##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS- FORUM REJUVENATION##

I'm happy to see this happen.
For the longest, I've watched the section in question fall to a point that reminded me of 2nd graders. People with questions or their own interpretations on both sides getting RAILED with jibberish so much, I chose to limit my own posting. I'd rather get into a creative debate "for or against" than to E-argue with no counter info, on the side of a potential "against" member, in respect to one who may not agree with my own view, whichever side of the coin that may be.

hmmmmmmm......I always thought that this was implemented LONG time ago.. pretty sure I read something simlar to this already ??

Last Call

Originally posted by Komodo
hmmmmmmm......I always thought that this was implemented LONG time ago.. pretty sure I read something simlar to this already ??

Yes, it has come up before, as mentioned here, and though it has been particularly virulent in the 9/11 forum, the problem is hardly unique to 9/11, as explained here.

The bottom line is that people who disrupt discussion of 9/11 for any reason are doing so in direct opposition to what ATS stands for. They are hurting our community by attempting to stifle differing opinions.

They must be stopped.

Previous efforts have focused more on education and, ideally, successfully persuading members to keep things civil. Probably the biggest difference this time is that there's greater interest in removing problem members altogether.

The shift comes from a growing awareness of a small number of members, some who have been with us for years, who have demonstrated a pattern of "skirting the law", "riding the line" and basically "gaming the system" to allow them to insult, abuse and harass members who don't agree with them.

In the past, we've tried reasoning with them, and many do, in fact respond. Many, however, just tell us what they think we want to hear and get right back to trolling the forums.

Now, when they are identified, I am recommending immediate account termination. They're easy enough to spot because their posts and their past interactions with the staff are readily available for review.

Hence the "last call" theme I've been promoting.

In short, members who are unable or unwilling to honor the terms & conditions, comply with staff instructions or discuss topics courteously will be banned.

Simplify, simplify.

I have not really posted in the past few days, but reading this thread... it has been something that has been needed to be done for a long time now.

thanks guys!

I hope this works!

A further note from the peanut gallery...
So certain acronyms have been applied and by a sort of consensus approved and universally applied.

"TRUTHERS" is just sch a one.Having many and varied connotations that sort of cancel each others out.No one can take offence due to the ambiguity of the term.Cool.
"TRUSTERS" is another,in process,but nearing acceptance.A bit more bite and less ambiguity,but somehow within bounds.Like the word,"bastard' which pisses me off,but which is still somehow acceptable despite objections of a few.Fair enough.Turnabout is fair play.(Remember the Clinton era where the hue and cry was about his lying under oath somehow gave a license for perjury for all?)
So what about the obstinate ones?Recently the word,"TOOTHERS" was cast at the TRUTHERS in a slam which employed mis spelling and infantilism,a sort of truth emerged to me when I applied thee tried and true reversal of speech/projecting theory and realized they had just named themselves."TOOTHERS',believing in a fairy tale that we all have been taught in earnest by traditionally the ones we rely on for truth.

This issue goes to the heart of what is acceptable to call/say on ATS and how these boundaries come to be applied.I know the T&C,but just like any jourisdiction,there is a lot of wiggle room.If a word like TOOTHERS is cast as aspersion and the post is allowed to stand by the mods for a week,then it becomes a safe word to use in that context?And mores change as do word usages.(If a word like bastard can rightly piss me off can I say a word that was #2,right between the big two,on Carlin's imfamous list,eh?(RIP)Or did I just get warned or banned?I'm not playing games,just want to introduce a meme here and want to know if it's too risque.Do I U2U a mod and ask permission?Is there an actual list somewhere of words,the good,bad and ugly?

[edit on 15-3-2010 by trueforger]

reply to post by trueforger


I don't think we can make it any clearer. If anyone seriously has a problem discerning what is on-topic and civil, they would be well served to avoid posting in general, and in the 9/11 forum specifically.

Topic, Please

It seems some members are having difficulty staying on topic.

For anyone who needs a reminder, please see:

##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS- FORUM REJUVENATION##

Off-topic posts are subject to warnings and removal, so let's please stay focused.

Thanks.

Agreed, it's been a long time coming, in fact it started in 03' for me were you started to see over Zealot American's refusing to stay on topic regarding 9/11... Thanks OP

Fox

reply to post by yeahright

We agree that "TOOTHERS" is not out of bounds?Used in full connotation of callling a belief a fairytale?
Snarkiness factor not too high?

reply to post by trueforger


You believe that sort of name calling has any place in civil discourse towards advancing a topic?

Glad to see it. We are a family here and the slamming needs to stop. We can share views without personal attacks.

I was looking through another forum "UN is coming for your guns" and it's getting real ugly in there.

Let's remember - this is a place to share opinions and information. We can have a good opinion without "real" facts. Don’t get me wrong, facts will strengthen an opinion.

reply to post by yeahright

All three terms apply and I like shorthands.Better than having to write a whole phrase.I feel the discussion is derailed by people posing as real story believers.I'd like a real easy fast way to identify these as a class of people holding that position to differentiate from those really having something to say. The giggle factor is a side benefit.Edit to ask;You use "Truthers",no?'Trusters"?


[edit on 15-3-2010 by trueforger]

reply to post by trueforger


Why do you feel the need to be snarky at all?

This issue, no matter what my own views are, is important enough to require clear, concise language, with a minimum or utter lack, of snarkiness...

Snarkiness can be construed as rude. Rude is not going to work.

reply to post by trueforger

I'd like a real easy fast way to identify these as a class of people holding that position to differentiate from those really having something to say.

And why do you think you have the right to decide who really has something to say?

The giggle factor is a side benefit.

Yes, bullies generally get kicks out of that sort of thing, and bullying is essentially all you’re doing when you attack someone for disagreeing with you.

reply to post by trueforger


How about we call them people?

Is there really a valid reason, beyond your own amusement that this kind of language would actually help your agument? I think not.

I'm pretty certain it just causes derailment and frustration among those attempting to have a valid and intelligent debate over the issues.

~Keeper

reply to post by litmuspaper

The giggle is how apt it is especially when it was first used against the ones not believing in a fairy tall tale.I'm no bully,nor have I bullied.We all use Truther don't we?