A Call To Action: Ending The Political Game on ATS

reply to post by yeahright


But we all know that the majority of the issues that both candidates propose are very vague and lack much detail. Basically it will be discussion how they will pay for their plan, where are the details, and try to piece everything together from speeches the candidates give here and there.

Also if a thread is opened up about McCain will we be able to mention Obama to compare their plans even though the thread is only about Obama's plan?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


THIS is why we needed PTS, to separate Politics from Conspiracy and general discussion ..

BUT, I am glad to see ATS trying to clamp down on the ultra Democrats and Republicans..

Truth is, I have not been on ATS as much as I normally am because of all the political BS.. it's sickening after a while.

Bravo!!!!!! I see by some of the responses the whiners have already come out of the woodwork - tough love folks....the issues facing America and by association the world in this election are more important than partisan sniping - If you can't discuss the issues without name calling, lies, race baiting, and general public farting - then keep your mouth SHUT...and try listening for a change.

Self control is a beautiful thing....embrace it...Deny Ignorance!!!!!!!!!!!!

*cheers*

I am grateful that this is being addressed.

Thank-you for being willing to make these changes and start what will hopefully be a more intelligent discussion platform for politics.

In the end I would hope we in this community want to be informed and empowered with the correct and accurate information instead of slanders and fear mongering.

I respect the opinions of others and look forward to reading the threads based on actual policies and ideas of the candidates.

reply to post by Sublime620

SkepticOverlord responded above. The thread violated guidelines because it did not discuss a SINGLE issue, although in my humble opinion, the collection of Obama's proposals, is an ISSUE. It's all in the interpretation, I guess.

reply to post by TheRedneck


I think you hit the issue squarely on its head. Why waste the time and investigation that you might think is an issue that is interesting and informative and have the mods deem in unfit? I'll say it if no one else will. THESE GUIDELINES SUCK, PERIOD!!!

Zindo

reply to post by nyk537

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

The Burning Question: why are there no new threads on candidate or party platform policies/issues in the hours since this announcement? We've made it clear that quality threads of that nature will be rewarded.

With all due respect. The tenor of this thread has been revealing a serious amount of misgivings in entrusting the judgment regarding the topic to your staff. Perhaps it's because they are not prepared to accept the terms under which you state your restriction.

As someone who is distinctly apolitical, I can say that in my opinion there are no policy difference worth discussing. They are cosmetic, and pretty much advertising pablum meant to pander and appease the audiences to which they speak. Policies are party-driven, and in my experience, have little to no relevance to what a campaigning politician might say. Just as what a campaigning politician says is no indication of what he or she will do. It's all a PR game though up by MBAs in their perceived realities, mostly media strategies and game theory.

Nevertheless I believe your defensive posture regarding political exchanges is correct. I am not going to criticize or demean whatever ATS decides in the matter. I can't say that it is comforting that certain subjects, not related directly to policy will be excluded from the debate. It seems very draconian, but this is not a decision that I envy having to make.

I would have expected our members to respond to such things by ignoring the thread, or merely referencing it as a bad example, and that pressure alone would have minimized the disruptive nature of the particular op. But once the element of organized 'assault' began, it became clear, that SOMEONE thought it would be a good idea to use ATS as a platform for their brand of 'information'. I guess we should feel flattered

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by sensfan

 

My voice may be silenced with the winds of change, always there are those who rule and those who must submit to those who rule, even on forums.

Oh come on.

Don't you think you are being a bit melodramatic?
A call for civility is a far cry from silencing your voice.

Anyone that wants to criticize either candidate will have to do so in an adult fashion.
That means no more patently false threads spawned from chain mail, personal and irrational speculation, disinfo sites, or the good old rumor mill that are designed to simply start a brawl.

Is that really asking to much?
Can some really not wrap their minds around this idea?

If that is the only way anyone knows how to voice thier opinion then yes they should feel threatened by a move that basically asks the members pumping out mess like that to grow up and stop the fighting.

There are other forums (PLENTY of others) that not only allow but welcome such mudslinging gutter-battles and maybe some members will have to go there to vent their insatiable political rage over the democrat and republican running for office till they learn to cool off.

If they are really clever though...they will of course find a way to say what they desire and still not break the new regulation. That requires some thought and planning and maybe more work than some are willing to provide it seems since uselessly griping in futility is the path they are choosing to take.

- Lee

i don't think censorship is the answer to your problem. i made my first post this morning and it was closed pretty quick. which just makes me wonder about my original question even more now. i didn't see a alien, ufo, or black helicopter. SORRY! just some strange story on my local news that got me wondering.

reply to post by Maxmars


I don't know if flattered is the correct stance, considering the intention of dividing the community and mostly causing chaos. This makes for a poor experience here. I myself find it unlikely to be swayed of my political views, so I rarely share them. Nor do I look at others views.

Truly the whole political thing is a flogged horse on the internet. However facts is facts and I can dig that. So I say nay to the BS.

I don't get why some folk are so opposed to these measures - calling McCain a fish head or Obama = Osama are NOT THE HEART OF POLITICAL DEBATE and if you think you should be allowed to endlessly pander and bully others with this kind of nonsense then buh - bye....don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya...simple really....

How can you defend that kind of crap????? - it beggars belief...truly!

Alright then.

So will this thread suffice?

Originally posted by nyk537
the one posted above regarding a new book that would examine Obamas policies and how they might affect the country.

I for one think a "third party" opinion is pointless in a forum of this nature. The discussion tends to then become applauds or critiques of the author's attempts.

How 'bout your opinion, or my opinion? As opposed to that guy's opinion.

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by nyk537
the one posted above regarding a new book that would examine Obamas policies and how they might affect the country.

I for one think a "third party" opinion is pointless in a forum of this nature. The discussion tends to then become applauds or critiques of the author's attempts.

How 'bout your opinion, or my opinion? As opposed to that guy's opinion.

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.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
I thought that part of what ATS stood for, was INFORMING members of issues. If we cannot even inform people of books, that is absolute censorship.

Your example is not one of "informing members of issues". It is informing members of the existence of a book written by someone other than one of the candidates. It is clearly a third party's opinion on the issues. The author of the book is not a candidate and discussing his opinion is outside of the spirit of the forum.

reply to post by sensfan


The difference being then, that the opinion or issue raised comes directly from your mind, via your hands. Presumably.

If you want to review a political book, then review the book as it should be....as the opinion of a non-candidate and not as a factual, truthful examination of a candidates policies. Unless the author has The Shadow-like abilities to discern men's minds.....it's unfair to attribute his opinions and suppositions to another person.

The difference and the concept is, personal involvement and interaction.



[edit on 11-9-2008 by MrPenny]

[edit on 11-9-2008 by MrPenny]

[edit on 11-9-2008 by MrPenny]

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!

The Kernel is pleased that quality will be returning but also a little dismayed. The nit picking and complaining about this issue, today? Has anyone even considered what today is?

reply to post by eye open doors


You are, of course, correct. I was making a poor attempt at being funny, and I failed entirely.

But, we do have their attention, and they did see fit to engage this forum. What they thought they might achieve is conjecture at best; but regardless of their intended outcome, I feel it was wrong of them to do it.

Also, I never thought of this community as generally like-minded, as some here appear to intimate. While members here can be very outspoken, I have seen a broad spectrum of ideologies represented. An I missing some trend where only one party gets bashed? Are there numbers to back that up, I wonder? I am an equal opportunity basher, although I rarely even address the tender issues like who insulted whom, or who made an embarrassing flub during an appearance.

Nevertheless, staying away from such exchanges is clearly preferable to trying to 'steer' the thread after the fact. That much is for sure.