Results of the ATS Political Temperature Check Survey.

Oops...I read one of the questions wrong and answered it wrong. sorry...he hheh

But...can we maybe get back the ATS points that we spend on the political debate section, since it's going to be opened to everyone now?

[edit on 7-11-2004 by Herman]

I consider myself told lol, i was being sarcastic when i said it just didnt convery that way, my bad

I agree with Amuk I did enjoy the old mud pit more, even when my fist time in there turn into something I will never forget, since then the mud pit turned soft, and now it completely gone that is not good, it should always be a place where discussions can run freely.

I agree with change, but too much restriction is not, and went it comes to debate discussion, heat will erupt from it not matter what. That is good for the soul. But having a babysitter reminding you to behave is not something many members will not like at all specially mature members. But I do agree that control is a plus.

I like the changes on name callings, I was getting tired of being called "anti-American" but please do not make the forums so restricted that they will turn from exciting forums to boring forums, I love when my hart is pumping fast in anticipation when it comes to a debate.

I will recomend a review of the new "policies" and please do not make the mud pit into a politicaly correct place.

If someone feel too ofended by the language or strong words they can always turn to better and softer topics on the rest of the boards I always do that when the heat gets to hard to handle myself.

[edit on 7-11-2004 by marg6043]

[edit on 7-11-2004 by marg6043]

Good idea, the volume of political discussion was getting out of control IMO. It will be interesting to see what the site traffic will be like in the following months, as ATS seemed to �blow up� in the months preceding the election.

I too would like to get my mud pit access points back if it is a possibility, but if not, hey, life goes on.

Umm,
These votes were CAST, and Tallied Electronically..
When the Lawyers are done in OHIO...we need......ok just kiddin.

Can we also limit the number of Emoticon/smileys used in an individual post? 45 in s single post is a bit much..

I think it's a good idea, to make attempts to address some of these issues, for sure. And in the first attempts, the results may not be what we expected. After all..a lot of the members are Human...

Sorry, I didn't realize it. I see it now though.

Surf

I'm somewhat disappointed that the people here are so tolerant of this political content, but then I wonder if many of them were drawn here for that very reason. You only need to look at certain people's avatars (you know who) to see that promoting a political viewpoint is the only reason they are here.

Ah, but anyway....at least there are changes being made.

I disagree. I interpret the new guidelines as allowing virtually everything which was previously allowed. The focus of these changes clearly seems to be that we avoid the high volume of 1-line insults which do not attatch themselves to any arguement of any kind.

I believe it is important for mods to clarify exactly what is and is not allowable. I believe that we -SHOULD- (and probably are) allowed to take a jab at the other side as long as we don't make pointless insults which target anyone and everyone under a broad catagory.
Try this: when you are typing something about a given person or group, ask yourself if you could say that statement about an ethnic minority without being banned.




So I'm not the only one with a 3-draft posting strategy?

I think we will loose some members as they struggle to type a post without childish name calling. I think eventually they will get frustated and leave, or get banned.

1 Mud Pit for people who have a propensity for bad form, and enjoy that fact.

1 Forum for heated, yet respectful discussion for people who are concerned and wish to engage in genuine debate, but are of the 'nice' variety of human beings.

1 Forum for serious, no-spin, fact-based political research and debate for people with a good reason to know what they're talking about, like specific training, profession, related profession, etc. Researchers and historians as well as civicly active members.

And maybe all members could belong to all three categories at different times for different reasons. I know sometimes I want to debate someone, or maybe many people on a particular subject. My debate style just happens to be one of offense. Not that I aim to offend anyone, but that it is an aggressive sport, and should be played like one. Sometimes I don't want to argue, sometimes I just want to talk to people that I do tend to agree with, bounce ideas off them, and strengthen my own positions through collaboration.

We've noticed that the big problem with 'flaming' and name-calling exists largely within the political forums. I think everyone agrees that so long as Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore, et al exist, there will be people who are 'enflamed'. Most of these people are that way because they prefer or choose to be anyway. They're not going away.

So bring back the mud-pit.

[edit on 7-11-2004 by DeltaChaos]

discuss things in a sober way, i LOVE it

glad to see ATS is changing and growing...

Bigotry, hatred and name-calling are destroying discussion on ATS.

Since I became a member in July, it has gone from being an occasional nuisance that could be kicked over to the Mud Pit or cooled by a short moderator warning to becoming a spreading pox on every forum I follow.

There is nothing wrong with having a strong opinion on something, however, expressing that opinion in the form of insults directed toward other members, their cultures, ethinicities or nationalities accomplishes nothing more than driving threads off topic and fostering an atmosphere of mutual disrespect.

In such a climate, meaningful discussion becomes impossible, and when that happens, a discussion board ceases to function as a tool of study, education and exploration, and instead becomes a den of liars and trolls.

I have seen this happen to other boards, and have left other boards for this reason. ATS is headed in that direction unless the staff take action to prevent it.

So my opinion on this is pretty straightforward: ATS is being trashed by trolls who refuse to abide by the Terms & Conditions, and saving this board will require effective action by ATS staff.

Therefore I will support whatever it takes to keep ATS from sinking into the mud, no matter what. This board is worth defending.

If that includes more liberal use of the ban hammer, then so be it.

Please, stop the insanity!

That's what I'm hoping for. The alternative is that those who are not trolls will get frustrated and leave instead, leaving a board dominated by trolls and besieged moderators.

As it is, I'm seeing signs of this already underway, and find myself really wishing there was a way I could ignore some forums as I follow the "Today" page (or maybe being able to jump to the last page of a thread from the "Subscriptions" page, at least.

There is way too much junk to have to sort through, too much hatred and bigotry, and after a while, I just get tired of trying to sort through it.

THE MUDPIT IS DEAD?!?!?!?!

I HATE this decision by ATS.

I wont bother to discuss freedom to read both the ignorant and the wise...
one of THE reasons i thought this website distinguished itself has been extinguished.

Rise oh demon of political correctness!!!!

Remember,
What you say can, and will be used against you.....

Why do i sense the level of warnings is about to peak?

Welcome the the EVER WIDENING verbal police state.
(remember when the PIT first got restricted?) (where's the points spent?)
I await further restrictions of a loosley defined nature after our next quiz.
(exactly how general does a person have to be to call stink...stink?)

Look back in time and see that political satire, including verbal jabs have been part of discourse forever it seems...Suddenly were all enlightened?
I guess political cartoons should be banned to eh? No more creative photoshopping a pic? There goes doonsburry.

I know, I know...resistance is futile, hit me with the standard line of private board and voluntary participation again......

Now i know how democrats must feel with a second Bush election...
cause i feel the same way about this.

Why aren�t the entire original questions in the survey not in the results? I answered them all with the default answers because that is exactly the way I feel and I'm sure that there are others on this board who feel the same way. Was the number of people who clicked on the default answers that big of a minority that the numbers aren't even worth posting? You (SO) Make it look like I voted for the Green party (not even worth mentioning)!

Yes, Political conspiracies belong here but not discussions of who's right and who's wrong. If you want to sling political mud go to Google or somewhere where those types of people are appreciated. Just my .02

Hey rancid1. This is off topic, but your sig is messing up the page format. Check this thread to get an idea of what I'm referring to.

EDIT: it's corrected. Thanks, rancid1.

[edit on 8-11-2004 by Durden]

Remeber, this is said almost everytime you but something in the ATS store.

There are no refunds.

I'm going to be a little sceptical for a while as, even I have lost my temper in politic fora. I think the idea of opening and controlling 2 forums on such high tempered issues iffy, I think control is going to be the only problem cause I think the content has generally been great less the outbursts, that even I have been warned once for in my time on ATS. It seems this will by the less controlled members to be a license to vent in ways not becoming ATS........I look forward to seeing how it works.

Funny stuff ... I enjoyed the thread,,, Thanks!

~peace

Do you hear that hissing sound? Thats the sound of the energy being sucked out of the now split forums.

Its been what, a week or so now, and it just seems to me that both the number and the energy of the posts is way down. Things appear dry and bland....some people appear edgy in their posts, as if they're holding back....as the weight of openly defined verbal oppression sets in.

(descriptions left vauge to avoid intentional "singling out" of people...this is just an example ofthings that raise questions about the new policies and ethics.)

A recent poster said the french were "cheese eating surrender monkeys".

2 posts later, a moderator says, "As for your monkey comment, we don't need that type of post here. "

NO warning was issued for what i have read to understand would be a clear violation of the new "verbal morality parameters".

How can a reasonable poster be able to discern WHERE the verbal line of "decency" is when wittness to pretty basic examples of verbal "indecency", where no action was taken other than verbal admonishment? (which could have been done by any poster disagreeing with the comment)

lets talk about ethics for a moment.
the idea that "we don't need that type of post here."

Which other "types" could we not want around here?
Add your favorite minority group title before the word "type" in that statement and ask yourself how discriminatory, bigoted and ignorant it sounds. Try Black, women, gay, jew, or your more expressive slang terms for them...fun isnt it?

This idea is very P.C., and its devicive, judgmental, and in effect discrimination on vauge criteria, enforced by non standardly trained people.

I find it very interesting that when other slang terms are put into that sentance, most members would agree that the statement would be devicive and possibly discriminatory,
YET,
when it refers to a freedom of speech issue, or open and honest forms of communication, (even non intelligent) it seems most are willing to encourage the stiffiling of this liberty.

If i said in a post...we dont need blacks posting around here....id be warned (mabey) and labled a bigot...
But
Saying ...we dont need your (potentially offensive) ideas around here....is somehow not percieved as censorship, or discrimination, in fact its encouraged.

i just dont understand the duplicity here. At what point does something go from "community standards" to discrimination? It seems that when other terms are put in the same context as "speech", they would be percieved as discriminatory far sooner than expressions of ideas or the manner in which they are communicated. Yet we just walk away from the 1rst amendment.

These other examples have pretty clear-cut criteria for what would be considered discriminatory, yet when talking about speech the actual boundaries are ill defined. How can something so widely interpretable be enforced uniformly? How can this be interpreted by the posters as to avoid commiting a violation with such open boarders?

Board gods please note, this is more of an esoteric look at this "speech boundary" issue that has been develpoing since before the mudpit was changed, than it is a critique of this great site.

Saying "our loftier form of expression is better than your lesser forms of expression, and we will discriminate against those that cant or wont do as we say", just seems like it is clearly "intellectual eliteism" at the least and basic discrimination with no definitions that are clear in practice.

How can denial of ignorance occur if youve limited sources for consideration? (by weeding out the "undesirable types"...define them.)

As a professional communicator, i respect the notion that intelligent discussions are better if a certain level of decorum exists.....

I understand that as a private board, they can set what ever parameters they like for their community.

I just wonder if people see this "intellectual eliteism" i refer to and how they see this as an extension of the "P.C. doctrine". How does this stifle communicaions? Are telling lies (only using PC approved expression) or just being quiet now more important than expressing true thoughts?