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

a reply to: FlySolo

With respect Fly, the OP has simply called for people in the 9/11 forums to argue points and avoid calling each other names. The name-calling derails threads and we all have the right to agree to disagree or even stop responding to particular members.

In this thread, you've derailed in into head-hunting a member you've decided is a paid-poster. Two pages of posts in pursuit of another member. Two pages when owners and staff have explained why you can't call someone 'shill' or have someone banned on a suspicion.

Ironically, the way you've posted in this thread is pretty much what Bill is asking people not to do in the 9/11 forums. Your approach here is to insist on Member X being a paid poster and side-stepping any point made by that member. The essence of the 'you're a shill' argument is that we get to disregard every word people say with the single accusation of 'Shill!'

In this thread, you're so focused on 'shill/paid poster' that you're practically, obviously side-stepping every point made by staff on the assumption of 'you're a shill.' Surely you can see how fruitless and derailing the stance is?

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: FlySolo

With respect Fly, the OP has simply called for people in the 9/11 forums to argue points and avoid calling each other names. The name-calling derails threads and we all have the right to agree to disagree or even stop responding to particular members.

In this thread, you've derailed in into head-hunting a member you've decided is a paid-poster. Two pages of posts in pursuit of another member. Two pages when owners and staff have explained why you can't call someone 'shill' or have someone banned on a suspicion.

Ironically, the way you've posted in this thread is pretty much what Bill is asking people not to do in the 9/11 forums. Your approach here is to insist on Member X being a paid poster and side-stepping any point made by that member. The essence of the 'you're a shill' argument is that we get to disregard every word people say with the single accusation of 'Shill!'

In this thread, you're so focused on 'shill/paid poster' that you're practically, obviously side-stepping every point made by staff on the assumption of 'you're a shill.' Surely you can see how fruitless and derailing the stance is?

Its actually the tactics deployed that derail a thread, then name-calling follows. Its often that sequence. Mods act like all the name-calling is without any (legit) context.

a reply to: whatsup86

This whole thing perked my interest so I had signed out to read the threads so I could try to see how it got so far.

If you do the same you will see the name calling at least in one thread started on the first page within the first few posts.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: pteridine

With all due respect, I'm not sure you really understand how websites generate revenue (really generate revenue). Some methods are readily apparent, others not so much. Completely shutting down a forum wherein topics as hot as 9-11 are discussed has a detrimental effect on revenue.

Yes, but the owner said it was stressing the staff. He will have to decide if the reduced traffic is worth the reduced stress on the staff. This is a business decision tempered by the owner's desires for an umbrella conspiracy site and his plans for the future. Certainly there are statistics on posters and readers of the 911 forum to see how hot it really is. It is certainly past its prime and seems to have developed into a continuing conflict zone.
Maybe he will choose to put it in hiatus for a cool down and assessment. He could shut it down for a week and see how traffic was perturbed. A restart would give him another data point. Temporary posting bans of the most egregious T&C offenders on whatever forum they offend on may solve his problems. He has to decide how to contain the vitriol and maintain the business model.

originally posted by: whatsup86

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: FlySolo

With respect Fly, the OP has simply called for people in the 9/11 forums to argue points and avoid calling each other names. The name-calling derails threads and we all have the right to agree to disagree or even stop responding to particular members.

In this thread, you've derailed in into head-hunting a member you've decided is a paid-poster. Two pages of posts in pursuit of another member. Two pages when owners and staff have explained why you can't call someone 'shill' or have someone banned on a suspicion.

Ironically, the way you've posted in this thread is pretty much what Bill is asking people not to do in the 9/11 forums. Your approach here is to insist on Member X being a paid poster and side-stepping any point made by that member. The essence of the 'you're a shill' argument is that we get to disregard every word people say with the single accusation of 'Shill!'

In this thread, you're so focused on 'shill/paid poster' that you're practically, obviously side-stepping every point made by staff on the assumption of 'you're a shill.' Surely you can see how fruitless and derailing the stance is?

Its actually the tactics deployed that derail a thread, then name-calling follows. Its often that sequence. Mods act like all the name-calling is without any (legit) context.

Nah. Mods act like name-calling is not a legit vector of attack in threads. Hit alert and we'll look at the context. Frequently, we get someone alerting a post and the *context* shows that they started it so we do look at context to.

For example, we see a common tactic of a member goading someone into an emotional response. They then alert that poster after replying to them and aim for the double-whammy of the member's post being removed whilst they get last word.

It seems to me that a fair few folks have forgotten that ATS is a discussion board, not an agreement board. Posting an OP that states "if you disagree with me, don't talk to me" seems to be, to me anyway, antithetical for what ATS is first and foremost. The board has a private message system that members can use to congratulate each other on being smarter than everybody else and for "getting it." I don't see any reason to try and hijack a forum by demanding that only those who believe as one believes are allowed to comment in a thread.

As for the name calling and so on, I think the mods do as good a job as they can with handling it. It's never going to be 100% foolproof and will never make everybody happy all the time. I do think it's a bit shady that mods can't "police their own" though, as a small number seem to enjoy getting dirty about things on occasion.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I agree. It is a mess. Unnecessarily so. There should have to be no "Gate keeping" and moderators shouldn't have to be babysitters. I agree members should be allowed to post in any thread as long as it takes the discussion in the direction it's intended to go. But I also believe members should be adult enough to use some discernment in the threads that they choose to participate in. The tread that lands me here is titled "Truther Thread". When i saw the thread is said to myself this will be a good place to go to learn more about the truther point of view, but after I started participating, I found it turned more into a debate about who's right truthers or osers. Now back to members discernment. If a devoted mainline democrat walks into the RNC and starts refuting the ideas of the hardcore republicans, they will be met with hostility and name calling etc. Just like happened with this thread. I also feel that if someone takes the time to start a thread they should be able to reasonably expect that the thread is going in the direction that they intended said thread to go in without fear of it being hijacked. In my opinion any OSers that came along should have read the op and some comments and seeing It didn't fit in with their point of view but was intended more as an internal rather than external debate could have took it with a grain of salt, had a little laugh about it and moved on. They could have even started an OSer thread if they wished and I would expect the Truthers to give them their space and consideration too. But this clearly shows that the propaganda about this issue has worked regardless of whether it was an inside job, terrorist attack or whatever because people are so caught up in an argument that has covered a decade and a half and it is still being used as an excellent distraction to things that SOMEONE is using to take away our rights, liberties and very freedoms today. I would assume that most members of ATS are adult but that doesn't mean grown up. Becoming an adult is only the starting point to really growing up and it's a process and some see results quicker than others. Point being this should be a place for people to learn, expand their minds and a tool to help in this process of growing up, not the hangout of a bunch of juvenile delinquents that have to have people tell them how to act and what to say. It would be nice to see that there's room here for debate about who's right and wrong but there should also be room for just fellowship of like-minded people too. It doesn't always have to be an argument.

a reply to: whatsup86

Yes it's under closer scrutiny, but again, not all staff are here 24/7/365. There are a lot of posts going up all over the boards and lately in the 9/11 forum. We. Can't. Read. Everything.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: whatsup86

This whole thing perked my interest so I had signed out to read the threads so I could try to see how it got so far.

If you do the same you will see the name calling at least in one thread started on the first page within the first few posts.

Thats why I said its often that sequence. Im talking in general. And namecalling should always be warned/banned I can admit my own wrong, but often there is actual some context to that namecalling and if it doesnt result in 2 warnings in a situation like that then thats bad moderating I would say.

a reply to: whatsup86

I am pretty sure mods don't get paid to do this and having a post removed is a warning IMO they come with U2Us.

I have received my share in my time here, but have never been banned in any form so I know for the ban hammer to come down you need to really screw up several times.

Too bad I can't review the thread, just links me here. If you shut the 911 forum down they win. Imo, better to let fly and monitor it, focusing on those that cause all the ruckus. Now that you've warned them, they'll hunker down.
I been in a few fur balls, 10,000 of my posts are in the 911 forum. Glad I missed this one(?)

People should alert more when the crap starts flying.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I do think it's a bit shady that mods can't "police their own" though, as a small number seem to enjoy getting dirty about things on occasion.

If that's your experience, feel free to alert posts. As staff, we're always quick to point out that we're members first. As such, we are held to the same T&Cs as anyone else. Sometimes it's about interpretation when staff are expected (by some) to be neutral on issues when really we're as entitled to voice an opinion as anyone else.

Another thing is that sometimes we (staff) might be posting emotionally on an issue and not realising it. That's just human nature and happens to all of us.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: whatsup86

I am pretty sure mods don't get paid to do this and having a post removed is a warning IMO they come with U2Us.

I have received my share in my time here, but have never been banned in any form so I know for the ban hammer to come down you need to really screw up several times.

I advise you to read one of the longer threads in the 911 forum if you want to find out what is making these boards a mess. Namecalling is just a very small part of it.

a reply to: whatsup86

And how many posts have you alerted?

OK I've read about 5 pages of this thread.
I get where you are trying to steer the 911 section.
No disagreement fro me about the direction.

The one part I do disagree with is the tuther/OS'er terms.
I personally do not take any offence when I am called an OS'er.
It describe's my general position succinctly.
I also do my best NOT to use the term 'truther' not because I feel it's offensive, but because the staff here frown on the term.
But 'truther' does describe others position succinctly too.
I see no insult with either term.

I do agree it IS offensive to call anyone a 'shill' or 'disinfo agent'.

Thread derailing is a bit more ambiguous because things are so interconnected.
The only one that gets under my skin is the one line comments like:
"What about building 7 ? " or "Building 7 is all I need to know."
Those comments usually happen in threads that have nothing to do with 7.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Shamrock6

I do think it's a bit shady that mods can't "police their own" though, as a small number seem to enjoy getting dirty about things on occasion.

If that's your experience, feel free to alert posts. As staff, we're always quick to point out that we're members first. As such, we are held to the same T&Cs as anyone else. Sometimes it's about interpretation when staff are expected (by some) to be neutral on issues when really we're as entitled to voice an opinion as anyone else.

Another thing is that sometimes we (staff) might be posting emotionally on an issue and not realising it. That's just human nature and happens to all of us.

I have. And was point blank told "it's a mod, I can't do anything."

So that would be my experience. Has nothing to do with staying neutral. I'm aware that mods are not robots. If you would like to know specifics, feel free to shoot me a message. But I did what we're supposed to do with alerts and that was the response I was given.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: whatsup86

And how many posts have you alerted?

None. But Im a reader normally, not a poster and hardly ever logged in, only when I really feel like it. And dont shoot the messenger here: like I said I thought "under close staff scrutiny" actually ment something more. That is my bad but it doesnt mean Im wrong. And I was expecting the really active people to do the alerting instead.

I don't see the 'Alert' button. Do you need a high level of stars to do that?

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Grimpachi

Yes, open to all members, but if a thread is created specifically for discussing the non-OS theory alternatives, then the OS theory shouldn't be repeatedly brought up as the "correct one." It could have been useful, but devolved into what we now see. "OSers" pointing out flaws and imperfections in whatever theories were brought up in the sense of constructive criticism is fine. But that is not what these eyes saw occur. It was just dragged off topic. Repeatedly. It ended up as OS-vs-NonOS, just like all the others.

Agree with this. The thread in question had a specific topic that anyone was welcome to discuss. No one was excluded from commenting just because the topic was devoted to questioning the official story.

Instead, the topic was derailed and those comments are still up on the thread, right now, while others were removed.

I found it troubling. Still do.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord
This may be a stupid question............but what the heck is an OSer?