My Agenda in the 9/11 Forum, and how YOU figure into it.

In case the big glowing yellow message wasn't clear, this forum is generating an incredible number of complaints from CTers and Skeptics alike.

I want to make something perfectly clear, ATS does not take a stance one way or the other on this issue. Some people, like myself, really, honestly don't care one way or the other, because we feel there are far more important things going on in the world (ie. the unconstitutional actions undertaken under the auspices of 9/11 fears).

I certainly understand that many of you feel that 9/11 is the most important moment in your entire lives, and will argue your stance with all the passion of the seven seas, but personally, the only reason I frequent this particular forum on ATS is because I am assigned to it as a moderator. My job is to make sure of four things:

1.) That you observe the Terms and Conditions of ATS. This includes NO personal attacks, even if someone vehemently disagrees with what you believe.

2.) That a certain standard of credibility, quality, and good taste be observed in threads here. This means not presenting theories as fact, not having horribly mispelled thread titles, and no calls to other members to perform distasteful acts like harassing the victim's families.

3.) That threads remain on topic. This means you don't get into an argument about controlled demos at WTC7 when the thread is about engine parts at the Pentagon. And you sure as heck don't get into an insult war.

4.) That a certain level of respect for the house you are a guest of be observed. You don't have to ever deliver one single compliment about ATS in your entire stay here, and you might even criticize some aspects of it. What I mean is do not insult ATS, it's staff, or it's members.

That's it. That's my whole agenda.

Other than that, I don't care if you think 9/11 was done by terrorists, or the Bush administration, or if it was all a hologram broadcast by the psychic vampire lizardmen of Atlantis via black triangles powered by zero point energy. You can post whatever theory you want, provided it meets those four standards I listed above.

If your post can't even meet that bare minimum, expect to get penalized for it, whether you're a die hard CTer, Skeptic, or somewhere in the middle.

Originally posted by thelibraThis includes NO personal attacks, even if someone vehemently disagrees with what you believe.

I'm just curious why Craig Ranke and Rob Balsamo aren't held to this standard, and why the big yellow warning label about an immediate posting ban and account termination were not applied to Balsamo or Ranke?

This latest post of yours reminds me of mothers I see telling their kids they're going to count to 10 if the kids don't stop doing something bad. You already made it clear about the insulting posts, you posted a BIG YELLOW BANNER at the top of the forum, and yet you still let Ranke and Balsamo insult other members without even a handing out a red warning label.

It seems to me there is a bit of a selectively applied political correctness at play here.

thelibra,

Is it also your agenda to attack/insult members and threaten to ban them?

"Killtown, in the future, please refrain from just making things up and presenting them as fact. I'm editing the title of this thread, and I'd also consider yourself on thin ice as far as this forum goes." - thelibra, Moderator

Originally posted by nick7261
You already made it clear about the insulting posts, you posted a BIG YELLOW BANNER at the top of the forum,

Yeah, you'd have thought that would have encouraged some people trying to ruin the forum, but alas...

Originally posted by nick7261
and yet you still let Ranke and Balsamo insult other members without even a handing out a red warning label.

Show me the links. That goes for anyone. I can't see every post, all the time, 24/7. If you see someone acting inappropriately, post it here, or send a U2U to me. I'll sort it out as soon as I see it.

thelibra, let me add to your post by saying that, in the event that someone is breaking the 4 commandments you posted, a complaint should be registered using the complain feature. The threads on the site are meant for open discussions on topics, not on whining about members or correcting the behavior of other members.

Good day Sir, and i think you sometimes have a thankfless task.. Im no brown noser, but i think you have always seemed real fair, your etiquette is sound, and i can see why you are Mod in here...
I am a CTist, that is skeptical until something can alter my way of thinking, i am not ignorant, if ienough evidence is proven to me, i will change my stance on any subject.

Your rules as you stated

2.) That a certain standard of credibility, quality, and good taste be observed in threads here. This means not presenting theories as fact, not having horribly mispelled thread titles, and no calls to other members to perform distasteful acts like harassing the victim's families

I look forward to this rule being implemented, i am a member of ATS from the old days, back on the old system.. I have only lurked for a few years on this new setup, to be honest i was out of the Country on foreign assignments..
A lot of threads in this forum are most certainly breaking your rules of this forum on ATS, i love reading some of the threads and speculating, the difference here on 9/11 is that things have gone too far, the threads coming out daily are disrespectful, treason , and have no credibility whatsoever, and most certainly not good taste.. I know im not on my own here, and many are feeling the same at some of these threads...
Of course people should always post what they want, but if it doesnt fit in your rules of being credible or of good taste, surely it should get binned or moved... I lost someone on 9/11 and although i would not quosh debate, i would please ask that people look at what they are posting... and be honest with themselves.
Respect

Originally posted by Killtown
Is it also your agenda to attack/insult members and threaten to ban them?

"Killtown, in the future, please refrain from just making things up and presenting them as fact. I'm editing the title of this thread, and I'd also consider yourself on thin ice as far as this forum goes." - thelibra, Moderator

Nope. In point of fact it's not on my agenda at all.

You know full well why you are on thin ice, and considering the little "hate on ATS war" you've launched on other sites, I'm really not prepared to cut you any slack.

Let me be clear. I have no problem with your views, theories, or evidence. You will doubtless interpret this otherwise, because you have already decided in your head that we are some sort of big brother operation.

But the simple truth of the matter is that you are disruptive, sensationalistic, and often quite disrespectful to your fellow members and you do a disservice to everyone whom has volunteered countless amounts of their time and money to ensure that people have a quality environment to discuss whatever they want.

When the TAC were developed, they were not done so with the idea that anyone or any group or any political ideology would be singled out. Your claim that we only quash any non-government views only demonstrates how little you actually read outside of your personal little box.

We enforce standards of communication and common courtesy, and you will be held to them as long as you are a guest in our house, whether or not you perceive it as insult or attack.

2 questions:

1) Is this part of the new Patriot act? They said they would be watching over us with great scrutiny.

2) Are we allowed to make personal attacks on ourselves? Because I like to beat myself up to relieve stress.

Oh, and would it be inappropriate to refer to the warning message at the top of the forum as "throbbing"?

[edit on 13-6-2007 by snoopy]

Well, as you know, I often wind up arguing alongside Nick7261, and we've often collaborated to fruitful ends. We also diverge in many ways, but anyway, one thing is somehow he's been post-banned now if I understand, and I generally get the reasons given... now some of the same things he's been blamed for I do see others get away with, tho I'm not here to name names. I've never reported anyone (yet) nor to my knoweldge been reported.

I also disagree strongly with some people here, have used the term "disinfo," have issued a few attacks that could wel be taken personally (and were meant that way), and have recently incurred a passing threat of lawsuit, and yet... I'm clean. No warns yet. No locked threads, a post edit or two for what I don't even remember, a censor circumvention warning once for replacing a CK with a Q, but that's it.

So I guess, what I'm wondering if there is "politics" at work here, am I the desired end-product of ATS' info-engineering? If so, I say, cool formula! But no, seriously, what can people learn from all this about how to better avoid trouble? Am I just slipping thru the cracks and should be banned by now? Is there some magic formula I've stumbled onto?

I am all for staying on topic in a thread, but sometimes one has to draw reference from another seemingly unrelated item to make an even greater point on the original idea.

Just to add something, some people here have experienced trauma by witnessing the events of 9/11 or have lost loved ones on that date. It is incumbent upon us to take this seriously and not to take this lightly especially when certain theories come by that insult the memories of the victims and the people still suffering.

[edit on 14-6-2007 by talisman]

FowlPlay (and anyone else who might care to respond) what would be an example of treason in a post submitted to one of the forums on ATS? The only thing I can think of offhand would be fomenting revolution, fomenting the secession of a state within the union (isn't this being done openly in Texas and New Hampshire anyway) or transmission of state secrets to unauthorized persons. Is there anything else and has anyone (you don't have to name them) done any of these things here?

Originally posted by snoopy
1) Is this part of the new Patriot act? They said they would be watching over us with great scrutiny.

(blink) What? No... no, no, god no...

The "scrutiny" message is in regards to member conduct in the 9/11 forum. As in, we (the moderators) are watching this forum very closely to try and keep people civil towards one another. This is largely due to disruptive members insulting one another, derailing threads with petty bickering about off-topic subjects, trolling, and baiting.

Originally posted by snoopy
2) Are we allowed to make personal attacks on ourselves? Because I like to beat myself up to relieve stress.

That's really best done in the Rant forum or blogs. Now if someone points out something you've missed and you say something like "Oh, geez, I'm blind as a bat, sorry", then no, no one is going to fault you. But if you dedicate an entire post just to humorous (or otherwise) self-effacing, it'd be "off topic".

Originally posted by snoopy
Oh, and would it be inappropriate to refer to the warning message at the top of the forum as "throbbing"?

What, you mean "Ol' Throbby" at the top? Yeah I suppose that's a pretty accurate way to describe it.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
some of the same things he's been blamed for I do see others get away with

Regretfully, that will happen some times. We do our best to try and keep ATS a quality environment where everyone treats everyone with respect, but we will inevitably miss a TAC violation, or in some cases may choose not to take a public action, but rather handle it privately.

The vast majority of the time, I never issue a warn, and I don't post anything in-thread, because I've simply taken it to U2U and asked that the user act more respectfully to their fellow users, or correct whatever it was in the post that violates the TAC. Almost every single time, the member will say "oops, sorry" and fix the situation themselves. ATS is also largely self-policing, where for the most part, members ask each other to behave like adults, and most everyone learns to play nice by example.

And for the most part, this is how things went, 99.999% of the time on ATS. For every one "problem user" on ATS, there are, quite literally, over ten thousand who just want a place to talk about interesting things and discuss and debate, or share theories.

Unfortunately, recently, there's been some newer members whose soul purpose has been to cause as much disruption as possible before getting themselves banned, and wearing the "banned" banner as a badge. Their battlegroun? The 9/11 Forum. After a while, a lot of people got sick of this, complaints were pouring in, and as such, we had to focus on this forum a lot more than usual, with much stricter enforcement of the rules than we otherwise might had in other forums on ATS.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
So I guess, what I'm wondering if there is "politics" at work here, am I the desired end-product of ATS' info-engineering?

Nope. No politics at work. I have absolutely no vested interest in whether or not a jet, a missile, a hologram, or even a sack full of kittens, hit the Pentagon on 9/11. My one and only interest in the 9/11 Forum are those four rules I listed in the OP. If there's any sort of social engineering going on, it is to try and get people to be a little more open minded about discussing ideas and treating each other with respect, even when opinions differ.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
what can people learn from all this about how to better avoid trouble? Am I just slipping thru the cracks and should be banned by now? Is there some magic formula I've stumbled onto?

Well, it's entirely possible you've slipped through the cracks because I haven't personally witnessed any TAC violations on your behalf. If you did, and I haven't seen it, then consider this the chance to mend your ways. Like I said, though, the odds are about 10,000 to 1 that you treat your fellow members with dignity and respect, like almost everyone else on ATS.

As for what can be learned from all this?

Basically, that people have different views on things, and it's perfectly okay for people to disagree and not take it to a personal level.

Originally posted by talisman
I am all for staying on topic in a thread, but sometimes one has to draw reference from another seemingly unrelated item to make an even greater point on the original idea.

And that's perfectly fine if it relates to the subject matter. No problem there. Derailing a thread on a tangent, however, is not acceptable.

Originally posted by talisman
Just to add something, some people here have experienced trauma by witnessing the events of 9/11 or have lost loved ones on that date. It is incumbent upon us to take this seriously and not to take this lightly especially when certain theories come by that insult the memories of the victims and the people still suffering.

That would fall under the "good taste" category, as well as common courtesy.

I would say, however, that I would be the last one to advocate disallowing theories based off of the assumption that it might insult friends and relatives of 9/11 victims. Just about any 9/11 theory could be immediately banned under that kind of auspice.

If someone presented a theory that maybe the victims of 9/11 staged their deaths and retired to Bagboro, Montana, with a big fat government cointel check, and presented some evidence to back it up, didn't insult anyone, and didn't call for the harassment of anyone else, then I personally would allow the thread to stand. I might be overruled, and that's life, but technically, even ludicrous theories are allowed if they don't violate the 4 Cardinal Rules.

Now, this person might receive no end of questions, attacks on their credibility, and even a few comments on how tasteless the idea is, but at that point, again, so long as the 4 Cardinal Rules are observed, it's really just a debate.

The exception to this would be trolling, which is sometimes obvious and sometimes takes a detailed examination of the member's motives in other threads and such. Your best bet for dealing with a troll is to ignore them and let the thread die. Every time someone posts a response to a troll, it bumps the tread to the top, where someone else is likely to see it, respond, and bump it again. This is known as "feeding the troll". Please don't feed the troll, use the complaint button instead.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
FowlPlay (and anyone else who might care to respond) what would be an example of treason in a post submitted to one of the forums on ATS?

Some people throw the word "treason" around as a casually applied moniker. To the best of my knowledge, there has only been one instance on ATS that could even remotely qualify under the umbrella of "treason", and it was settled immediately, and the matter blew over. This was many months ago. I haven't personally seen or heard of any actual treasonous posts since.

As for why people throw it around so casually, I think it's just bad habit. Think back, if you will, to immediately after 9/11. Anyone who didn't support the Bush Administration's plans were considered to be "in league with the terrorists". You either gave the president your support, or you kept quiet, lest you were called a "terrorist sympathizer" or "UnAmerican".

I would heartily recommend people choose their words to describe each other very carefully when negativity is involved. At best, it hurts ones credibility when they hurl ad hominem attacks. At worst, it gets that person banned.

Always attack the theory, the evidence, the facts, etc, but not each other.

Also, if you haven't read it yet, READ THIS THREAD.

Great thread! Nice to the see the Mods perspective on things.