ENOUGH! Manners in the Aliens/UFO Forum and those who habitually deride, insult, and just LOVE being

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by etcorngods

 

Those that think more of looking nice than about other people are another kind of fakers.

Being nice doesn't mean you can accept an injustice when you see it or that you let things happen because you don't want to look "not nice".

I actually feel that people need to overcome reactiveness, and learn to be kind and care about others more than the issues themselves. Even though ufology is a pretty big one due to both aspects of it, the black ops and ET ones, and a very big nudge about the way the world is. Being nice and kind is a good thing to strive for, even if some have to fake it, because it can be quite a challenge to not react to someone who bullying someone on a thread. The world would become quite a different if we reach for kindness and respect, and especially, if we consider anyone behaving in an abusive or harsh way, to be immature, and actually in need of having kindness modeled. That is not the same thing as saying something frankly regardless of if others will respond well or not.

Originally posted by tallcool1


I don't believe anyone who has an issue with the OP is debating the "be civil to one another" part. It just appears to some of us skeptics that whenever we reply to a "proof of alien visitation" thread with skepticism, there is always the attack of how stupid we are for doubting or how "arrogant" we are for not believing there are aliens out there when, I believe, most of us do not doubt there are aliens "out there" - we just do not believe that they are visiting us and as of yet have seen no evidence that these lights and other out of focus videos are alien.

yes, i think that the O.P. and thoughout the thread, this is what is being said has to stop. it does not matter what side of the fence your on.

my experience in the u.f.o. threads have been different. i find it almost impossible to point out the flaws in some skeptic/debunkers 'debunking' and you are called gullible for not believing their 'debunking' and daring to question it, almost as though i must believe something that does not fit the evidence or does not makes sense just because in their mind it is more logical to believe than what the O.P. proposes.

i do not think the O.P. in this thread is limiting any one side, it applies to everyone, so it would cover your example and my example and any other example.

If you are serious about investigation and have an ethic of scientific and careful evaluation, you don't even have an opinion until you have evidence. To insult someone or call them anything but a co-ATS user is evidence you do not have the chops to evaluate anything.

I must admit, I waste so much time keeping the flies off a good thread just so I can ask the right questions of the OP or a basic intelligent conversation, that I gave up several months ago. Just back. Same stuff happening.

Too many scared people defending their fear that their world is not Andy of Mayberry any more and that we are approaching a critical mass of knowledge that we are not alone, and maybe never have been on this planet.

Fear will make you angry and turn your cognition to mush. Keep a steady rudder and step back to cool off before you expose yourself for what you are. Angry and afraid.

ZG

Dear OP

I see this completely different. If I see another extreme cheap fake of an UFO or the moon, or a reflection, I take the poster serious. People that post such fakes almost know they are fakes. They just want to hose someone, stand in the middle point or they wanna show their perfect 3DS Max skills. And then they come up with a fake, even a chimp can see it's a hoax. And you are telling me now, I have to give them special respect, because they are no experts? I think thats a bit naive, sorry. Good input anyway - universal love - understanding each other - discuss, not debate. "The Art of Fight" - OK I get it.

reply to post by cushycrux


As I see it, the objective is not to scare people with genuine videos/photos/reports from posting.

The only way we can get a genuine video/photo/report to be posted is if the person that wants to publish that information thinks they can do it here without being treated like a hoaxer or mentally ill.

For that to happen we must create an environment in which those people feel safe. That does not mean that we need and environment in which anything is accepted, it means an environment in which people can post their experiences, the information posted is analysed and discussed, and a conclusion may be reached or not, but an environment in which all of this happens in a civilized way.

As the sceptics and debunkers, by definition, are the ones that react in a way that doubts or opposes the opinion of the person that posted the information, those are the ones that mostly can affect the perception of a possible new poster with information to share.

But when a sceptic or a debunker posts an answer then he must be treated in the same way we expect them (us) to be treated, with respect and politeness. That also applies to posts from people that, even before any sceptic or debunker appears on a tread, start to make posts that try to create a situation in which it will be difficult to discuss the original information.

Although those people act in a way that is not openly against new posters posting new information, they also help to destroy (or make it difficult to create) the best environment for a civilized discussion, so while they may not scare new posters they make any possible future discussion about a genuine video/photo/report hard or even impossible.

So, if all behave in a polite way, we all gain: we can get more members posting their genuine videos/photos/reports, we can discuss them, and we can even reach some conclusion about the data posted.

Does that allow the interference of hoaxers? Yes, but I think that it's better to have hoaxes and genuine videos/photos/reports than having only the hoaxes, because in an environment where the discussion is not possible the hoaxers feel more at home.

PS: sorry for answering a post that was not directed to me.

reply to post by cushycrux


I'll tell you what, YOU go build a site as popular as ATS and YOU can treat anyone who comes to it ANY way you want. I am assuring you that if you attack a fellow member of ATS for posting a video, a picture, or anything else just because YOU think you know it's a hoax and YOU think they know it's a hoax too your account will disciplined and possibly banned.

That is exactly the WRONG way to go about things on ATS.

The way we handle these on ATS is:

Once we have determined either by facts or consensus that someone knowingly posted false/hoaxed material the hoaxer will be banned.

Springer...

reply to post by Springer


Hello Springer,

I want to make clear I do not disagree with the point of the above post or that of any posts you've made in this thread. However, I'd like to repost something I wrote in another thread on the civility-subject...


No one is going to argue with or disagree with the need for civility. The problem is how it is being handled. There seems to be a complete tone-deafness and lack of foresight on the part of the staff. And it is amazing that none of you seem to be able to see this. You seem mystified by the controversy.

It blew up in your faces and it is not hard to see why. A specific group of members were targeted in at least two of the Civility-Push-threads and those threads were allowed (at least initially) to become a forum for the bashing of those members. When members voiced just concerns over how these calls for civility were being handled, they were met with condescension, dismissal or had to watch their words be twisted; not by other members but the staff. (To be fair, not all the staff).

This could have been handled a lot better. There may be significant damage in the quality of the boards. And other problems are sure to have been exacerbated. You may have won kudos from some members, but other members have been annihilated, people who made this place special. Can the damage be reversed? I have no idea; I wouldn't know how to begin.

Please do not take this as an attack; it's not. It's disheartening to see what has happened and I hope you take this into consideration.

This thread, in particular, has been appalling. I understand the frustration on the part of you and the staff. However, this behavior is only making things worse. I think you should all take a step back and consider this.

And when the first Atomic Bomb was tested Oppenheimer quoted a phase from a Hindu Scripture 3500 yrs old which goes like this in English.
"Behold i am death destroyer of worlds" how did the Indians come to know of Atomic explosion and effects if they were not visited by some one from outer space guys.

Originally posted by eniranjanrao
And when the first Atomic Bomb was tested Oppenheimer quoted a phase from a Hindu Scripture 3500 yrs old which goes like this in English.
"Behold i am death destroyer of worlds" how did the Indians come to know of Atomic explosion and effects if they were not visited by some one from outer space guys.

First off, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Secondly, though Oppenheimer was quoting the Bhagavad-Gita, in that particular passage it is not describing anything like an atomic-explosion; rather, it is Vishnu intimidating someone.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex



I don't recall anyone being targeted, some posters recognised themselves from the descriptions of post types, subsequently they put themselves in the unpleasant group of their own accord and responded as such, it is a self selected group that any poster can leave simply by posting nicely, problem solved!

Originally posted by Thepreye
I don't recall anyone being targeted, some posters recognised themselves from the descriptions of post types, subsequently they put themselves in the unpleasant group of their own accord and responded as such, it is a self selected group that any poster can leave simply by posting nicely, problem solved!

Perhaps you forgot that two of the threads were addressed towards skeptics? Beyond that, you have completely missed the point. The problem is not the call of for civility but how it is being handled.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


Why do you continue to ignore what I've said at least TWICE now? The term "Skeptic" in this context is ANYONE who disagrees with the premise/topic of the THREAD they are posting in.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with one's beliefs in general on any subject. Is it really that hard to comprehend or are you intentionally being obtuse?

Springer...

Bleh, forget it... See the post above.

Springer...

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by DoomsdayRex

 

Why do you continue to ignore what I've said at least TWICE now? The term "Skeptic" in this context is ANYONE who disagrees with the premise/topic of the THREAD they are posting in.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with one's beliefs in general on any subject. Is it really that hard to comprehend or are you intentionally being obtuse?

Springer...

Many many people are being misread in this thread. People are upset (even offended) that you chose to single out one specific group of people in an antagonistic manner. The simple message of "be nice" is lost in the tornado that was caused by the former.

Now, looking at it from their side, take the quoted post as an example. It's pretty easy to see "Don't disagree" in that. I've been banging my head against a wall to keep that notion out of my head, but so far it's been the basic premise of the whole thread, because nearly anything said is offensive to someone in some way, because everyone has their own opinions.

People will always disagree, and it seems that most often these days, a disagreement is taken as a personal slight by one party or the other. Most everyone here knows actual offensive material when they see it, but so many choose to be offended by anything that they don't disagree with because it's a very convenient way to silence that opposing opinion.

So what is the goal here? Because unless you have no disagreements, you'll always have heated discussion, and heated discussion is what leads to this type of outburst. Nearly everyone on these boards has a pretty intense interest in the subject, to get this in-depth with it, and most of the times that means strongly held opinions as well.

So do we cater to the lowest common denominator and assume that everyone is capable of being offended by even the slightest difference of opinion, and avoid any threads that our own personal beliefs don't coincide with? The canned response so far has been "well, if you can't go into those threads without being rude, maybe you shouldn't!" but that's ridiculous, because any dissenting opinion is so often taken as offense.

The other problem is that both sides mock the other, and both sides toss in their snide remarks, but only one side is being called out on it, but that problem's been touched on in this thread as well and essentially ignored.

May I start a thread calling out the believers on all of their mocking posts, and explaining that a response that is nothing more than "I'm sure it's just swamp gas reflecting off of a weather balloon trapped in the northern lights while being illuminated by venus har har har." isn't a worthwhile addition to the conversation?

The skeptics are feeling scapegoated. And they should.

Edit: And unfortunately, it isn't just armchair skeptics like me. It's guys like Chrlz who do serious work to unravel things here and reveal the real truth behind so many of these photos and videos. Guys who are a real asset to this site.

Originally posted by Springer
Why do you continue to ignore what I've said at least TWICE now? The term "Skeptic" in this context is ANYONE who disagrees with the premise/topic of the THREAD they are posting in.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with one's beliefs in general on any subject. Is it really that hard to comprehend or are you intentionally being obtuse?

Wow. Is it any wonder why members have concerns?

You got hung up on one particular semantic phrase and completely ignored the entire point of my post, continuing the exact behavior described, behavior that is only exacerbating the problem. You are making no attempt to listen to member concerns, only attacking and condescending.

Please, take the time to re-read your response to me. If any member had addressed you the way you addressed me, they would see their post removed and maybe a warning issued, and rightly so. As Site-Owner, is that really the face you want to be presenting? It is hard to make a case for civility when those pushing it seem to be unable to abide by it themselves.

I hope you re-read what I wrote in my earlier post and take it into consideration, especially in light of your response to me.

Alright, I've tried to stay away from this thread for a while now, but I feel the need to opine once again on this. Please bear in mind that these are my opinions only, and do not reflect the site's views... (Terrible that I have to have a disclaimer in my own posts. What's this world coming to?)

I find it REALLY hard to believe that this thread could have gotten this far out of control, all over a simple word. Everyone here, and I mean everyone is, in one way or another, a skeptic in some topic. To deny this would be lying to oneself. With this in mind, the term "Skeptic" in the title could easily be applied to any and everyone here.

My consternation with all of this is spawning from the apparently intentional misdirection and obtuseness being expressed by some of the members in this thread. I find it to be, quite frankly, exactly what this thread is encouraging everyone to avoid!

I just cannot understand how a call for everyone in the A&UFO Forum to remain civil in their posting here can cause this much of a ruckus, unless those complaining are doing so just to piss off certain people. The request was made in an effort to curb the overtly negative responses being received in some of the threads being posted by members. Some of these members posting these videos are new to the site, and do not understand how the whole site is structured. But that's not even the point here, now is it?

This thread is about being generally civil to people in your posting habits, regardless of WHOM you speak to. As I've already said, we're ALL skeptics in one way or another, so the thread title applies equally to all. What's so damned hard to understand about this very SIMPLE concept? Would anyone here seriously walk up and talk to someone that makes a claim such as the ones being targeted by this OP in the way that we're seeing in this forum? I seriously doubt it. Some call it the D-Ego. I call it the E-Ego. We're all virtually anonymous here, and some take that as a license to do whatever they want, even though they are going outside of the T&C's that they agreed to when they signed up. I'm just absolutely perplexed by this backlash to such a simple request.

Be civil while posting here, and everything will be okay. Anyone can disagree with anyone they like. It's all about HOW they address said disagreement that gets them either a good discussion or a closed thread. It's as simple as that. To try and obfuscate it anymore than this is to become obtuse. And that leads me to suspect that it's intentional.

But, that's just the way I see it from here. Perhaps I'm missing something in the black and gray type? I'm willing to be proven wrong, but do it with civility.

TheBorg

Originally posted by TheBorg

I find it REALLY hard to believe that this thread could have gotten this far out of control, all over a simple word. Everyone here, and I mean everyone is, in one way or another, a skeptic in some topic. To deny this would be lying to oneself. With this in mind, the term "Skeptic" in the title could easily be applied to any and everyone here.

If it were really that simple, why specify a belief structure at all? Why even mention the word "skeptic"?

The shame is that this thread points out one very specific group of people in such a derogatory manner if what you say is true, and it's actually just a tactic to get everyone playing nicely, isn't it?

Springer knew who he was talking about, and so do a lot of us users. This isn't a call for everyone to be nice, this had a specific target, and the target's gotten naturally defensive. That'll happen. Unfortunately, it could have been turned around very early, but instead everyone got defensive (about their opinions, remember) and now offenses are being tossed about relentlessly from all sides.

reply to post by TheBorg


And everyone here believes that they exist and live a life. So in essence; we are all believers.

Now that we've got the semantics down about the fact that we are all sceptics and believers, could we have the title of this thread changed to reflect that 'sceptics' (which is a label in its own right here) are not being targeted?

I do not understand why anyone cannot see that the title itself goads a particular community in favour of another.

I've stated that guidelines or protocol for posting YouTube videos should be implemented to give a basic overview of originality and research and not just a 'what is it?' thread.

I stated this in the first reply to this thread.

-m0r

Originally posted by Springer
I'm really sick and tired of the absolutely HORRID manners some of our "Skeptics"/"Debunkers" are showing regarding YouTube Videos of alleged UFOs here on ATS.....

.....Seriously, I have been trying to keep the peace here by warning the True Believers about their snarky comments and ridiculous "you are blind/close minded, etc..." statements too, but you guys (YouTube Skeptic's Attack Squad) are NOT helping me.

....This is the INTERNET, NOT the University of Logic.

I have been repelled by this "attack squad" too, they seem to pounce on UFO topics like those Squiddies in The Matrix upon detecting the presence of the Nebuchadnezzar.

But what is more annoying are the sign off signatures following the point by point patronizing and sarcasm, such as "kindest regards" or "with the greatest respect" or whatever. eghh