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

One other reason to keep the 911 section.
911 will creep up into other sections if you don't.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

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

Well... I'm not convinced of the OS completely. Too many coincidences for my liking. So, not all staff are land sliding.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss
None of the OSers were 'on topic' though.

See, there you go right there.

Why do you have to call members, "OSers"? What's the point in such labels? It's intellectually lazy, and often the result of a pathetic knee-jerk just because someone does't believe your version of a 9/11 conspiracy.

That's the kind of crap that needs to stop.

You have called people that believe in a 9/11 conspiracy idiots and nuts, among other things I cannot recall.....

What say you to the claim that people who are on the official story side get away with a HELL of a lot more lazy name calling.

Because they DO.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss
None of the OSers were 'on topic' though.

See, there you go right there.

Why do you have to call members, "OSers"? What's the point in such labels? It's intellectually lazy, and often the result of a pathetic knee-jerk just because someone does't believe your version of a 9/11 conspiracy.

That's the kind of crap that needs to stop.

You have called people that believe in a 9/11 conspiracy idiots and nuts, among other things I cannot recall.....

What say you to the claim that people who are on the official story side get away with a HELL of a lot more lazy name calling.

Because they DO.

Well ignore them and take the moral high ground.

originally posted by: masqua

originally posted by: ParasuvO

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

Well... I'm not convinced of the OS completely. Too many coincidences for my liking. So, not all staff are land sliding.

As a first note, I haven't read this entire thread, so apologies if I repeat anything said earlier.

An overall trend seems to be that the supporters of the official story for whatever subject, be it 9/11, contrails, UFO (or a lack of alien activity, rather), or mainstream science, and 'debunk' on that side, tend to be knowledgeable about it and try to attack the misunderstandings, rather than the people.
Their opponents may have a well researched case, and present it with equal ability, but often, unfortunately, others tend toward ad hominem etc, because the mindset may well be 'I believe this, you sound convincing but I don't want you to be right[about it being bunk], go away!'. When someone attacks your beliefs it does tend to get in the way of rational discussion.

On another note, such a thread as this one happened in 2007 as well, about the time I last seriously involved myself in the 9/11 forum. I took pretty much the exact same issues up. Unfortunately, it currently links to this thread instead, so you'll just have to take my word for it.

This one: Due to member demand, the 9/11 forum is now under close staff scrutiny. started on Jun 07, 2007

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

The staff doesn't act alone, except for obvious violations. Any time you see a post removed, or a thread closed it occurs after a staff discussion, and a consensus is reached. So those posts removed in that thread mean that a group of the staff looked at them and agreed that they were off topic.

Do you use teamspeak or Skype ??

Musta been a lot of conversations going on that would be certainly interesting to listen too.

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss
None of the OSers were 'on topic' though.

See, there you go right there.

Why do you have to call members, "OSers"? What's the point in such labels? It's intellectually lazy, and often the result of a pathetic knee-jerk just because someone does't believe your version of a 9/11 conspiracy.

That's the kind of crap that needs to stop.

You have called people that believe in a 9/11 conspiracy idiots and nuts, among other things I cannot recall.....

What say you to the claim that people who are on the official story side get away with a HELL of a lot more lazy name calling.

Because they DO.

Well ignore them and take the moral high ground.

What a brilliant statement, get told how to discuss things, then get insulted, then get warned, and then leave because you have some "high ground" to stand on ???

High Ground, has not accomplished a dam thing in this type of debate.....Moral Victories......we need REAL victory.

a reply to: apex

I don't know what overall trend you could be possibly seeing, but that has NEVER been the case on this site.

Talk about some serious coloring of the glasses.

Every single aspect of this story is up for debate, it sounds like you think most of it is iron clad.

9-11 is the reason I went on my journey for truth and now I avoid it the 9-11 forum like the plague.

The UFO forum is getting just as bad. With the experiences in life I have had I avoid that forum at all cost. I look elsewhere to read up on this phenomenon as much as I hate to say that.

Both forums were very good many years ago.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: apex

I don't know what overall trend you could be possibly seeing, but that has NEVER been the case on this site.

Talk about some serious coloring of the glasses.

Huh. I didn't realise I actually stated my position on the debate. Implied, possibly, but not outright stated.

My comment:

When someone attacks your beliefs it does tend to get in the way of rational discussion.

Applies just as much to someone who blindly believes the official story as much as someone who blindly believes, for example, the 'no plane' theory.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss
None of the OSers were 'on topic' though.

See, there you go right there.

Why do you have to call members, "OSers"? What's the point in such labels? It's intellectually lazy, and often the result of a pathetic knee-jerk just because someone does't believe your version of a 9/11 conspiracy.

That's the kind of crap that needs to stop.

You have called people that believe in a 9/11 conspiracy idiots and nuts, among other things I cannot recall.....

What say you to the claim that people who are on the official story side get away with a HELL of a lot more lazy name calling.

Because they DO.

Well ignore them and take the moral high ground.

What a brilliant statement, get told how to discuss things, then get insulted, then get warned, and then leave because you have some "high ground" to stand on ???

High Ground, has not accomplished a dam thing in this type of debate.....Moral Victories......we need REAL victory.

I didn't say leave. If it comes to the point where you find yourself in a one to one argument rather than a debate just simply ignore the person in question and carry the discussion on with other members as and when they reply. It takes two seconds to scroll down past a reply that you feel is only there to troll you.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Message received and understood, I don't touch the 9/11 forums like a lot of others don't here.

Can you please remove the ridiculous banner that pops up when I open a new page on ATS that tells me what a bunch or d1cks your site users are please.

It's getting in the way of me denying ignorance.

Cheers

originally posted by: ParasuvO
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".

What I want to know is what is ATS stance on this. I already mentioned this along with other members in this thread.

Moderators in this thread have talked about no gatekeeping. Yet we seem to have a culture of gatekeeping in this forum. Which is a bias towards the official story and those types of posters who stand by the OS.

And judging by stars received when bringing this up, it looks like other members are just as disillusioned as I am and you are.

And even more disillusioned that the forum has been stopped and the main issue that wants to be addressed is no "shill” calling.

How about respect for the people who do not believe in the official narrative?

Moderators have lost control of the forum for a reason and that is because ALL issues need to be addressed. Not just the protection of a few individuals.

However, I do praise the mods and the ATS owner for keeping this thread alive so we can all say our grievances. Then the issues can be addressed and we can see respect shown within the 9/11 forum towards one another.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: apex

I don't know what overall trend you could be possibly seeing, but that has NEVER been the case on this site.

Talk about some serious coloring of the glasses.

Every single aspect of this story is up for debate, it sounds like you think most of it is iron clad.

All alternative media, plus drudge, plus RT, plus Farsnews and sites like Infowars, Global research, World Affairs Brief and many others, plus all the forums have the exact same stories posted, with very little variance in what happening. I have never seen such a unified front of identical news in the alt media EVER, is ATS going the same way?

In my opinion, the 9/11 forum is a mess. The moderation definately seems to side towards those touting the official story. No question in my mind.

People get scolded on here, receive warnings, and even lose posting privileges for calling any one a "shill" or an "OS'er". Meanwhile it seems perfectly acceptable for the moderators to let these posters call people like myself idiots, "truthers" or even "conspiracy Theorist".

All I know is that I post MY opinions, and for what I believe in as truth. I don't think that is the case with many of these posters I am referring to.

I'm not sure if this is possible, but what if you imposed a one post per thread per day limit on all users? Maybe then they will think twice about just casting insults and come up with more substantive arguments.

At least the 911 discussion will still be made but people will have to be 1) really dedicated to the discussion to come back every day just to put in their 2 cents, and 2) hopefully they'll find in that 24 hours a better argument than just a mere insult.

It may not clean up the mess, but at least it would make it a slow motion mess that could be handled more effectively.

A good example of how people are divided on virtually everything.

Left, right, liberal, conservative, Christian, atheist, Muslim, Jew... You get the idea, this list could go on and on, and include Truthers and OSers.

Almost every thread and topic here has members posting from whatever perspective they have been indoctrinated into.

It is a fundamental flaw in humans. It's getting worse not better. People are losing the ability to think for themselves, and simply join the herd they have chosen to follow.

I've not personally experienced/seen the moderation being anything other than fair. That being said, they are human, so...

Perhaps on some threads the people who are defending the original story are using the alert function to their advantage.

If a member is calling another member an "idiot" or a "shill" perhaps we need to alert on that member.

Isn't that what makes ATS above the rest (GLP, etc.)? The fact that name calling and such is not tolerated?

As the mods above have said, they can't possibly see EVERY post...It is difficult enough for a "regular" member to go back and try to pick up where they were reading after being logged out for a couple of days...

I would have never guessed, before today, that the terms OSer or Truther were derogatory but now I see that they can certainly be derogatory and inciteful depending on the context...

Just saying...

I just hope that the offending parties can find a common ground in seeing that the search for the truth or as close one can get to that is more important than making personal attacks because once you go to that level, your argument is lost and people DO stop listening...

I suppose what I'm saying is if both sides don't come to some sort of place of contrition or repentance, then the forum could be gone for everyone, forever...so...that would be a shame (IMO). I think from what I've read over the years that most folks believe there is something worth discussing on both sides.

originally posted by: ausername
A good example of how people are divided on virtually everything.

Left, right, liberal, conservative, Christian, atheist, Muslim, Jew... You get the idea, this list could go on and on, and include Truthers and OSers.

Almost every thread and topic here has members posting from whatever perspective they have been indoctrinated into.

It is a fundamental flaw in humans. It's getting worse not better. People are losing the ability to think for themselves, and simply join the herd they have chosen to follow.

I kindly disagree, as an Engineer and a keen follower of the NTSB and similar agencies throughout the world, i base my influence and opinion on the facts and their "standard operation" and tend to use their analytical processes in my work, it helps! In no way am i indoctrinated, unless you say of course, the protocols are wrong.

CbG

a reply to: corblimeyguvnor

Hereby lies another problem. I have just re-read my last post. Depending on anything, that comment can come across as negative or positive (It was intended as positive), Insulting or otherwise (never insulting).

Text on a screen does not show the emotion (Happy, Sad, Angry etc) that is evident in real life as the response is being written

CbG