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

I have been on ATS many times, visited with breaks in between for various causes.

I have seen times where members self moderated quite effectively without mod intervention needed, and likely the opposite too.

But I am on board with the topic of this thread. I feel there are occasion where the screws need be tightened a bit, before the screw wallers out and something breaks. I think the analogy speaks well. And I do not forsee any harm from this. Quite the opposite really.

It is why there are nice neighborhoods and bad neighborhoods. And I prefer heated discussion by civil and reasonable people, as opposed to any discussion by uncivilized, petulant, or self important beings.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Hold onto your seats cause Kansas is going bye bye.

Getting Back to Basics

My question is, why did you get away from the basics to begin with?

Was it an experiment that backfired? Something else?

What was/is the root cause of what ATS has become?

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
What was/is the root cause of what ATS has become?

That's a good question.

I believe it's representative of the times we live in... the results of the 2008 economic crisis and resulting bail-out of exactly those who caused it, the flight of good paying jobs away from North America and the obvious War on the Poor that came after.

Then there's the militarization of the police, the 'Prisons for Profit' plan that is nothing less than indentured slavery and instances like Ferguson getting people edgy.

To me, it's the 'Spirit of the Time'. People are unsettled, unhappy and quick to lash out.

That's what I think is causing it.

originally posted by: Springer

if you continue to be a bigoted asshole on ATS your account will be banned from posting.

Clear enough?

Believe me - this is totally, crystal clear.


Now, which bigots do we start with?


(That was a rhetorical question, BTW.)


There is no doubt that the viewpoint that is going to be 'acceptable' to the moderators is already agreed to, and on that, there is no diversity of thinking as suggested.


The bigot cannon is loaded for bear.

a reply to: Seamrog

The viewpoint is simple. There is no targeted sector, other than people who insist on insulting others. Anyone who can't make their point without resorting to epithets and insults is probably going to be more comfortable in Youtube comments anyway.

a reply to: Hefficide

Well, we all hope and pray that things can be as cut and dry as you describe. But they aren't, so that sucks. However, I support the general reasons and purpose of this thread, so for that, I say good luck! I truly hope it works out, but... it won't. :p

a reply to: Hefficide

So we can expect that you will be equally intolerant of those who routinely insult Christians?

Good.

a reply to: Seamrog

Define "insult" as you interpret it. Because that's key.

If you mean another member personally attacking YOU for your beliefs? Not tolerable and will be removed if alerted. IE if you post and somebody replies "Who cares what you say, Christians don't matter"... that would not stand.

BUT if a person starts a thread about another religion or about not having a religion at all - and you find that insulting AS a Christian? Sorry, they've got as much right to discuss their views as you have yours.

originally posted by: Seamrog

Now, which bigots do we start with?

You don't... that is the role of staff to figure out and we so in individual cases, primarily in reaction to the alerts the members give to us.

There is no '"agreed to" viewpoint. Each instance that comes up is handled according to its severity or lack thereof and discussed between staff prior to any action being taken.

Please, spare us the rhetoric and just tell us what your specific problem is. If you'd rather not do so publicly, send in a Complaint.

originally posted by: Seamrog
a reply to: Hefficide

So we can expect that you will be equally intolerant of those who routinely insult Christians?

Good.

The answer here regarding that is a crystal clear "NO!", but the real answer given will skirt around the question. Do yourself a favor and just accept the real answer, no, and move on. ATS is a private site and can have whatever rules it wants.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Seamrog

Define "insult" as you interpret it. Because that's key.

If you mean another member personally attacking YOU for your beliefs? Not tolerable and will be removed if alerted. IE if you post and somebody replies "Who cares what you say, Christians don't matter"... that would not stand.

Defining insult is like defining bigot, however taking the example you cite, you will be scrubbing the threads of a tremendous amount of comments.

Getting rid of the "Christians are mindless robots who believe in a book" posters will be refreshing.

What about when we are called "hateful bigots?"

Will that no longer be tolerated?

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Agreed, members need to remain focused on the message and not the messenger. Also, by it's very nature some messages contain content that others simply find abhorrent because it goes against their core values and beliefs and therein lies the problem - when the subject matter being discussed is "controversial" it will invariably draw those who communicate from their heart, instead of their head.

There are many ways to express your dissatisfaction / displeasure / disagreement to a topic being discussed without getting a violation or banned - assertive and not aggressive - but this comes with experience and having good communication skills, which comes naturally to some and nigh impossible to others. I do find though that some members are textbook baiters and simply weigh-in with such comments to draw fierce responses.

Anyway, a timely reminder tenth - cheers.

a reply to: Seamrog

Again, just accept the answer, which is no, and move on. ATS is privy to whatever opinion it wants concerning it's members etc. It doesn't have to answer to you and can discriminate in whatever way it deems necessary. Abide by it's T&C's and you're fine, otherwise, go somewhere else. That might seem sucky, but it is what it is.

originally posted by: masqua

originally posted by: Seamrog

Now, which bigots do we start with?

Please, spare us the rhetoric and just tell us what your specific problem is. If you'd rather not do so publicly, send in a Complaint.

Will you be equally intolerant of those who call Christians 'hateful bigots,' - moderators included?

Reading the post from the site owner, it is not difficult for one to see exactly where this is heading, based on moderating history, and the tone of the comments from the moderators who have chimed in - yourself excluded.

While you brushed it off, my question was a valid (I'll correct it for you so it won't ruffle your feathers again):


WHICH bigots will the moderators start with?

originally posted by: Seamrog

While you brushed it off, my question was a valid (I'll correct it for you so it won't ruffle your feathers again):


WHICH bigots will the moderators start with?

And I answered that:

There is no '"agreed to" viewpoint. Each instance that comes up is handled according to its severity or lack thereof and discussed between staff prior to any action being taken.

a reply to: Seamrog

Seems to me that the people trying to nit pick, iron out, or get stark black and white instructions regarding this issue, are the ones who are going to be falling afoul of these rules.

Perhaps, rather than trying to find the holes in the behavioural standards expected of all of us, it would be more productive to ensure that the rules are followed in spirit, rather than just by the letter?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Seamrog

Seems to me that the people trying to nit pick, iron out, or get stark black and white instructions regarding this issue, are the ones who are going to be falling afoul of these rules.

Perhaps, rather than trying to find the holes in the behavioural standards expected of all of us, it would be more productive to ensure that the rules are followed in spirit, rather than just by the letter?

So your disparaging remarks about Catholics will end, or will those still be tolerated?

come on people,



And just be the little narcs they want us to be and report everything you find offensive (pretty much everything)

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Getting Back to Basics

My question is, why did you get away from the basics to begin with?

Was it an experiment that backfired? Something else?

What was/is the root cause of what ATS has become?

I've been saying for years that it's the culture created by Reality Shows (or as one tv series labeled them, "from the Office of Illiterate Programming"). Week after week, year after year, and now decade after decade, they have taught children and teens that life is about creating alliances which are in competition with everyone else and the goal is to kick 'them' off the island or out of the house and keep 'you' in. The us-against-them way of life is now seen across the social spectrum.

I watched the first "Big Brother" program in the U.S., and remember how the group, at one point, didn't want to kick anyone out. They all liked each other, and they discussed just leaving the show. They finally "played the game" but decided to agree to let a guy with one leg win all the money, a group decision of compassion. That was along time ago, and these days the guy with one leg would have had his head handed to him the first week, or kept around because he was no threat and would lose in the final competition.

Reality shows have taught hate and distrust. That's spread out to the wider society. I've watched this occur, and seen the difference in the people growing up exposed to that television culture, and the "Reality Show generation" seem literally compassionately-challenged.