Civility, decorum and the Aliens and UFO Forum, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 73 times

reply posted on 16-8-2010 @ 08:44 PM by andrewh7

reply to post by neformore

The last thread I recall reading involved a photograph of a rain drop on someone's car window. What hope does a legitimate thread have if people are going to purposely post nonsense like that? I think people should respond honestly and openly however they wish. Censorship is never the answer.

reply posted on 16-8-2010 @ 08:55 PM by Gorman91

reply to post by andrewh7

Yea that's a perfect example. basically don't censor. But do punish. If someone needs a cool down, give him a day ban from posting to cool down. Repeat offenders then have to get a bit more stricter punishment. But no censorship is needed. Just civilly say you are wrong. I've been in a heated argument with AnthraAndromda and calling him out on his BS. I lost it a bit here and there but I'm trying to keep civil more so now.

Basically, deal with barbarians in a civil manner. Or you become a barbarian and therefore just as bad.

reply posted on 16-8-2010 @ 09:15 PM by Tribble

reply to post by Gorman91

Good solutions, how about putting "a red X" next to their avatar when they are caught in these thread killing altercations? So everyone at ATS knows who they are dealing with, thus avoiding their childish games before it's too late.

And yes a 24 hour time out sounds appropriate.

So many Xs and your out!

reply posted on 16-8-2010 @ 09:47 PM by GrOuNd_ZeRo

I think this will be a constructive way to discuss the thread here on ATS, I think members should be prone to warnings if they are being crude and insulting the OP.

Even though the OP might be a hoaxster, we should still discuss all of this civilized and not burn the witch at the stake as soon as it sounds unlikely.

reply posted on 16-8-2010 @ 10:19 PM by FutureThinker

Thank you "neformore", I do not reply to many threads becaause after the first 5 to 10 replies it gets nasty and I figure, why respond, they are all arguing so nobody will listen.

This is not a website about personal attacks, but rather we are here to debate and gather information to gain more knowledge about different subjects.
I looked up the definition of "HOAX" and found this simple answer.

"An act intended to deceive or trick".

I think we should keep this simple. we all need to remember that no ONE person has all the answers.

reply posted on 16-8-2010 @ 10:33 PM by Snarf

though im sure everyone will read right over this - you should be careful in applying any harsh new measures.

Apply them equally.

A b.s. thread that is clearly a hoax should be labeled as such and its creator punished as if he or she were creating a hostile environment themselves.

Being a troll, or being a bull crap garbage-artist is no different than someone responding in a harsh manner.

reply posted on 16-8-2010 @ 10:39 PM by Faiol

lets be real again

people here are delusional ...

half of the people believe in everything they read here on this board

the other half, wants every single statement about UFO to be true, watch every single video trying to verify if its fake, since its impossible to verify if its true, even then, it may be a vehicle from earth

its a freaking waste of time

the only thing you can do is speculate and thats all

but again, haters are going to hate, truth hurts

ps: some people here deserve to be in this loop for their entire lives ... wake up

[edit on 16/8/10 by Faiol]

reply posted on 16-8-2010 @ 10:41 PM by Krzyzmo

reply to post by neformore

agree 100% with your assesment. In the UFO forum, speculation and interpretation of the data will vary widely, with every opinion and every theory of the data important. The UFO forum should allow Op's to explore and the contributors a chance to further explore without persecutuion. Not to say multiple opinions should not be introduced in a thread, but it does seem to turn into a feeding frenzy on the contributor for thinking outside of the accepted paradigms.

Also, the government has sections who's job it is to read and inject disinformation into the threads. click on the link to for a extensive article on dis-information tatics.

dprogram.net...

reply posted on 16-8-2010 @ 10:42 PM by InfaRedMan

Good thread.. I support it - but civility is a two way street. This thread gives one the impression that it's the sceptics that are responsible for majority of the ad-homs and bitchiness.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact it's the 'believer' crowd that are the first to drop the 'dis-info' ad-hom. I see far more dis-info agent accusations than I do whacko accusations. Way more!

Though I'm far from perfect, I never call anyone a whacko, or anything similar. Nor do I see it from other 'sceptics' such as Chadwickus, Maybe.. Maybe Not, DoomsdayRex, Kandinsky, Zazzafrazz, Pauligirl, Phage, Zaiger, M0riarty, atlasastro, pazcat, ziggystar60, Kizzzy, Scramjet76... the list goes on! But I consistently see ad-homs thrown at them. Consistently!

If we go into a thread to discuss the merits of a particular subject or personality within the field of UFOlogy, invariably the believers will start discussing the merits of us. In any case, the second they do that, they've more or less submitted that their argument for the case is weak or non existent. They ask for discussions in their Ops... but that's really code for "discussions only with the people who agree with my Op". They only want to know what you think so long as you agree. I'm sorry but it's ridiculous!

So if believers want to see change, they need to be the change too!

IRM

[edit on 16/8/10 by InfaRedMan]

reply posted on 16-8-2010 @ 10:51 PM by Faiol

reply to post by Krzyzmo

there are people here that I am SURE are paid to post disinformation

its impossible to believe they waste their times doing a LOT of research and a lot of posts repeating the same thing

but again ... its very possible they do really waste their time .. a lot of people here want to believe too much, so who knows

reply posted on 16-8-2010 @ 10:56 PM by EsSeeEye

One thing I tend to notice a lot of is disagreements being considered attacks, rather than just disagreements. Someone points out that the odd thing in that picture could just be a drop of water on a window, and the person who posted gets defensive and feels attacked. Then anyone else who doesn't want the object to be explained away or feels a personal friendship with the OP jumps on and defends it to extreme lengths.

Martyrs and victimizations ruin so many excellent discussions that it's nearly pointless to disagree with an OP anymore.

reply posted on 16-8-2010 @ 10:59 PM by Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by InfaRedMan

InfaRedMan.....

You have expressed very well, that which I was trying to draft.

It's a "2 way street".

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 12:36 AM by Netties Hermit

reply to post by InfaRedMan

InfaRedMan and Maybe...maybe not, I totally agree and I was just drafting the same sentiment myself.

Two-way street.

And it's not just in the UFO forum. There is a 218 page thread in the Gray Area that is a perfect example of this. It's like watching a tennis match.

Edit: sheesh spelling not good today

[edit on 17/8/2010 by Netties Hermit]

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 12:59 AM by Krzyzmo

reply to post by Faiol

The military has the money to do it; This is what is spent on military in the US compared to other countries.

with the Federal Government, waste is never an issue

back to topic: This is one forum where an open mind is a must, and what you believe is yours for the choosing. I have discovered many new theories in this forum that i did not know even existed, by reading the discusions, and then researching further if required.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Krzyzmo]

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 01:42 AM by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by Krzyzmo
This is one forum where an open mind is a must

I completely agree - but does this sentiment extend to members being open minded to the possibility that whatever is being discussed within any given thread may be a hoax, scam, or unfounded opinion?

IRM

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 01:56 AM by Krzyzmo

reply to post by InfaRedMan

absolutely, debunking remains important. I think it is more the debunkers that come to the table without facts for a good counter-argument that de-rail the good discussions.

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 02:09 AM by Ahabstar

reply to post by neformore

Thank you writing this up, Nef. I did touch on some of my thoughts on the show, but didn't fully cover them to keep the format moving.

And I do agree with IRM that skepticism isn't the whole problem. But I would like to restate that in the context of text, things often go missing. The old "pics or it didn't happen" is a shortcut to writing and has actually done more harm than good in my opinion. Sure it is a shortcut, but often newer members have the wind pulled from their sails by such a statement.

Yes many things become old hat to those that have spent years looking. And I feel that at the heart of every "labeled skeptic" (to avoid naming names

) there is a person that really does want to believe. It is just they want to see undeniable and unarguable proof.

I have to say, despite having a nice digital camera in the van, I may not stop to grab it in the event I saw a landing of a UFO in the parking lot and aliens walking around. I would be far more interested in making contact than snapping pictures and gaining evidence.

Is that human nature or just me being me? Hard to say. As far as Ufology goes, everyone started somewhere. I, like many my age, read the old Time-Life series of books. No, they are not the best written, but they give a good foundation and overview and cover other subjects as well. Honestly, I find them perfect for a pre-teen to younger teenager to open up to topics of thought beyond the norm of girls and cars at a time when you are not likely to get either.

But I see YouTube videos from both sides. Those that want their 15 minutes of fame so bad that they are more than willing to fake it and I see them as education to both spotting fakes and opening new people to the subject.

Where I see ATS in this, is that ATS should be a place to ask questions, share information, receive feedback and not be targeted with ridicule or become upset by the words (including the shorthand posts of "Seen it. Do a Search and save us all some time.") How is that helpful or beneficial, especially to someone new to the subject?

But let's look at a classic case for a second. Betty and Barney Hill. There are no photos nor videos of the event. Just poorly drawn pictures and testimony from hypnosis. If that happened today without any previous abductions, how many would be screaming for either a move to Hoax or The Gray Area? At the time, it was unprecedented. Today, it is at the least an acknowledge case if not a respected one.

I hope I made a point that was understood there. Shooting the messenger too quickly just means we can't get more of the message. And that goes for debunkers and believer alike. Because if you blow off the one that says they heard it before or walk away too quickly, then maybe you can't explain it in more detail. Maybe they heard one similar that they had some doubts but you similar experience present might collaborate and fill in some questionable gaps from the one they heard before.

I don't, it is late and maybe I am not making much sense here.

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 02:27 AM by OrionHunterX

90% of all threads in the UFO forum start with some shoddy You Tube vids of dots moving in the sky. Or the surface of the Moon or Mars with the OP categorically stating that those features (That are perfectly natural) are some alien airports or nuclear facilities or some vast artificial constructs.

Now this sucks. There's no analysis, no reasoning, no logical explanations, and zilch research as to why this could be so. Now this sort of stuff would get anyone's goat. So then why are such threads allowed on ATS in the first place? It is not only a waste of server space but also contributes nothing to the subject of UFO/aliens.

So shouldn't the mods apply more rationality here and shove such useless threads down the chute? Of course, some threads in this forum are excellent with a lot of research and reasoning gone into them and which are worth discussing.

So before trashing posters why don't the mods apply the same yardstick to the authors of such threads also? Do we have to suffer such trash till the cows come home? Why can't a stop be put to this and allow only the ones accompanied by some research by the author instead of just putting out those ubiquitous so called light-in-the-sky vids without any accompanying analysis?

Or do we just have to suffer the fools in silence who hope to get some stars and flags for their 'discoveries'? And that's why one sees decorum sometimes thrown to the wind because it gets frustrating!

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 02:46 AM by DamageMoose