"What's with the anger on ATS?"

reply to post by NightVision


It seems to me that SO isn't trying to deny anyone their right to be angry, after all he's been there himself.

What I'm getting from his OP is the request to not allow that anger to be lashed out at each other and act out this anger on the ATS forums by focusing it on each other.

Truth is one cannot singularly drop anger without liberating themselves of everything else along with it. Nor does it really need to be repressed ... just don't aggress others with it.

(btw, the above isn't directed at you specifically NV)

[edit on 18 Aug 2010 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by NightVision


That makes you angry? It's a discussion forum. People start topics they'd like to discuss. Not everyone has to, or even should, participate in the topics they perceive as having no value. Anger may be an over the top reaction, since the topics are something you have no control over.

We delete the T&C infractions as they're found and attempt to minimize repetitive threads. Beyond that, we're in the business of providing a civil environment for appropriate discussions people are wanting to have. If it makes you angry, you may be personalizing it too much.

Lighten up, man, it's just pixels.

I dont like to toot my own horn, however I feel my thread is relevant to the topic. Lets be good to each other.

The Last Philosophy You Need to Know.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Now that we've seen a plethora of replies, theories, discussions, disagreements, ideas and displays of insanity; WHAT DO WE DO?

As I have stated previously, my main nark is NOT that most people on here do not have the capability to be able to provide evidence or *legitimate sourcing for their discussions and debates - rather it is that nothing is done to prevent them from doing so or continuing their idiotic conviction based diatribes. This is ENTIRELY preventable.

My suggestion?

Provide a tool for moderators (or a team of forum helpers) to mark threads housing claims / discussions that are based on nothing but a persons convictions - utilising no evidence or LEGITIMATE sources. These threads can then be moved to the hoax folder or BTS depending on their content within 48 hours of posting if no evidence / sourcing is provided.

*by legitimate I do NOT mean YouTube or Blogs or 'independent' unverifiable news sources.

If any of you need to see what a 'conviction' is - use a dictionary.

Parallex.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Parallex]

Originally posted by Retseh
Your main problem is weak enforcement, I have seen overt racism dealt with via nothing more than a "warning".

You need to ban a few of the more notable perpetrators and you will see instances of abuse disappear overnight.

It's more like weak enforcement on some threads, authoritarian enforcement on others. Depends on who is moderating.

I've been on some threads where people are getting away with FAR more than they should, where there is nothing but back-and-forth name calling, and on some others, I and other posters have been given deductions for straying off topic a bit, even though I felt the "related" discussion was relevant to the OP.

I myself really try hard to maintain decorum, but when someone attacks me because they don't agree with my opinion, it's really hard to show restraint in some cases. I feel like I have to say something sometimes because these idiots ARE given free rein. I am like this in reality, too. I see someone doing something they shouldn't, I confront them. Not many people do anymore, which is why people feel like they can get away with it. They are genuinely suprised most of the time when I get in their face and say something. Uh oh, there I go straying again.

The point I am trying to make is that the moderation should be fair and consistent sitewide. Perhaps it's a matter of giving the mods some better guidelines from which to make judgments, and follow up to make sure they stick to them.




edit for spelling, as usual.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by AwakeinNM]

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

The point I am trying to make is that the moderation should be fair and consistent sitewide.

Well, the same could be said about member contribution no?

I'm not trying to defend them mind you, just noting that it is perhaps slightly unreasonable to expect ordinary folks on different schedules to act in uniform fashion.


Edit to note that I can't believe I used mah 13,000th post on this ... need shower now.

[edit on 18 Aug 2010 by schrodingers dog]

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

The point I am trying to make is that the moderation should be fair and consistent sitewide.

Well, the same could be said about member contribution no?

I'm not trying to defend them mind you, just noting that it is perhaps slightly unreasonable to expect ordinary folks on different schedules to act in uniform fashion.

I agree with you there S Dog.

AwakeinNM does have a point about inconsistent moderation, but it's just one of those things that will always be the case - there's no way to fix it until we have AI to do the job for us.

Parallex.

Originally posted by Parallex

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

The point I am trying to make is that the moderation should be fair and consistent sitewide.

Well, the same could be said about member contribution no?

I'm not trying to defend them mind you, just noting that it is perhaps slightly unreasonable to expect ordinary folks on different schedules to act in uniform fashion.

I agree with you there S Dog.

AwakeinNM does have a point about inconsistent moderation, but it's just one of those things that will always be the case - there's no way to fix it until we have AI to do the job for us.

Parallex.

Agreed, but it should be much easier to control the crowd in the courtroom than the one in the streets.

The OP is saying that the contribution decorum is all over the place, but it doesn't mean ALL contributors are being naughty.

Mods are people, and they all have different views on what is offensive, etc., but when you have 9 mods on one thread, it seems there should be at least one of them paying attention.

People are coloring outside the lines more and the mods just need to rein in the extremes a bit tighter.

Originally posted by Parallex
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

As I have stated previously, my main nark is NOT that most people on here do not have the capability to be able to provide evidence or *legitimate sourcing for their discussions and debates - rather it is that nothing is done to prevent them from doing so or continuing their idiotic conviction based diatribes. This is ENTIRELY preventable.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Parallex]

Yes. That's what I'm trying to imply. ATS members do have the capability to be able to provide evidence or legitimate sourcing. They do have the amazing critical minds to perform credible/rational review and analysis. Over the past 4 years ATS members have greatly teach me a lot of things from basic posting solid point of view to more complex analysis, researches and the nature of healthy debates. I'm grateful for what they have done and taught me.

Yet sadly, this is rarely seen lately. People are just too lazy or careless to provide scientific evidence or credible sourcing or facts. Most enter the discussion/debate without even providing anything valuable except one line bashing comment. It's amaze me how I used to refrain myself from actively posting before for fearing my post would contribute little into the discussion/debate.

Meaningless bashings has to be stopped. We need more knowledgeable inputs. And I agree with your suggestion to enforce such policy as it would certainly help me to avoid threads which are fueled by childish minds who are just having their tantrums.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by EasternShadow]

double post

[edit on 18-8-2010 by 2weird2live2rare2die]

umm... triple post? sorry
on second thought i'm not sorry.. CLEAN UP MY MESS!!!

[edit on 18-8-2010 by 2weird2live2rare2die]

[edit on 18-8-2010 by 2weird2live2rare2die]

the problem isn't people being mean and negative, the problem is sensitive people crying about it. i can't understand how you could do anything more than laugh off an insult.. just think about the guy leaving you the negative comment.. he is probably hanging out in his mother's basement pretending he is a jedi and collecting pokemon cards with his boarderline gay lover "best friend". the point i am trying to make here is why let it bother you? you are never going to meet these people and neither of you have any idea who the other is, so how could you possibly take it personal? a lot of people talk crap to me on here and you don't see me crying about it. change your manpon dry your tears and move on with life like a big boy.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I think it has a lot to do with our interconnectedness... Most of us humans have trouble knowing our selves, and we derive our views from a broken perception.
Like looking through a cracked lens we are easily agitated and unamused by things that are outside of our scope. When we realise we are all connected from the divine spark of love, nothing else matters. As things progress they must come full circle, down to the bottom of the spiral, before they can go back up. Yet we each ride our own waves, not understanding where it is really going.

The only thing that saves me, is love and compassion, may it find all and carry us to ascension (of sorts ).

One military man, who was a fine surgeon said something to a group of other surgeons and nurses that still rings true till this day and I hope this will help to ease some of the anger and resentment here at ATS.

I quote, "It's nice to be nice to the nice." Major Frank Burns words should be forever blazed into all of our hearts and minds.

I will admit that at times, the near constant blabber from some users regarding unsubstantiated rumour, prattle, un supported ideas reported as fact etc can become ... fascinating in its ability to entirely reduce otherwise logicaly minded persons to gibbering ,shaking forms full of malice and spite.
Further , and equaly so , the insistance of some members to take outright skepticism to far and end up at the " I aint seen it, so I dont believe it, and no amount of evidence will interest me" stage, has the power to do exactly the same.
However, the thing no one is willing to tackle is this. For those of us lacking a degree in astrophysics , geopolitics, or any of the myriad topics discussed here, its very difficult to comment at all when wieghed down by thoughts like "Am I worthy in mind to comment on this subject? Have I lived through enough , and seen enough to have an opinion worthy of the attention of potentialy thousands of people?"
OBVIOUSLY some thought must be spared for the usefulness of a post, and I hate junk posts just as much as the next guy. But some freedom of expression is required. The alternative to the odd inflamatory post by someone who may not have all the facts, is a relatively low post count per thread, with only an elite group of persons being qualified to even dare have an opinion, on matters ranging from the middle east, to the middle of deep space, and I for one would have nothing to say on any of it.
As it is at the moment, I CAN contribute, even though my knowlege of pretty much everything is limited to what I have picked up in my spare time. I dont consider what I know to be worth any less than the knowlege that others have, although I am sure my understanding is less detailed than many others.

On the matter of persons actively inflaming an argument, well I can say only this:
We have as I see it two choices. We can either accept inflamatory idiocy on the grounds that we know it to be such, and therefore can CHOOSE not to react, or we can empower its progenetors by becoming angry with it, hand them the prize they seek, our division, our sundering. It is my recommendation that in future if someone sees a post as deliberately divisive and of no use to the discussion at hand, they ought to be able to ignore it in the knowlege that some mod will come along and fix it, burn its memory forever from the archives , and excise it from the disscusion like some nasty cancerous growth. Just have a discussion around these idiots , ignore them, utterly, no gloating response, no attempt to engage, just ignore them,and select intelligent posts to reply to ! Remember, a person has no power to insist that you reply to them, and the wardance they do on your online doorstep ought not produce any response whatsoever in a sufficiently disciplined person, which I am sure very many of us are.
It should not take long before either the authors of the angst are either spent to no avail or bored and move on to pastures less stalwart against thier toxic methods.
All we need here really , is a bit of patience.

Do you have any idea how scary it is to be placing a light-hearted video on one of SO's serious threads? lol. Anyway. It's pertinent.

Lighten Up!

I still remember my 3 day ban which for a Brit actually works out to be a 4 day ban, given time zones etc.

Why I was banned eludes my old memoury at present but given my track record of ranting at the silliest of replies, I would imagine that I managed to upset all and sundry.

That is, I hasten to say, I [obviously] thought I had a valid thought and that others should accept it, no matter how contrary to their own thoughts and beliefs.

The other factor more often than not overlooked, is the grammatical nuances of international languages.

For somebody who's first tongue is not English - even if it is the absurb American English (:lol, it must be terribly difficult to try and get across your point or express what you're trying to say without upsetting anybody.

But when people hijack threads to perpetuate their own hidden agenda, things can and do start to go wrong.

I am also of the opinion, rightly or wrongly, that if a Mod or Super Mod contributes to a thread, then he or she should not moderate the thread.

Or is that just another conspiracy theory?

Originally posted by fritz
I am also of the opinion, rightly or wrongly, that if a Mod or Super Mod contributes to a thread, then he or she should not moderate the thread.

That is 100% the policy. Slip-ups occasionally happen, especially in the really large threads. I've made that faux pas, myself.

The thing we must always remember is, the eyes of the world is upon us in here, millions read these threads, and see what we have written. In may ways, we are making history here. We are also changing the future, if you think about it. So let us change it in a positive way, and shy away from the negative.

I normaly don't get involved in these tell me what you think threads because nothing ever comes from it.

What made me jump into this one was the"God speed Iran"post.Instead of posting to that thread I can kill two birds with one stone here.

The world is in the crapper like never before in history so naturally people are going to feel angre more then ever before.No one wants to loose all they worked for or see anymore war but thats not going to happen,human nature and all.

Now there are sounding boards for beliefs like pro Iranian or pro Muslam or pro American and you wonder why people are showing more anger,find a way to keep ATS from being a hate monger sounding board and you might see less anger.

Here is a thread praiseing a country that has repeadly threatened to remove a whole race of people from the face of the earth out of pure hatred for who they are and talking about shuving it up the U.S. by putting this nuke plant on line.What do you people expect from a thread like this?