Results of the ATS Political Temperature Check Survey., page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 7-11-2004 @ 11:07 AM by SkepticOverlord
ATS Political Topic Survey Results. www.abovetopsecret.com... The results are in, and the reality of the numbers and responses don't much reflect the actual tone in many of the political topic threads. Q: How do you feel about the current volume of political discussion on the ATS board? A2: No biggie, I could take it or leave it. -- 34% A2: It bothers me, but there is the occasional good thread. -- 22% A3: I'm not a poltical-junkie, but I like most of the threads. -- 21% Q: Please describe, honestly, your political leanings for us. (This is just an overall temperature check of the ATS board members, your member name is not used in this survey!) A1: On my own. -- 23% A2: Neutral. -- 16% A3: Somewhat liberal. -- 15% A4: Somewhat conservative. -- 15% Q: If you discuss politics, what is your preferred style? A1: I like a calm discussion with occasional heat. -- 47% A2: I like calm cool and collected discussion. -- 26% Q: What would you like to see for the future of political discussion on ATS? A1: Put it all into one forum on ATS, that way we know where to find it. -- 35% A2: Create a new board (like BTS) for the political debate. -- 25% A3: Don't do anything at all, keep it just like it is. -- 23% Clearly, a large percentage of ATS members is either neutral on political ideology, or only slightly leaning toward one ideological direction. In addition, these answers and many follow-up comments here, in private, and among staff in our management forum indicate a need to gain control over heated political debate. The Solution 1- The restricted access political debate forum will be transformed to a general political ideology forum. This will be open to all, and where the merits of one political stance are discussed and compared to alternative stances in a sane and sober way. Decorum will be the rule. 2- The existing political conspiracy forum will remain, but with better management of topics to stay on-track with the discussion of conspiratorial topics within politics (such as election fraud, cover ups, etc.). One major change which should help manage the tone and style of political discussion from this point forward is the restriction against blanket categorical insults. For example, we're going to ask that our members refrain from saying things like "all liberals are ________" or "conservatives are _________" (insert insult of choice). Since many members fall into these categories, such statements can be construed as a personal insult/attack within the flow of a topical debate. Politics, like religion, often inspires impassioned opinion and heated exchanges. We certainly don't want to limit the discussion of important political topics, but we do expect our members to aspire to a higher standard of communication and discuss these topics with a degree of restraint. Carry on.


reply posted on 7-11-2004 @ 11:24 AM by Mirthful Me
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The results are in, and the reality of the numbers and responses don't much reflect the actual tone in many of the political topic threads.

One major change which should help manage the tone and style of political discussion from this point forward is the restriction against blanket categorical insults. For example, we're going to ask that our members refrain from saying things like "all liberals are ________" or "conservatives are _________" (insert insult of choice). Since many members fall into these categories, such statements can be construed as a personal insult/attack within the flow of a topical debate.

Politics, like religion, often inspires impassioned opinion and heated exchanges. We certainly don't want to limit the discussion of important political topics, but we do expect our members to aspire to a higher standard of communication and discuss these topics with a degree of restraint.


I will be interested to see if there really can be any change in the manner political forum posts are formulated. I fear that name calling and contrived derision is the crux of most arguments, those tools removed, the ability to articulate any meaningful dissent is removed.

Sans fangs and claws, who shall rise to the top of Mud-Pit heap?

p.s. Perhaps the restriction within the forum should extend to specific elected officials as well (i.e. George Wanker Bush is an ________ ), it will certainly curtail the posting frequency of some members, but may well elevate the quality of discussion.


reply posted on 7-11-2004 @ 11:55 AM by Chakotay
I suggest wire cages and gag orders to control free speech. It seems to work for Bush. In the short span of a few weeks, ATS is being transformed from a bastion of freedom of thought to a manipulated, controlled gentleman's debate tournament. I personally will find a new mudhole to wallow in. Do the brave thing: let people talk. And by the way, there were many other political affiliation responses than the weak few related by S.O. - I myself am not ashamed to admit that I am a Green, and voted so in the survey.

First edit: Man, I just sucked down my first coffee of the morning and re-read S.O.'s post. I'm a bear in the morning. Thanks for making the general political debate thingy open for all. Right on. Someone is cutting the wire cages open. OK. I'll still use this mudhole. Good on you, S.O. - Freedom all the way.

Second edit: Second cup of coffee. Man, I sound like John Kerry. First I was against it, before I was for it. Rule for self: never post before second cup of coffee. Rule for others: ignore me before second edits; first posts are for emotional venting, first edits are for comprehension check, second edits represent my reasoned, spellchecked opinions. I should do all this thinking in private, eh? But that's why I passionately support ATS. Its one of the last places we can all say what we really think without losing a job, friends or freedom. Applause for Skeptic Overlord.

[edit on 7-11-2004 by Chakotay]

[edit on 7-11-2004 by Chakotay]


reply posted on 7-11-2004 @ 02:56 PM by pineappleupsidedown
Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Emotion is as much a form of communication as is speech, or type in this case. And with that, emotion is complimentary in communication to speech. Politics is as an emotional subject as it has ever been, if not moreso now. If I am hearing correctly, there will be not restriction on what people say, but the way people say it. This is stifling, as many here haven't developed the skill in writing necessary to convey their points and concerns without writing in a purely emotional tone.

I suggest that all parties try to understand that people are angry and frustrated, will always continue to be, but will not always have the extended vernacular to convey their points of concern in a subdued, scholarly way. Likewise, if comments by an individual are frustrating to another, all should understand that they may be subject to vehement response.

In the mud pit, I think that restriction to speech should be limited only in the use of profanity, for the cause of accessibility to all. Bring back the mud pit!


Wow Delta, a well-written arguement in favor of people who you say are not very well capable to express themselves other than very emotionally. nevertheless, I dont think the fact that these people cannot form soild arguements and resort to name-calling and flaming should not be condoned by ATS.

That was why the mudpit was given restricted access: so it would not reflect ats badly to new guests and members. Just because a person is passionate about politics (or religion, ethics, whatever) does not given them the right to just go on a rant and flame whoever they want however they want.

You(Delta, I'm not talking about you now, just members in general) all complain about freedom of speech and how SO would be limiting it in this way. Two things. 1, slander is not appropriate and that is what many of these threads are generating. and 2. THIS IS A PRIVATELY OWNED BOARD! If you want to stay on here, you gotta play by the owners rules.

I think we should keep the Politics in a restricted access forum still. I personally do not trust some of the members here still heated from the election to hold their tounges in exchange for better support of their points just because SO says they need to. It will take awhile to instill that in the minds of some of the members.

---pineapple
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



DEA is Investigating Montana State Legislators Over State Laws
  Posted 10 days ago with 59 member flags
Who is really behind the birthers and what is their real motive?
  Posted 9 days ago with 11 member flags
ESF and Black op funding.
  Posted 8 days ago with 11 member flags
There is NO Media Bias in America
  Posted 8 days ago with 10 member flags
White House pressure on Gulf oil leak figures
  Posted 10 days ago with 5 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Alien Grey caught in photo ?
  Aliens and UFOs, Posted 9 hours ago, 64 replies
Greetings from a Dying Man
  Introductions, Posted 8 hours ago, 62 replies
Pass Me My Rifle
  World War Three, Posted 14 hours ago, 55 replies
Iran sent pink drone to Obama
  World War Three, Posted 14 hours ago, 40 replies
10 People Whose Warnings Went Unheeded
  General Conspiracies, Posted 17 hours ago, 35 replies