A fascinating analogy between ATS and the post-9/11 world

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
First off, I would like to publically apologize to all those who I insulted and made personal attacks against during my time posting here. It was my own human failing that I was unable to separate logic from emotion and allowed myself to be dragged down to the maturity of a ten year old, and ATS quite rightly banned my account. They were gratious enough to see that I do post worthwhile material here so they accepted my apology to them and let me back in. Hats off to them and trust me, I won't make that mistake again.

Now that I'm back on, a huge revelation had occurred to me; the entire reason why I was banned is because ATS severely increased their TOS restrictions for the 9/11 thread, and they did THAT in response to a bunch of posters from one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites coming into ATS and causing havok for the benefit of their own political agenda. In short, the majority of people on ATS who previously had near complete freedom of speech have now been given much more strict regulations- many people can't even start new threads because of a new "you need at least ten points" policy- all to clamp down on a minority of self serving jerks who misused their privileges for their own political agenda.

Sound familiar? Before 9/11 airport security was a joke to the point where people could smuggle tear gas and knives aboard planes, and I've even heard cases where people even walked out onto the runway and stowed away in the landing gear compartment. Now, after a bunch of self serving religious zealots misused their freedom to slaughter 3000 people the airlines are making the rest of us take off our shoes at the airports and are even forbidding people to bring bottles of water onto planes. I couldn't even visit the 9/11 memorial in NYC without going through metal detectors and having my belongings sorted through. All to clamp down on a minority of self serving jerks who misused their privileges for their own political agenda. Yes, we're literally seeing the same reaction here.

Why I'm mentioning this is that time and time again, I'm seeing the conspiracy proponents using these restrictions in society as evidence of some sinister secret plot to take over the world. My point is that we here in our tiny ATS microcosm are seeing the exact same procedures being implemented to keep those Pilots for 9/11 truth idiots from causing any more mischief, and I daresay it's a stretch to claim requiring people to have 10 points of something or another for posting rights to the 9/11 forum is a part of some sinister secret plot to take over the world. ATS is doing nothing more than following the exact model of reaction the airlines and the rest of the world is doing after an attack.

The other reason why I'm pointing this out is to make the observation that It's one thing to gripe about it, but it's another to point out legitimate alternatives which avoids leveling restrictions against the majority who obey the rules while still preventing the idiots from creating havoc. I myself have no answer except "do what ATS and the airlines are doing". When Benjamin Franklin said "those who give up a little freedom for a little security deserve neither" I doubt he was invisioning a future society that became as dumbed down and domesticated as we are now, where simply saying the word GUN causes people to speed dial their therapists and simply saying the word NEGRO gets a dozen racial lawsuits filed against you for making people feel bad about themselves. Tell me, when was the last time we've even seen a public hanging? We all know that's what they would have done to Osama Bin Laden back in 1776, and they wouldn't even have hidden the pictures.

If there's a more realistic alternative than this, I don't know what it is.




posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

I've even heard cases where people even walked out onto the runway and stowed away in the landing gear compartment.


not to derail ...
but I'm sure you also heard
in above cases, the people died....

1 of 2 ways
crushed up by retracted landing gear.
or they froze.

the analogy
not all that fascinating



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoonbender

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

I've even heard cases where people even walked out onto the runway and stowed away in the landing gear compartment.


not to derail ...
but I'm sure you also heard
in above cases, the people died....

1 of 2 ways
crushed up by retracted landing gear.
or they froze.

the analogy
not all that fascinating


Yes I have. All that means is that the right to be free also includes the right to be stupid. Just because there aren't signs specifically saying DO NOT JUMP OFF MONORAIL INTO THE TIGER DEN at the Bronx zoo it doesn't mean Charles Darwin isn't waiting to find the idiot that actually tries to do it.

USA Today: Man jumps from monorail into tiger den at Bronx Zoo

So NOW they gotta put barriers around the monorail or stop the monorail service altogether all because of this one guy, because if it happens again they can be sued. In the end, the point is still the same.

edit on 3-10-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by spoonbender

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

I've even heard cases where people even walked out onto the runway and stowed away in the landing gear compartment.


not to derail ...
but I'm sure you also heard
in above cases, the people died....

1 of 2 ways
crushed up by retracted landing gear.
or they froze.

the analogy
not all that fascinating


Yes I have. All that means is that the right to be free also includes the right to be stupid. Just because there aren't signs specifically saying DO NOT JUMP OFF MONORAIL INTO THE TIGER DEN at the Bronx zoo it doesn't mean Charles Darwin isn't waiting to find the idiot that actually tries to do it.

USA Today: Man jumps from monorail into tiger den at Bronx Zoo

So NOW they gotta put barriers around the monorail or stop the monorail service altogether all because of this one guy, because if it happens again they can be sued.



I think in the case of
Johnny Monorail jumper
he may have a spot Here... Darwin Awards

people feel strongly
about their paradigms



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
If you want real freedom, you have to be willing to take the occasional hit. (or read an abusive post
)
Yeah, it kinda sucks, but there ya go.

The only way to even attempt to prevent any of it is to limit freedom, one way or the other.
Ol' Ben really hit it on the head. Freedom and security are mutually exclusive.

I don't know what else to tell you. Glad you're back, Dave.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoonbender
I think in the case of
Johnny Monorail jumper
he may have a spot Here... Darwin Awards

people feel strongly
about their paradigms


Okay, here's a REAL thread breaker- what on Earth are those medals in your signature?



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
The "sinister plot" that I suspect to exist behind increased security measurements is to attempt to give the general public a false sense of safety while those in power damn well know that the people can't be protected against these kind of fanatics. So I suspect its just to keep the people calm. When I was in Asia some time ago, I noticed something similar. There were infrared cameras on airports to detect people with a higher body temperature. It was the time that the mexican flue hit the news. A lot of people were wearing dust masks. Its a similar pattern in a totally different situation.

On the flip side, I think the measures at ATS actually really work.

edit on 3-10-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
First off, I would like to publically apologize to all those who I insulted and made personal attacks against during my time posting here. It was my own human failing that I was unable to separate logic from emotion and allowed myself to be dragged down to the maturity of a ten year old, and ATS quite rightly banned my account. They were gratious enough to see that I do post worthwhile material here so they accepted my apology to them and let me back in. Hats off to them and trust me, I won't make that mistake again.

Now that I'm back on, a huge revelation had occurred to me;


A huge revelation has occurred to me too...

In my post on another thread I mentioned clicking on the New Thread button by mistake thinking it was the New Topics button, and I was met with this screen:



I post a screen capture of it for the benefit of those users (like yourself Dave) with a WATS index higher than 10 who therefore may not get to see it.

Now again, I notice, even as I begin to reply to this post a line above the text box info that says this:

Any Terms & Conditions infraction in the 9/11 forum may result in the termination of your account without warning.

And so let me get this straight, you were banned but then you apologized and promised never to do it again and were reinstated, is that correct?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, my WATS index is still below 10 and I can't (see screen capture above) create any new 9/11 threads.

My revelation thus being, that you getting back on with an apology and a promise makes a complete mockery of the whole 9/11 shutdown and rules changes.

Maybe I should apologize and promise never to do it again and that will drop my WATS index back to before so I can post a new thread in the 9/11 forum! No wait, I never did anything to justify the increase in my WATS index, so that probably won't do any good.

I tell you what, maybe I'd even let you back on too, you know, even after shutting the whole thing down and putting up screens and messages about how serious everything is, and draconian rules changes, but I'd make YOUR WATS INDEX 1. I mean if you're going to break the rules as soon as they are implemented why should you be let back on with the full privileges you left with? Just a thought.

One other thing I was thinking about is agendas. It seems to me that a lot of the people who might break the rules and get banned post a lot and been here a long time and so as a consequence their WATS index (as in your case Dave, it being 57), a lot of these people already have the sufficient number of WATS to start new threads, now let's just assume for a second that the people up to no good and prone to break the new rules also have an agenda, you know, one way or the other. Now all they have to do is tone it down and continue to post what they like hilighting their bias or agenda etc.

Meanwhile to counter that... well there is no countering that you see. Let's say some new person with not enough WATS wants to post their bias, their opinion, their research and findings, well, they can't see. But longstanding posters with more than enough WATS can do as they please.

In your case they can even break the rules and suffer not one whit for it!

Me, I don't understand why there's a WATS restriction on creating new threads in the 9/11 forum, if they are trolling offensive inappropriate threads that are not contributing to the debate and use of ATS then delete them and ban the people (individually) who create them. How difficult is that? How difficult would that be to implement or police? Not hard I imagine.

So for me it's ridiculous you see? I am penalized arbitrarily through no fault of my own while a longstanding poster like yourself actually breaks the rules, actually gets banned, apologizes and promises never to do it again and is let back on with full rights and privileges (like the ability to create threads) like you never even left.

Welcome back Dave...


Cheers



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I commend you for apologizing to the ATS community but I feel you should place that in the grey area where people can speak their mind......


Separate the wheat from the chaff if you will, I am one of your insulties and abused posters.

Now I am not stupid enough to post a reply to your thread here.
If I spoke my mind in this forum I am gone man.

You conveniently combined an apology with a new thread in a forum that you know you are safe in.
Be a man and post your humble sincere apology in the grey area and post your other thoughts where they belong.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned

And so let me get this straight, you were banned but then you apologized and promised never to do it again and were reinstated, is that correct?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, my WATS index is still below 10 and I can't (see screen capture above) create any new 9/11 threads.

My revelation thus being, that you getting back on with an apology and a promise makes a complete mockery of the whole 9/11 shutdown and rules changes.



Dave has been a member of ATS for a long time, almost as long as myself. He has contributed to many many different topics, including the 9/11 forum. There is a MASSIVE difference between newcomers signing up to troll the forums and a long-standing member losing his temper. The Mods and owners use DISCERNMENT in deciding whether a member is worthy of another chance or not.

I myself have been banned a few times over the years - I fully admit I was having bad days that caused me to lose my temper and break the rules. After having time to cool off I realised this, sent off an apology to the Mods and left it up to them to decide whether I should be given another chance - with the thought that if they did not reinstate me then it was my own bloody fault and I should just move on.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



First off, I would like to publically(sic) apologize to all those who I insulted and made personal attacks against during my time posting here.


Thanks, although you never personally insulted me.


Now that I'm back on, a huge revelation had occurred to me; the entire reason why I was banned is because ATS severely increased their TOS restrictions for the 9/11 thread, and they did THAT in response to a bunch of posters from one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites coming into ATS and causing havok for the benefit of their own political agenda.


Wait...did you retract your apology? "...damned fool..." People who have questions regarding official reports containing assumptions are now damned fools? Well, maybe you really meant the apology and this was just a slip and does not really indicate a natural tendency...


In short, the majority of people on ATS who previously had near complete freedom of speech have now been given much more strict regulations- many people can't even start new threads because of a new "you need at least ten points" policy- all to clamp down on a minority of self serving jerks who misused their privileges for their own political agenda.


"...self-serving jerks..."

Maybe not...



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by NWOwned

And so let me get this straight, you were banned but then you apologized and promised never to do it again and were reinstated, is that correct?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, my WATS index is still below 10 and I can't (see screen capture above) create any new 9/11 threads.

My revelation thus being, that you getting back on with an apology and a promise makes a complete mockery of the whole 9/11 shutdown and rules changes.



Dave has been a member of ATS for a long time, almost as long as myself. He has contributed to many many different topics, including the 9/11 forum. There is a MASSIVE difference between newcomers signing up to troll the forums and a long-standing member losing his temper. The Mods and owners use DISCERNMENT in deciding whether a member is worthy of another chance or not.

I myself have been banned a few times over the years - I fully admit I was having bad days that caused me to lose my temper and break the rules. After having time to cool off I realised this, sent off an apology to the Mods and left it up to them to decide whether I should be given another chance - with the thought that if they did not reinstate me then it was my own bloody fault and I should just move on.


I've got no problem with Dave, in fact, in a strange twist, Dave is the reason I even joined ATS. He was posting some thoughts on 9/11 a few years ago that I found incredible and I signed up to challenge him.

No really my beef is with the revised WATS index restriction.

As I wrote above:

Me, I don't understand why there's a WATS restriction on creating new threads in the 9/11 forum, if they are trolling offensive inappropriate threads that are not contributing to the debate and use of ATS then delete them and ban the people (individually) who create them. How difficult is that? How difficult would that be to implement or police? Not hard I imagine.

Maybe I don't have all the information and there's a reason I'm not getting and so I'll explain it the way I currently see things and someone can inform and/or correct me.

When I type a post up such as this one, who knows what I'm going to say? I don't even know till I finish typing. But when it comes to single posts in here I am sort of "presumed innocent" and am allowed to post freely etc. Now, if a post is judged and deemed inappropriate trolling or offensive or whatever then I might be immediately banned.

So what is that? I can post single posts freely, if they cross the line the forum policing could ban me. So there is policing of single posts any member can currently post freely.

My question is if you are "presumed innocent" with single posts subject to banning if inappropriate then why doesn't that apply to threads as well? Why wouldn't it? Why is there no requirement to post a post and a WATS score of 10 to post a thread if both can be reviewed, policed and judged one as easily as the other?

It makes no sense to me.

I was just reading a 9/11 thread not posted in the 9/11 forum that was promptly closed by a moderator. So threads can be easily closed. Threads can be easily policed. Posts can be reviewed. People can be easily banned. Why, therefore, is there a WATS restriction for posting threads at all? And why does it apply across the board?

Like you mention the owners and moderators using discernment to evaluate who may have just been having a bad day and screw up and ask to get back on etc. So there's even a process for that. Someone is monitoring that even.

So why can't the owners and moderators use discernment on the 9/11 posting members and determine who is not a risk and therefore does not need the standard WATS index rule applied to them? I never even made any threads when the number was zero, a review of my 200 posts would indicate that I am not in the group that the rule change was created to address. So like why do I have to suffer if it's just as easy to ban due to a post as a thread and my history of posting shows I'm not likely to offend and create any threads that would cause me to be banned?

If someone can show me what I'm missing I'd really like to hear the explanation.


Cheers



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


WATS is an indication of how much a person has contributed to ATS and how others receive their posts. A person with a low WATS score is either new, or doesn't contribute much. If they are new and wish to post in the 9/11 forum then they need to gain the trust of ATS, through their WATS score, in order to post.

I think it's a perfect solution. It allows for those who want to contribute in a positive way to work their WATS score up and be rewarded by being allowed to post in the 9/11 forum. It also keeps out the riff-raff. If your WATS score is low then contribute some more, in a positive and non-trolling fashion, and raise it!



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
This thread is now closed for a staff review.





new topics
top topics
 
4

log in

join