Results of the ATS Political Temperature Check Survey.

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.

So there's going to be two forums:

Political Ideology???
and
Political Conspiracy???

Is Political Ideology for the debating of party policy and things like that??

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.

Well that's good to hear. I wasted my points mudpit access. Do I get those points back?

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]

Originally posted by Chakotay Do the brave thing: let people talk.

How are we not letting people talk?

I love the idea of a Political Conspiracy forum.

Now, if you try to talk about voter fraud, a small but very vocal minority scream the same pat responses over and over. Hello, this is a conspiracy forum!

You don't tell people to stop talking about Bigfoot and just accept that he doesn't exist. You don't tell people to stop trying to say that there are no Aliens and UFOs. It's bad form.

I'm looking forward to a place where the trolls won't have any reason to enter. They can spam in the Political Ideology forum. I have a little fear that the lack of attention will cause them to troll in other places, but thankfully I know the mods will bring the hammer down.

EDIT: Dyslexia

[edit on 7-11-2004 by curme]

If I might make another suggestion... be more proactive in closing threads that repeat a topic that is already being discussed in another thread. When I signed on to ATS, I read in the rules that I had to do a search before posting a new topic, to make sure it wasn't already being discussed elsewhere. From what I see, few posters bother doing that. The result is that sometimes I log on, look at the titles of the threads, and go "same old, same old, same old..."

For example, there have been two or three "Jeb in 2008" threads, and a countless number of "Invade Iran" threads.

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!


[edit on 7-11-2004 by DeltaChaos]

Originally posted by A Random Person
Well that's good to hear. I wasted my points mudpit access. Do I get those points back?

Me too

I did just receive 500 points for the survey so guess I'm even.

Oh well, all in the name of a well organized place for discussion and debate. I am looking forward to the new forum

SO, when we filled out the survey, it said we would be able to see the results in the future. Not one of the Q&As above equals 100%. Can we see the rest of the results? I am not saying you deliberately left them out to make your decisions seem more democratic, but I was looking forward to seeing some of the responses you didn't list.

Thanks SO.


Edit: OK, I'm a retard! I didnt see the link untill after I posted this, sorry SO.

[edit on 7-11-2004 by cavscout]

I dont care about points. Unless I can use them to pay my gas and electricity.

But I agree, leave the mud pit. There has to be some place to vent, save yourselves the trouble of policing it. Other than profanity, but even then don't go all Ned Flanders about it. An ass is a donkey you know.

Just click the link in the original post.

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
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.

....it will certainly curtail the posting frequency of some members, but may well elevate the quality of discussion.

I have to admit this is probably the most appealing aspect of SOs proposal.

I have been following the extra votes tallied in Ohio thread with great interest, but more than half the comments on the thread are "get over it - nothing is wrong" or "the election is a fraud." This is an important topic regardless of what side of the debate you fall on and one that warrants serious discussion.

It seems pretty evident that we do need a Mud Pit but can we put it back in BTS where it was throughout the summer? Seemed to help keep some of the mudslinging out of the other forums.




B.

Originally posted by A Random Person
Well that's good to hear. I wasted my points mudpit access. Do I get those points back?

I recently purchased access to that forum. And if it's made available to everyone I agree with the above question: Do we get those points back?

I don't see the harm in leaving it as is - just let the mods get a little more aggressive to any poster that is rude or threatening.

People just need to realize that politics (much like religion or debates) can become VERY heated VERY quickly.

Originally posted by Mahree

Originally posted by A Random Person
Well that's good to hear. I wasted my points mudpit access. Do I get those points back?

Me too

I did just receive 500 points for the survey so guess I'm even.

Oh well, all in the name of a well organized place for discussion and debate. I am looking forward to the new forum

Everyone who filled in the questionnaire got 500points.... i want the points back i used to 'pay' for the mudpit dammit!!!

Usually I am against ANY form of censorship but it is good IF we are gonna have some that SO made the line a little clearer. A lot of the insults and name calling were border line and kinda hard to call, like some one talking to a Republican would not say YOU are scum but disguise the insult by saying REPUBLICANS are scum. This is just an example.

You either need NO censorship or a clear cut line. I myself liked the old Mudpit (what can I say), but can work with the rules.

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

I quite agree with the new forum, it will keep everything in order since these threads would need a good looking after.

And whats so bad about repeated posts? A lot of the time posts are updated with new info and not everyone remembers to go to the search engine to look for the post, and then go and correct their info, or update it then no one sees it, or just add another message to the post. It's a complicated thing to go through everything and if a new idea comes up the idea is most likely to be lost by the time the search is done.

Go ATS Mods!

Hehe The poll is there to get an idea of how they can improve the site, and instead of doing it themselves, the Mods include everyone. loll sounds like a NWO problem-reaction-solution. But then, if you think about it, every problem has a reaction-solution tied to it.

Well anyhows, at least we had our say! And yes I think we are being allowed to talk, it's just the problem with serious heated debates that can go out of hand. Religious and Political debates always hit a nerve on someone and thats when the heat starts so it's best to keep it in check so we don't loose our heads.

Phoenix

Originally posted by Stuey1221
Everyone who filled in the questionnaire got 500points.... i want the points back i used to 'pay' for the mudpit dammit!!!

Get over it. It is just points and you can get it back in no time.

Surf