bar room brawl.

thanks for your concerns and for asking us, the members, for our thoughts on these matters.


posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:29 PM

Originally posted by SvenTheBerserK
Why not just let us police ourselves by creating a "Negative Star system".
After say 10 or so "Negative Stars" the offending post is automatically removed.

Initially, I thought alot of that idea, but then it occured to me that if we do that, there won't be ANY posts left in the Secret Societies forum, and it would be so easy for groups or even just a few members with shade accounts to get a post deleted. I've seen that happen without a voting system so I can only imagine the end results of actually giving them a tool to do it with.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
It started right from the get go from the OP, who by the way is a known troll.

For crying out loud....
He's a known troll? Says who? You? Your post is a great example of why a voting system is a bad idea. Say somebody else sees you call him a troll and votes down the next thread he posts just because a member like you decided to throw a label on him. Where do you get the right to call someone here a troll? Can I have a little badge and flashlight too?
I'd say wasting everybody's time to post that someone is a troll is sort of like trolling too.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by twitchy]

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:42 PM
Educated debunkers are awesome for the fact a good debate can happen for a good topic. The debunkers who just come on after getting home from nowhere cool and get their jollies off by coming on here and making a completely uneducated statement such as, "It pisses me off mentalities like if i cant do it it must be an alien", which is somewhat of a quote from a debunker on here, totally suck and should be banned from life.

People come with a somewhat legit topic with somewhat factual evidence and put work into research and such deserve a good debate if they are going to be debunked. We're all smarter than 5th graders here and we certainly don't want to argue with them.

I know I remember in high school and middle school arguing with the "I'm right cause I'm cool and I'm never wrong guy," was always as fun as staring at a wall. 99% of the time you're right and this guy won't just sit down and shut up because hes so hell bent on being right regardless of the truth so he can go on being that cool for one more day. Except the ones here still can't get over the fact the government is hiding stuff from us.

Tell the uneducated debunkers to get on their scooters and scoot.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:45 PM

Originally posted by sliceNodice
I think trying to police negativity would only result in making people feel oppressed... When you try to control one's feelings, you essentially control who they are and what they say. I could see how this would result in a 'fake' vibe from people.

While policing negativity may provide some short term relief for people who can't stand negativity. In the long term it would result in a good number of people leaving this site and in addition; make people more unhappy than they already are.

Just my 2 cents...

Well, while I agree somewhat with the post above, I do not agree completely with the oppression remark. People should be able to express their opinions and ideas as long as they are respectful of others. Once they loose respect for others then they have resulted in their own oppression. Yes this is a conspiracy theory site so negativity does just go with it; like peanut butter and jelly. If we were all happy, bright side of the moon people we would not be here nor would ATS. We see the worst case scenarios and the truth behind the smoke screens. However when one person is abusive to another or uses foul language they should be called out. After X number of offences then that person should be banned. I feel that people need to be given a chance, because I have been known to use foul language until I learned it wasn't allowed. But negativity, well that’s just what we are about most of the time. Our topics are rarely of rainbow and butterfly material. A little negativity is what makes this site so great. Reading about Aliens, UFO's, the H1N1 virus, Secret Societies is not usually a positive experience but that is what keeps me interested. As long as everyone respects each other I think this is a great site and should stay as is.
Melissa 101

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:45 PM

Originally posted by GateCrasher
What is it that I've posted which is false?

Nearly all of your accusations attempting to blame ATS management for some type of preference for debunkers are not based in fact.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:47 PM
You know, sometimes some people can be so "out there" so extreme, so far right, so utterly negative that even a nation will ban them.

Sixteen people banned from entering the UK were "named and shamed" by the Home Office today.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she decided to make public the names of 16 people banned since October so others could better understand what sort of behaviour Britain was not prepared to tolerate.

The list includes hate preachers, anti-gay protesters and a far- right US talk show host.

Words can hurt apparently.

The list of the 16 "least wanted" includes radio talk show host Michael Savage, real name Michael Weiner.

"This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country," Ms Smith told BBC Breakfast.

God save us from the days when the voices of dissent go silent.

Whether you like or dislike those who strongly argue issues from an extreme opposed to you, or that they are more negative than you like, as long as they manage to stay within the rules they should not ever be censored, silenced or banned.

Good luck ATS.

God Save the Queen.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:48 PM
reply to post by Chadwickus

Chaddy, Am I evil? I didnt add to that thread, but I took extreme pleasure in reading the spats and witnessing the kanipshan fits that led to the banning. I would click on each post hoping for another slapdown or tantrum. Now I don't usually do that, I'll debate, but this one was hillarious.

Ok back to the Overlords thread. yes yes, we should all play nicely.

However, ATS is a business, that generates income from hits so you have done a deal with the devil my friend. You either contain it to limited people in serious discussion who know how to play which means charging for membership as you'll get less from advertsiing hits etc.... or open it up to the minions as you have done to post as they are the ones generating the income. So put in tight controls and live with occasional nasty pasty or shrink your P and L.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:49 PM

Originally posted by On the level
I think that maybe a negative ticker could be added where if you feel a person has been overly negative and has brought nothing to the party then you could mark them as negative, the same way you can as a foe or friend. I know this would be open to abuse however in the long run you would easily be able to track the biggest trolls then warn or ban them simples me thinks
, maybe its because I am so damn positive it seems an easy solution to a big problem. I like the sound of Friend Foe of Troll

I had a similar idea a while ago, Stars AND Moons.

To also track ideological kinship or an abuse ATS can initialize some transparency so when you click a new star of approval that star is recorded in your user name and recorded in a stats area too.

When you Moon someone because you disagree, are abhorred or otherwise negatively polarized on the persons statements you can be tracked by Mods who will see where you are mooning and if your agenda is deviceive. Also gangs of trolls will be seen easily.

If someone is getting a lot of moons, the mod can be auto-notified there might be a problem. Enough good ATS people can be a general indicator by how they star and moon.

Actually, Mooning sounds a bit crass. Um, Raspberry?

Needs some practical creative thinking here on that. Should be a consideration though and might help discourage serial creepers.

I've rarely "ignored" anyone for anything but obvious interloping trouble makers. Someone who is constantly "negative" about many things could have chronic depression or another serious problem. The Mods could deal with that if they had some stats and heads-up metering.

Still thinking, but I think fixing a leaking ocean of negativity is bordering on madness.

Lots to be negative about nowadays. Spreads like fire in the right conditions.


posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:51 PM
sorry about this:

but nice hat Skeptic Overlord, it strikes terror in my heart!

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
You know, sometimes some people can be so "out there" so extreme, so far right, so utterly negative that even a nation will ban them.

Part II

"If people have so clearly overstepped the mark in terms of the way not just that they are talking but the sort of attitudes that they are expressing to the extent that we think that this is likely to cause or have the potential to cause violence or inter-community tension in this country, then actually I think the right thing is not to let them into the country in the first place. Not to open the stable door then try to close it later," Ms Smith said.

"It's a privilege to come to this country. There are certain behaviours that mean you forfeit that privilege."

Slippery slope?

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:58 PM

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by quesioningall
But why police and delete that - because it was too far out there? But everyone's perception is different in what they think is "out there".


The nature of the thread was a potential set-up for the no-recruitment aspect of the Terms & Conditions. Broadly soliciting off-site real-life contact information, without permission, is not tolerated.

Okay, my bad, I guess I didn't read the point of wanting outside contact with someone. I just read the thread about the person wanting to get abducted and got a Great laugh out of it! Which I still am.

But some threads like that peppered in all the seriousness of ATS in other threads, is actually quite enjoyable! It really lightens the atomsphere - around me anyway!

So, again I didn't catch the part of wanting contact - T and C violation - I just was caught up in what the person wanted in the first place!

LOL - but as stated too - without T and C violations - I love the fact there are some wonderfully enjoyable threads out there on ATS.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:01 PM
I don't mind the abusive post I think it is nature to take the good with the bad, the yin with the yang. I prefer for people to have their opinions and their freedoms to express their nature. If someone is offended, they have to take some personal responsibility for that too. it is not the oppositions fault for your feelings being hurt.

Since I've been here I have had many angry posters not just because of my theories but because of my choice of user name. It's our responsibility to take it with a grain of salt. I vote, less policing, and more flexibility with the rules.


[edit on 5-5-2009 by The Real Antichrist]

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:20 PM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

"The culture of negativity?"
The monkeys are rattling their cages in fear. Things are looking bleak, and so are people's outlooks. This happens every recession. People get on edge, are more tense and start grasping for things to blame, attacking things that upset them. When under pressure, we tend to form more divisions instead of banding together against a common threat. We all know that!!
Everyone has their own point of view, and they want to make damn-well sure everyone else knows what their view is. I think people do this in an arrogant attempt to get others to jump on their bandwagon, so as to eliminate division. However we all KNOW that we're right, so how can we convince anyone else that they're WRONG? Things get tough, then people get "preachy" to try and instill they're personal fears and beliefs in order to "wake people up" to their brand of crap, so that they may join them. It's not necessarily an attempt to spread negativity, its more like a recruitment. At least, the underlying psychological motivations are. But good intentions are dashed with faulty implementation.

The personal attacks, I think, are defensive in nature as the revealing of one's fears and beliefs can leave that person feeling vulnerable, when others don't initially accept them the negative emotions generated by their fears and hate of whatever their preaching about get transferred to the people who don't accept or oppose the message.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:20 PM
I feel obliged to respond to the invite in my U2U and chirp in to this thread since I was asked. After all, my opinions are generally about as popular as a polyp at a proctologist convention. But I like to think I am full of ..................................ideas.

It appears the site owners have a "tiger by the tail", perhaps growing pains from their own success. However I suggest the "negativity" referenced in OP is a "Glass Half Empty" assessment. Ironically the site structure uses terms like "Friend" and "Foe" which seems to encourage an adversarial posture. Plus the breadth and scope of "free" content and intellectual property generated by posters is what probably keeps this site lucrative. ( That is why networks love "talk shows." Cheap to produce.)

Here are 3 quick suggestions which although will be unpopular, might curb the purported surge in "negativity." Feel free to ignore as always.

1. Establish a Response per thread cap. Say 15 to 20 responses. This would encourage posters to value their limited responses more and respond with more thoughtful and logical responses. Also, it would discourage the disruptive ping-pong type exchanges between 2 opposing posters.

2. Have Mods "approve" all new topics. Like the recent tightening of Breaking News submissions and approval of Anonymous posts. This should go along way to minimize the incendiary threads.

3. Establish a max page limit or response cap per thread. In the spirit of "Must be present to win" threads would be "locked" once cap is met. This could stem the tide of threads that go on and on and degenerate into the back and forth attacks. ( Most core ideas seem to be generated in first 10 or so pages.) If you are late to the party, too bad. Should make mods job easier. Enhances "live" feel of exchanges. More like a 50 yard dash as opposed to a marathon.

Obviously none of these are ideal but might assist to contain things given the sheer magnitude of recent growth. If change is inevitable, it is nice to think we have some say.

If you chose any of my ideas, please name the new wing in the corporate headquarters after me.


posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:24 PM

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
but nice hat Skeptic Overlord, it strikes terror in my heart!

It's my cinco de mayo hat!

Dancing salsa, drinking tequila. and listening to Tito Puente.

top topics

<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in