A Call To Action: Ending The Political Game on ATS

I have a question.

Why does MSNBC advertise here?

Originally posted by neformore
IF SO had said to you "you can only discuss the Republicans, the other lot are right out, and anyone who has posted about them will be banned" then you can bet your backside on the fact that I'd be first out of the door, because that IS a restriction of freedom of speech.

Even though I am a Republican I would be right behind you. I like strong debate.

Originally posted by neformore
But he hasn't said that.

No, but what he did say outright is that it is Republican operatives that are here to muck things up while pretty much exonerating the democrats of the same thing while logic and common sense dictate just the opposite.

Originally posted by neformore
What HAS been said is that ATS - a private messageboard with its own rules - will NOT play the partisan political game of smear, snipe and bicker. Simple as that.

That's is right, ATS is privately owned and SO has a fan base (I am one because I love ATS). But at the same do I not have the right to voice my concerns to him if I think something might not be kosher?

Originally posted by neformore
Its exactly the same as expecting people to discuss conspiracy subjects in a civil manner without Ad-Hominem attacks, personal slurs and bickering.

Yeah, just take a stroll through the 9-11 board and look at all the insults coming from the Alex Jones devotees. If you disagree with them on their bizarre ideas right away you are a neo-con or a disinfo agent or a sheeple or some other kind of insult. What is going on in the politics threads is not unique on ATS. This sort of thing goes on across the board. So why is politics being treated differently?

I like this let's see the how the bomb throwers on both sides react.Im we will hear how the Admins here are baised against one side or another.

Skeptic
Bet you don't look like like that.
ask Robbie if he remembers Minstrels.

Another question:
Should I apply for a waiver to keep my unbiased signature, or am I OK?

Originally posted by xpert11

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
No Innuendo or Rumor Threads regarding the candidates for the 2008 election will be allowed from this point forward in any of the ATS forums.

I find this to be very hypercritical in the face of the presence of the Skunk Works and the The Grey Area forums on ATS .

Excellent point. Since 99% of all the conspiracy therories I have read here are nothing but rumour and speculation.

Originally posted by LiquidMirage
Yeah, just take a stroll through the 9-11 board and look at all the insults coming from the Alex Jones devotees. If you disagree with them on their bizarre ideas right away you are a neo-con or a disinfo agent or a sheeple or some other kind of insult. What is going on in the politics threads is not unique on ATS. This sort of thing goes on across the board. So why is politics being treated differently?

Politics isn't being treated differently. It's just the next issue that had to be addressed. If you check out the link at the bottom of a 9/11 thread you will see a link that leads to a thread stating that these are under staff scrutiny. The same happened in Secret Societies when it was necessary. Just bringing things back to ATS standards.

Please, don't give me a link to something you think should be against the new standards. First off, we're talking about THIS forum. Secondly, this thread alone is taking up a lot of staff time that could be served better elsewhere. Lastly:

Mods not Gods.

reply to post by intrepid


Unless using blogs and You Tube videos or rather so called user generated contend cannot be used to start topics in the 9 - 11 conspiracy forum and else where then politics is being treated differnt . Look either give us a seperate political board where members like me and others can discuss candidates for over fifty pages and other topics and be left alone or apply the rules fairly across the boards .

This next bit isnt directed at just you .


While I am still keeping an eye on things historically the flagging system does not represent the highest quality threads rather it represents the topics that are most popular . There is actually no way of highlighting high quality threads as a whole .

OUTSTANDING!
What a relief to read this thread
I for a couple of months now, have actually stopped coming here as often as I use to, due to the crap that was just overwhelming. And when I saw the u2u, and read this, It made me want to help in any way I can to stop these losers that post nothing but crap, and false accusations with nothing to back it up.
Star and flag from me, and thank you to all who were involved in coming up with this, and more importantly, implementing these changes.
And I am sure many other ATS members will agree that this is definitely a refreshing and welcome change.

Stealth

[edit on 9/11/2008 by skeptic1]

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by sensfan

 

But by that thinking, if you make a post dealing with an issue, then I respond saying what I think about your post and opinion, anyone posting anything about what I say would be the same thing because it would be a "third party" opinion.

You are absolutely correct. Eventually ANY thread that deals with politics will eventually enter the "steady state" of DELETED, unless there are no responses, in which case, there will be a lot of one post threads. I don't think this policy has been thought out very well, but it is their forum, or as we used to say, long ago, when I was a child
"If you don't like my rules, you can't play. It is, after all, MY yard, My bat, and My ball".

LOL!

Please....these are straw man arguments - CIVILITY is what is being asked for - ACCURACY is being encouraged....SOURCES are being asked for - why do you view this as an attempt to stifle debate???? Are you not capable of being CIVIL? Of striving for ACCURACY???....Of quoting reliable SOURCES???

Unless of course you enjoy the mudslinging and some do....nowt wrong with that - just won't do here anymore -

also to those who are hairsplitting about how to post on the candidates policies without getting deleted?? Don't be daft!....If you don't know how to write without insulting the reader, the opposition or your subject matter - THEN LEARN...its useful skill...

I for one am not dissatisfied, with the new standards. ATS is one of the better sites out there, where like-minded people can come and brainstorm. What good is it, if we all sit around and concentrate on false information? What good is it, if we’re all chasing our own damn tails? I like to think, that the members of ATS are better than that. That we are better informed.

However, lately I’ve been wondering…The Ad-hominem attacks. The “you must be a Disinfo Agent because you oppose my opinion”. Oh and who can ignore “the Mods and Admin at ATS are slanted” – hold the phone on this for a second! What the heck is that supposed to mean? That is pretty serious allegation. It is my understanding, that most of the Staff isn’t even American, so HOW can they be slanted, for an Election that THEY CAN’T EVEN VOTE IN? Logic anyone?

The Name-calling, rumors, and childish behavior is NOT what (I believe anyway) ATS was founded on. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me, that a site such as ATS would be founded on more mature principles then that of an Elementary School Playground. Maybe my hopes are too high?

READ RIGHT HERE

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
It's been confirmed, without any doubt, here and again here that political operatives from at least one party are directly responsible for the divisive political rhetoric inspired by fact-poor innuendo that has infected ATS and the Internet as a whole. Given what we here know of those involved, we can only assume that provocateurs from all sides of the spectrum are here on our beloved ATS with a plan to disrupt productive discussions.

Perhaps I have misunderstood the Context of this paragraph, if I have, someone please correct me. To me, from what SO is saying, is that, there are some members on this site who aren’t actually members. There are people on this site, for one purpose – to taint our points of view, based on what? Nothing. These “members” have started/contributed to threads, to influence the reader. For what purpose? VOTES. WE the members should be outraged, that there are people hiding underneath a screen-name with an alternate agenda, among us.

Does this not tick you off? Does it not burn your britches that there are people on OUR site, trying to deceive us? Introducing their corruption to a new level of people – the thinkers. Those who think outside the box, and aren’t scared to admit it. Those who Question Authority, and Question Motives, Question Political Agenda’s and Question Everything. It sure as hell ticks me off. As a member of this site who values PROOF and FACTS as a basis to stake a claim, I commend the Admin and Staff for these new rules. We deserve Facts. We Deserve Proof. We REQUIRE it. How else, can we be expected to make well-informed decisions, when it comes to voting at the polls? Why are members upset, that the Bar is being Risen – so that WE the READERS of this site, can be better informed?

In this place, AboveTopSecret.com, we will not tolerate new topics based on divisive and distracting innuendo, rumors, or lies.

We don’t deserve to read rumors of Lies.

In this place, AboveTopSecret.com, we will not tolerate the posting of rhetoric and blame-game ideology that deflects attention from important discussion.

We deserve better than to read childish antics, straw man fallacies, and ad-hominem arguments. We deserve to read well thought out, well researched posts. We DESERVE it.

In this place, AboveTopSecret.com, we will examine the merits of the issues. We will analyze the candidate platforms. We will know truth.

WE DESERVE TRUTH. We deserve to make the choice of who to vote for, based on TRUTH. Not Lies, and not propaganda. We are BETTER than that.

The new rules are not oppressive. The new rules are not unreasonable. The new rules are not unjust. The new rules are put in place so that WE are receiving the correct information. The new rules are in place so that WE can make better decisions when it comes to voting. The new rules are put in place, so that when you go and stand at your voting booth, you can look at that piece of paper and know that the reason you placed an X in whichever box you choose, is because you were well-informed and educated on each Candidates Platforms & Policies. So that you can leave that booth, knowing with a sound conscience, that you’re vote was based on FACTS, and not because you were mis-led.

If you don’t like the rules – The Log out Button is at the top of the page, so play by the rules, or get off the Court.

Just some thoughts...

- Carrot

SO!
Thank you.
I got sucked into the political debate and I'm not either a Dem or Rep. I had a feeling there were paid provocateurs here - glad to see I haven't gone completely batty, and that i was right.
This is a great decision by you and the staff. We need no more B.S. from either side. And this is a great big step in the right direction.

What confuses me though are all the people who are opposing this ban on mudslinging and provocation. You would almost think you pulled the rug from under their feet by their responses.....oh wait

[edit on 9/11/2008 by justme2]

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
Excellent point. Since 99% of all the conspiracy therories I have read here are nothing but rumour and speculation.

Conspiracy theories and the ilk typically do comprise the majority of posts and topics on ATS...

... perhaps you'd be better off elsewhere, where speculative interests, theories, and or considerations are dismissed outright and receive little if any notice or further thought. (?)

*Shazam*

I'll bow out now...



 

reply to post by realshanti

Please....these are straw man arguments - CIVILITY is what is being asked for - ACCURACY is being encouraged....SOURCES are being asked for - why do you view this as an attempt to stifle debate???? Are you not capable of being CIVIL? Of striving for ACCURACY???....Of quoting reliable SOURCES???

Have you read anything that I said. My post was civil, made no insults, cited a source, and was nothing more than a post that introduced a new BOOK. Everything in my post was civil, and backed up by reliable sources, namely that the book was being released today. You are grouping all posts into one. Please take the time and review the last 3 pages, and look at what happened to my post.
The book just released is Audacity of Deceit. I did not write it, I did not review it. All I did was quote from the release article on the web. I suggested that it is a book that both sides should read. How is that being uncivil?

reply to post by Annie Mossity


Thank you for reinforcing my point.
I do appreciate the surrport.

[edit on 9/11/2008 by Shazam The Unbowed]

reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed


No reinforcement intended...

Simply noting the seeming dismissive approach to that which typically inspires response, interaction,and furtherance of the topic at hand...


... positive, productive, and inquisitive ... despite ney-sayers the likes of... one's self.


No matter.

Politics is one of the great evils of this world. The only real answer is Zero Tolerance. If you allow politics on the board, you will have problems. It's like being a 'recreational' heroin user. Good Luck.

Geee

I see nothing different than any other type of censorship.

This is ATS corporate censorship, under the guize of "decorum"

You dont think the first continental congress had flaming fights?

Come now, you cant profess freedom of speech while simultaneously narrowing how we can express it.


what a joke.

Originally posted by CA_Orot


If you don’t like the rules – The Log out Button is at the top of the page, so play by the rules, or get off the Court.



- Carrot

Amen!


With regards to the new policy:


About. Freakin'. Time.