The chaotic ramblings of paranoid minds!!!

What inane ramblings come out of the mouth of some Ops that makes our insides tighten and brains bubble; to think what utter fabrication of unpopular fantasy populated with metaphoric paranoia and blasmephies of disdain for everything that doesnt conform to their mis interpreted views of the world.

Are we not sick to death of the doom trivia that spills out of chaotic ramblings of paranoid minds?

When was the last time you read a thread that really annoyed you with its ramblings of impending doom and shrouded operations of evil aimed at enslave humanity within a copious pit of despair and slavery.

Is it not time for where we need ratings place on threads?

You know a marker delimiters system akin to as used in movies...R, M, PG, G

For conspiracy thread a flag to mark:

Ridiculous Lunacy - RL
Moderately believable - MB
Possible but not good - PNG
Good Conspiracy Theory - GCT

A reasonable proposal? to protect the sovereignty of those who are still sane.

You mean a system by which we would allow the judgement of others to decide what is relevant to us?

Originally posted by argentus
You mean a system by which we would allow the judgement of others to decide what is relevant to us?

Dude that is seriously deep. I am going to have to give that some considerable thought and try to decide to what extent we allow the judgement of others decide what is relevant to us, and in which aspects of life it is most pervasive. This is deserving of a thread all of its own at the very least.

reply to post by argentus

You mean a system by which we would allow the judgement of others to decide what is relevant to us?

What must be relevant to any sane mind is having a scale by which the veracity can be measured. Would a person buy a car if there was no petrol gauge on it?
How far can the vehicle of sanity drive down a road of speed hump Paranoias and round abouts of Trolls before the tank runs out of sanity gas.

Originally posted by argentus
You mean a system by which we would allow the judgement of others to decide what is relevant to us?

I was gonna say that, You spoilt my fun

reply to post by AthlonSavage

It's easy for any regular on this site to understand why you feel like this and a lot would probably agree with you. Do you think such a system could be introduced without inhibiting and possibly fundamentally changing the nature of ATS?. Personally I am doubtful, you may disagree.

reply to post by hotel1

It's easy for any regular on this site to understand why you feel like this and a lot would probably agree with you. Do you think such a system could be introduced without inhibiting and possibly fundamentally changing the nature of ATS?. Personally I am doubtful, you may disagree.

If the nature of Ats did change my estimate is that it would resemble a conspiracy site version of Rotten Tomatoes.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by argentus

 

You mean a system by which we would allow the judgement of others to decide what is relevant to us?

What must be relevant to any sane mind is having a scale by which the veracity can be measured. Would a person buy a car if there was no petrol gauge on it?
How far can the vehicle of sanity drive down a road of speed hump Paranoias and round abouts of Trolls before the tank runs out of sanity gas.

Nice use of analogy to make your point. But as I said would it still be the same ATS if the system you advocated where to be introduced?.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by hotel1

 

It's easy for any regular on this site to understand why you feel like this and a lot would probably agree with you. Do you think such a system could be introduced without inhibiting and possibly fundamentally changing the nature of ATS?. Personally I am doubtful, you may disagree.

If the nature of Ats did change my estimate is that it would resemble a conspiracy site version of Rotten Tomatoes.

Fair point, by the way I hope its coming across that I don't completely disagree with the principle of what your proposing. I am just suggesting that the implementation of such a system might have wider effects on the site generally.

Ridiculous Lunacy - RL
Moderately believable - MB
Possible but not good - PNG
Good Conspiracy Theory - GCT

Just think the member who clocks the most flags on RL can be awarded with the yearly Tin foil Hat award.

We have a system in place just for that, its right here
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Though frustrating as it can be to wade through this place, we still have a shot to choose how much crazy we would like, for me Ill take jumbo sized crazy over boring any day

Peace, NRE.

reply to post by NoRegretsEver

Though frustrating as it can be to wade through this place, we still have a shot to choose how much crazy we would like, for me Ill take jumbo sized crazy over boring any day

Crazy people are generally more entertaining but I wouldn't want them handling the controls of a Jetliner.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
What inane ramblings come out of the mouth of some Ops that makes our insides tighten and brains bubble; to think what utter fabrication of unpopular fantasy populated with metaphoric paranoia and blasmephies of disdain for everything that doesnt conform to their mis interpreted views of the world.

Are we not sick to death of the doom trivia that spills out of chaotic ramblings of paranoid minds?

When was the last time you read a thread that really annoyed you with its ramblings of impending doom and shrouded operations of evil aimed at enslave humanity within a copious pit of despair and slavery.

Is it not time for where we need ratings place on threads?

You know a marker delimiters system akin to as used in movies...R, M, PG, G

For conspiracy thread a flag to mark:

Ridiculous Lunacy - RL
Moderately believable - MB
Possible but not good - PNG
Good Conspiracy Theory - GCT

A reasonable proposal? to protect the sovereignty of those who are still sane.

Just as people get showered with stars and flags simply because they're likable, a rating system would only offer more of the same, rendering the system meaningless.

Originally posted by argentus
You mean a system by which we would allow the judgement of others to decide what is relevant to us?

Sounds to me as though it would breed prejudice, it could also be considered discrimination to do that right?

Not a bad idea Op, but they say the way to hell is paved with good intentions. Personally I think ATS has a very good and moral way of policing it's site. What you are suggesting might just affect the day to day equality on this site, don't you think?

I'd rather a well controlled and civil ATS than a ATS that is successfully discriminative against posters due to their nature of posting, I like how it is... It's fair .