Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Praise the constructive members, Mute the trolls and negative influences.

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

The Anti-Star rating



In life, there are folks that are an overall benefit to society ant there are those who, well, are a liability, and the neutral ones.

In the ATS system of recognition of worthy efforts or meaningful comments, members can give a nice blue star to a post author and Flag an interesting Thread.

If a comment is of no interest or of little or of no value, readers simply skip through to the next post.

I was thinking that perhaps, members should be given the opportunity to give a nasty "red flag" to posts that are offensive, derogatory, idiotic, anti social, or the like. Posts that are within ATS guidelines and aught not to be removed to preserve "free speech" but that are in essence a poison to the contribution of information within any and all forum threads.

This could assist and alert Mods in finding and weeding rotten apples and the likes. The members could receive an entitlement to assign "red flags" after making their way as valued ATS contributors. And members with an excessive amount of "red flags" could be prevented from posting replies and starting new threads.

What say you ATSers?




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Not a red flag so much as a thumbs up or down option like many sites have. There have been so many threads that the topic (while intriguing enough to look) were such horrors that I either can't or just won't say anything (mainly because i can't be nice xD).

I wouldn't want this feature to have a reflection on how the topic is viewed though. Stars and Flags should remain the same but a person should have the option to" thumbs down" the subject (post) too.


Edited to add: honestly now, after re-reading your post; I have to say that downvotes would make me want to read the so-called negative drivel to make sure that free minded thought wasn't being repressed some how.

One forum I go to (a game forum) has it so that a post with so many negative votes isn't even shown (just a link to it). I do not want that to happen here. While there is the option to show the "negative" post, i'm sure it's often skipped over by people whom assume that because it is downvoted (we love new words, eh?) then it's not worth a glance.
edit on 18-12-2011 by MzMorbid because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Glargod
 

While the idea seems like a good one on the surface, I could quickly see it being abused. The Nibiru/ELEnin/ Dwarf Brown Star people alone would knock people like Phage out of here in a heartbeat, simply because they don't like his facts disrupting the knowledge brought to us by the allmighty prophets of youtube.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Glargod
 


My opinion is to make the star and flag system obsolete and bring in the YouTube version of thumbs up and thumbs down. That will be equally gratifying for all



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
You cannot discourage those who choose the oppositional point of view with "thumbs-down" or "anti-stars". That's what make debates fascinating and freedom of speech (sometimes annoying). If people just go along with each other, there's no point in discussion or maybe the end of ATS for censorship altogether. (A troll with negative influences laughing in the background - Bahahaha!)
edit on 2011-12-18 by pikypiky because: To correct for typo-error.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
There is nothing wrong with the current system. If you change it the trolls will abuse whatever system is in place. I notice that the trolls will often give each other stars during a thread of serious discussion.

People who are genuine - don't need stars - but view them as a bonus. Personally I like the stars as a way of seeing who is tuning in to my thinking - so I can know that other people are travelling the same route - even when not in total agreeance.

I can see why you have started this thread - I have quickly learned to ignore the trolls and the posters who turn healthy discussion into - hate filled comments that quickly become personal attacks - all because you will not change your opinion to suit their opinion.

Narcissists can be very eloquent and appear knowledgeable - but quickly fall into a chasm because they lack intellectual development - in short they repeat what they have been taught with no personal input and become very agitated when an intelligent person remains stoic and true to their beliefs.

When a poster starts to become hateful and nasty - I make a finally post - tell them to continue if they must but I have had my say and am leaving the thread. If it becomes really distasteful then - I contact the Moderators. As much as the trolls can ruin an interesting thread - they are a part of life right now - so I do not want to have to rearrange myself just to suit them. I just ignore them or move on. They are just trolls they are not here to tell me what I can and cannot believe.

Much Peace...



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Probably as to why the rating system on ATS is left on the "positive side"... is because the system can be abused more easily with negative rating such as with "red flags". Don't like a member? Don't always agree with them? Don't like the subject? Who say someone or someones won't follow them ruining their reputation?
I do remember reading a thread similar to this regarding about the system in place does have it reasons and was decided on staying that way(for now anyway), one may be what I reflected above.

Anyway good subject, I do like the idea and have thought of it before but am cautious still that it may cause more harm than good.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
A man taking a crap is constructive, it does not mean what is constructed is wanted.

To be constructive is only positive if what you construct is attractive, truthful, interesting, positive, whatever.

Some people construct outright lies, in order to subvert the gullible, which in some cases may lead to negative outcomes.

And while 80% may not see this, or bother with getting to the bottom of the subject, instead opting to "go with the flow", the "rotten apples" can in some cases be the ones to actually dispel the whole concept and get the truth out there.

Under your proposed "red flag" system, those people would be silenced, making the masses even more gullible and easy to indoctrinate with crap.

Therefore, i must vote NO to your proposal.
edit on 19-12-2011 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 



Under your proposed "red flag" system, those people would be silenced, making the masses even more gullible and easy to indoctrinate with crap.

Therefore, i must vote NO to your proposal.


Whilst I tend to agree with you I just waned to say that.....do you actually think that a bunch of down arrows or red flags would 'silence' the person who is speaking the truth or who is telling lies?

For my part, if I was saying there was no doom and the doomers were giving me down arrows it would make no difference. I don't care about the stars and flags and I would not care about up and down arrows either. For the obvious reasons that all are subjective none of them actually mean anything anyway.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by pikypiky
 


I agree with the idea of not discouraging a rhetoric or an opposing point of view. The concept is more geared toward seriously inappropriate or out of context comments or out of line. posted replies that are within ATS guidelines and are still open to "free speech" but are blatantly offensive.

If we can praise, or encourage one's efforts, should not we discourage ones misbehavior?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Amanda5
 


If I could, I'd give you a star right now!



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


Perhaps the "bad apples" aught not to be silenced, but at least have their view placed in context to other readers. One cannot judge a book by its cover but may be enticed to read or not read it based on other's reviews. I am always interested in seeing the Post to Star ratio of members. and often creep their earlier posts out of interest of their views on different subjects.

Even Phage; who's views are often contradicting to the conspiracy theorist. His post to star ratio is currently 1:2.13, which is indicative of a certain level of substance in his posts.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I have been thinking about this for some time now. Especially recently because the trolls seem to be getting stronger and multiplying at an ever increasing level.

They're getting better at reaching their goals, which is easily seen by those of us who frequent this site. Their objective is to disrupt threads and discredit a poster's integrity and reputation. All you have to do is look at the number of members who had a good reputation and wrote thought provoking, meaningful threads are not banned or have stopped coming to ATS.

I realize that some longtime members sealed their own casket, but would this have happened had their buttons not been pushed by those skilled in getting an emotional reaction? I don't think so.

I'm growing very tired of the trolls here. The simple fact that you can't call someone a troll on ATS is protecting them. Why is it wrong to call a spade a spade? I recently had one of my posts removed simply because I ended an on topic post with the sentence "Make like a shrimp boat captain and go troll somewhere else". This phrase alone got me a 1000 point reduction since it was considered "ill mannered". Really? I don't think it was at all. I thought it was simple and to the point. The member was trolling and trying to disrupt my thread. We should have every right to defend our topics from being derailed.

Another thing that upsets me are the posts that tell someone to get on meds or those telling a person to check themselves into a facility. These posts are allowed to remain, yet are probably the most toxic.

Things need to be done on ATS to discourage trolls and fast. They're now traveling in packs. Soon there won't be anyone here posting except for the trolls and those whose views they deem as "acceptable".
edit on 19-12-2011 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Glargod
 

Well Mr/Ms Perfect, I personally think this a terrific site and that you should come down off your high horse and try enjoying all aspects of it! If I see what in my own opinion is a touch of humour in whatever I happen to be reading, I will sometimes add my own two cents worth as long as I'm not hurting anyone, especially the op.
If you want to complain about something, perhaps your energies would be much better spent on more important issues than a few folk posting things you personally don't like!
It's a shame we can't have a spot where we could truly put into practice what is supposed to be "Freedom Of Speech", but no doubt this would cause more than a couple of unwanted problems for the site owners.
Now having said all this I do see your point regarding certain cases, but still not bothersome enough to complain about them. Perhaps if I didn't have what I consider "real issues" to worry about, I would join you in your protests....naahhh!



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bkrmn
reply to post by Glargod
 

Well Mr/Ms Perfect, I personally think this a terrific site and that you should come down off your high horse and try enjoying all aspects of it! If I see what in my own opinion is a touch of humour in whatever I happen to be reading, I will sometimes add my own two cents worth as long as I'm not hurting anyone, especially the op.
If you want to complain about something, perhaps your energies would be much better spent on more important issues than a few folk posting things you personally don't like!
It's a shame we can't have a spot where we could truly put into practice what is supposed to be "Freedom Of Speech", but no doubt this would cause more than a couple of unwanted problems for the site owners.
Now having said all this I do see your point regarding certain cases, but still not bothersome enough to complain about them. Perhaps if I didn't have what I consider "real issues" to worry about, I would join you in your protests....naahhh!


In my humble opinion, This is somewhat true. Although I resent the condescending introduction to your opinion, you are more than entitled to have one.

This is an example of a post that could be irritating to the OP but that aught not to be red flagged simply because It is a clear patronizing confrontation and meant to insult the OP. It is by no means deserving of being red flagged or starred. Narcissists are by nature condescending and irritating; however, it does not make them bad persons. They have opinions that matters to them and them and them and them alone.

My suggestion was geared towards the obvious Thread destroyers or poison writers, not opposition and contradicting opinions. I do believe that it is of value to have multiple opinions in a discussion as to come to your own "educated" conclusion (In context of course).



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Please all of you read this article in Scientific American first. How much is it worth silencing unorthodox viewpoints when you might just be muting the very stuff of a site like this? If you want to read the same old crap, there are lots of places for that. In fact, I'd really like to see a lot more open-mindedness here. This is a little too conservative lately. Conspiracy site as long as you mind your Ps and Qs.

You know, when I came to this site a few years ago, most of what I said was scoffed at at best and otherwise downright ridiculed, insultingly so quite often. Now I see those same thoughts expressed by more and more people here. I would have got a lot of thumbs down or anti-stars. I still would because I'm still pushing people to move beyond the box. It's not well-tolerated at first, but the ideas spread bit by bit. Would you silence change? Why even have a site like this if not to broaden minds? And who says what is trolling and what is actually forward thinking? How would such a system differentiate?



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
Please all of you read this article in Scientific American first. How much is it worth silencing unorthodox viewpoints when you might just be muting the very stuff of a site like this? If you want to read the same old crap, there are lots of places for that. In fact, I'd really like to see a lot more open-mindedness here. This is a little too conservative lately. Conspiracy site as long as you mind your Ps and Qs.

You know, when I came to this site a few years ago, most of what I said was scoffed at at best and otherwise downright ridiculed, insultingly so quite often. Now I see those same thoughts expressed by more and more people here. I would have got a lot of thumbs down or anti-stars. I still would because I'm still pushing people to move beyond the box. It's not well-tolerated at first, but the ideas spread bit by bit. Would you silence change? Why even have a site like this if not to broaden minds? And who says what is trolling and what is actually forward thinking? How would such a system differentiate?


Nice article TY.

Perhaps the perception of a "forum troll" is too general. I would not consider eccentricity in thought and speech as a negative or poisonous perspective. As you said, this site is intended to be thought provoking, not just a lulled medium for odd ball nerds to gather up and play AD&D over forum posts.

We need to see the world beyond what we are fed by MSM, In the same breath, it would be nice to advance warning of poisonous "anchormen". not controversial, eccentric, colorful, forward thinkers. Just the plague spreading liabilities to the truth.
edit on 20-12-2011 by Glargod because: typo



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Glargod
 


Oh yes... by all means... let's single out anyone with a dissenting point of view so that the mods can quickly weed out the rotten apples. Then we can just all agree with each other and life will be so much better!

Maybe we should all wear the same outfits as well...



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
This is censorship.

The rules are known and fine as they are, to attack those who disagree with you because you dislike their view is everything we are supposed to be against.

ATS is not a dictatorship run by the supposedly enlightened while silencing any opinions against doctrine.

With your rules in place this post would be voted down and my view silenced, either through mass stupidity or concerted efforts.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
reply to post by Glargod
 


Oh yes... by all means... let's single out anyone with a dissenting point of view so that the mods can quickly weed out the rotten apples. Then we can just all agree with each other and life will be so much better!

Maybe we should all wear the same outfits as well...


I am not trying to defend my position here, but perhaps you missed the part of WHY give red flags? Again, it has nothing to do with dissenting, opposing, contradicting points of view, nothing to do with debunking, nothing to do with censorship.



I was thinking that perhaps, members should be given the opportunity to give a nasty "red flag" to posts that are offensive, derogatory, idiotic, anti social, or the like. Posts that are within ATS guidelines and aught not to be removed to preserve "free speech" but that are in essence a poison to the contribution of information within any and all forum threads.


It is doubtful that you read the thread in it's entirety before posting your reply. But you know what, to each their own.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join