------FORUM GUIDELINES------

After a full day of all manner of mostly entitled finger pointing and generally "not getting it," it has become clear to ATS staff and owners that there is very little desire by the most-active 9/11 Conspiracies forum contributors to clean up their mess.

EDIT TO ADD: Please see the new addition to the strict rules; External Sources.

This is sad. It's an important topic. But many of you are making a mockery of it, contributing to the continued maligning of the subject matter within the public at large. This cannot continue.

Beginning shortly, the forum will reopen. However, no new threads will be allowed. If you have an issue to discuss, please choose from the 9,204 existing threads, and contribute your new information.


IMPORTANT: STRICT RULES

Within the 9/11 Conspiracies forum, the Terms and Conditions will be strictly enforced, along with the following additions:

Name Calling: Tossing around indiscriminate name calling such as "OSer," "Shill," "Troll," "Truther," and all the other related nonsense will not be tolerated. Depending on the severity, you may experience an immediate account termination with no warning.

Personal Attacks: Taking focus off the subject matter and toward each other will not be tolerated in any form. You will experience an immediate account termination with no warning.

Thread Derailment: Posting of any irreverent or ridiculous information that disrupts the flow of productive discussion will not be tolerated. Depending on the severity, you may experience an immediate account termination with no warning.

Trolling: The repeated posting of content that supports any specific position, without interacting with members regarding that position will be considered Trolling in the 9/11 Forum. Depending on the severity, you may experience an immediate account termination with no warning.

Minimal Posts: Any minimal post that is nothing more than "atta-boy" agreement, or "nope" disagreement will not be tolerated -- if you post, contribute something. Depending on the severity, you may experience an immediate account termination with no warning.

External Sources: There has been way too much copy-and-paste of massive amounts of content from external sources. You should never post more than FIVE (5) paragraphs from each external source. If you post more, we will indiscriminately cut it down to two or three paragraphs. If you do this repeatedly, you may experience an immediate account termination with no warning.


IMPORTANT: THIS IS YOUR ONLY WARNING

There will be no notices within the reply form, this is your only warning. If you see members potentially running afoul of these new rules, please show them this thread.


IF ALL GOES WELL

If, by these new rules we happen to improve the nature of discussion in the 9/11 Conspiracies forum -- perhaps by culling the inconsiderate fools -- we may restore the forum to normal operation after 30 days. I'm not holding out much hope.


REALLY IMPORTANT: STAFF CAN'T BE EVERYWHERE

If there are repeat offenders that continue to disrupt productive discussion in the 9/11 Conspiracies forum, and all doesn't go well, it's not our fault, it's yours. Please use the alert button to let our staff know about any issues that come up.

FORUM IS OPEN TO REPLIES

As of this edit at 11:40 PM EST, the 9/11 Conspiracies forum has been reopened, for replies in existing threads only.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

OSer is just short for person/persons who agree with the official story.
Like Truther is short for non-believer of the OS.

Are we to type out "person/persons who agree with the official story" every time we post?


That's a little ridiculous and time consuming.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

It would be the more respectful, least-demeaning way to address someone. One should never have to call others names or demeaning titles to have a debate or discussion, or to get one's point across.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Why is it necessary to categorize people? That's a form of passive aggressive personal attack.

Sorry, I don't care if it consumes your time. The term has been used as an insult way too often in the 9/11 forum.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

Since when was it demeaning.


You may as well ban the terms Zionist, Right Winger, Liberal & Thug while you're at it.

We know people use them in a demeaning fashion.

Not so much OSer, that's just time saving in my opinion.



Oh well, asked and answered & all that jazz.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I think your not supposed to talk about other members in any fashion.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs



One does not simply post in the 9/11 forum.....Its threads are guarded by more than just a mere Overlord,,,
There are conspiracy theorists there that do not sleep....The moderators are ever watchful...It is a barren wasteland, riddled with shrills and trolls.... The very air you breathe is a poisonous fume.... Not with ten-thousand clicks could you do this.
It is folly...

a reply to: ShadowChatter

Yes, it's not exactly a shining light of ATS I must say.

It can be fixed though.

I can't count the ammount of times I've been called a "conservative" or "ignorant" or "racist" on this website.
Will this apply to all threads or just the 9/11 threads?

a reply to: Bluntone22

Using the alert-button applies anywhere on ATS.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

By the way...

The reason I asked in the first place is because you said this...

Depending on the severity...

Now I assumed that didn't count for shill and troll, but instead for people who use OSer for shorthand...

And will Truther be banned as well?


Thanks.

Some members put forward the concept that if moderators 'cannot be everywhere' then more mods could be recruited.
This seems like a logical move.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Having recently joined the ranks of members here, I have yet to officially participate in any of the forums concerning this subject. I am appalled at the level of indecency some have shown when dealing with this topic.

There have been some amazing threads I have read about 9/11 and that they can be trolled to the ground does a great disservice to your desire to allow such a volatile subject to be discussed.

Whatever the truth is about the events of that day will most likely never be understood. Still, an intelligent conversation does not require name calling to disagree with a point of view. As with any conspiracy, there is a desire to pound someone into submission with overt supposition based on independent subjective facts.

We can all agree that something tragic happened that day and the repercussions have been felt since. Nothing has been or will be the same regardless of why, what, who or when it came to be. I just hope that those that have made a habit of twisting the facts to meet their own version will realize they are only hurting themselves.

I would like to thank all of those members that have provided the threads for their diligence in doing so. I would, also, like to admonish those that have trolled beyond reason. Stop your boorish behavior and be thankful such a site as this one exist and allows for intelligent conversation to take place with real time responses.

Just because this is basically anonymous does not mean you can just act like complete jerks.

a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

That takes careful vetting, a lack of bias and an astounding amount of patience.

It's difficult to think of many members who aren't already mods, who fit those criteria.

I thought the same earlier though.


Edit;
1 specific member comes to mind, who does fit...
But I'm not sure if they have the time or the inclination to take up such a task.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
I'm sure they could find 5 or 10 members to 'trial' as mods, out of the total membership of ATS.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

a reply to: SkepticOverlord OSer is just short for person/persons who agree with the official story. Like Truther is short for non-believer of the OS. Are we to type out "person/persons who agree with the official story" every time we post? That's a little ridiculous and time consuming.

If you're not directly addressing the person except for replying to their statement on the topic itself, then you'd have no reason to assign a label. The fact is, some of us believe more than one thing, and it's insulting as hell to be called a "truther" and dismissed right out of the gate for simply having a multifaceted opinion. It's an unfair blanket label based on an equally unfair blanket assumption, and it is widely known that being referred to in that manner (from both sides) pisses people off, so why would you try to make an excuse to continue using it?

The point is, stop labeling people. It breeds discrimination and bullying and destroys morale. We're all individuals and should be treated as such, time consuming or not.

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
I'm sure they could find 5 or 10 members to 'trial' as mods, out of the total membership of ATS.

Fingers crossed they do...

As I said I thought the same earlier and it's practically the best idea so far if it's difficult with current numbers.

I also heard someone say assign certain mods to certain forums...
That might work I guess.

a reply to: tigertatzen

I was more referring to people who believe the official story outside of ATS borders...

I can agree that saying it provocatively to members here isn't conducive to logical discourse.