*** ALL MEMBERS *** Ending Rudeness, Hate, Bigotry: Getting Back to Basics

a reply to: karmicecstasy


I think thats why some are bummed out. They can not hide behind their religion to disguise their own bigotry.
I think we will not see any anti gay threads now.
The world is moving forward and ats with it.

Respect is everything, whether on ATS, or going about your daily life.
If you lack it, you cannot teach it, and for this reason it suffers accelerated entropy.
Bringing it back will take great effort, but I believe it can be done.

originally posted by: charlyv
Respect is everything, whether on ATS, or going about your daily life.
If you lack it, you cannot teach it, and for this reason it suffers accelerated entropy.
Bringing it back will take great effort, but I believe it can be done.

I think I see:





The point? Just lighten up people.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: neformore

I am not asking because of lack of understanding or potentially saying something offensive, it is a matter of ethics.

A question of ethics on 'who is okay to hate on ATS?'

Thing is that ISIS are a dedicated group of people who want the same thing. Their supporters want the same thing. There are no members of ISIS that state their disapproval of their actions.

I often see many Americans state they disapprove of the actions of the US government's involvement in other countries. To hate on ISIS as a whole is to hate the ideology. To hate on the US as a whole is ignorance. Big difference.

Not sure how it can be seen any other way...

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Greathouse

There is nothing wrong with ending your posts with the word "potato", even if it comes to be commonly known as your personal method of expressing frustration. As long as it were not used as an obvious substitution for a slur or insult - in a very obvious way - there is nothing in the T&C that would prohibit doing so.

ETA: Potato

To each his own! I'll still cook potatos or potatoes !

Off topic I know, but they brought up food!

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

Ah that's cool, I thought you meant ATS.
Welcome here though, I think this is the first time we have interacted so far.
For the record I am like a dog with a bone sometimes in debate, but I always try to be reasoned, and even if we ever disagree in one topic, that will not stop me agreeing with you in another. It's all about the debate to me.

...equally, you shoot me down with a reasoned argument and I will happily concede If I can't reason against it.

I can attest to that statement ! They won't bite!

originally posted by: DrogoTheNorman
I'm glad to see this thread.

There are too many forums I could name that I USED TO participate in, but left because of mean-spirited members and the fact that the staff do nothing to curtail them.

Glad to see ATS is stepping up to the plate to keep it civil.

Glad to have you with us! Hope you enjoy your stay. Not really sure what kind of threads you post though, I'll give it a look! Who knows what will happen next?

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: karmicecstasy


I think thats why some are bummed out. They can not hide behind their religion to disguise their own bigotry.
I think we will not see any anti gay threads now.
The world is moving forward and ats with it.

Yup.


Here we are.

a reply to: reldra

I hope it is uniform. I have had a warning in a U2U about a recent reply in a thread that was not any of the quoted things, and made little sense, logically or otherwise. I asked for further explanation and was ignored. The same mod moved an entire thread of mine to The Trash Bin- it was none of the things noted either and could have gone to general chit chat as far as I am concerned- but it just gets trashed. I am feeling a little picked on by the same mod.

I was quite disturbed recently when a mod deleted a post in which I admittedly reacted with anger to another member who was openly mocking myself and others with relentless impunity on a thread regarding something paranormal. This member had apparently written a lengthy, completely and utterly off-topic post (on the same thread) about recovering from a psychotic episode that caused him to have to stop visiting ATS forums. Apparently he was a long-time member previously and was "reintroducing" himself by hijacking someone else's thread. Apparently, for this particular member, that was acceptable behavior.

I still haven't read the entire post because it's self-serving and attention seeking, which is why I didn't read it in the first place...those types of things irritate me and it was irrelevant to the thread. There was no reason for me to think he had done this, because it was not the topic we were discussing. I made a reply to something he said to me, and in that reply said something along the lines of "someone must have forgotten their meds today", in reaction to the mocking, rude things he was saying to me.

I didn't log back on until the following day, and when I did I had a U2U waiting for me. "Ill-mannered post removed". Yet a post in which yet another member was calling me out, by name, publicly "shaming" me for "using this person's mental problems against him", etc. was left there. I don't even know these people! The off-topic posts (there were several) were left there.

I contacted the mod, questioning why posts that blatantly violated the T&C were left on the thread, including the one specifically directed at me. I stated to the mod that I had no reason to know that this person was taking meds of any kind. Why would I? The thread was about a paranormal encounter, not mental health. Yes, what I said was very sarcastic. Against the T&C? No, it wasn't. And I got absolutely no response to my U2U; it was ignored. I know all of the mods aren't like that, but it only takes one to make the rest look bad. Maybe it wasn't favoritism, but it sure looks that way.

People don't like to feel as if they're being picked on. We should all have equal value here.

Tenth, my friend...

I saw a number of things in your post I though I should comment on. I felt I would be remiss, if i didn't say something. Hope you don't take it the wrong way..

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
Good Afternoon.

Our staff would like to announce a change, or should we say an enforcement, on a long standing ATS policy that has recently gone by the wayside.

I'm a bit curious as to why you're announcing this, instead of Bill or Mark. Not that it matters all that much, staff is staff, i suppose... just curious is all.

Those goals have always been very simple: Respect and decorum are mandatory to productive discussion.

That's not a goal, tenth...It's a belief.

While I have no issue with respect, manners, and decorum, I'm sure I'm not the only one who knows that they are not absolutely essential, or a prerequisite for productive discussion...they absolutely are essential to CIVIL discussion, but civility, and productivity are two different, and mutually-exclusive things.

ATS is here to provide a place where issues of the day, both the political and the conspiratorial, can be intelligently discussed.

Unless people don't like what you have to say, then you just get banned. Discussion of conspiracy theories regarding the Sandy Hook event, are a good example of this in action. I'm sure there are other topics that are unofficially verboten, but I only know of this one, off the top of my head.

This will end now. We will no longer tolerate the tactless and the rude. We will no longer allow blanket statements about whole groups of people for no other reason than they offend you.

I'm a bit curious where you lot were when people here were demonizing GamerGate supporters, and saying that we're all misogynists, and racists, and generally awful people.

This will apply to all corners of ATS, in all realms of discussion including race, religion, sexual identity, political affiliation, nationality, etc.

Does this mean that the rules for the pit will be changing?

Let it be known that this is not an attempt to create an echo chamber.

Why does it feel like it?

NO members who have 'unpopular' opinions will be subjected to punishment, so long as the T&C is followed.

Tenth, my friend, with all due respect as both a SM, AND as a friend, I hafta say that this statement is not true.

While this place is moderated in a way that is FAR less retarded than, say, Ars Technica, for instance, there have been instances of people being punished for having "unpopular opinions"...I've actually been on the receiving end of this, myself. And I know of others as well....when the decisions were challenged, the line has always been the same: "we debate it amongst ourselves, so it was a group decision", and that's that...

Our community is everything to us and it will not be sullied by the few who refuse to or are incapable of discussing divisive issues with tact and respect.

Even when we DO discuss divisive topics civily, with tact, and respect, we sometimes STILL catch hell for it.

The staff will not indulge long, drawn out arguments over the fairness of this policy, nor the results of the actions taken when YOU choose to violate the rules.

So the bottom line is that at the end of the day, ATS belongs to the staff, not the membership. I don't see this having a particularly happy ending for anyone.

All I can see now, is this new approach to moderation being used as a weapon by every professional victim, professional offense-taker, and social justice warrior, to stifle legitimate discussions, and opinions they don't like, by reporting anything and everything that offends, or "triggers" them...I see a ton more work for you lot, and many more of us getting banned, or flagged for "bad behavior"

a reply to: tigertatzen

In regards to the abusive post towards you, did you alert it or just send a U2U to a mod? As was mentioned before, unless you alert the post in question it may be missed... AFAIK alerts are open to all mods, but a U2U would only go to the sole recipient.

Just thought I'd mention it, incase...

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: purplemer

and illegals,

ban people for the hate speech against illegals

Hate speech against any peoples should not be tollerated. With freedom of speech comes responsbility

Legit question: is it "Hate Speech" if it's factual?

for instance, if i were to say that, generally speaking, people from a specific group do specific things, that do harm to other people, would you consider that to be hate speech, even if it is provable fact?

originally posted by: Daedalus

I'm a bit curious as to why you're announcing this, instead of Bill or Mark. Not that it matters all that much, staff is staff, i suppose... just curious is all.

I'll clear that up for you: Staff, including owners, debated for days about how to address what we see as a growing problem. I was also involved in creating the structure of the opening post, as well as pretty much every other staffer.

So, don't shoot the messenger, oh, curious one... he carries the thoughts and hopes of all staff, administrators and owners included.

OK?

a reply to: Daedalus

No... it's not hate speech to decry cruelty.

I know this post wasn't addressed to me, but, again, I feel the need to comment..

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
Where are all the threads you've made about the things you want to read about and discuss?

Be the change you want to see.

I was very active in a thread once...it was about a topic that shall remain nameless....The Opening Post was very thorough, and professionally done, as was all of his subsequent posts...he presented verifiable fact, and ALWAYS made sure that theories, ideas, and other assorted musings were labeled as such...not once, did he violate the T&C. Something happened, not entirely sure what, but a mod took exception to what he was saying...he ended up getting banned, and the thread died...and with it, the ONLY truly intelligent conversation on the topic, in addition to any hope of having any other similarly intelligent discussions on the topic, because of the chilling effect created by the actions of the staff.

Why would anyone want to put in the time, only to run the very real chance that their work will be outright trashed, or dumped into "L-O-L" (a section i think is lazily overused by the staff, by the way), where nothing productive happens? Additionally, why would anyone want to put in the time, AND risk their work being trashed, AND risk being banned?

This creates a state were people are afraid to discuss controversial topics, and instead opt to go with something "safer", and less intelligent...like a thread about their cat, or what they had for lunch, or perhaps some sort of tin-hat nuttery..

When that happens, ATS suffers...

a reply to: masqua

We are the borg. We do everything together. Resistance is futile.

lol, I jest...

Wasn't shooting the messenger...was just curious why Tenth was chosen as the spokesperson for this, instead of an official address by Bill or Mark...as i said, and you verified, staff is staff, so it doesn't much matter..I was simply curious.

originally posted by: masqua
a reply to: Daedalus

No... it's not hate speech to decry cruelty.

well, i know THAT.....no, what I was getting at was whether or not that poster would consider a statement about a group of people to be "hate speech", even if the statement was factually accurate, or provably true.

a reply to: Daedalus

Perhaps there was an something going on which was not publicly obvious. The T&C's are what we act on and it is never because some single staffer takes exception to a reasonable topic.

Any staffer that did something like that might not last too long.

We don't discuss how or why members get banned.

originally posted by: masqua
We don't discuss how or why members get banned.

This, I know...all too well....

originally posted by: Daedalus
...what I was getting at was whether or not that poster would consider a statement about a group of people to be "hate speech", even if the statement was factually accurate, or provably true.

If a poster thinks a statement is hate speech, then they should put in an alert and staff will decide what to do about it.

For instance, if I were to post about my dislike of clowns, that is not hate speech. I don't like clowns at all and never did.
So, if there's clowns out there, they are forewarned about my displeasure with their idiotic clowning.

Now, if a member was a clown and I told that clown that I hated him, then, yes, that's hate speech.