Can We Have a Thread To Link To Those Who Might Not Know?

There is a horrible thing in my opinion that happens on ATS, and I would like to add a suggestion that may in fact help both parties.

Sometimes.... ok alot of the time, new members, may come on ATS and have some info that they might have found that would be useful to ATS, the the info may be important, but the person actually giving it may not be, i.e, Greer, Icke, Jones, Faal, etc,.

Is it possible as there are many threads about these people and why members have a huge problem with them, but that is the opinion of a large group, and many have a tendency, even though they saw 50 other members write, this is a hoax, members write the same one liners.

"never believe so and so"

"you have been had"

"this is a known hoaxer"

Seriously the list go's on and on. Maybe we can have one thread, with all lets say "known" debatable conspiracy theorists, so that if someone does this (and someone always does) a mod can come in and delete all derailed, and off topic posts, and add a small link, it could be something like this.



ALL OFF TOPIC POST ARE REMOVED!
Dear poster, there are many pieces of information that may interest you about the person that you linked, or wrote info about. Here is the research that has been done by ATS members, sharing their research about Mr./Mrs./Ms ____________.
(LINK ADDED HERE).

Signed, ATS Staff.

This will cause less frustration, and not cause new members to be discouraged about writing threads, and they can research themselves, based on the same members that would usually cause most of the derailing.

I really do feel bad when I see someone with 30 posts link to one of the above and get bombarded by members not having anything to contribute except their personal belief about that person. Its unfair, and takes up the time of everyone involved.

I am sure that ATS prides itself on not letting members get treated in such a way, and I think that this could help everyone, no one can derail as this was already posted, and the same members that would have had a one liner, could participate in the thread that will be linked, and not feel ignored about their opinion of the said person.

Peace, NRE.

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


I don't think that pointing out that the source of something (even if it's just referential) is "off topic."

While I do think that it would be helpful to have a link to post(s) that document a source's poor credibility, it shouldn't be the mods' duties to clean up threads and provide those links. However, it would be in a "doubters" best interests to provide such, as it helps establish their own credibility in discounting the source.

For example, not helpful: "That's a Scientology site, you can't trust those guys."

More helpful: "religiousfreedomwatch.org is a web site run by Scientology, so you can't expect an unbiased statement on this issue from them. Here is a page that explains how religiousfreedomwatch.org works: Scientology's Hate Site

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NoRegretsEver

 

I don't think that pointing out that the source of something (even if it's just referential) is "off topic."

While I do think that it would be helpful to have a link to post(s) that document a source's poor credibility, it shouldn't be the mods' duties to clean up threads and provide those links. However, it would be in a "doubters" best interests to provide such, as it helps establish their own credibility in discounting the source.

For example, not helpful: "That's a Scientology site, you can't trust those guys."

More helpful: "religiousfreedomwatch.org is a web site run by Scientology, so you can't expect an unbiased statement on this issue from them. Here is a page that explains how religiousfreedomwatch.org works: Scientology's Hate Site

What I am actually pointing out is the sometimes overwhelming amount of members that "only" contribute that the info is wrong, or the person is a fake, and nothing else, which in turn a mod will have to clean up all the off topic one liners filling 3 pages of a thread.

The mods will have to clean up the regretful thread of one-liners anyway. If that is the case then there would be ONE link that is provided such as the one that is given when a new member introduces themselves. Especially when the same few people are mentioned, such as the people that I listed above.

This is I think a less aggressive way to approach someone that just might not know.

I think that I clearly made these points but if not, then maybe this is better.

Peace, NRE.

Isn't this what the ATS Skunk Works Forum is for e.g. "Highly Speculative Topics"? I've seen some pretty off the wall topics within that particular forum and the lot you mentioned (though known to be hoaxers) should be able to topically roam free in that forum as it were.

ETA: Strike that, I read that incorrectly, so you're saying a link provided in a moderated post that would now be just labeled as off topic within a thread be adjusted to house a link to a disclaimer of sorts with information that the originating author/source of the information is a known hoaxer/hoax based on research.

Got it, I think, to be honest I'm not sure how effective it would be in making the OP aware or thwarting any of the one liners that you've mentioned. I would think that the U2U that most likely is sent to an OP in the event a thread is moved to the Hoax bin would explain this in so many words, but that is speculation on my part.

The damage is done with the thread containing the Hoax being posted to begin with. It's usually after where the education of the source comes into play, so your idea holds some water in respect to better clarification.

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


Well, I think that we'll have to wait and see what a mod says. We already have "new member" threads of resources that people are supposed to take advantage of, but I doubt that many do. This might motivate some to read them that wouldn't otherwise, but they're likely still going to post "David Icke is an idiot, don't listen to him" the next time they see him referenced anyway.

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


gee? what thread, today, could have caused you such concern?

reply to post by NoRegretsEver




That's just my view as a member.

Personally as a moderator, I'm not here to just remove posts and ban folks. I'm also here to facilitate good discussions by interacting with the membership. 90% of my days are spent sending PM's back and forth with members.

(Side note, you can always reach me in my signature)

So in essence, I enjoy doing what you may think is tedious.

!Tenth

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


Just hit the alert button instead. There are safeguards in place to help weed out irrelevant posts and/or sources, but this sort of thing is so subjective and there are so many active members here, that you can't put a blanket over it like that. Things like this need to be taken on a case by case basis and that's what the alert button and U2U's are for.

Just don't waste the time of staff. Read up on the T's and C's and familiarize yourself with them before you complain about something YOU consider an issue but this site in general does not.

My pet peeve is people who come on and bait other posters to say things they typically wouldn't say and, as a result, get banned. They word things in such a way as to not get banned themselves, but still, they seem to look for people at emotional low points and go for the jugular. They're scum and they're counterproductive to the site in general.

But I commend you for coming on and giving your input because you want to see things more civil and productive. As do I.