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

This board has the ability and power to do as it so pleases.
In concept and theory, the idea of cutting out the political rhetoric is awesome.
Implementing and enforcing will be another matter all together, and this is where I have grave concerns, especially since moderator determinations and interpretations are not always in accord.

Example from a member who recieved warns for making these posts:

as posted by XphilesPhan
The downing street memo is worthless because it is the observation and OPINION of some analyst. It's an overblown cooked up piece of nothing exactly why no one gives it any serious consideration.(unless your a hardcore liberal desperate to find some 'evidence' to support your rantings).

Hmm, let me see here, the member was given a red-flag warn for saying "hardcore liberal"?


Another:

I think the thing about not having anything to do with israel comes from the fear from the left. They want to go about their lives not concerned with
terrorists whom, they think, hate us because of israel. They dont seem to realise they will probably hate us no matter what we do. Look at the Israelis, they give these terrorist every thing they want and they still want to destroy israel.

And I suppose that this red-flag warn was given for simply saying "left"??


Again, I like the idea and concept of what ATS is trying to do, but to shut down all use of political word uses such as "left" or "right" is ludicrous. I guess there are red-flag warnings given for every use of "Neocon"? How about for every use "war-mongers" or "treehuggers"? I mean where is the line here to be allowed to contest openly? What is the defined and expressed "ATS Guide to Politically Correct Political Discussion" to political words uses that won't get you a red-flag warn? Can we get one? Indications are that from what I have given in the examples above of two warns, apparently and obviously, political word uses that are cited and utilized by political analysts, as well as mainstream media, such as "liberal", "conservative", "right" and "left", etc., are simply a no-go within ATS, despite having a proclaimed and exclusive political board.

I think this/these rule(s) need(s) to be further defined and clarified, as to what will be acceptable and what will not be acceptable, in reference to words allowed for use, etc.





seekerof

[edit on 21-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Taken out of context, any warn will bring questions.. The objective here is to deal with those who seek to disrupt or de-rail discussions with off topic or political posts outside of the topic, also those who will attack other members.

I can take any post here and quote it out of context and make a case as well.

You must see a discussion in whole to see the context and to see when a member is only seeking to disrupt or de-rail that conversation with unrelated "crap"!

It would seem this thread is getting much attention and activity. I would think by now that most mature members know how to conduct themselves in discussions. Perhaps there are a few that need reminding and even a few more that should simply move on if the website is not to their liking. It is a little sad that a such a thread is needed and that it continues to appear to be the most active lately. Perhaps the staff should deal directly with the problem members via u2u. IMHO

as posted by UM_Gazz
I can take any post here and quote it out of context and make a case as well.

You must see a discussion in whole to see the context and to see when a member is only seeking to disrupt or de-rail that conversation with unrelated "crap"!

Yeah, okie dokie, UM_Gazz.
First off, I did not take just any post here and quote it out of context. I quoted what the member was warned for, as indicated by clicking the red-flag warn, as well as looking at the topic. Anyhow, my points were made objectively and the whole context examined. Having past experience [time within ATS and tenure within staff] in such observations within ATS should have been considered by you when making your response, UM-Gazz. As such, my post and comments were not made lightly, ill-regard or in disrespect. They were given and cited objectively.

Anyhow, this board has the ability to do as is best for ATS.
I just hope the enforcement is likewise fairly distributed.





seekerof

[edit on 21-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof


Example from a member who recieved warns for making these posts:

as posted by XphilesPhan
The downing street memo is worthless because it is the observation and OPINION of some analyst. It's an overblown cooked up piece of nothing exactly why no one gives it any serious consideration.(unless your a hardcore liberal desperate to find some 'evidence' to support your rantings).

Hmm, let me see here, the member was given a red-flag warn for saying "hardcore liberal"?


Another:

I think the thing about not having anything to do with israel comes from the fear from the left. They want to go about their lives not concerned with
terrorists whom, they think, hate us because of israel. They dont seem to realise they will probably hate us no matter what we do. Look at the Israelis, they give these terrorist every thing they want and they still want to destroy israel.

And I suppose that this red-flag warn was given for simply saying "left"??



seekerof

[edit on 21-8-2005 by Seekerof]

CASE IN POINT. You really don't understand that both of the examples you just gave as giving you "grave concerns" are, in fact, to most of us, excellent examples of how some one was unable to talk about differing views without placing a stereotypical label to that opposing view, do you? The political views in the two examples you referenced are not owned exclusively by the "left" or the "hardcore liberals". And furthermore, who are you or any member you quote to think you get to tell another person they are "left"...they'll let you know if they're left. Furthermore, it seems the majority of the time the word "hardcore" is used it is automatically subjective and based on the person using the the word...not the person or people they're aiming it at.

I 100% back whomever decided those two examples were warnable.

You really don't get this, do you?

[edit on 8-21-2005 by Valhall]

Umm, apperently I get it more than you think, Valhall.

Your wishes, as with ATS staff, will be upheld.
My concerns were given in respect and objectivity.
Two posts directed at what was quoted and nothing to the meat of what I mentioned...nothing.

Interesting.





seekerof

[edit on 21-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Example from a member who recieved warns for making these posts:

as posted by XphilesPhan
The downing street memo is worthless because it is the observation and OPINION of some analyst. It's an overblown cooked up piece of nothing exactly why no one gives it any serious consideration.(unless your a hardcore liberal desperate to find some 'evidence' to support your rantings).

Hmm, let me see here, the member was given a red-flag warn for saying "hardcore liberal"?

Not to mention that he referred to the statements of the “hardcore liberals” to be a desperate attempt to support his rantings.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Umm, apperently I get it more that you think, Valhall.

Your wishes, as with ATS staff, will be upheld.
My concerns were given in respect and objectivity.
Two posts directed at what was quoted and nothing to the meat of what I mentioned...nothing.

Interesting.

seekerof

Interesting indeed. Was there some other reason for presenting them as your "evidence" of your grave concerns other than for you to use them to back your argument? I don't have any right to argue your concerns - that's your opinion. But I've got just as much right as you to look at your "evidence" and say it looks like it falls the other way to me.

Diminishing the opposing view through the use of labels with negative connotation, through derision of the person you are debating doesn't make your argument look better. It makes you (you being any one who employs it) look petty.

Also, facetious self-deprecation doesn't make you (you being any one who employs it) look as good as you might think it does either.

*hands up*

Hey, no problem here, none whatsoever.
Disregard totally what I have mentioned.
Been here over two years and no red-flag warn whatsoever been issued to me.
I will continue to be the good little subservient member I have always been.
Promise.

Thank you for everything for I know it is only for the best interests of ATS and this community.

as posted by Valhall
Diminishing the opposing view through the use of labels with negative connotation, through derision of the person you are debating doesn't make your argument look better. It makes you (you being any one who employs it) look petty.

Also, facetious self-deprecation doesn't make you (you being any one who employs it) look as good as you might think it does either.

Least I forget, and thank you Valhall for your mention.
I always knew I was simply irrelevant on this site.
Everytime I read your comments directed to me, it lends to reinforcing that simple factoid.






seekerof

[edit on 21-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Perhaps this is none of my business but isn't the point of this thread to remind members not to get into negative debates and to be respectful of each other when discussing topics? It would appear that it may actually be having the opposite affect from what I am reading. Maybe I am not perceiving the thread correctly but at what point will this thread come to an end and what end will that be?

No one is going to be censored here.. not that much has changed.. ATS will be less painful for those who wish to discuss the core topics in the forums that made this community what it is.. without the political mud-slinging, pettey political bickering and name calling.

There will be as always some political debate in some ATS forums.. when it fits the topic.

Outside of all of that PTS exists for political discussions.. and anyone who wants to make a case in a strong political form without de-railing a discussion in ATS can do so freely at PTS... It is just a click away.

Politics@AboveTopSecret

What if I use the term like;
"Liberal Media" and someone flips out?

Will I get the warning?

Originally posted by Odium
What if I use the term like;
"Liberal Media" and someone flips out?

Will I get the warning?

Did you read the opening post of this thread?

Originally posted by kinglizard

Originally posted by Odium
What if I use the term like;
"Liberal Media" and someone flips out?

Will I get the warning?

Did you read the opening post of this thread?

Yes, I did but it also has a meaning inside political classes and isn't meant in a bad way.

It's just like calling some newspapers "Right Wing" or "Conservative" in some cases, the Newspapers/Media do it themselves especailly during elections.

[edit on 21/8/2005 by Odium]

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, a book by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky.

I suggest this book, which actually displays "Liberal Media" etc as not an insult but more their business ideology.

Fair Dinkum

Originally posted by Seekerof
[Anyhow, this board has the ability to do as is best for ATS.
I just hope the enforcement is likewise fairly distributed.

It won't be perfectly fair. Nothing is.

This business of certain members testing the waters by seeing how far they can push things is a warnable behavior, as Springer has indicated.

It should also be clear by now that moderators can, will and should be given the benefit of the doubt when a member is obviously being a jerk.

It's a damn disgrace how often that is.

If members want to play games of brinkmanship with the moderators, they should be aware that the brink is much closer than it appears in the mirror of past experience.

This is a good old-fashioned barn cleaning, and when the mods are cleaning the barn, it's best not to look, smell or act like a turd.

I can only represent members, not non-members, and the reason I'm being so colorful and blunt about all this is because I want to do whatever I can to help ensure that my fellow members get the memo as soon as possible.

Once a member is banned, there's nothing I can do.

Please don't get banned.

I think I remember seeing this mentioned before, but if there's going to be a harsher policy on political commentary in ATS, can we please move the "War on Terror" forum to PTS? Or at least make a new, separate forum for the situation in Iraq?

First, it's pretty hard to discuss this for many in ATS with these new rules. Many people believe that the war on terror, or certain aspects of it at least, are nothing less than a political conspiracy.

Second, I think it's incorrect to place discussions about the war in Iraq in the same forum as the "war on terror" since this assumed something that a great deal of people believe not to be the case- namely, that the war in Iraq is subsumed under the war on terror. It seems a political act in itself to have Iraq discussions directed to the "war on terror" forum.

Don't mean to sound too critical here, just voicing my two cents. I think the mods and admins have done a wonderful job making ATS and PTS what they are.

-koji K.

Wow.
Does anyone remotely read my posts?
Majic:

If members want to play games of brinkmanship with the moderators, they should be aware that the brink is much closer than it appears in the mirror of past experience.

This is a good old-fashioned barn cleaning, and when the mods are cleaning the barn, it's best not to look, smell or act like a turd.

I can only represent members, not non-members, and the reason I'm being so colorful and blunt about all this is because I want to do whatever I can to help ensure that my fellow members get the memo as soon as possible.

Once a member is banned, there's nothing I can do.

Please don't get banned.

I will continue on being the good little subservient member I have always been.
Amazing how I simply raise a few points and then they get twisted to me bashing or having a problem with staff and then looking for a ban. :shk:

This board has every right to do what it wishes.
I have no problem with it.
I stated this in my initial post to this topic.
Now I have a Council member indicating that there are thoughts of banning me or giving me warning of heed to not be banned?

I make some postulations to this new policy and I am up for banning now? Wow.

In every one of my posts to this topic, I have given indication that the staff of ATS will do what is in the best interests ATS and its community. If banning me is in that best interest category, then please, by all means, do it now and get it over with instead of having it thrown or insinuated in my face since resigning as staff.

Thank you.





seekerof

[edit on 21-8-2005 by Seekerof]

The Song That Never Ends

Originally posted by anniejhops
Maybe I am not perceiving the thread correctly but at what point will this thread come to an end and what end will that be?

If all members shared your common sense, this thread wouldn't exist in the first place.

I understand your concern, which is quite reasonable.

However, this thread is the proper place to discuss this policy, and in light of the nature of it, this topic is going to necessarily get a lot of comments. This thread likely will, and I think should, get longer before things settle down.

While the staff are trying to keep the forums from degenerating into a pointless free-for-all, it is still ATS custom to give people a place to comment on things like this.

There is nothing wrong with expressing disagreement or dissent in this thread. This is the place for it, when it comes to this policy.

The point I and others are repeatedly trying to drive home -- and please bear in mind not everyone has gotten the memo yet -- is that an expression of dissent here does not license violations of ATS policy in the forums.

People are still doing it, and all members of the staff want to do what they can to minimize the number of ATSers who get blindsided by this.

The staff is giving warnings because they care.

If they didn't care, they would have already booted people without warning. But the truth is, these people already know who they are. They have all been warned plenty of times already.

Now it's up to them what happens next, and that's what this is really all about.

dont know if anyone else has said this but for the few that are not ranting and raving and get edited or closed or deleted would it not be better to allow them to explain themself and give them x hours or days to explain themself before a descsion on warning and the editing of the post happens.

I aint posted in a while as i aint seen anything worth posting about seems same old thing s are mentioned in different ways or what is better which i think is poor topics as well probably being done like 10 times before hand.