How to Raise the Quality of This Forum's Threads

reply to post by Blaine91555


I support Obama and I have my doubts and concerns. I am not a Obamatron yada, yada. I support him because I think he is the best choice now, but he is clearly a gamble. There is a possibility that his talk of change is just that...talk. He is a politician after all, but I am allowing myself some optimism and preparing myself for dissapointment.

As far as the Obama bashing threads...well they just make me go crazy because they are an assault on the truth and everyone's intelligence and are clearly a rallying cry for the ignorant and those who embrace intolerance.

mmh maybe stop the consorship AND get rid of the agenda at ATS

That will help immensly to make this a btter place

ATS deletes threads , posts and bans people on a regular basis for opinions that are not apporved by ats

Thats my 2 cent and I know them to be right no matter what ATS moderators will reply ..
ATS is censored badly !
Nothing more to add to this ..

reply to post by terte


what you fail to realize is that the deleted threads, closed threads, mod edits, and banned users all may have had an opinion that otherwise goes against the "norm" of its own respective board

but the manner of which that user posted the thread, (e.g. hateful, vulgar, rude, basically anything against the T&C) is going to be stricken down.

I've seen "pro-obama" threads recieve warnings
i've seen "anti-obama" threads recieve warnings
but most of all, i've seen threads that say stuff like

"Candidate _____________ sniffs his finger after scratching his butt - here's proof!"

Very childish, very lame, excuses for a thread, that does nothing but seek out trolling points.

Those threads need deleted.
Sorry if you disagree

But thats not how you "raise the quality" of a thread.

reply to post by terte


There absolutely is censorship at ATS. This is not a free speech zone. It's a privately owned discussion board. BUT... all opinions are allowed unless they violate the T&C of the board. Both sides of issues are represented.

As regards people jumping to racism when someone says they don't like Obama. I don't like it either. It's a lame cop out as far as I'm concerned. But on the other side, there's the faction that insists that if you're voting for Obama, you think of him as a "Messiah"... You're an "Obamatron"... You're caught up in the charisma of the man. And that's just as insulting. And it's heard just as often.

Yeah. It's old.

So if you want people to respect your opinions about Obama and not jump to accusations of racism, perhaps you should stop calling people "Obamatrons" and stop jumping to the accusation of "sheeple" as if we have no individuality or power to critically make up our minds about who we support.

Or not. But you can't whine about being called racist if you're calling people "Obamatrons"...

Just a thought.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by jamie83

 

What's the name of this thread?
All I'm saying is that I am observing thread after thread being started which have nothing to do with the serious problems we have in this country.
I can't pay for my gas and people are posting about photoshopping birth
certificates. Please!
Post all you want about issues and I'll never call anybody anything no matter who they support.

We've got plenty of posts discussing the gas problem. I started a thread titled "How will Obama being elected lower gas prices" and was meant as a serious debate.

As with all of the posts on gas prices, it de-evolves into posts blaming Bush for the energy crisis and then the fireworks start from there. Other people respond trying to show that our government has nothing to do with setting the prices, but the Bush haters refuse to listen to reason and the threads become crap from that point on.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I was thrilled to see this forum take form. I supported it strongly from the beginning. Sadly, it has become, for the most part, nothing but stupid, wild and crazy conspiracy theories and rumors aimed at the nominees.

I think the membership of ATS is better than that. I hope it is. I think we can do better.

I have been seduced into the defense of "my candidate" one too many times on these ridiculous threads. And I'm making a personal pledge to NOT participate in these meaningless, mudslinging threads any more. I invite you to join me.

I want to talk about the issues, not the rumors of the religion of the candidate and not his birth certificate and not what his estranged brother supposedly said or what he called his wife. We have an important election coming up and we need to vote on what's important, not nonsensical rumors and trivialities.

I'm a dog trainer and the VERY best way to train a dog not to do something is to IGNORE the bad and PRAISE the good. Now, I'm not saying that ATS members are dogs, but some dog psychology actually works on humans, too, if you know what I mean.

Ignore a behavior and it will fizzle out.

I want to do my part to raise the quality of the threads in this forum. Please join me.

Go to On the Issues or another similar site and tell us what you think of the issues of your favorite (or least favorite) candidates. You can post in the thread in my signature or start a thread of your own about a particular issue you wish to talk about and explore. Let's make this forum something that people will use as a reference when they want to see where their candidates stand and the "good" and "bad" about them.

As nefermore said, Be the Change You Wish to See Let's change this forum from a trash dump of wild speculation to intelligent discussion about the upcoming election. Something respectable that we can be proud of instead of embarrassed of.

Thanks for your consideration.

Benevolent Heretic

I couldn't agree with you more. I used to enjoy coming to these forums, whie some of the topics were a bit out there, even for me, they always seemed to provide some sort of speculative evidence that helped hint at even a bit of plausibility. But now, it seems that these forums have run amok with bogus, pointless threads that basically equate to rumors (especially political) that have no real basis or proof.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
I'm sorry and I don't mean any disrespect but I have to say you are being a bit hypocritical by starting this thread when the very next day you started this inflammatory thread against Senator McCain's camp.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Which doesn't speak about the issues at all but is simply an attempt to incite anger against the McCain group.

If I am mistaken please accept my apology.

Fathom

PS: I am an undecited, moderate voter

reply to post by Fathom


The subject of my thread on McCain is TRUE. It may be inflammatory, but it's not spreading wild and crazy theories, lies and rumors. That's the difference as I see it.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
I apoLogize, I thought when you said "issues" you were reffering to the cadidates voting history and how they stand on political items that will afect U.S. government once they are elected.

I didn't realize that what you meant was that you oppose those post and threads that YOU consider to be untrue.

My fault, carry on.

Fathom

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Fathom

 

The subject of my thread on McCain is TRUE. It may be inflammatory, but it's not spreading wild and crazy theories, lies and rumors. That's the difference as I see it.

Wait, you're saying that your post against McCain is about fact but you hint that other posts against Obama are just wild and crazy theories, lies and rumors? At what point do you write off a post against Obama as a crazy theory, as soon as you read the title and decide it's a post against YOUR pick for the next president? How should others quantify their posts so that they match up to your standards of fact?

Originally posted by sos37
Wait, you're saying that your post against McCain is about fact but you hint that other posts against Obama are just wild and crazy theories, lies and rumors?

My post about McCain is true (check the sources I provide) and SOME of the posts about Obama are wild and crazy theories, lies and rumors. Yes. I'm not hinting. Here are several of the types of threads I'm talking about. Apparently Obama is Muslim, his Birth Certificate is fake, he was born in Kenya (Proof!), and he's ineligible for the Presidency.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

At what point do you write off a post against Obama as a crazy theory,

When there is absolutely NO credible evidence or proof whatsoever.

How should others quantify their posts so that they match up to your standards of fact?

Well, they could start by doing research, finding sources (not blogs) thinking critically (for example, how would Obama's brother Malik know how Obama was raised? They first met when Obama was 24 years old.) And how could Obama possibly have gotten as far as he has in this process if he was using a "fake ID"??? That would be a great start.

reply to post by Fathom


So, Fathom, your assertion is that an "opinion" on truthfullness of a thread is not contingent on actual substance to back it up?

IE: BH's thread had a real source to say "see, mccains advisor did this"

but other posts in this very forum say "Barack is black and shouldnt be president, h'yuck!!!"

Which, while they are opinions of the poster, they are not backed by any credible information. Just full of conjectures, and propagated lies.

BH's post has no conjectures or propaganda. Its a story. Sorry it makes McCain look bad, but you should be mad at McCain for that, not BH for pointing it out.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


So what I'm trying to contribute to this thread is, if someone posts something about Obama, hopefully attacking the issues and not the man, and shows a source of the info, you would be willing to give the post a fair read?

reply to post by sos37


She already has

thats just one that i know of. BH is making a legit claim.

This post also points out, in an ironic sort of way, the threads that "bash obama' tend to go.

reply to post by sos37


Here are examples of threads (against Obama) that I've not only read, but posted in:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And that's just a few.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
I simply failed to realize that he didn't actually mean, "stick to the issues" Which is what I am interested in, everything else is just media hype.
What he meant to say I believe is "Only post items that can be verified as factual, regardless on how inflammatory they may be."

This is not what I am interested in regardless of how true or false they may be, they do not mean squat to me.

I am interested in how the next president will veto and or pass laws and what type of judges he will appoint.

Originally posted by Fathom
I simply failed to realize that he didn't actually mean, "stick to the issues" Which is what I am interested in, everything else is just media hype.

Well. I (a female, by the way) AM interested in the issues, too. But I consider honesty, integrity, loyalty, personal strength and points of view to be issues that are important to being a good president. So, aside from abortion, gay marriage and how will he handle Iraq, I want to know if the man is honest, if he has personal strength, if he's a good leader if he engages in questionable practices. I consider those issues.

This particular thread was ONE idea of how to raise the quality of posts in this forum, but it's not the only way.

This is not what I am interested in regardless of how true or false they may be, they do not mean squat to me.

That's fine. But if I found out that Barack Obama beat his wife (and there was verifiable proof) I would not vote for him.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
I understand your position. But in my opinion, the personal lives of Presidents does not represent how good their leadership skills will be.
As an example I give you JFK.

reply to post by Fathom


And I understand yours. I don't so much think their personal lives are my business. They aren't. But Obama is presenting to the country a stable, loving marriage. For him to do something behind closed doors that was contrary to that would make me suspect his honesty.

I didn't give a whit when Bill Clinton had sex with that woman. But the fact that he looked in our eyes and lied to us about it turned me against him. I'd much rather he told us it was not our business, because it wasn't.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
I agree on President Clinton. He lied under oath, If he hadn't I would not have lost as much respect for him as I have. Who cares who he was playing footsies with behind his wife's back, not my business, but you lie to us under oath? you are fired!