The End of Political Baiting and Sniping on ATS (was ALL MEMBERS READ)

It's a call to thinking people, this "My dad can beat up your dad" thing is for other sites. We are here, collectively, to deny ignorance, not embace it. Is it wrong to listen to someone with a differing view? If it is, personal growth cannot happen and ignorance wins. The staff of ATS has decided that ignorance won't win, it's been applauded here in this thread, by the members, I agree.

Well said Springer.

As long as this doesn't mean my posts have to be lucid or make sense then i'm all for it. I'd hate to mess up my track record of lunacy

On a lighter note, an excellant idea thats long overdue. I just hope i'm not the first to get rapped across the knuckles.

Wupy

Originally posted by mrwupy
As long as this doesn't mean my posts have to be lucid or make sense then i'm all for it. I'd hate to mess up my track record of lunacy

On a lighter note, an excellant idea thats long overdue. I just hope i'm not the first to get rapped across the knuckles.

Wupy

You are a right wing lefty, you are brainwashed.

See the difference? What you said was OK, me on the other hand should be banned.



Oops!

Additionally, the never ending debate/sniping between the Liberals and Conservatives is NOT ATS subject matter PERIOD. The Administrators and owners of this site have bent over backwards to give the membership a place to have those arguments, P@ATS, a unique and COMPLETE message board with all the bells and whistles.

First of all I fully support any attempts to rid ATS of the petty political bicking.
However only half of the "job" is being done. The same standard needs to be applyed to PTS , just because politics is the focus it dosnt mean that members have to resort to petty bicking.

I urge Eastcoast with the support of mods to apply the same standard to PTS.
Remember only the members can make ATS/PTS a better place.
I invite members to post on PTS even if your not a hardcore follower of politics. PTS needs a greater variety of opinons.

Deny Ignorance







Gazz

I'm very happy to finally see something getting done about this. Personally, I've felt that the partisan bickering has been out of hand at least since I got here. It's such bickering which is the reason I pretty much stay out of the paranormal and religious forums, as well as the government conspiracy forum. I have my own political views, as do we all. However, I think most of us are adult enough to realize that personal politics/religious beliefs really doesn't have a place in conspiracy. If you can prove a conspiracy, by all means, do it. If that proof so happens to point a finger at one party or another, I can accept that. But make sure it's proof, not unsubstantiated speculation. This isn't a rant forum. That's over on BTS.

Thanks to the mods for going into full alert to try and remedy this problem. Your efforts are duly noted and appreciated.

[edit on 19-8-2005 by obsidian468]

hahahha...

i love those "conversations" by springer...

great thread hahahha...

Roger, roger, Captain Springer.

Seems like a good enough idea.

Will threads start being moved over to PTS if they are more along that subject area?

Originally posted by Odium
Will threads start being moved over to PTS if they are more along that subject area?

I hope they're just trashed or closed. Even in PTS, it would be nice if we discussed the issues instead of just throwing those zingers in an attempt to upset someone instead of furthering the debate/conversation.

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by Odium
Will threads start being moved over to PTS if they are more along that subject area?

I hope they're just trashed or closed. Even in PTS, it would be nice if we discussed the issues instead of just throwing those zingers in an attempt to upset someone instead of furthering the debate/conversation.

Not 100% sure, I think it's more fun to show how stupid they are.

On one issue I'm a dirty liberal and then the next I'm conservative. Really annoys them.

Damn the common sense line.

It can be, but it also has the potential to hijack or kill a thread. For example, in this thread, cureme almost completely changed the subject from a freedom of speach issue into a bash Bush/defend Bush thread very close to the start, but the valiant efforts of DontTreadOnMe saved it./

HEE-HAW!!! I'm gonna deny me some ignorance!
*gets out a rag and starts polishing the "gripe" button.*

Thread Pirates, Ye Be Warned!

In all seriousness, all I can say is that it's about time. I'm sick and tired of being unable to talk about specific issues in the realm of current events, strategy, world politics, whatever, without having to hammer to go through a huge argument over who is a war criminal and who is a coward.

A little food for thought for all of those who will have to change their tune under this new policy: Great minds discuss IDEAS, Mediocre minds discuss EVENTS, Poor minds discuss PEOPLE.

And no mind insults people

I wasn't clear in my first post so I' ll elaborate here.

THE VERY SAME STANDARD APPLIES TO ALL ATS DOMAINS.

I really mean it. We created P@ATS to accomodate our members who wanted to DISCUSS politics NOT get preached at, have vehement arguments for one perspective shoved down their throats, etc...

The point being if you are trying to CONVINCE everybody YOUR position/perspective is the ONLY one that is correct, you need to go to your local party official's website and do it there. We don't want it here. We won't put up with it here anymore.

If you find yourself submitting a post to a thread in P@ATS that is about voter fraud and your post is exclusively about Liberals being too stupid to use a ballot, you need to go to your party's website and make that post. PERIOD.

P@ATS has a forum entitled Slug Fest, have at eachother in there where we can all watch for entertainment.

Springer...

Originally posted by junglejake
It can be, but it also has the potential to hijack or kill a thread. For example, in this thread, cureme almost completely changed the subject from a freedom of speach issue into a bash Bush/defend Bush thread very close to the start, but the valiant efforts of DontTreadOnMe saved it./

Who, whoa, whoa! Hold the phone! My name has been taken in vain! You were commenting about how our freedom of speech and First Amendment rights were in jeopardy, listing examples. Keep quiet, don't express an opinion, and don't you dare write to your congressperson. I added another example of freedom of speech that was in jeopardy. Someone else who was being bashed for what they say. The woman protesting in Crawford, TX.

Obviously you didn't see the irony of people only protecting the speech they agree with.

I'll admit, maybe I didn't make my point eloquently, but I don't think now is the time to discuss it. Nor do I think that this is the place to cast dispersions on my character.

Here we have a perfect example of the problem facing ATS. People disagree over the relevance of their statements.

One person (probably me) would say that disagreeing with or even being adversarial towards Mrs. Sheehan does not constitute obstructing freedom of speech, and that all that could come from bringing that matter into the thread is to turn the thread into a partisan slugfest over current events.

Another person might believe that Sheehan's freedom of speech is being obstructed, and their view of how appropriate it was to raise the issue would center on the direction of Curme's post- whether it stayed perfectly relevant or whether is delved too deeply into somewhat tangent events and ideologies.

I foresee A LOT of drama and griping about warns resulting from this policy, but my answer is this: don't change the subject. Period. If you have to bring up a politically charged current event, be extremely careful to use it in the context of an example, supporting a well thought out, less politically charged main point of your post.

Context is key- if people want to play Six Degrees of Impeaching Bush to skirt this policy, they're probably going to be busted unless they are very careful to make sure that their logic is sound and that they aren't oozing partisan vitriol.

cureme, please don't misunderstand. You made that comment; it related to an offhand remark someone else had made, true, but was taking the topic in a totally different direction. As I see it, it was a post designed to either be a zinger or turn the conversation into a Bush bashing:

And don't dare protest the President while he is on vacation!

We weren't talking about Cindy Sheehan, we were talking about Ms. Hall, and you delivered a one liner. Masterspy took the bait, and started asking about George Bush's IQ. Intentional or not, had it not been for DontTreadOnMe, that thread would have become a bash/support Bush thread because of your one liner. That's how I saw it, but I'm not a mod or admin; they're the ones who can say if that falls in line with what Springer is talking about here.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

I foresee A LOT of drama and griping about warns resulting from this policy, but my answer is this: don't change the subject. Period.

Drama and griping? I simply don't care. I really don't, there are THOUSANDS of sites folks can go to and spew political vitriol until their keyboards freeze up. ATS is NOT one of them anymore.

You NAILED IT with that last bit. That's all we want, NO MORE THREAD Hi-Jacking, no more multiple thread/same statement trolling... NO MORE.

PERIOD.

Crying about the limitation of Freedom of Speech is something I DON'T want to hear in relation to this policy. Freedom of Speech has NOTHING to do with trying to force feed a particular political agenda/perspective down someone's throat nor does it have to do with baiting, sniping or using a broad brush insult/accusation that has little or nothing to do with conversation's actual topic.

Matter of fact I would argue that more member's Freedom of Speech has been impeded by this lunacy, by way of disgusting them to the point they felt it wasn't worth posting knowing they would have to deal with this sort of CRAP. I am certainly in THAT group.

Springer...

-claps for Springer-

Sounds good, I hope it gets enforced in the right way.

Originally posted by curme

Obviously you didn't see the irony of people only protecting the speech they agree with.

I'll admit, maybe I didn't make my point eloquently, but I don't think now is the time to discuss it. Nor do I think that this is the place to cast dispersions on my character.

See the irony?! There is NO irony in a one sentence slam on the President.

curme, if you are going to admit something why not admit ALL you wanted to do was get a dig in at the President?! There was NOTHING in your one sentence that had ANYTHING to do with the topic of the thread, it was nothing more than a political jab.

This is EXACTLY the "time to discuss it" that's the whole point of this thread. No one has cast any dispersions upon your character either. YOU typed the post, not junglejake. This post of yours, that junglejake linked is Definately among the type I am speaking of in the opening commentary of this thread.

Simply understand that political jabs like this are NO longer cricket. That's all.

Springer...