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

a reply to: baglady333

You mention you are Appalled at the level of indecency in the 9-11 forum and, not that my opinion should be the way things are or anything, I for one think the whole site is suffering from a lack of...I dunno...maturity? Courtesy? Respect? Common decency? I can think up quite a few ppl who aren't simply passionate contributors they're far beyond passionate to the point every forum they participate in they put forth the only acceptable way of looking at things and accuse anyone else of being delusional, crazy, simple, dumb. Then you have the ones who are clearly SEEKING a confrontation and they usually get one. And you also have the ones who search every post carefully to find a way to twist the meaning of a clearly innocent phrase or sentence or...you know what, we have all seen them so I ain't gotta give examples of all types but my point is that there isn't much constructive contributions you're gonna get from those types and ATS many years back was the place you COULD go research stuff without the rampant disconnect of human beings that manifests in pure ugliness on utube and all other news and conspiracy websites. From now on I'd be all for being exponentially more active with the whole account closing consequence, going through with it after just a second or maybe third post that abandons any attempt of being courteous when addressing other human beings or that isn't an excited rebuttal but a flat out mocking of another's post or pushing buttons clearly begging for someone to throw a metaphorical punch. Get em out of here, there are fewer experts, academics, serious researchers, and deep thinkers the more hooligans that start coming around here.

a reply to: eriktheawful

This.


Just reiterating this post.


I can personally guarantee our Membership that there is no single agenda - beyond basic civility - we as a Staffing Team are here to push. We are not a Govt-paid Shill Site as soooo often get's tossed out there.
If we are then I'd really like to know where I can claim my back-pay from...


We are all Volunteers - with lives, families, life issues and demands and struggles - just like pretty much everyone else.
All of us come from different countries, creeds, cultures, contexts...languages and leanings.
We do not always agree.
Oh no...we pull NO punches with eachother either when we disagree - but we do it with civility, just as we expect from others.


As for me:
15+ years ago ATS was a small site...back in the ezboard days.
It had no Moderators/Moderation...bar that provided by the site founder, Simon Gray.
As the site grew, and it's Membership increased, I ceased surfing as a 'visitor' and joined up just over 15yrs ago.
Simon after a while needed assistance to help keep things ticking over - and I was offered, and accepted, a role as Forum Moderator. The first ever Moderator of ATS. Prior to the following establishment of Admins and Supers and Mods and everything else which came as the years and growth progressed.

Yup.
Longest serving Staff Member there is...so if there is some form of nefarious underhanded super-secret agenda that we're/ATS is pushing...I'd really like to know where my Memo on that one went...as I never received it.
It must be sitting somewhere with my Govt-Shill back-pay. Could use that right now. Christmas cost me an arm and a leg with so many dang kids...


15-plus years as a Mod of ATS?
Gee...must be a sad guy with no life living in Moms basement?
Nope, far from it, I'm in my 40s, a father/husband, work as a private consultant/educator/advisor within the mental health and wider health/social sector in my country for numerous large national and international health organisations.
While being a Mod over those years I've also worked full-time, gotten married, had kids, fostered others, managed large health/social organisations. Basically life. Nothing much different from a bazillion other people out there.


Oh be sure - this (nor the referenced post by Erik) - is no "Oh woe is us, poor us" by Staff Members...not at all.
We're intensely proud and passionate about what we do.
We're intensely proud and passionate about this site.
Why? Each has their own reasons - me, I feel privileged to have been a member (and Staff) since pretty much the beginning.
Blessed to have known so many great people with so many great perspectives. Even the ones that grate me no end. And look forward to meeting and reading those of others.


An old adage:
"When we speak we're only sharing what we already know...
...but when we listen we start to learn something new"


...I tend to do far more *listening/reading* than *speaking* on the Boards...so a big huge major thank you to each and every one of you for being my Teacher.



Cheers.

Sometimes I wonder what might happen if the members trolling threads to get them shut down were not rewarded by having them shut down.

Seems to be a lot of emotion going on here ..... understandable as we are human. I get that insults are frowned upon, should never happen but do. Can't blame the site owners or mods for this, its life. BUT ffs, take a hint at what's being said ........... DO YOU really need an ATS dictionary to tell you what is insulting and what is not? .......... COMMON SENSE applies as does DENY IGNORANCE.

Someone show me the door, honestly!

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

What rewards?.

I think there is an ideological issue here at ATS that needs to be addressed in regards to ATS and the 9/11 forums.

On another forum they had the same problem I won't mention the subject but it wasn't 9/11, the moderators over there were having a huge problems with members trolling each other, it was causing massive bans, and time an effort just like ATS.
After about a year they got together and came up with an excellent solution within there own T & C.

They created 2 threads within the sub-forum, the MODS would gate-keep each one from the other side trolling it.
It created a safe sanctuary for both side to discuss the matter in peace. I really do think with the amount of trolling that goes on all over ATS and the struggle the mods have the time has come for sanctuary threads that are gate kept by the mods. It has worked on other forums and it can work on ATS.

Honestly I have been on ATS for almost 10 years it was the 9/11 forum that made me sign up in the first place, I just had my 4000th post removed in that same 9/11 forum, and I still don't know why. A member tried to gate keep a thread as in the suggestion I made, it failed spectacularly. But on this type of thread it's up to the MODS to make it work not the members. They become gatekeepers for peace.
My days of posting in the 9/11 threads have come to an end, and it's sad really, somebody is winning this battle on the internet right now.

I still love ATS and it's my favorite go to site on the web, and I still think the mods here are the best, but the 9/11 forums are so problematic it creates a deviation from the normalcy here at ATS.

On the issue/topic of more Staff...

It's likely inevitable that the Staffing Team will increase over time.
And it's something we do regularly discuss - along with discussing whether we have the mystical 'right mix' of Staff.
Do we have a good mixture of opinions? Of learnings and lifeskills? Expertise, experience and basic expressions?
Do we have a good mixture of cultures, political leanings, beliefs or non-beliefs?
All those things do get discussed regularly.

We can never achieve the perfect mix - not at all.
But we do keep aiming for it...and via aiming for it we hopefully can also raise our own bars that wee bit higher.


There are certainly fellow Staff Members whose ideologies and opinions I personally don't agree with - but we do agree to respect eachother in our sharing (and if needs be our challenging) of them with eachother.


Does this Forum need more Staff?
Great question - and again one we've asked many a time over the years.
Maybe it does - maybe it doesn't.
From reading the Staff and Member Alerts etc that come through every day: I do think/know that the greater majority of any potential Staff Action that may be required within this Forum is often related to a small minority of posters within it.
Potentially therefore it would be more productive to focus more upon that basic point...the basic point and premise of this thread...the basic point and premise of at least three other threads within this Forum requesting the very same thing:
"Just don't be a dick about it"
Pretty much.

Personally think we could strip the whole T&Cs down to a Super-Lite Version;
1. Don't be a dick
2. Don't be a dick
3. Come on now - you know you're being a dick

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

What rewards?.

Having their intended goal (thread closure) accomplished. Why should a thread be shut down simply because it's trolled? Why penalize the OP and the other participants for the misbehavior of a few?

a reply to: alien

Personally think we could strip the whole T&Cs down to a Super-Lite Version;
1. Don't be a dick
2. Don't be a dick
3. Come on now - you know you're being a dick

OMG....I'm still trying to catch my breath from laughing so hard!

But it's true! Really, it's true!

This is how we doing back here too!

1) Does this post need to go? Or am I being a dick?
2) Should this member be banned? Or am I just being a dick?
3) Hey other staffers! Am I being a dick here?

MWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously you NAILED IT!



As Alien said: we are a very mixed bag back here:

We are a mixture of people from all over the world.

We are a mixture of different political beliefs.

We are a mixture of skeptics and believers.

Trust me on this. I've seen some arguments back here.....whew! See, we don't have anyone to moderate us back here when we have a private debate....er....discussion......er.....well......it's a something......

BUT! At the end of the day, we shake hands, agree to disagree and move on. We don't hold it against one another.

Seriously. First time I saw a debate like that when I was first made staff....I wanted to hide under the bed and yell MOMMY!

So no...we're not all right wing conservatives....we're not all left wing liberals.....etc, etc, etc. We are a very mixed bag back here.

However: our love for ATS is a very uniting thing, and no matter how much we argue with each other over various things, we still stay together to help make ATS a great place.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

What rewards?.

Having their intended goal (thread closure) accomplished. Why should a thread be shut down simply because it's trolled? Why penalize the OP and the other participants for the misbehavior of a few?

Because you're not getting to see the whole picture about why something was shut down.

One policy we have: that's between us and the OP.

Sometimes the OP of the thread actually asks us to shut it down. Sometimes we shut it down, and reopen it so that people have time to cool off.......only to have them go right back at it. So we shut it down and leave it that way.

There are many reasons why we shut something down, but it's not something we're going to discuss with the rest of ATS. It's between us and the OP of that thread.

Just like we do not talk about actions against other members. That's private. It's between us and that member. It's not fair to them if we go around telling everyone. It's a very long standing policy of ATS.

I know, I know. I was once on the other end: Why did so and so get banned? I can't see what they did to warrant that! Why was this post removed? Why was this thread trashed?

Once I came back here, I got to see the why. Everything went "CLICK" and fell into place, and I understood.

Like I said: I wish there was away we could show people. Like making a single Staff Thread public, just so you all can see.
Sadly, for the same reason that I can not tell you why someone else was banned or actioned, is the reason we can't do that. It's private.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I still love ATS and it's my favorite go to site on the web, and I still think the mods here are the best, but the 9/11 forums are so problematic it creates a deviation from the normalcy here at ATS.

Right now I can't come up with anything more perfect then
every word you said here. I both concur and must continue my
search for a post by the "one member" as he's being referred to.
I hate owing people anything so make this my public apology
to ATS with a one left to go personally. No doubt I played a part
in all of this and I feel terrible. I've some how been shown
massive patience. And I don't take it lightly.

As a member who is quite a prolific poster in the 9/11 forum i can only welcome any attempt to inject a little civility into proceedings. I think after having spent quite a lot of time in the forum i am in quite a good position to give my views on this issue.

Firstly I think that the biggest problem is quite simple. Some people will not admit when they are wrong. I don't know how many times i have had to bang my head against a wall as a member just flatly refuses to believe s/he is wrong and i mean this for both sides. This refusal to admit to being wrong also usually inevitably turns into thread derailment through one of two ways. Either the bested party will try to change the subject from a debate about say the infamous pentagons "missing" trillions to a totally different topic like a convenient passport when the later has been "debunked" and thus the thread goes off topic or the bested party will just make comments like "hmmm you seem to have a agenda...".

The second problem that I think we have is also quite simple. There are probably about 10 or so members from both sides of this debate who really a truly know what they are talking about, who have actually put in time to conduct real research behond a few youtube videos into 9/11. The result of this is these huge debates that basically end up with thread that are page after page of what really amounts to trolling. I dont know how many times i have seen a new member pop up and have ended up spending a whole page of a thread dominating it with a claim like "those buildings fell into their own footprint".

This actually does kind of bring me to one part of SO's new initiative that i disagree with.

Name Calling: Tossing around indiscriminate name calling such as "OSer," "Shill," "Troll," "Truther," and all the other related nonsense will not be tolerated.

I don't really know of anyone who really finds the term OSer or Truther offensive, they are really just short hand for "those who believe the official historical narrative of 9/11 " and "those who dispute the official historical narrative". I dont think there is anything wrong with using using these labels, labels are used all the time in our every day language to aid in conversation. Calling me a OSer is no more offensive to me than calling me a Celtic fan, its just a language tool to allow the flow of conversation.

Now as for blatant name calling that is a different matter.

And while on that subject i would like to make another point. Calling someone ignorant is not name calling if its true. If for example you claim that WTC7 fell into its own footprint then its fair to say you must be ignorant of the facts because there is photographic evidence that proves otherwise. Calling someone ignorant to me is not offensive, its not like calling some one stupid its just making a assertion that they do not possess all of the facts and as such their statements are incorrect.

Finally I would also like to propose another suggestion to the staff. Would it not be possible to enforce a policy whereby to post in the 9/11 forum a member must have a minimum of say 200 posts or so. I have noticed a huge problem with newer members posting in this forum. Furthermore i have also noticed at times members who get banned in a 9/11 forum just signing up again and getting in on the debate again.

Anyway as i said a welcomed move.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: HardBoiled

Check to see where the IP's are coming from, and check if multiple posters are using the same or similar IP adresess.

This off course could also be bypassed, but as staff this is the first thing I would check. Simple enough.

I think the better idea would not to be calling people names as the moderators suggested.

You asked the question how they should check if people might be shills. I answered it. What you think is the better idea is not relevant in this case, nor does it solve the real problem.

originally posted by: HardBoiled
What you think is the better idea is not relevant in this case, nor does it solve the real problem.

Yeah, actually it does.

Osers offensive, they are really just short hand for "those who believe the official historical narrative of 9/11 " and "those who dispute the official historical narrative". I dont think there is anything wrong with using using these labels, labels are used all the time in our every day language to aid in conversation. Calling me a OSer is no more offensive to me than calling me a Celtic fan, its just a language tool to allow the flow of conversation.

I suppose one could make the argument that the term OSer is a crafty way of calling someone a LOSer. I prefer OS-advocates myself. But if OS-advocates is not allowed then where does one draw the line? There are people in other sections of the forum throwing around labels like 'Flat-Earther' and 'Denier'. Even the term 'Conspiracy Theorist' carries negative connotations and is used pejoratively. Should we expect the same treatment for these people?

a reply to: HardBoiled

You asked the question how they should check if people might be shills.

Why should anyone bother? In the end, it's about the info posted. Agree with it or refute it.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No it solves a symptom of a deeper problem.

Anyways I don't really get why there is all this hoopla that has to be brought to the attention of all ATS members, when only a few are still interested in 911, and it is a niche subject among subjects nowadays.

Why create all this drama for ATS over a handfull of guys being impolite to each other on a forum that noone really cares about.

From the tone of it, this seems to be more about control than anything else.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
I don't really know of anyone who really finds the term OSer or Truther offensive, they are really just short hand for "those who believe the official historical narrative of 9/11 " and "those who dispute the official historical narrative". I dont think there is anything wrong with using using these labels, labels are used all the time in our every day language to aid in conversation.

Within the context here, and how the terms have all too often been used, I think it's important to stop. The labels have become back-handed dismissals. Calling someone an "OSer" has been used as a angry slight by "Truthers" to denigrate a member and classify them as someone who rejects all 9/11 conspiracies. Likewise, the term "Truther" has all too often been used to put members in the extreme "woo" category, believing any crazy conspiracy.

Tossing around such labels injects needless passive aggressive attacks into the conversation. Anyone, and I do mean anyone from those who reject all ideas of conspiracies to those who believe in controlled demolition, who cares about this subject, owes it to the subject to debate the issues without such impolite distractions.


The biggest problem within the universe of "9/11 Conspiracies" is that nothing of substance, from a conspiracy standpoint, has been proven. Now, before you jump on me for that statement, with a long list of Youtube videos and animated GIFs, if something had been proven, it would have made the mainstream news. Nothing has. ATS has proven a handful of conspiracies in the past, which have made mainstream news. And I firmly believe one of the major reasons for this is that because of the attitude of 9/11 Conspiracists and the "Truth Movement," no one in the mainstream media would touch it with a 100 foot pole.

It's time to fix that. That is, only if you care more about the subject than fighting with each other.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Because of the clear rule in the T&C about forum gangs and organised efforts.

originally posted by: HardBoiled
No it solves a symptom of a deeper problem.

What 'deeper problem'? That you, or other people, think there is some sort of paid shill infestation?

Let us assume for the sake of argument that there are paid shills. So what? What do they do? They post. What do they post? Opinions and/or facts. Are those opinions and/or facts true or false? It is up to them to provide reasons/evidence why they are true and up to the people who disagree with them to post reasons/evidence why they are not true. The membership at large can make up their mind as to the validity of said reasons and/or evidence based on how well it is presented or explained.

Playing super sleuth and trying to track down every single person's IP address that is suspected of being a shill by those who do not like to have their opinions challenged is tedious, time consuming and wasteful.