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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:04 PM
One more thing... ATS is not and never has been an institute of science and accuracy. The "Bigfoot Stole My Baby!" posts make this site fun, and if we limit it only to scientific accuracy, in the strictest sense, then we might as well trash all of the conspiracy theory and UFO speculation.

— Doc Velocity

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:04 PM

Originally posted by tallcool1
reply to post by rufusdrak

As I said, I am quite thick skinned. i didn't feel you were attacking me, you just are quite passionate about your beliefs - as am I. And I agree, there should be some sort of "punishment" for being derogatory about another member or entering a discussion just to attack another member, but the debate on a topic shouldn't be stopped. With the previous example of alien visitation, from my perspective they may be out there, but believing that they visit earth is ridiculously foolish. People that believe they are here or have visited look at my lack of belief as equally foolish. When we debate about our beliefs intelligently I should not be segregated because I believe differently. Yes, punish me if I attack a person - not if I question a belief or want some sort of tangible proof.

This sort of behavior is covered in the T&C and as someone earlier stated, we don't need new rules - just enforcement of the existing ones.

I don't think there is anything wrong with being passionate. I'm a very passionate about my opinions and I am very vocal in them as well. But I do generally try to keep the focus on the debate, rather than attacking another member.

I think it is perfectly fine to disagree with a person and to express that. If those kinds of things weren't allowed, I'd not be able to post very much.

For me, the issue is generally not so much what someone thinks or claims. It's the level of thinking and logic(or lack of) that gets to me. It is downright frustrating to take the time to explain something out to try and show someone how you understand things or whatever, and all you get in return is some dogmatic/authoritative response that basically amounts too "I'm right, accept it, you are an idiot for not believing as I do". And then no amount of responding will get that person to stop doing it.

It is extremely hard not respond in a negative way to such people/posts.

Here's an example of a response someone gave me last night. This is their entire response:

"Sorry if the logic is too complex for you. The fact is that God that doesn't heal amputees because God doesn't exist. Got that?"

The issue with the person isn't really about if god exists or not, it's about the logic and such he is using to make these claims. Try pointing out the failed logic, and that is the response I get. A restatement of the original in an authoritative way with the suggestion that I must be too stupid to understand (and I'm a programmer who makes a living off logic).

That is the kind of stuff that I deem to be negative, and it is extremely hard for me to respond to things like this without getting negative myself. Completely ignores everything you say and so on. How can you really respond to someone who does that without being negative?

And that it is allowed to go on by ATS when it is a clear cut case of trolling is discouraging.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:06 PM
I like it here... This forum has promise.... but have you not already made up your mind as to what you can or cannot do to calm the waters?

I only ask, because I do not with to engage in suggestions in vain. There are options you may have already ruled out, or are simply outside the scope of what you want to accomplish.

If I may,

When the time comes that those administrating the frictions of members become weary of the task; telling the offended to 'butch up' is not likely to lead to a positive pay off.

Mind you sir, none of your arguments were out of place, but they suffered from the one weakness to which all such arguments are subject (including this one). You were addressing "generalities." It was a 'generality' that people get 'personally' offended at being asked to support their arguments or provide 'proof' of their assertions or positions, it is a generality that people will be offended if they discover the malicious glee of those who deconstruct their 'proof' and then sweepingly disparage the whole subject.

You and your staff all well versed, and highly experienced at detecting verbiage which is intended to offend, insult, or aggravate.

But many of your members are not so inclined to gracefully accept these categorizations as 'part of the mix,' or 'what I signed up for.'

I propose the theory that they likely felt that this was a place where they could express their ideas without the constant friction of the determined efforts of a number of outspoken opponents who apparently thrive on the 'accepted nature and correctness' of their opinions on the matter.

Often when such members on either side of an issue gather and become a 'collective' debating group, none can be fully responsible for the overall quality of the thread; which I think is fair to accept as the final measuring unit of the activities in which we are all engaged here, by design.

When the increasing complaints became 'tiresome' it may have been your collective considered opinion, that on the whole, people need to learn to accept that their position will be criticized or even maligned. It is unavoidable that some members saw this as 'bias' on the part of you and or your team; it is a subjective perception that you cannot control.

The expedience of the judgment ignored something real; namely, that many members joined based on their consideration that this site was a place where they could broach and dissect these subjects in a relatively constructive environment. Not one where you must fight tooth and nail to make a point.

In fact, even I expected that to be part of the 'branding' of this microcosm you have carved out of the mix. 'Deny Ignorance' has it's virtues as a trade phrase, but it is not a license to call whatever you don't agree with 'ignorance' and proceed to deny it.

Surely, no one who is truly dedicated to exploring such matters would expect that questions and arguments to the contrary wouldn't be forthcoming. It stands to reason that contradictory evidence and arguments will be expressed, and must respectfully be entertained.

But the minute you "sided" with the 'detractors' of ideas (for certainly that is what was perceived) you sent a signal to them that they were right and the rest were wrong... thus many proceeded on a self-imposed mandate to 'educate' the incorrect party.

I respectfully submit that the result was foreseeable.

With invigorated confidence and zeal, many used this implicit weakness as leverage to increase the pressure to have them silenced. Especially if they sought intervention. The implication was not universally received, and the would-be oppressed ideologue, believer, or skeptic found themselves fighting a perception that they had expected was not present in ATS.

While evidently not your intent, this is what many internalized. Thus, angst began to rise, and conflict was the inevitable result.

I suspect that a format which channels pro's and con's into a separate physical perspective might, at least, focus legitimate discourse into it's proper place. But that would require a significant change in your site, and I don't expect will be among the options you would want to explore.

Also, a method of tagging pro's and con's (by the member) might also highlight the true offenders on either side, but again, this involves a structural change that I would assume will not be well-met.

Thread naming can also play a part in laying the groundwork for a debate without emotional landmines. Perhaps even creating a defacto anti-thread for each thread, separable by some function within the page code.

But such controls may be easier said, than imposed.

I wonder if an algorithmic approach to parsing input could be used here? It seems like the programming for such undertakings has been under development in the community for some time. But exploring such a project would be well outside the realm of simple solutions.


In any case, 'negativity' as you describe it, while to some degree natural, is relative. It is difficult to confront the objections of those who do not wish to agree with you, without the emotional risk of offending.

There is always a way to express oneself without calling another within the dialogue anything at all, but this is a developed skill, one which the speaker (or writer) must actively seek to cultivate.

If the objective is to silence or embarrass or otherwise disparage an entire group of ideologues, believers, or skeptics, the means to express oneself clinically is a non-issue. I often see those who appear to 'jump in' on a thread simply to blast there opinion on the conversation; perhaps thwarting that practice can be the beginning of putting an end to the negative confrontations which are beginning to become the norm in certain threads.

Thanks for listening.

and... good luck.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:07 PM
If I started thread that someone else thinks is ridiculous, say 'The Moon Really is Made of Cheese' and claimed the Government is covering it up because the vast chunk of cheese was a threat to the entire global Diary Industry, does that make me a troll, or does the guy that replies to that thread who gets on there and calls me a nut, demands proof, and proclaims that the site is a mecca for cheese whackos wear the troll label? If you're going to address negativity, I'd say the second poster in this hypothetical situation is your problem.
Deal with the attitudes, but please leave the content alone, or we're going to inevitably miss something important eventually, and the site is going to loose a big part of what makes ATS unique. If you delete my post about the 'Big Cheese', and not allow any more Moon Cheese threads, that doesn't give the ATS community much credit. We know the moon isn't cheese, and it will come out in the wash when one of our more learned and more polite members posts that the moon can't be cheese because it's gravitational pull isn't consistent with cheese.
You don't have to be a jerk to debunk something. What may seem totally ridiculous to some, might be the missing link in another's theory, I've seen it happen. Not really a great example, but for instance a thread a while back mentioned a shortage of .762mm Ammunition, seemed kinda menial at the time, then a month later I started a thread on 500,000 Kolishnakov Machine guns we 'lost'. What would have happened if somebody for some reason decided ammo shortages weren't worthy of discussion here?
The content of this site and the receptive nature of our community, as far out as it might seem at times, is why I'm here.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:09 PM
The cream rises to the top baby...Oh wait a minute, on ATS it doesn't.

Just trying to bring my point home on the ability to view ATS in "as posted" fashion, or by popular up/down vote.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:12 PM

Originally posted by silent thunder
You are talking about micro-managing peoples attitudes now? Doesn't that strike you as a bit heavy-handed, if not downright bizzare? Moreover, its sadly ironic coming from a board that should serve as a bastion and bulwark of free speach and the ability to proble limits and ask real questions.

Which is why I/we opened the idea up for discussion before we considered any (if any) policy changes that may arise.

I thing our management history has shown that we are extremely averse to enforcing anything beyond our clearly defined Terms & Conditions. However, just because "negativity" has become a widely accepted fact of Internet-posting life is no reason to continually tolerate it. Back in 2004/2005 we drew a hard-line in favor of civility and decorum, expecting our members to behave as they would in real-life mixed company. Over the past several months, we're seeing a new level of subtle incivility creep into threads that appears to be generally operating just under the "moderation radar." It's an evolutionary trend worth noticing to see if there are operational tactics that may help turn the tide.

Originally posted by silent thunder
These are hard times. We are going through a real rough patch and a lot stability is slipping away for a lot of people. This is not happy-happy joy time in the real world, and maybe that's getting reflected online.

And combine that with a general decline of "traditional media," and we start to see how sites like ours may become more important in the overall media picture.

Originally posted by kidney thief
The thing is, what you say is a pattern of negative posting may only appear to be so under the contrast of those who members like myself challenge; the very point of showing an alternate viewpoint is often stomped away by overzealous posters adhering to a single point of view. The challenging poster is often attacked as being a disinfo agent or troll or worse, making that poster look bad when it is the closemindedness and ultra-defensiveness of the OP that is causing the problem.

The problem is seen on all "sides" of any given issue.

UFO believes call skeptics disinfo agents. Skeptics call UFO believers nuts. And on, and on.

Challenging any particular "side" of an issue to examine their predisposition for their "side" is an important part of meaningful and collaborative discussion. But when the challenges become subtlety disguised ridicule or scorn, then the line is crossed. And when a member makes a habit of crossing that line, for whatever reason, then it becomes a pattern of negativity that is ultimately disruptive.

Originally posted by Esoterica
The feeling I got, and that I think many others did, was that ATS was the place where you could get ahead just by having a good story. I understand things did not end well with this certain member, but the damage was done to me. It's only compounded by the "disclaimers" above every thread. For example, the one from Aliens/UFOs-

John Lear represented the outer-fringe of speculative topics that appear on ATS. At the time (and to some degree even now), he represented the compelling combination of a personable guy with tall tales... the kind of person that kept camp-fire dwellers transfixed for centuries. As I look backward to our policies and tactics of 2006/2007, I can clearly see how John fit in. As I look forward from where we are now, and what we may need to do next, I can agree that appearing to embrace tall tales may have contributed to some of the problems outlined in the opening post of this thread.

But then... we all enjoy a good tall tale now and then... and sometimes, there's important kernels to be found in such tales. Our challenge is to (maybe) refine our approach without dismissing our roots.

Originally posted by 27jd
Especially how the Obama fans could dish it out but can't take it.

You've hit the head of a real problem. During the Bush administration, "liberals" had come to assume that ATS was an intensely liberal site because of the number of topics that were highly critical of the Bush administration. Now that the regime has changed, many of those same people are unable to understand that a conspiracy theory website will be highly critical of whatever political theology resides in the White House.

Originally posted by sdp333
As of the past year or so, you seem to constantly strive for "discussion forum perfection" and, honestly, in my opinion, you'll never have it no matter how well-intentioned your efforts.

That's no reason not to put forth our best-possible effort to be as good as we can be.

Originally posted by Pilot
I visit other forums where the mods and contributors are much less tolerant of diversity of opinion and it is quite interesting to see how if someone steps out of the party line, they are immediately herded toward the "door" or insulted until they "get it". Now, one of the things ATS has going for it is a wide range of perspectives...after being around for a while you see where you agree or disagree with others regarding particular topics and have the opportunity to learn more and perhaps change your mind about aspects of said topics. There is no party line per se, except that conspiracies do exist!! It's a huge sand box, with plenty of room for diversity-just don't throw sand in your neighbor's eye, common courtesy!

No one has any desire to limit free expression on ATS, and therefore, diverse opinions.

In fact, our long-standing mission has always been focused on doing what we can to ensure that our members learn to not just tolerate, but embrace contrarian and diverse opinions. No one learns anything through post-after-post of like-minded glad-handing from a group of people with the same general opinion. There are plenty (as you pointed out) of places like that on the Internet, ATS is not and will not ever be one of them.

This is also why the "karma" concepts of other boards would never work on ATS. User-karma ratings work well on closed-topic boards where most members are all focused in one particular direction. Such an idea would never work well on ATS where even the concept of "respected foe" is not what it should be.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
A lot of posters hereon have majored in rebellion instead of majoring in excellence (again, because of the RAD mentioned above). I don't know how many of those are trainable. They will present some major challenges. The rebellion lurking in or near all of us is challenging enough. When it rules the person, negativity is a major theme and hallmark of such a soul.

As you mentioned earlier in your post, it's part of a larger cultural development, one which will keep social anthropologists busy for quite some time.

An excellent example of this is seen in the typical "9/11 Truth" members we've experienced. Easily 90% of those claiming to be active in the "Truth Movement" are intensely rebellious rabble-rousers unable to engage normal people in a civil discussion of facts. And I've often said, many times, the "Truth Movement" is the worst thing ever to have happened to online conspiracy communities.

Originally posted by badmedia
I hope something is done, I keep running into these people a good bit lately, and it makes it rather hard for me not to get negative as well. In fact, I'd have to say I have been a bit more negative in general lately because of it.

That's why we started this thread. There is an issue. It needs our attention. And we need to devise a series of tactics that helps to address the problem, without sacrificing our (ATS) core values of free expression and editorial neutrality.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:13 PM
Personally, the fact that negativity has become rampant on ATS is one of the reasons I walked away from the boards for more than six months. I only came on to peruse the boards and check my U2U's once in a while. I deal with negativity all the time offline, I sure do not want to deal with it here as well.

As well I can see the current economic situation being a major drag on peoples outlook and it's affecting ATS directly, because I have talked to many ATS'ers when I came back in full swing and a lot of people are either out of work or looking for work.

Maybe ATS Admin can make the next poll about how many people are currently working, how many are seeking employment, and how many are nearly homeless, etc.

I know I have talked to many who are either seeking or nearly homeless in ATS chat.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:14 PM
Interesting question. For my dollar, ATS is still worth the time to read and contribute. masons, truthers, military, psy-ops, everyone gets a chance to think on a high level and defend their idea. For free, that is an unbelievable value. Thanks for that.

Personally I prefer people to see me as a fool because it preserves a person's alternate beliefs. That is to say, many of us might approach a moment where we have to "become crazy", in a sense, in order to divest ourselves of wrong ideas.

When you are facing no other option and there isn't anyone who might believe your story, it is the global jury of ATS, who will hear you out. I would say ATS occupies the highest ground in the world of change. The persons who run this place have placed themselves at the pivot and it's nice to see numbers grow over the time I've been here. I enjoy the 'crazies' who maybe are seen as being crazier than me. I thank God for them.

Anyway as for negativity, well informed conspiracy researchers will know that at the last moment, the Luciferian agenda is to release Nihilists upon the world.

Certainly ATS is under attack, now and ongoing into the future. I think a good ATS dialogue on the wiki/Nihilist_movement and what their worldview looks like, should appeal to a crew that enjoys Dudeness as much as I do.

At ATS, I can say what I want about the tenets of National Socialism, and I am aware that having an Ethos is better than no ethos. Beyond this, is where one find the death merchants and yes, the nihilist and negative forces.

I am with Walter Sobchak: these men are cowards. They will not stop us.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:14 PM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

"Before the beginning of great brilliance, there must be chaos. Before a brilliant person begins something great, they must look foolish in the crowd." ~ The I Ching.

The seemingly outlandish claims should be allowed. If the claim is totally ridiculous, it will soon sink into oblivion. The people who cannot respond to an OP without belittling them are the real problem.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:15 PM

Originally posted by TH3ON3 popular up/down vote.

I don't like the idea of voting on threads at all, what if there had been a vote to allow Nicolaus Copernicus' ideas to be discussed or not, we'd still be the center of the universe and nobody would ever have read any different because the idea wasn't popular enough to win a vote at the time.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:17 PM
This thread is much meatier than the 'Civility' thread of several weeks past. Brings up the real issues...stupidity, and the abusive bullying of, er...bullies.

We have different sub-forums on here for a reason, and the mods (overworked, yes), should weed out obvious trolls who offer nothing beyond abuse, always asking for 'evidence' and 'proof.' This is a site of high speculation, with some considerable 'evidence,' sprinkled in here and there. For example, check all the swine flu threads & was just reported on cnn that the swine flu is likely no more deadly than the regular flu, and this site and it's members go into Fear-mode. Well and good.

But the fighting can be had in the streets of any town or city (if rural, please move to a urban area, if needing a is waiting!)...and yes, forums got 'em by the truckloads. The purpose fo this very thread is to get people to get along...and that's the Owners Rules, which the Moderator's Exercise...or should.

Size has nothing to do with it....At the Top, the owners think they can have the site and crack the whip or slam the hammer every so often to keep order...just like Mother Nature culls too large populaces with her powerful forces at command. I say there is a better way, and said so in my last post...

Place some rules, but don't be a military doing fair...remove bullies. Who are they? People who post multiple times just to travail the thread discussion, with no real input value...give 'em a warning, then lay the law down.

This is not the usa or any other merciless government, this is a forum of many topics of open discussion. You want Civility and Backbone? Get some yourself, owners, and Confirm to follow your own rules, fairly...and have the mods informed to do the same: need more mods, get ''s a big site.

I'm still here, and I have often bypassed jumping in to the defense of a poster, because of the view askew at the Top, with the mods running things according to their ideas of favoritism. Sure, some mods are really good, but one or two bad apples will ruin a barrel, and it's happening right here on ats.

The Hammer idea is a joke...try be nice: collect your Cash, and Give in Return, Fairly...let the discussions Flow. That's what the Best site on the Net should be about, imo.

Weed your Garden.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:18 PM
ATS is really the best forum on the internet, I post to other forums for sure, but I find them to have a less diverse crowd and the topics are just different, ATS has the best selection of different discussions with the most diverse posters.

If you want to crack down on negativity the first step would be on new posters let them pay their dues like all the rest us of did when we first started, older members should have some extra leeway, are they just having a bad day, we all have them.

There are so many variables, some people just have a need to troll on certain subjects which can sabotage a thread, but they really aren't trolls based on all there other posting habits. I have seen this in 2 area's on ATS, 9/11 and religious topics. These types of posters once they are caught trolling that leads to distraction & a culture of negativity of a thread, need both a public and private warning.

Use the baseball system, three strikes and your out.
1st public, 2nd private U2U, 3rd 72 hour log-in ban.

Then the inning system from baseball if this happens, 3 times, 1 month
log-in ban.

As for the negativity, it can't be avoided to some degree look what is happening in the world, we live in critical economic times, disease spreading around & government's that's can't govern properly.

Look at this link, and click on the left bar the 2 heading Death & Illness

It's good to have a positive outlook on life, glass is half full instead of half empty type of thinking. But when you look at those figures, we all know things aren't going well on this planet right now.

Intellectual honesty requires realism, and right now all are systems on earth
religious, political and commercial have failed humanity

Of course people are feeling negative that post at ATS, they are some of the most realistic people I have ever met online.

They are awake as to just how much trouble the current system in place is in, and they don't like it, nor do they feel good about it. The very nature of the topics will trend into a "culture of negativity". This is realistic based on world events present and of the last 100 years.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:18 PM

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by TH3ON3 popular up/down vote.

I don't like the idea of voting on threads at all, what if there had been a vote to allow Nicolaus Copernicus' ideas to be discussed or not, we'd still be the center of the universe and nobody would ever have read any different because the idea wasn't popular enough to win a vote at the time.

So if you don't like voting, then don't vote. And choose to view ATS in "AS POSTED" fashion...End of debate!

[edit on 5-5-2009 by TH3ON3]

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:19 PM

What on Earth are you trying to say? What "negativity", who does what here?
There were times during communism when you had to read between the lines to understand what the real message was...this looks like it.
Are you ready to do more censorship, but you don't know how to say it?

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:23 PM
Negative over the last several months

IMO we just had several years of very negative political postings, but now all of the sudden it's too negative over just the last several months?

Just a coincidence that some are concerned about negativity only now?

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:24 PM
I don't have any clever suggestions for the staff and the Mods. But a little while ago one of ATS' most outstanding members, the true gentleman ArMaP, said something very wise in a thread called "For the Skeptics who say "where's your evidence?".

I think both the quality and the atmosphere in the discussions on this forum would improve dramatically if we all could try to remember his words.

Nobody is going to jail here, we are not trying to find who was guilty of a hypothetical murder, we want (or we should want) truth for what it may be, not to punish someone because of it or because of what it's not.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:24 PM
I previously posted this article on another thread. I hope it is OK to post it here.


"The Art of Communicating"
by Robert Stuberg

It's interesting how quickly we become accustomed to, and even take for granted, the amazing new developments in communications available in the world today. With the ability now to contact people on the other side of the world right at our finger tips, we tend to forget how recently and how rapidly this technology has come into our lives. Consider the fact that through most of human history, up to the time of Thomas Jefferson (who, incidentally, never saw a railroad train), communications were limited to the speed of horses. To say that we have come a long way since then, especially in the last 30 years, is an understatement. And we must keep in mind that the sudden emergence of such innovations in instantaneous communications as satellites, cell phones, email and the internet, to name a few, is simply the revolutionary beginning of what is likely to come.

What perhaps is less clear is how well we are succeeding with the human factor in communications.
I think it's fair to ask are we giving as much attention to the quality of our communications to one another as we do to the dazzling means of communicating at our disposal? Are we as adept today, for instance, in communicating ideas with a comparable level of civility as were the artful letter writers of Jefferson's day? How well we communicate with one another on a person-to-person
basis, writing, speaking and listening, is as important today as it was 200 years ago.
The success of all human relationships depends on the quality of our interpersonal

We can break down any communication into three parts: One is "The Sender," two is "The Message,"
and three is "The Receiver." Each component is important and a failure in any one of them causes a breakdown in the communication. For example, the Sender's sensitivity to the needs of the Receiver is critical. A garbled or mis-stated Message may be worse than no message at all. And of course, a Receiver who doesn't listen might as well not be there at all.

We know, of course, how breakdowns in communications can have disastrous consequences. Money,friendships,jobs, and even marriages are frequently lost because of poor communications between individuals. Some historians believe that World War I erupted essentially because of a failure in communications between the major European powers.

None of us, we hope, will ever be in a position to start a war, but we all can strive to keep our own communication channels open and free from the interference of insensitivity and rancor. If we constantly work at maintaining the integrity of those three components of communications, we'll have a much better chance of getting our own thoughts across and understanding what the other person has to say whether it's in emails, faxes or every day conversations.

Above all, our communications should be forthcoming, honest, and as clear as possible.

When we combine these attributes with a genuine interest in those we are communicating with, we will truly achieve the key to effective communication and stronger interpersonal relations with or without the technology of the future.


posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:26 PM
As far as coding goes to pull of an order by popular vote site, and a view as posted site, couldn't two different servers be made to link and then when the user chooses the one they want it would direct to the correct server.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:26 PM
My opinion is one of personal freedom mixed with personal responsibility, shaken or stirred..

The ever-progressing definition of what liberty is has always had its roots in what I believe America has come to stand for: You may have your personal freedom, but it may be taken from you if you cease to respect others' freedoms. I only wish She still stood for this, and the world didn't have to hate us, but I digress.

So many in this world just don't understand that to progress as a civilization, we must grant each other continuously more freedoms to test our ability to be trusted with such freedoms.

In the case of a forum, the opportunity to have a chance to show we can control our instincts to lash out and attack with the "right to free speech" must not be taken from the whole to satiate the few, or to socially profit from an artificial safe-harbor for those that would be offended at the thought of having to deal with an irrational post.

The responsible and rational among us must be trusted to police our own, rather than depending on a well-meaning minority of paid and volunteer moderators. There are of course the obvious exceptions, which I believe the mods are doing a fine job of dealing with.

It isn't fair to add such added burden to the mods; it isn't fair to those with a legitimate gripe that may get swept under the rug by an over-reaching decision; it isn't fair to the concept of personal responsibility and the inherent rights we all demand and certainly deserve (at least until we cannot be trusted with our own keyboards).

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:26 PM
reply to post by greshnik


Perhaps this all has something to do with the new Hate Crimes Bill that recently passed in the House.

Is ATS prepping its members for a crackdown on free speech, albeit in a roundabout way?

new topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in