Should threads be conditional and "exclusive"?

First, please may I make it clear that this is not an attack on any individual but, rather, an attempt to raise debate about what I feel is a negative, regressive move in some threads.

Essentially, I have recently seen a post which contained this message from the original poster:

"All Responders to this thread must base their speculation on the assumption that the ********* is true! "

I fail to see how this is representative of an open forum, as it sets out a conditional premise for posters (that the subject under discussion is true) and that, by default, people who disagree with the concept being discussed cannot take part in the thread. It excludes people who might disagree - it is exclusive.

I do not think this is constructive: whilst it might reduce the possibility of "flaming" taking place within the thread, as one is only engaging with people who share the same belief, it is as though one is already "preaching to the converted"?? Where is the possibilty of an exchange of ideas or debate within such a confined and restricted topic?

I am all for free debate based on logical argument and exchange of ideas. I believe the majority of posters here share a similar outlook too. However, am I wrong in this assumption?

What do you think? Is there a case for some threads to be conditional and, by that, remain exclusive ie exclude some members from having their say??

I value your input. Thank you.

i believe that what they are trying to do in the case you mentioned is to work within a set princible. to try to keep the thread from turning into an arguement for and against the stated isue as tends to happen sometimes.

Well, in the thread in question, I have no problem with that condition being set by the original poster.

They were inviting people to put their heads together and speculate on the possible meaning of a prophecy.

It would be more damaging to the discussion within that thread if people came around saying that the prophecy was a bunch of phooey.

I think a spereate thread with the title "Such and Such is a Pure Phooey." would be more appropriate.

Why should people who do believe and want to discuss possible interpretations have to argue at the same time over the prophecys legitimacy.

In this case I say seperate threads.

Both threads will benefit.



*edit (grammar)

[edit on 22-4-2005 by quango]

Originally posted by drogo
i believe that what they are trying to do in the case you mentioned is to work within a set princible. to try to keep the thread from turning into an arguement for and against the stated isue ...

Thank you drogo for your comments!

Yes, I understand that entirely - my reference regarding "flaming" tried to convey that meaning, as I am sure you realise. However, it is the principle that concerns me rather than the topic that I cite.

I think this creates a dangerous precedent. Let me give an example, if I may?

I decide to post a thread called "Hitler was a misunderstood guy" and then argue that he was good wih dogs and children, was a great painter, was sensitive, etc..... (Fear not, I would never post a topic like this!! )

At the bottom, I put in a caveat that only people who agree should post....

See where this is leading?? Before too long I suspect, the thread becomes a "voice" for all those who DO agree (by definition) and - possibly - becomes a platform for extreme right wing views, rather than a discussion as to why Hitler wasn't perhaps such a nice guy after all. So right wing views are reinforced and not countered, because I have put in a statement that others who disagree can't post here.

This would be fine if I owned the board. i suppose, or had administrator rights, but I don't.

So, it is the principle that concerns me - should threads be conditional and exclusive??

Thanx again drogo!

In many cases it would be necessary to provide a condition especially if there is a discussion on a hypothetical scenario:

eg. Who would win in a war between US and Russia provided NO NUKES are used..
whats wrong in providing a condition here?


eg. Ok say you were in a car that was travelling at the speed of light, now please don't start flaming me on how that would be impossible, let's just say it's happening Ok so your in a car travelling at the speed of light, what will happen if you turn your headlights on? Will you see the light?----Thread by Phixion

There would not be any discussion on this thread if a condition wasn't provided.


What, I personally would not want, is taking part in discussions like the following:
eg. Do you think US soldiers commited atrocities in Iraq? We can safely assume that the Abu Ghraib pictures were fakes...


So, for hypothetical scenarios I am all for using conditions. For real world scenarios, it would be a case to case basis..

Originally posted by AlfredENewman


I think this creates a dangerous precedent. Let me give an example, if I may?

Until you posted this, most ATS members didnt even read the thread you are talking about probably, so they weren't even aware of whats going on. How can that create a precedent???
YOUR thread about that thread has probably created the precedent now.

Actually, precedent is a wrong word, this is not a court of law, there are no precedents here. People set conditions for discussion all the time.

This here is a philosophical discussion of what might happen if the absolute worst case scenario occurs and a few 1000 members go insane, start posting stuff like you assumed everyone will post.

That is not going to happen.

I think it is fair to let the people discuss possible outcomes of a prophecy without constantly having to discuss the validity of prophecy.

It is not a discussion about Hitler, world wars, or any other world changing stuff. It is just one discussion out of many on one damn prophecy. It will sink into oblivion of Past Threads in a few days and nobody will even remember that it existed.
Nobody even noticed the oddity of it until you created this discussion.

Originally posted by AlfredENewman
I decide to post a thread called "Hitler was a misunderstood guy" and then argue that he was good wih dogs and children, was a great painter, was sensitive, etc..... (Fear not, I would never post a topic like this!!

)

I do see what you mean by saying there is a potential precedent set, but Quake's mentioning of the hypothetical leading to a need for a condition is accurate. The Prophecy thread is essentially a hypothethical.

The example you offered above is an opinion. It wouldn't inspire a discussion.

If I were to post "I believe X. Only post if you agree." the thread would be nothing but, "I agree", "Right on, man", and "You said it, mate".

Sure, it could happen that people would use threads in a manner you suggest, but I think you underestimate most of the ATSers secret desire to vehemently defend their beliefs against all manner of flame, logic, and factual attacks.



*edit to add a smile...

[edit on 22-4-2005 by quango]

Thank you for all your feedback - my delay in replying was caused by work commitments rather than hesitancy to reply and thank you!

Firstly, I admit that the original post was a low-key topic (to me at least): was why I tied to disguise the threa in question - and once again repeat this was not intended as a criticism of either the poster nor the thread itself. Everyone should have the freedom of dicussing topics, just so long as they comply with the boards T&C's.

But, that said, I found an anomalywith that thought ie if we allow for freedom of discussion in threads, as above, a post that "denies" contributions seems exclusive.

I totally agree that some posts, such as described by my friend Quake describes "Who would win in a war between US and Russia provided NO NUKES are used.. " are, of course, valid - so, I apologise unreservedly for seeming to make "conditions" extraneous and unhelpul to the board.

As for paperclips assertions that "YOUR thread about that thread has probably created the precedent now. " and "Nobody even noticed the oddity of it until you created this discussion." seems to attribute blame to me - if I am guilty as charged, then I will take my lumps and move on, older, wiser and not a little deflated.

However, my intention was not to create board drama but to explore the concept as already stated (that open discussion is preferable to a one-sided stance) - dependent, of course, on the type of question being asked.

That I have lost this argument is clear (by the lack of views similar to my own) and I therefore readily concede to my friends and colleagues in this matter.

Thank you again!

No one has control over a thread. A thread does not 'belong' to someone. If i start a thread, and it gets closed, its not 'my' thread that got closed. This is a discussion group. People discuss things. Sometimes someone brings something up, other times people add to an ongoing conversation. One can't own a converstation. If someone wants to discuss bigfoot, they can't stop people from saying 'but there is no bigfoot'. They can suggest that 'we keep it to the hypothetical situation that there is one' etc etc, but I wouldn't not post somethign merely because some lunatic said 'you must agree with one of my positions to post here'. Members who post contrary positions aren't going to get warns and what not, as long as they are trying to have an honest conversation.

I actually think it's incredibly pretentious to have a caveat asking for only certain people to respond. People often respect it, but the tone of the thread is totally different and a lot of valuable information is lost. It's a very selfish thing to do, but that's your prerogative, of course. Disagreeing and arguing with other views is the best way to learn, why stop that?

This thread of course, rocks. Some Questions for the 'Experts'
(quotes were added)

Originally posted by AlfredENewman
That I have lost this argument is clear (by the lack of views similar to my own) and I therefore readily concede to my friends and colleagues in this matter.

Dude, do not concede so easily:

You have voted AlfredENewman for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Ever play marbles when you were really little? Say you start winning all the marbles by sheer physical and mental superiority. The losers start making 'rules'. Whats up with that? Rules are an artifice to allow the weak to throttle the strong through psychological warfare. If someone's argument is so weak that they have to couch debate with artificial rules-

- then they have already lost the argument.

Should threads be conditional and "exclusive"?...Essentially, I have recently seen a post which contained this message from the original poster:

"All Responders to this thread must base their speculation on the assumption that the ********* is true!

With regard to a conditional regulation, that would be up to the board’s administration if s/he/they wish to part from discussion and or debate and allow a one-sided point of view on what is supposed to be a discussion board. In my opinion, if such a request is made, said request is representative of the initial poster looking only for validation of his or her point, which can be dangerous if the biased result is then proffered as unchallenged support for a claim. If the intent is to discern the varying views from like-minded individuals, then the topic does not belong on a conspiracy board, and should be prefaced as being a research item from one point of view.

As to exclusivity, I have yet to find one submission in here which actually has by definition of corporate law an exclusive on a news item. In fact, just about every exclusive I have read encompasses news which I had already read from 1-4 days ago. Exclusivity seems to be misunderstood to include taking bits and pieces from several news sources relative to a news item, perhaps adding a new twist or bit of historical perspective to those, rewriting them and presenting them as though they were the first to present to the world the subject or the subject matter.

? What is the fun of 10 people sitting around going

"Yeah, good job, hate whoever, yeah, we right, everyone else is wrong, so they not allowed to post here, only people who think **** is right can post, yeah, ooooo yeah, that feels good, harder, yeah, yeah, mmmmm, you almost as good as Father McGrady at kissing ass."

There is no fun in that. I made a post called gun grabbers and how the anti-gun movement is wrong, but all I got was "Yeah, you right, yeah, yeah, oooo." and only 2-3 people tried to argue, but lost when realized they were wrong. Blaming the gun instead of the person, arressting the gun instead of the person, banning guns but not banning mop buckets which kill more, all was wrong. So I "won" but the topic grinded to a halt as it was just me and a couple others agreeing because any arguements against me were wrong. Sure it is a nice boost to the self esteem to "win", but not fun.

Originally posted by ChakotayDude, do not concede so easily:

You have voted AlfredENewman for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Thank you very uch for the (literal) vote of confidence Chatokay - it is very much appreciated indeed! Also, for the other "voies" for their support as well.

I was not trying to act like a spoilt child, threatening to take my ball away when the going got too tough but, rather, felt that my comments were too "tetchy" and deserved to be criticised, as reply's were in the negative up to that point of the discussion. Like many here, I do - and will - make mistakes of judgement and really don't come here to have a hard time - I go to work when I want that!!

Just one thing I would like to clarif is my use of the word "exclusive": my friend SomewhereinBetween states:

"As to exclusivity, I have yet to find one submission in here which actually has by definition of corporate law an exclusive on a news item."

My use of the word is actually to imply that the topc is "exclusive" by excluding certain people from the debate (by stating that the topic is only open tothose who agree with the posters viewpoint) rather than the topic under discussion is a "scoop" or "hold the front page" material. So, my argument has been for an inclusive/ holistic/ all-embracing type of discourse, so that differing views can be explored and debated in an open framework. sorry for causing any misunderstandings with my use of language and phrasing.

Thank you again for everybod's thoughts and comments - it is by the free exchange of information and opinion that we learn, isn't it??

Here's to denying ignorance!!