DisInformation Agent Label

I am not sure where to post this but am sure there is a Moderator somewhere to direct me, as I will be making this request and suggestion in several directions.

Could ATS please add a column, a row of Dark Stars or provide some means where members can check off that they consider a thread or post to be Dis-information or at minimum, provide a means to reflect a negative reaction to a thread or posting. We already have a several ways to show agreement and approval but no way of simply voting rejection and disapproval of a thread/post. There are many here who are undoubtedly propodents of disinformation; osn't it time we are given a means to let them and everyone know what most of us thinks without having to write a lengthy response to these liars and traitors have a vested interest in under,ining the real purposes of ATS (DENYING IGNORANCE)?

Originally posted by MajKarma

Could ATS please add a column, a row of Dark Stars or provide some means where members can check off that they consider a thread or post to be Dis-information or at minimum, provide a means to reflect a negative reaction to a thread or posting.

I can't say that I agree with this idea at all. It would become too easy to dismiss a thread or a poster with a simple gesture. The key to this site is that it encourages debate...if you have a problem with something somebody says, you can either ignore it, or you can engage the person and challenge their assertions...within the T & C, of course.

While I can understand where MajKarma is coming from on this, I figure that ultimately it wouldn't serve the site. Just my humble opinion.

It won't work.

I've been a member of other boards that had a similar way of allowing posters to rate a thread, (for different reasons that what you suggest, obviously), and it got abused, a lot.

What will happen, is a person A will get mad at person B over something trivial, and will go back and label every post that person has made as being a disinfo post, whether it is true or not. Person B will then take offense at this, and do the same to person A.

Meanwhile, Person C sees both acting like children, and gets the brilliant idea that as punishment, he'll go and label both as disinfo agents.

On top of that, you'll have people whining to mods that they have been unfairly rated and demanding that it be removed. You'll have threads complaining about it.

Worst of all, a script kiddy will see that board has a rating system, and will set a bot to go through and rate every post, causing massive load on the server, just for the heck of it.

Also, I agree with JohnnyCanuck. If you feel someone is posting disinfo, refute them and prove that they are.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by tebyen]

It is not my goal to suppress information but something must be done to level the playing field and combat the liars and traitors that are actively and articulately undermining normal people who try to speak out. As a matter of fair play we all have the opportunity to vote our approval and should also be abole to vote our disapproval.

I have to wonder who would oppose having the same system to vote disapproval and we have for approval. As it stands, the system is bias, unfair and gives those to undermine efforts at "Denying Ignorance" an advantage..and trust me, ATS has many disinformation agents working the threads...I just wish there was something with bone and blood involved I could do about them but, for now I am determine to go after them where ever I find them on ATS... Heads Up You Traitors..the free ride is coming to an end.

reply to post by MajKarma


If you're that upset by it, why not push to have the approval system removed? That will create the level playing field that you seek, without causing trouble that will result in having a method of disapproval.

Let the posts stand on their own merit, without an arbitrary system of approval and disapproval.

reply to post by MajKarma

It is not my goal to suppress information but something must be done to level the playing field and combat the liars and traitors that are actively and articulately undermining normal people who try to speak out.

You mean, 'the sensible folk who don't believe in wild conspiracy theories'.

At least, that is what I take you to mean. Because that is how I look at it.

Do you understand now why your idea is impracticable?

Interesting, but highly unlikely.

It's a topic that's come up quite a bit; so I'll simply point you to SkepticOverlord's explanation here.

Originally posted by MajKarma I have to wonder who would oppose having the same system to vote disapproval and we have for approval.

Forgive my impertinence, but might this be an example of dealing with honest debate by dismissing opposing opinion as dis/info?

Frankly, that's my major concern, and as I said...opinions are always welcome if presented as such, but facts carry the day...IMHO

reply to post by MajKarma


replace your neck with a spring, like those bobble head dolls. you'll feel more at home.

the current system is nothing more than a back patting, head nodding "i agree too" system.

people say that some will go and rate every previous post a negative, yet at the moment its used not to star quality posts but moreso as a sign of agreement to that poster

you cant have the ying without the yang, you cant have good without evil, and you cant have a head nodding, back patting system without also having a way to negatively rate or star a thread

we'd see far less of the bs threads like "my dog is bushs reptillian bloodline brother" and a lot more quality posting.

So basically, if we agree and/or like what someone has to say, we can click them a little blue star that sits there for everyone to see but, if we don't agree and/or like what they have to say, we are left to posting a detailed explaination of what and why.

This is a very bias and unfair system that gives disinformation agents an unfair advantage and limits participations, as not everyone has anything to say but everyone either agrees or disagrees. I am not at all for removing the ability to click a star of support/agreement but frankly, it is unAmerican not to have a system that extends fair play.

Needless to say, I have an agenda aginst all those who are and have been acting as disinformation agents and nay sayers on very serious subjects like 9-11, UFOs etc. Such people have played a role in repressing information and it is time to do what can be done about them.

I think at minimum people should be able to give a pro or con vote to everything everyone has to say here. This is of course just my opinion and I will have to carry a salt shaker everywhere I go to deal with these people the best I can.

Originally posted by MajKarma
if we don't agree and/or like what they have to say, we are left to posting a detailed explaination of what and why.

Not necessarily.You could simply respond with or .

But be cautioned of replying with a one-line post.

Which this reply is not.

regards . . . kk

( To loosely paraphrase Gen. McArthur:< Sorry to pull rank>
"If everyone is thinking the same thing, Then someone is not thinking." )

[edit on 23-4-2008 by kinda kurious]

This is my personal take on this problem:

It is very frustrating that in general, in any rational or scientific debate, that those with a political motivation to quash a topic often have the easiest time.

A political strategy to destroy any area of concern is to consistently and deliberately repeat a message that we should doubt the data and its observers. This is regardless of the merit of the data. Simply being here more often while more consistently bashing a topic, using shame and other methods of social programming, trumps rational conclusions over time.

Thus this is a common tactic applied today by US political groups, world wide religious institutions, think tank groups, and other elements of society that see the populous as a demographic to control sociologically rather than to engage.

To this extent, I sympathize with the original poster.

On the other side, I have found that this community contains an extra-ordinary number of individuals with irrational belief who refuse to have that belief analyzed. They jump to conclusions about concepts and refuse to discuss their rational, seeing any such question as a personal attack.

To the extent that those individuals would run a-muck on these forums, generating fear and superstition, many of us are saddened.

In general, what we see on ATS is a relatively effective measure of the human condition. Strong radical belief systems amongst individuals are often shielded and not allowed to be directly examined, while strong consensus beliefs often lead to aggressive social control rather than honest discussion. Neither side is fighting fair and the result is what we see today.

Therefore, I conclude that adding punitive stars to the system will only create yet another channel for the already dysfunctional system to express itself. It will not improve until we do.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by Ectoterrestrial]

I arbitrarily starred every post in this thread, regardless of its content or quality. Why? Just because I could; and to point out how capricious any system of "ratings" can be.

Hey look...there's a post by "so-and-so"...I'll star it, maybe read it later.

Originally posted by MajKarma
So basically, if we agree and/or like what someone has to say, we can click them a little blue star that sits there for everyone to see but, if we don't agree and/or like what they have to say, we are left to posting a detailed explaination of what and why.

Isnt that part of a forum, you respond and participate? If you disagree with what someone says, respond with some facts to show they are wrong. They did their part, you do yours.

This is a very bias and unfair system that gives disinformation agents an unfair advantage and limits participations, as not everyone has anything to say but everyone either agrees or disagrees. I am not at all for removing the ability to click a star of support/agreement but frankly, it is unAmerican not to have a system that extends fair play.

If one is so caught up on stars and not content, then maybe this isnt the place for you. Participate. Add something to the thread. Ignore the stars and post!

Needless to say, I have an agenda aginst all those who are and have been acting as disinformation agents and nay sayers on very serious subjects like 9-11, UFOs etc. Such people have played a role in repressing information and it is time to do what can be done about them.

So basically what you are saying is that anyone who does not carry YOUR opinion....who does not see things YOUR way.....who does not agree with what YOUR viewsare .....is automatically a disinfo agent? hmmmmmm. Maybe you are in fact the disinfo agent. hmmmmmm.

To me, it sounds like you want a one way forum w/ no debate and a bunch of people nodding in agreement with your views.

Good Luck here!


[edit on 23-4-2008 by greeneyedleo]

I can just see it now...every post that isn't an idiotic, knee-jerk reaction in agreement to the original post, any post that demonstrates a modicum of critical thinking or skepticism, would be labelled as "disinformation."

You'll find quite an array of posters who say everything is fake and everyone is telling a lie,pretty annoying since you can tell it's only an opinion,tose are the ignorant ones

I don't think it would work. It would just cause more bickering and fighting over something trivial. If you don't like a thread don't read it, or post why you don't and leave it at that. Why do you care if threads like "reptilian lover ate my dog" get starred and flagged?? It doesn't really affect you, and obviously people are flagging and starring for a reason, however crazy that reason may be.

Originally posted by MajKarma
It is not my goal to suppress information but something must be done to level the playing field and combat the liars and traitors that are actively and articulately undermining normal people who try to speak out...

I have to wonder who would oppose having the same system to vote disapproval and we have for approval. As it stands, the system is bias, unfair and gives those to undermine efforts at "Denying Ignorance" an advantage..and trust me, ATS has many disinformation agents working the threads...I just wish there was something with bone and blood involved I could do about them but, for now I am determine to go after them where ever I find them on ATS... Heads Up You Traitors..the free ride is coming to an end.

Don't lie to us. You are trying to suppress information, dissent, and debate. You think that anyone who doesn't think the exact same way as you is a "disinfo agent."

You claim the system isn't fair, but don't say how. Please explain how is the system here isn't fair. Everyone has an equal chance, right, and ability to express their thoughts and opinions.

You know what? I'll explain for you why you think it isn't fair.

It's because you lack the intellectual and rhetorical abilities to debate those you do not agree with. Because of your impotence, you want to shut down those you do not agree with, not through debate and evidence, by via labels.

You "level the playing field," by demonstrating why the people you disagree with are wrong. You do not do it through a virtual lynch-mob to label them with unintellectual, immature, and idiotic labels such as "disinfo agents."

You are such an arrogant little child, that you cannot comprehend why anyone would dare disagree with you, believing only people who could disagree are those who are here from the government to mislead you. You are doing this now, implying that anyone who would be against your unjust, unintellectual, and stifling system is a disinfo agent, to the point where you wish you could physically harm them.

If there are disinfo agents here, name them, and prove they are disinfo agents, outside of a whining, petulent "They disagree with me!"

You've made yourself an enemy here, child. Just like you claim you are going to harass anyone you disagree with as "disinfo agents," I am going to make sure you never catch a break here, and scrutinize every single word that comes out of your clap-trap.

reply to post by MajKarma

Must we discuss disinformation again? There are numerous threads concerning this subject.

Would disinformation be any post that did not agree with your premise?

If you are going to participate in a forum you will fare much better if you do not take what you read personally. Thicken up your cyberskin. Everything floats in cyberspace and some junk will end up falling into our discussions. Let it pass. Ignore it. Above all don't allow it to provoke you.

IMO your solution would cause chaos and bad feeling among members.

And what do you know, MajKarma is a friend of NewWorldOver, who (in this thread), was begging and demanding the moderators to ban anyone who disagreed with him.

What a coincidence. Small minds think alike.

Perhaps what we need, instead of rooting out and labeling "disinfo agents" (i.e; anyone that disagrees with the small minded bobble heads) is a group of Regulators to root out and expose those who are constantly trying to shut down debate and discussion.