there are 10 members on here who finish 99% of the threads.. 1% Hoodwink the 99%

reply to post by rolfharriss


Op, stars are the way of rewarding relevant replies to the topic at hand, if a member makes 10 replies in 1 thread and all 10 are better thanthe other 30 replies that were mindless kneejerk reaction type drivel they should garner more stars.

Also, a lot of members are here more often than others, so they are gonna get more stars a day than others, this entire site is driven by user generated content, so the more they post, the more they are gonna get.

I really don't understand your point, or premise. As "stars" are not always a very good indication of the quality of posts made.

I believe you are just being kinda petty about not getting as many as others, try being more thoughtful in your posts, and see if you don't get more stars, or posting more often. You get out what you put in, besides, it isn't like you get anything out of it.

reply to post by kudegras


And a star for you my friend......

reply to post by rolfharriss


Okay, so now that the elections are over and we can't whine about that we're going to start whining about some people having more stars than others? Should people with the most stars be segregated? I think there is a Dr Seuss book about "star bellied sneetches" where something similar occurred- that didn't work out so well!

Don't be hating on people with lots of stars- say something profound or witty and earn a few yourself! I don't think you would be grumping if you had a truckload of stars yourself. The people that gripe the most are those who have the least- star envy anyone?

reply to post by rolfharriss


Somebody has to be the thread killer.

I thought zaphod had that honor.

i thought we just finished the election related to the 1 percent and the 99 percents sorry..had to throw that one.

Originally posted by rolfharriss
In that case hypothetically how would whistleblower information be handled?

We don't 'handle' whistleblower information.

Does ATS have a working relationship with any government organisation?

No.

I know independent sites such as Sott.net have been raided by the police in the last year, has ATS had any similar issues?

No.

Feel free to review the site's privacy policy.

If additional clarification is needed there's info at the bottom of the policy-

How To Contact Us:

Should you have other questions or concerns about these privacy policies, please send us an email using our Contact Form.

Written queries may be sent to:
The Above Network, LLC
15111 North Hayden Road, Suite 160-156
Scottsdale, AZ 85260.

I think of stars here kind of like "likes" on facebook. To me, when someone stars my post, I feel like they are saying "I agree" or if they don't agree "that was a valid point". But I showed you some love and gave you a star.

Stars really have nothing to do with the dynamics of a thread. Threads will peter out after awhile regardless. And stars don't get you anything. I'd say one ought to concentrate on good and pithy posts, then the stars and flags will follow, most of the time. I think anyone who has been here any length of time knows that there are posts and threads you spend hours on, literally, that don't get much recognition and may not even cause a good conversation. Then there are others that appear to be a five minute toss-off that everyone gets excited about.

Sure, that happens, but overall in the long term if you provide good commentary, your reputation will reflect that.

Now, as to your claim that there are 10 members who finish 99% of the threads, please prove that as well as explaining what "finishing a thread" even means. Next, please reconcile your statement that "1% hoodwink the 99%" And what does "hoodwink" mean in this context?

With over 272,408 members on ATS 1% is over 27,000, yet only 2800 or so have over 1,000 posts. So I'm not seeing where you're getting your statistics from and you know what? I suspect you haven't done any research on this at all.

reply to post by schuyler


The OP also didn't realize how you are with your numbers.

However, you do provide sound advice for the "newer" members. I'll also agree the terms are a little vague.

Here's to threads fizzing out.......

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by rolfharriss

 

Op, stars are the way of rewarding relevant replies to the topic at hand, if a member makes 10 replies in 1 thread and all 10 are better thanthe other 30 replies that were mindless kneejerk reaction type drivel they should garner more stars.

Also, a lot of members are here more often than others, so they are gonna get more stars a day than others, this entire site is driven by user generated content, so the more they post, the more they are gonna get.

I really don't understand your point, or premise. As "stars" are not always a very good indication of the quality of posts made.

I believe you are just being kinda petty about not getting as many as others, try being more thoughtful in your posts, and see if you don't get more stars, or posting more often. You get out what you put in, besides, it isn't like you get anything out of it.

It is more a case of seeing strange patterns on certain subjects, these guys instantly gain stars is seconds which suggest it is not an organic process, then the other familiar face gets a similar amount.

Is it not logical that you shouldn't be able to star the same person over and over again?

The moderator confirmed they were not the same person but did not comment on whether they were in the same location.

It would be incredibly naive to believe government organisations/security services do not monitor and participate in forums, just look at the Justin Hallman case.

They are on here and it makes sense for us to try and mitigate their influence by using our common sense.

""The FBI agents then attempted to recruit Hallman to spy on Anonymous. “They wanted me to be an informant, to possibly put my life in danger, to help them arrest and gain intel on occupy protesters and hackers,” he writes.""

www.infowars.com...

This isn't about egos and wanting more stars, it is about the false manipulation of a debate. Stars are applause it should be made impossible to reciprocate stars.

I propose that I finish this thread. Cuz I'm a finisher, a closer.... this guy....

Originally posted by r2d246
I propose that I finish this thread. Cuz I'm a finisher, a closer.... this guy....

I agree these threadkillers are over paid arrogant bullies, apt video evidence.

But the question remains.

How do we mitigate the influence of government organisations in these forums ?


I am all for going public and saying who we are, to hell with it! I would die for what I believe in.

If your talking thread killers were top heavy,but that's a good thing.

Originally posted by rolfharriss
But the question remains.

How do we mitigate the influence of government organisations in these forums ?


I am all for going public and saying who we are, to hell with it! I would die for what I believe in.

Can you give me any examples of some posts that look as if they were posted by a mole?

Originally posted by rolfharriss

It is more a case of seeing strange patterns on certain subjects, these guys instantly gain stars is seconds which suggest it is not an organic process, then the other familiar face gets a similar amount.

Is it not logical that you shouldn't be able to star the same person over and over again?

The moderator confirmed they were not the same person but did not comment on whether they were in the same location.

It would be incredibly naive to believe government organisations/security services do not monitor and participate in forums, just look at the Justin Hallman case.

First, you just got here. Second, you are long on accusations, but short on specifics. You need to prove your case and you are simply avoiding it. What 1%? What do you mean, "hoodwink"? What ten members finish 99% of the threads??? Specifically. NAME them. Show how your assertion is true.

You can't, of course, which is why you are avoiding answering the question. You can't prove that ten members "finish" 99% of the threads because the notion is preposterous. It's not true, and since it is demonstrable that it is not, what does that say about your credibility? That's easy. You can be ignored.