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

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I didn't see it as a thread for ridiculing people who believe in the "OS", I saw it as a thread intended for the focused discussion of alternative theories, under the assumption that the OS was not 100% accurate and the thread was not to be inundated by "you're all stupid truthers/OSers" or whatever it was people actually said. Perhaps, however, I was wrong.

Yes, that makes sense.

Ah, I guess I understand now. Oh well, it seems I might have just missed something.

a reply to: FlySolo

Now why do you suppose "shill" isn't allowed?

You're smart enough to know exactly why.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Believe it or not, however you can go and check for confirmation people have created threads very close to the examples you made.

In those instances people showed up with dissenting views. Some replied with comments much like what you posted as well.

Right, dissenting views are fine. In my opinion, however, it should NOT become a thread about evolution vs. creationism when it is meant to be for the discussion of the evolution of X. That, in my mind, constitutes off-topic.

Which ones? You see that would be a problem.

If you post a thread on ATS it is for the members. You don't get to decide who is a member.

All of them. The issue, as I see it, it become OS vs. Non-OS, rather than Non-OS vs. Non-Os.

I'd say the issue in our viewpoints is that I see that as off-topic, while you do not.

a reply to: seagull

because it will hurt someone's feelings? That's the best I can come up with. Give me a better answer and I'm not being sarcastic

originally posted by: FlySolo
Why are we not allowed to say the word shill? Or call someone a shill?

Because it's name calling, and all too often a lazy insult tossed at someone that does't believe a particular conspiracy theory.

a reply to: FlySolo

Probably for the same reason racist, bigot, and retard are likely not allowed. Uncivilized.

Besides, you don't have to call someone a shill to hurt their feelings.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: seagull

because it will hurt someone's feelings? That's the best I can come up with. Give me a better answer and I'm not being sarcastic

Because it leads to factionalism and not discussion.

ATS wants to promote a discussion... a dissection of ideas, a presentation of facts. Not a flogging of opinion and poo-flinging.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
E.g. a topic on "The Evolution of Arthropods" can have people simply saying Evolution isn't correct to begin with?

That's the nature of free and open online discussion.

Presumably, you'll go through a thought-proviing process whereby you have a learning experience in posting evidence in favor of the evolution of arthropods in order to convince that person who reject evolution.

a reply to: Byrd

I agree with you, but would not "truther", "lib", "commie", "socialist", "Oser", so on and so forth, also fall under the same umbrella?

Or are those fine, as they are less derogatory?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

It's a slang and I've never heard of it until it was tossed around here a few times. Fine, lets stop beating around the bush then and call out these people with a title that isn't offensive. Paid Poster. What is Shill anyway? It's a made up word so I still don't get the PC around it.

a reply to: NthOther

No, I'm pretty sure the UFO forum made ATS, and still does make ATS as the most popular forum on this site.

a reply to: FlySolo

See? You do get it.

You are here to discuss an issue, correct? Doesn't really matter the issue.

Would you rather discuss it in a manner which will lead, maybe, to some answers? Or would you rather it devolve into name calling which leads only to hurt feelings, and future animosity?

Seems a simple choice to me. "Shill", or terms just like it, lead only to the latter, and do nothing towards the former.

a reply to: FlySolo

Schill or not they're a member first. Schill is disrespectful to any
and all fellow members.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Well gatekeeping isn't allowed and a thread may drift as most do. Sort of like with this one.

This thread started talking about the out of control insults, but here we are talking about gatekeeping.

If gatekeeping was allowed you and I might not have even had this converstaion.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: seagull

because it will hurt someone's feelings? That's the best I can come up with. Give me a better answer and I'm not being sarcastic

one thing I have learned in my 20 years helping to manage a very successful marriage: insults are a road to nowhere that you want to be.

Thats why.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

And if the person continues to reject it without posting evidence? (Or proved to be incorrect evidence.) Will their posts then be removed for off-topicness?

I guess it's basically trolling at that point, so yes.

a reply to: Grimpachi

And yet a thread can't drift from Building Fire discussion to 9/11 discussion, and the similarities to the particular fire in question?
I guess it happened a bit quickly, but the point stands.

At what level of thread drift does it become unacceptable? It's arbitrary.
I guess we'll just have to trust the mods.

a reply to: Byrd

I appreciate all the concern but lets be real here? Please? If someone is being paid to come to ATS to distract the audience from anyone with valuable information regarding the biggest crime in N. America, THAT member should be flat out banned. It's intellectually dishonest to avoid acknowledgment that this even exists.

a reply to: FlySolo

Who decides what counts as "distracting", though? How do you know they're paid, and don't just hold a very strong opinion?

Ultimately, it's up to the mods. Which is the same situation we're in now, anyway.

a reply to: FlySolo

If a member comes here and posts within the T&Cs, they are welcome to stay. How exactly do you plan to prove a member is paid?