Q Policy

Whats the deal with this Q Policy?

I get the impression if Q talks about something then that means it can only be talked about in the Q ultra super mega jumbo thread?

The "trap" thread today it seemed only the one critic was making it about Q. At least that I noticed.

What if someone wants to critique the 'Q thing', with focus?

Or if "Q" breaks a story first, then that means it gets dumped into there?

What if they make the threads under "General Discussion", or "RATS"??

Not that I havent had plenty of criticisms surrounding the whole affair of "Q", but fairness cuts every which way and seeing them too timid to bother making a thread dealing with a specific valuable set of infos from all that stuff 'Q people' talk about seems like backwardsness as well.

Likewise, having all the 'trolling' & bickering running in the same huge thread devalues the entire affair. Perhaps if they could at least have a 'Crisp Clean Research Thread', and a 'What Is Q Bicker Here Thread', that such diversions could get shoved off into???

Since that whole thing went into this motion I've gotten the impression that people into it have been filed away into their own little echo chamber, thus lessening of lot of activity that would have been spread out across the site (I mean the rest of the site now more boring because of it), which has worsened things in the way of putting them at odds with anyone whom cant help but rock the boat when they end up 'in there' (worsening the 'cult effect' that is basic human nature stuff, I mean).

I can also see the slippery slope of thread after thread of Q hype if let run amok, given the enthusiasm many in there have. Yet at the same time there's some interesting stuff comes up 'in there' and doesnt even show up 'out here' that many of us are missing out on (made worse by both infos & bickering all relegated into one huge thing making it a tedious affair for many to casually pop in to kind check out whats going on lately).

It just seems like there just has to be a better way to handle it all that doesnt make the rest of the site annoying... where it has made it more boring.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I have no idea what you are talking about.

i think 'Q' is a bit of theatre. all the world's a stage, don't you know?

a reply to: RoScoLaz5

Yeah. I tend to earn myself "The Piano Wire Award" on the nights I finally wander into there lol, but I still think having some huge ginormous echo chamber within the site isnt the right way forward either.

ATS not being an echo chamber is what makes it so special.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Thank you for bringing this up. I must agree I thought the Q thread was to analyze and research q drops only. Certainly in doing research, one makes interesting discoveries that may not actually be Q post related. The researchers just happen to stumble upon it. Those topics can make excellent threads on their own in so many different forums here at ATS!

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

ATS not being an echo chamber is what makes it so special.

So why try to make it one and then open a thread on Board Business questioning the reasoning for not making it one ?
Just askin..

In just a few sentences what is your suggestion?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

It's been suggested that Q becomes a category in ATS to mitigate the different angles of the entirety of Q ( i.e. having seperate threads for debunking attempts and for decoding the Q drops. I agree that echo chambers aren't beneficial, but either is having a thread that blends both research with the same broad criticisms that've been argued endlessly.

I think the fear behind making a Q category is that it inadvertently looks like ATS is giving Q credibility. But at the same time, the mods have to constantly intervene in the Q threads because of bickering over Q's vailidity.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

It may not come as a surprise to you that I endorse this OP.

Well said.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

I'm tending to agree with that move now although I critiqued it in the past, BUT until we finally get our "Accelerating Change" category I'll step on the backs of yours shoes while you're walking in that direction.

I personally need some clarification on this too---are sub-topics that appear on Q threads not allowed to be discussed as a separate topic elsewhere? If it's just a case of needing to leave Q out of it then that makes sense from the OPs standpoint but he has no control over the peanut gallery.

Reply to: Ignoranceisntbliss

Haha

What did you have in mind for the "Accelerating Change" category?

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

ATS not being an echo chamber is what makes it so special.

So why try to make it one and then open a thread on Board Business questioning the reasoning for not making it one ?
Just askin..

Probably because any U2U from mods i ever received say "do not reply to this message". Even contacting ats directly via the contact form for ATS network will get you nowhere in my experience. There is no way to discuss the rules or reasons for censorship than to open a thread that will almost certainly get squashed.

a reply to: The GUT

I must admit it is confusing. The trap thread OP was not promoting Q nor sourcing Q. I have no problem with another suggesting it is Q related once...but to continue on after was what I understand to be completely off OP topic! Sigh.

originally posted by: The GUT
I personally need some clarification on this too---are sub-topics that appear on Q threads not allowed to be discussed as a separate topic elsewhere? If it's just a case of needing to leave Q out of it then that makes sense from the OPs standpoint but he has no control over the peanut gallery.

The thread from earlier got shut down because he moved a post out of the Q thread and into an original OP. How many times have you seen the phrase "that deserves it's own thread" on this forum. Not just with Q but on any topic.

Well, unfortunately if you have an independant thought you would like to share, but also happen to be in the Q thread at the time, or were inspired by anyone else who also posts in that thread, you better keep it out of the board?? Even the mudpit?

What a stifling policy.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
Reply to: Ignoranceisntbliss

Haha

What did you have in mind for the "Accelerating Change" category?

All the Emerging Technologies stuff that comprises the Accelerating Change category (in the world today, and the near future).

Nanotech.
Artificial Intelligence.
Biotech.
Cognitive Sciences in the computational sense.
Life Extension.
Transhumanism.
Robots.
Machine Automation.
Ubiquitous Surveillance.
Etc.

Broad reaching stuff here. I argue the likes of Bitcoin goes into such category.

Be nice to see Soficrow return for it. I have whole series I keep putting off because to scattershot them across a list of categories is a mess. Takes away from the effort.

Dash's WH17ERABB17 threads are extensive, detailed and have run through eight threads (so far) totalling almost 2000 pages. The 'drops' and 'decodes' are posted in those threads as anywhere else would become a spin-off.

All members are able to post their Q-related interests and thoughts in the existing threads.

News that is independent of the Q topic is a valid topic for a thread. Speculation that is dependent on the Q topic should go in the WH17ERABB17 threads.

Other than these brief points, there isn't a 'policy' on the subject. Staff go off a case-by-case process dictated by alerts and the consensus that follows.

Answered and closed.