The ATS Theory Gauge

Originally posted by Parallex
The issue still remains though - there are a lot of unrepresentative 'givens' floating about on ATS, and 'consensus' is sadly lacking on a lot of subjects

We don't need "consensus". As Springer said, it brings drama. The 9/11 section is the perfect example of consensus - you post an alternative theory and the thread will be trashed within minutes. Secret Societies is not called the "snake pit" for no reason...

I fear, unintentionally, you are try to direct and control topics and discussions on ATS - which goes against our values.

Again, repeating Springer's words, the flag and star system is the best method.

So ATS is essentially AGAINST allowing individuals on the site to 'see the big picture' as it were?

Control isn't what I'm looking for - I understand your point about consensus, and the dangers of it, but isn't that the problem? If we arrive at the 'truth' of the theory, it will never be accepted as truth. Therefore, no action will be taken because of it, and that 'truth' will slowly disappear into the ether...

I know what you're going to say - "Who decides the truth?" - That is what the ATS Theory Gauge is for. No one person, or even a group of people decides the 'truth', the membership as a whole decides the 'current' truth of a subject. Constantly going through posts to look at their star ratings, and flag ratings on threads to discern their 'credbility' takes alot of time, and is impractical however. So how does one member discern what the larger membership thinks, without going through each thread, post by post?

The thing I find interesting, is that when we see the 'news' broadcasts from ATS, the featured topics and most starred etc, these topics are then given extra (and in many cases) undue credibility. So by proxy, the star and flag system is essentially 'suggesting' which threads are credible and which ones aren't. Doesn't this mean that to make a topic credible, all you need to do is get lots of cronies to flag and star it, and SHAZAM there we have it... credibility?

Perhaps a Theory Gauge would lend a 'balancing force' to this problem?

(On a side note, I do know who Springer is.)

Parallex.

Originally posted by Parallex
If we arrive at the 'truth' of the theory, it will never be accepted as truth. Therefore, no action will be taken because of it, and that 'truth' will slowly disappear into the ether...

I know what you're going to say - "Who decides the truth?" - That is what the ATS Theory Gauge is for. No one person, or even a group of people decides the 'truth', the membership as a whole decides the 'current' truth of a subject.

I like the term 'current truth'.

Truth is a slippery thing to hold onto. Today's truths often lose their gleam in the light of future scrutiny and that's the one constant that I can be sure of. Things change and theories or 'facts' are no different.

i.e.

Prophecies, found faulty as to timing, suddenly become relevant at some later date and the 'seer' is given new interest.

Scientific findings are accepted and subsequently refuted or altered on an almost daily basis.

Religious doctrines written millenia ago are forever being promoted or challenged.

imho... the membership should be allowed to continue to discuss issues without any roadblocks. Having a positive or negative designation, such as the ATS Theory Gauge would come to represent, seems to me to be a trend towards dogmatism.

sp



[edit on 27/1/10 by masqua]

Originally posted by masqua
Having a positive or negative designation, such as the ATS Theory Gauge would come to represent, seems to me to be a trend towards dogmatism.

Exactly the point I was making. No disrespect to the OP, but it is literally similar to a thought police patrolling the forums.

So ATS is essentially AGAINST allowing individuals on the site to 'see the big picture' as it were?

How is the site against it? You are trying desperately to change the fundamentals of this site. The "big picture" - according to your Gauge - is something you want to define. In other words, it sounds extremely like dogmatism and imposing views on individuals.

You cannot define the "big picture" because there is no such thing as universal truth. The notion is very draconian, ATS does not tell members how to think or post. And, just because the administration does not like your idea, no need to accuse the site of being against you or anyone. Very puerile and will only result in staff not respecting any future brainchild you may have.

As I suggested in my earlier post (and proven right), the administration and moderators will not endorse an idea that will dictate and force the "truth" and "big picture" on ATS.

Abovetopsecret.com is not dogmatic.

reply to post by sparrowstail

I have always thought conspiracists lack clarity to a certain degree.

Given the nature of what many discuss I'd say that's normal. And even expected regarding certain conspiracy's. Even to add that many who argue to the contrary of a conspiracy lack clarity as well.

Originally posted by infinite

Abovetopsecret.com is not dogmatic.

If I'm honest, I'd say you're way off base Infinite. You're not a teacher by any chance are you? You remind me of someone I know in the way you frame your language. Ever so slightly condescending, and consistently.

I'd say that indeed ATS is NOT dogmatic, but worse still, it's completely deprived of democratic motions. But I suppose that's the nature of the beast isn't it?

I'm NOT trying to enforce my will on anyone here, and to be quite frank with you, I am quite insulted by your suggestion. Please refrain. I'm simply trying to find a way to help people in my situation, and they are here as this thread has demonstrated, to understand the 'big picture' on ATS.

I have notions and preconceptions about subjects on ATS that I've built during my time here. I don't like having them, as I'm sure they're wrong. But without spending entire days researching topics on here, I wont stand a chance at getting my head around them. If we had an 'ATS Brain' to tap into, wouldn't it be easier?

I wouldn't want to control it, I wouldn't want anything to do with it. I'd just want to have a summarised 'view' on any topic, from the ATS community. If I found it intriguing, I'd look deeper when I had the time.

It's interesting that questioning the methodology about this sort of thing illicits veiled personal retorts, and generally distasteful feeling. I didn't expect that. One bitten, twice shy, I shant contribute ideas any more.

Parallex

Originally posted by Parallex

Originally posted by infinite

Abovetopsecret.com is not dogmatic.

If I'm honest, I'd say you're way off base Infinite. You're not a teacher by any chance are you? You remind me of someone I know in the way you frame your language. Ever so slightly condescending, and consistently.

No need to get personal.

I'd say that indeed ATS is NOT dogmatic, but worse still, it's completely deprived of democratic motions. But I suppose that's the nature of the beast isn't it?

As in 'voting'? As far as I know, the democratic way is to vote 'for' someone and not 'against', although I've voted for someone expressly because I was trying to keep someone else from office. Still, the vote is a 'positive' and registered so.

Question: if you say that ATS is not dogmatic, how is it that you feel the lack of democracy is "worse still"? Do you see NOT being dogmatic as a negative issue?

If we had an 'ATS Brain' to tap into, wouldn't it be easier?

It's not so much a 'brain' that ATS has (and needs) as a 'heart', in that it strives towards the kind of civil discourse so missing in many websites.

I wouldn't want to control it, I wouldn't want anything to do with it. I'd just want to have a summarised 'view' on any topic, from the ATS community.

I understand exactly what you mean by this. A summarised view based on member responses to the ATS Gauge as you mentioned. It's a subject that has come up before, several times in various forms (BS meters, etc.) and has been consistently refused by the owners of this website. I tend to agree with it but it's still a good topic for discussion.

It's interesting that questioning the methodology about this sort of thing illicits veiled personal retorts

See my response to the first quoted portion in this post.

sp

[edit on 27/1/10 by masqua]

Originally posted by Parallex
If I'm honest, I'd say you're way off base Infinite. You're not a teacher by any chance are you? You remind me of someone I know in the way you frame your language. Ever so slightly condescending, and consistently.

Oh please, someone who has been at ATS for under a year is apparently telling a near seven year member how the site really runs? Utterly hilarious and a flawed personality to match...

No, I'm not a teacher. However, I'm good at pointing out to someone when an idea is a bad idea. With all due respect, Springer (who is an owner of ATS) has sad the idea cannot work. Why keep beating a dead horse? I'm sorry for being blunt now, but if you want to get personal and change the nature of this thread - then fine.

I mean, how many members have exactly commented in this thread? The lack of staff posting is another indication of what the administration thinks of the premise of this thread.

My final advice (won't be posting in this thread again): Walk away, and if you are still here, come back after a year when you've thought the idea through more.

I can't think of many things that would go further toward inadvertently and detrimentally supporting and nurturing a forum gang mentality.


[Edit sp d'oh!]

[edit on 1/27/10 by MrDesolate]

reply to post by Parallex


Don't support the "Mob Gauge" . Even if a thread author posts links and sources to verify claims there are many people who would just vote against it for the sake of it or personal beliefs. Earlier I too felt something like that should be there but once you start creating threads and the kind of responses one get's without verifying claims or without proof is at times maddening. No thanx..I like it as it is.