Civility, decorum and the Aliens and UFO Forum

reply to post by CHRLZ

Wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more...

Hell, I starred that just for the Monty Python reference....

reply to post by CHRLZ


I said it above, nothing has changed in terms of moderation, or the way the forum is run.

AND - by the way - you will not get banned for anything on ATS other than breaking the T&C's. If anyone has told you otherwise, they are a liar.

This subject was discussed on last nights ATS Live! show, which is now available on the REWIND! player

reply to post by neformore


I just laid it out here too:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Springer...

There have been over ten thousand eye witnesses to this phenomena.
That alone speaks for itself. I don't trust YouTube videos. There are too many
hoaxes.

I believe sceptics and debunkers have an obligation to disprove that something
is a hoax. I also believe it should be done in a civil manner.

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by neformore

 

I just laid it out here too:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Springer...

Hi Springer,

I just made a complaint against a "believer" who, in my opinion, made a derogatory comment against a "skeptic." Its the first time I've done so and I did it to try to make a point.

No Mod or Admin on this site picked up on this, yet "skeptics'" posts who make the same type of accusations are regularly jumped upon and deleted by Mods/Admins.

There is an undeniable dichotomy between the treatment of "skeptiks" and "believers" here and its not right.

This is the crux of the "skeptics'" complaint: there is an intrinsic bias against us. Anyone can slag us off but we are ordered to be polite to them at all times.

I am very in favour of civility and politeness but it has to be a two-way-street. The "skeptics" are not being helped in this in any way or form by your staff.

Just my opinion and, if past experience is anything to go by, criticism of ATS staff ends in a deleted post and no explanation.

Best wishes,
Slippery Jim.

Prove me wrong. Leave this for public view and answer

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
Thank you for this!

I get tired of the sarcastic remarks which many times derails a good thread or you have to go through pages of insults and sarcasm to find the actual information.

The sarcastic remarks are suppose to derail the course of a conversation. Thats how disinformation works. Its gets you away from disclosure.

Originally posted by Sardean1269
There have been over ten thousand eye witnesses to this phenomena.
That alone speaks for itself. I don't trust YouTube videos. There are too many
hoaxes.

I believe sceptics and debunkers have an obligation to disprove that something
is a hoax. I also believe it should be done in a civil manner.

Quite the opposite. There havent been too many hoaxes. If you can give us a list Id greatly appreciate it.

Originally posted by Slippery Jim

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by neformore

 

I just laid it out here too:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Springer...

Hi Springer,

I just made a complaint against a "believer" who, in my opinion, made a derogatory comment against a "skeptic." Its the first time I've done so and I did it to try to make a point.

No Mod or Admin on this site picked up on this, yet "skeptics'" posts who make the same type of accusations are regularly jumped upon and deleted by Mods/Admins.

There is an undeniable dichotomy between the treatment of "skeptiks" and "believers" here and its not right.

This is the crux of the "skeptics'" complaint: there is an intrinsic bias against us. Anyone can slag us off but we are ordered to be polite to them at all times.

I am very in favour of civility and politeness but it has to be a two-way-street. The "skeptics" are not being helped in this in any way or form by your staff.

Just my opinion and, if past experience is anything to go by, criticism of ATS staff ends in a deleted post and no explanation.

Best wishes,
Slippery Jim.

Prove me wrong. Leave this for public view and answer

edit on 8/11/2010 by Slippery Jim because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/11/2010 by Slippery Jim because: (no reason given)

Slippery Jim you have to understand that this site is not really about real investigation. Its not to be taken seriously. Its a commercialized form of the National Inquirer. The people who run it dont give a dam about anything factual.

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by neformore

 

I just laid it out here too:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Springer...

Ok So Marc is Springer.

Originally posted by Sardean1269
There have been over ten thousand eye witnesses to this phenomena.
That alone speaks for itself. I don't trust YouTube videos. There are too many
hoaxes.

I believe sceptics and debunkers have an obligation to disprove that something
is a hoax. I also believe it should be done in a civil manner.

Skeptics should be obligated to prove something IS a hoax
instead of just having the ability to type the word hoax.

Originally posted by Slippery Jim
I just made a complaint against a "believer" who, in my opinion, made a derogatory comment against a "skeptic." Its the first time I've done so and I did it to try to make a point.

And I just checked the logs and the post was removed. Saying that we're biased is incorrect.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Slippery Jim
I just made a complaint against a "believer" who, in my opinion, made a derogatory comment against a "skeptic." Its the first time I've done so and I did it to try to make a point.

And I just checked the logs and the post was removed. Saying that we're biased is incorrect.

Hi Intrepid,

Can you check your logs again and tell me if the post was deleted after I pointed out that it hadn't been deleted. i.e.: was the post deleted simply because I said it hadn't been and was subsequently deleted to 'prove' a point that Mods are not biased.

I understand that the traffic on this site is very high and Mods need time to read all the posts but it is a conspiracy site so you can't really blame your members for being suspicious, can you?

Best wishes,
Slippery Jim.

Originally posted by haglebertSlippery Jim you have to understand that this site is not really about real investigation. Its not to be taken seriously. Its a commercialized form of the National Inquirer. The people who run it dont give a dam about anything factual.

edit on 9-11-2010 by haglebert because: grammatical error

Hi haglebert,

I'm afraid I have to disagree. This site is one of (if not the) best for investigation.

Unfortunately, recently, the investigators, rather than those who simply believe, have been taken to task for being rude or insulting. Rude and insulting are relative terms. I have asked time and time again why the "skeptics" have been singled out for censure by Mods and Admin on here. Time and time again I have had posts deleted.

I don't think I've recently hurled verbal abuse at anyone but all my posts keep getting deleted everytime I question Mods/Admins asking why they appear biased against "skeptics."

Best wishes,
Slippery Jim.

Originally posted by haglebertSkeptics should be obligated to prove something IS a hoax
instead of just having the ability to type the word hoax.

Hi haglebert,

The scientific method demands that someone making a claim proves it.

The onus is not on disbelievers to prove it is wrong.

Strangely, only in the UFO field does this rule appear to be turned on its head.

Also strangely, only in the UFO field do disprovers go out of their way to do so.

I'm guilty of this. I actually believe that UFOs may be real but I want damn good proof from those pointing their cameras at an unidentifiable light in the night sky.

Best wishes,
Slippery Jim.

Originally posted by Slippery Jim
Can you check your logs again and tell me if...

Needed action was taken. The timing of which is of no importance in this case.

Move on.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Slippery Jim
Can you check your logs again and tell me if...

Needed action was taken. The timing of which is of no importance in this case.

Move on.

Of course it isn't.

I will. Will you?

Best wishes,
Slippery Jim.

Originally posted by Slippery Jim
The scientific method demands that someone making a claim proves it.

And to do so in a manner befitting the "scientific method." That is, without insults, rancor, or personal bias.

While one may wish to argue that ridiculous cases, hoaxes, and overzealous sighting mistakes have harmed the "field" of UFOlogy, I firmly believe the tonality from the "skeptical" side that has evolved here on ATS could potentially do much more harm, both short and long term.

If someone with an inexplicable experience were to consider sharing it here -- and it had real potential value -- they may choose not to based on a brief observation of a few threads.

And that, UFO forum denizens, is a far more tragic result than allowing a sighting of dubious credibility to gain popularity.

I can tolerate 1,000 "Blossom Goodchilds" (with respectful/direct challenges, of course) if it means we ultimately have the opportunity to interact with someone who has had an experience that astounds us.

To me, that's more than a fair trade.

reply to post by Slippery Jim


LOL yesterday for awhile that post of yours actually WAS removed-- I mean yours saying it may be removed....
dissension in the ranks? MOD confusion, or what....?

To me, that alone is very telling.


BTW THIS IS a conspiracy site....

above channeled to me by the Orion Rulers...prove me wrong!

Originally posted by Slippery Jim
I will. Will you?

That appears uncertain. Three days ago you said you were leaving ATS for good.