The 9/11 Conspiracies Forum is a Mess. And it’s The Fault of Many Members

a reply to: Krakatoa

As Zaph said, it could still be considered gatekeeping.

Best thing to do is to simply alert the post that is considered off topic, or that you think is derailing the thread.

We will look at it. We can't always say we will remove the post, because we may not agree that it's off topic or derailing the thread.

However, the worst that anyone can do is not alert it, or to start going off on the member that posted it.

Alert it and move on. If you think it's off topic, don't respond to it. Respond to something else in the thread that is on topic.

Bottom line: let us, the staff, deal with it. That's what we're here for. We volunteer our free time, are not paid, and get abused all the time....but we're here to help you out.

The goal here is to discover truth, not a mutual self-appreciation back-slapping echo chamber of ridiculous conspiracy theories that cannot stand up to examination.

The original theory that was being tested by sites like ATS implied that Compartmentalization of Knowledge might not be an effective information security tool once information could be searched and linked via the internet.

The "teach a netizen to fish philosophy" has its limits.

Maybe a simple pre 911 example would help?
These days we have google search to quickly find coordinates with almost automatic geo-linked video resources.
You do have to expend a little effort to learn though.

tinyurl.com/hgncux3

Finding potentially useful Easter eggs in a single ridiculous conspiracy theory won't solve the problem. The more comprehensive solutions to the puzzle require Easter eggs from seemingly unrelated source compartments..

Just going on my last post why not make a 9/11 research forum with a zero tolerance rule with a disclaimer somewhere to weed out the troublemakers? Those that are trying to start trouble from either side would be caught out very quickly. It would be a place for either side to talk about the evidence they want without the other side turning it into a hatefest. You could then in turn leave the 9/11 forum open to those that want to debate the topic. I know it's all well and good saying this because I don't have to make it, code it or moderate it but it could be an alternative than shutting it down completely.

9/11 is the main reason I joined and now it's pretty much the only forum I avoid.

It's trash.
Has been since a long time ago.


The only people who will miss it... Well...

They won't be able to derail anymore threads, and given their post ratio in that forum, good riddance.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Oh, I agree with you 100% to let the mods manage the decision (I have alerted posts in the past and provided my thoughts as to why I thought it was off-topic of against T&C's). However, by the OP having a stated goal or train of discussion, would it not provide an easier way for the mods themselves to make that determination?

I am not advocating a thread creator "self-police" at all, on the contrary, I want to help the mods make that determination knowing full well the odds of mods vs. posters is very steep indeed.

I just don;t want to be guilty of "gatekeeping" if I politely state the purpose of my thread in the OP, and ask (key word, ask) the members to respect that so that the discussion (both for and against) within the topic at hand. I mean, how can someone know what is off-topic in a thread if the OP does not clarify their ideas on what is on-topic.

originally posted by: SoulSurfer

originally posted by: Willtell
I totally agree with this for this reason.

I’ve told this story before but will tell it again.

Years ago I was on a forum-- with little rules--where people literally when bat # insane because of the abuse they got from a group of members who piled up on them. A few Buddhist sect members were proselytizing and were piled up on by the traditionalist Buddhists. Boy it got ugly!!!

It was the ugliest thing I have seen on the internet (and among the ugliest things I’ve seen or heard in my life) and literally changed my own actions.

I felt such pity on the sect people I went on their side and got in the scuffle…shouldn’t have done that.

Believe me folks you don’t want to see such awfulness from human beings when abuse goes too far. Its something you'll never forget and should never see.

It’s a shame because 911 is a vital topic to peruse so we should try to maintain objectivity.

But to sum up the words above. What you witnessed, was the dark side of humanity, known as The beast. There is no coming back once you've witnessed the beasts actions in its true form. This is when you really wake up, and take a long look in a mirror to see those very flaws within yourself. The ugly truth reveals itself, and that is what gets us to turn away from our previous paths to try and do good instead.

Great response.
I appreciate it.

You’re right; you call it the beast, a religious mentor of mine use to call it, the Monster.

I use to be a proud, what I call gun slinger. A verbal bully…. I mean I was mean; I could bring people to tears with words

This is no exaggeration, your reading the guy who along with another gun slinger together took down the CLUB OF ROME forum!
This was years ago.

This experience got me to look at myself and consider. Think of the person you’re verbally abusing.

That person is A HUMAN BEING…just like you.

It’s called compassion and empathy.

I tried to be better than I was.

I hope I am a better person.

a reply to: Krakatoa

The problem with that becomes: Iron Fist Modding.

Say you make a thread about the Pyramids. You only want to talk about them being built. You don't want to talk about them as they are today, nor do you want to talk about any other pyramids.

If you say people have to only talk about that, you might be limiting the discussion potential of that subject.

For example, a point about their construction might be brought up, and someone knows something about another pyramid that shows that point.
However, because you dictated that they can't talk about other pyramids, we'd have to remove that post.

Was that fair, or right? Most staff back here will most likely agree that the post is still on topic and contributing to the thread.

Someone else posts something about a temple that had nothing at all to do with the pyramids.....yah, that's most likely off topic. Alert it.

Someone else shows something about the pyramids and how they are today, to prove a point about the construction. Well, because you stated that no one can post about that, we'd have to remove that post too...again, limiting the discussion.

You can ask people to please stay on topic in your OP, in a polite way, and we'll most likely not be worried about it.

But later in your thread, arguing with someone that their post is off topic, is going to make your post off topic too.

We want discussion. We like a free flowing of ideas. We don't want to limit discussion, but yes, we want it to remain on topic too.

So it's best to let us do the moderating.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Yikes.

I get it that the 9/11 forum is a mess, more of a festering snake pit of name-calling and back-biting than most forums. It's why I barely take part and rarely read beyond the occasionally intriguing OP since the comments usually devolve into a useless clusterfornication in short order.

That said, the tone of this post seems calibrated to help keep the forum shut down by inciting some harsh backlash.

Your participation in this thread should be an appropriate contrition, recognizing the mess that has been the fault of many participating members, and recognition that such activity is a lasting humiliation to anyone who takes these topics seriously.

That demand has a strong odor of ring kissing about it, and is not something that the site's demographic is prone to respond to positively. Heck, I'm about as laid back as they come around here, never indulge in ad hominem nonsense, and barely set foot in the 9/11 forums; and the demand for contrition still managed to raise my hackles.

Not that it matters, but I think a better alternative would be requiring the signing of a non-trolling, anti-namecalling pledge in order to access the forum, with total ban from the forum as the immediate first strike consequence for violating the pledge.

originally posted by: RobertAntonWeishaupt
That said, the tone of this post seems calibrated to help keep the forum shut down by inciting some harsh backlash.

"Your participation in this thread should be an appropriate contrition, recognizing the mess that has been the fault of many participating members, and recognition that such activity is a lasting humiliation to anyone who takes these topics seriously."

That demand has a strong odor of ring kissing about it, and is not something that the site's demographic is prone to respond to positively. Heck, I'm about as laid back as they come around here, never indulge in ad hominem nonsense, and barely set foot in the 9/11 forums; and the demand for contrition still managed to raise my hackles.

Not to mention the approach is uncomfortably similar to the approach in the thread in question that's being decried here. IOW, If you want to participate in this thread, you must agree with the premise. "Do as I say, not as I do."

a reply to: eriktheawful

I have a question. (If I may)

What if a poster simply wants to expand on his own research by seeking out like minded minds within that specific field to actually get more information out of it? (or get to the bottom of that research).

There is a reason why scientists do not mix with religious folks when uniting research and data. (just an example)
Religion to science serves as a blockade. (same vice versa). Two different belief systems one trying to impede the others progress.

For example: If I post about spirituality, and want to know more about spirituality, the last thing I want is for someone who only relies on science to come in and try and discredit or debunk the information because in his/her (im generalizing male and female) view, anything outside of science is false. Same vice versa with spirituality. (just example topics or examples of conflict.)

The reason:
I want to be lazer target-ted on the topic I started because I want to expand my own knowledge in that specific field only. Anything outside of that field is a distraction. So naturally, we want to seek out like-minded minds to expand our own mind and field of knowledge. I see nothing wrong with gate keeping these types of topics in this form, because simply put, I am not interested in people's views outside of what I posted. I am interested only into expanding my own knowledge within that specific field. So i ask like minded minds to expand further on what "I know" to get a clearer perspective.

Simply put, if you know nothing of the topic posted, you have no real reason to be there in the first place. It is meant for people who do similar research.

is this really a bad thing?

Another reason: I had a case where someone said the topic was "stupid" and tried to make me look stupid. What infuriates me to no end when this happens, is that not only does it derail the topic, (without any real validation, other than the topic being "stupid" according to that poster.) It also discourages people within that field to post anything else because of fear of being ridiculed. And this is NOT fair AT ALL.

I spent HOURS writing that thread for someone to come along to do that, for me to fall short because now people fear posting anything relevant.

In that sense, I do want to speak ONLY to people who are interested genuinely in that topic. To me, a topic may be real, to another it may be not. The best thing to do, to avoid escalation of conflict is to keep both people apart. You believe what you believe, "I believe what I believe. Now can you leave?"

Its not about being "patted on the back." this does not apply to everyone. It is about continuing research within that field without the distractions.

is there any way we can balance this out? Entropy will only create chaos. This is not a theory, it is the law of the universe.


I get some topics needs to be debated, especially 9-11 topics, because that topic on its own is a huge mess with so many lies from both sides, but good points made as well from both sides.

a reply to: SoulSurfer

Then they can request access to the research forum, and start a research project. Only certain members can post there. They can find individuals to help them, and use that as a "dedicated" thread that only those people can post in.

wow

originally posted by: SpellHowler
wow

That you PeterG? Why don't you join in the conversation instead of just typing "wow" to get past 20 posts.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: SoulSurfer

Then they can request access to the research forum, and start a research project. Only certain members can post there. They can find individuals to help them, and use that as a "dedicated" thread that only those people can post in.

This has my interest. Can you elaborate more on this? Because this might be a solution to many people's problems.
A few questions I have

1. Once I start the project, can i make my own rules within that project to "Moderate" so to speak? Like a code of conduct to follow when posting within that thread?
2. is it possible to invite people we trust and know about the research into that topic?
3. How does it work exactly? (through your point of view)

I think this one is slightly off topic, we can continue in private, though then again, this may also help others who are having the same problem. (I hope this one post is okay.)

Thanks for the reply Zaph

It is much appreciated. I did not know about that specific forum.




Btw, Happy 2016.

a reply to: SoulSurfer

Give me a little bit and I'll send you a PM about it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: SoulSurfer

Give me a little bit and I'll send you a PM about it.

Sure thing!
Thanks a lot Zaph.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: SoulSurfer

Then they can request access to the research forum, and start a research project. Only certain members can post there. They can find individuals to help them, and use that as a "dedicated" thread that only those people can post in.

Would this have been the appropriate route for the 'Truther thread' in question?

One thing that we should all agree on here is that it shouldn't come to the point where the people who administrate and run this forum have to step in. We are all adults (well I try and pretend to be one in between the beer anyway) and we shouldn't have to say to a moderator 'he said she said' this has now reached a point of immaturity and childishness. We should be making an effort to solve problems and resolve issues between ourselves without other people having to step in.

This place can be fun and interesting and I have personally read many thought provoking things here that were clearly the words of very intelligent people. One of the biggest issues here is the fact there is a stubborn element within a lot of people who can't just agree to disagree. There is nothing wrong with simply replying with 'hey you might be right for all I know' and from there stepping away from the one on one debate that every thread turns into.

I have personally, and I'll happily admit this, read things from other posters and carried on answering back through stubbornness rather than trying to get a better understanding of the subject at hand. Even when in the back of my mind I have thought 'hey he has a point'

This isn't down to the moderators people it's down to us acting like adults with one another.

I think it is Important for there to be a 911 Forum and to be open to discussion, yes drop the insults, with the same breath I think Sandy Hook should also be an open discussion.

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
So, this? So, that?

That's exactly how disinfo shills work, too!

Not sure how this comment is "a mad lather of name-calling, shill-accusing, insulting, and imbecilic trolling."

There were posters on that thread questioning whether the OP was "younger than 20" and "bashing away at his keyboard," yet no mod bothered to step in. The moderation on that thread was extremely troubling in my opinion.

Indeed, anyone can see that the moderation tends to be on the side of the Official Story, in a LANDSLIDE.

It is interesting watching the members we are all familiar with get away with name calling and insinuating every level of insult in the book, of course they can get away with this because the Mass Media does the same things.

Let us all chuckle and guffaw at the "Truthers" and meanwhile explode with outrage and indignation that "they" call the shills out.

It is reminiscent of the mindset, "Protect the Bully".

Act all shocked and like its the end of the world that people express themselves on 9/11 the most obvious glaring moment in modern history.

I don't know what kind of board this wants to be, but it sure isn't about talking about conspiracies.....