What's up with HIDDEN board manipulation?

I've been reading the moderator thread about new rules for the politics forums.

Let me insert right here that I agree with these new policies completely.

However, a particular item in the threads jumped out at me. It appears that the powers that be are manipulating the board on the sly. See this thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The post that points out potential manipulation is by Skeptic Overlord further down in the thread.

The obvious assumption is that one side or the other is manipulating the board to advance their political interests. But what if that isn't it?

Above Top Secret covers a lot of conspiracy theories about what the powers that be get up to behind our backs. Is it possible that influence is being exerted to undermine the examination of conspiracies enacted against us by the powers that be? The big cover up?

Which conspiracies might have gotten their attention? 9/11? Action in Russia? The illuminati?

If the intervention IS politically motivated, then is there something special about posters on THIS board that drew their attention? Did they not want the critical thinkers to go to the polls? Did they want to discourage us from attracting new adherents to "deny ignorance?" Do we display an uncommon lack of ability to go through life as compliant sheep?

We can examine the board traffic that SO posted and see it as an indicator of something, but what were those people thinking when they targeted this board - and us - for manipulation?

Perhaps we're marked for the culling when the Illuminati make their move?

What are your thoughts on this?

Well, if there really is something to this, I hope we get to know. ATS just doesn't seem the same without the ability to analyze things... I mean, I feel a bit offended, and wonder where else there are openminded people to discuss stuff... Surely not in the real world, and it hurts to think ATS is becoming censored too.

Here's the direct link to the post I was talking about, that indicates a TARGETED interest in ATS:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The most obvious interpretation is that our political opinions are being manipulated. Sometimes the most obvious explanation isn't the true one, however.

We talk about an awful lot of stuff here that would make those in power nervous. Causing the board to degenerate - and creating chaos - can serve a far more sinister purpose in driving away those who might tattle on the bad guys, disseminate info about real actions against the American people, etc. etc.

I really have to wonder about motives, and whether or not the obvious motive is the real one.

Originally posted by LostNemesis
Well, if there really is something to this, I hope we get to know. ATS just doesn't seem the same without the ability to analyze things... I mean, I feel a bit offended, and wonder where else there are openminded people to discuss stuff... Surely not in the real world, and it hurts to think ATS is becoming censored too.

I am amazed at how some people look at this as "censoring" this board.

It is not censorship to remove a post that says, "Obama eats white babies for breakfast," or "McCain like to smear his poop all over public restrooms."

Ok, maybe the posts we have seen haven't been quite that absurd. But even these would be OK, if one had CCTV of a public restroom and McCain smearing his poop about, or a snap of Obama with a baby on a plate in front of him as he is digging in.

Point is, that wild and/or derisive claims, regardless of Party or whatever, should not be tolerated - unless there is something to back these claims up with.

And I, for one, appreciate that claims about ANY candidate (Dennis Kucinich tickles frogs with his member!) that have nothing to back them up are being removed. All they serve is as fodder to incite. And it becomes a Monte Python routine without the humor - which is quite pathetic - when both sides are doing the "That's not true!" "Yes it is!" "No it isn't!" routine.

A good and honest discussion will go more like this, "Hey, this candidate says (s)he supports this approach. I think that's a good idea." "I don't think it's a good idea because (insert rational reason), so I'm not voting for that candidate." "I see your point, but have you considered..." And so on.

And frankly, if we keep all claims about the candidates, even those who eat babies and smear poop, to things we can show evidence of...we will NOT be "censored."

reply to post by AWingAndASigh

very interesting.
so this is why they keep deleting anything pro-right wing?
they think that the board has been infiltrated by the right wing party.

i wonder what members log on from smarttech???

reply to post by Fathom


So you view the actions by the moderators as a conspiracy to silence those who have conservative views?

It seems to me that a lot of those type threads are still populating the board. If your conspiracy theory were true, wouldn't they ban ALL threads by conservatives?

Given the RNC is using SmartTech, I think it's fair to view that as suspect when there's a corresponding spike in a specific type of rhetoric.

You don't see viewing that as NOT suspicious as it's own kind of bias?

[edit on 12-9-2008 by AWingAndASigh]

reply to post by Fathom


Sorry, I might have misinterpreted what you were saying. If so, I apologise.

It appeared you were arguing against the actions by moderators.

Eyes, meet screen (doh!)

reply to post by AWingAndASigh


I tried to edit this post to delete it, but my edit doesn't work. Please disregard my misreading of the post I replied to.

no worries,
it is very interesting (and kind of exciting) that little 'ol ATS has been noticed by the powers that be.

so are threads and posts actually get read from others outside of our little community
how exciting!

reply to post by Fathom


As long as they're not building the "cull" list!

All those Rex 84 camps will be used for something... I hope they have internet access.

Recently there were nearly 100% anti Right wing topics dominating the board. You could go down a list of over a dozen Palin attack hit pieces.
Now either the right wing purposely posted all of them or they came here in response to all of them, take your pick. Normal board discussion would have confined the Palin topic to maybe a few open threads, not the vast sea of hitpieces, any of which could have been used in an argument in an ongoing thread instead of it's own thread.

I believe ATS created a magnet for this with its left wing hate america slant.
Just my opinion.

Originally posted by SectionEight
Recently there were nearly 100% anti Right wing topics dominating the board. You could go down a list of over a dozen Palin attack hit pieces.
Now either the right wing purposely posted all of them or they came here in response to all of them, take your pick. Normal board discussion would have confined the Palin topic to maybe a few open threads, not the vast sea of hitpieces, any of which could have been used in an argument in an ongoing thread instead of it's own thread.

I believe ATS created a magnet for this with its left wing hate america slant.
Just my opinion.

In answer to your opinion, there have also been many, many posts of a decidedly right-wing slant ... shall we agree to say ... demeaning to the left wing cadidates and their issues?

Furthermore, this board is not strictly a United States of America board, it can be accessed from most every other nation on the planet, which is probably why you have noticed that there are many anti-american and anti-republican postings. It is the voice of the people of foreign countries expressing their questioning of the politics and actions of the current administration of the once great United States of America. They too have a right to state their opinions, especially if they are the victims of the actions of what can only be described (by a USA Citizen) as a Rogue Administration.

Originally posted by Fathom
so this is why they keep deleting anything pro-right wing?

What makes you say that?

Of all the threads I removed and moved this morning, most were highly critical of Palin and McCain.

We're making a serious effort to apply a balanced approach.

Personally, it's the "pro" part of both 'pro-left wing' and 'pro-right wing' that I have a problem with. The expression of 'pro' support for one side of a polarized field, and the embracing or enthusiastic application of such labels, indicates to me that the individual places the label, and the attached world-view implied by it, ahead of unbiased opinion of actual facts.

I would say, "a pox on both their houses", but that would just make me 'pro' non-conformist.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Absolutely. And what's more, the previous claim is completely baseless and without merit.

As many who frequent the political forums here are aware, I'm a staunch conservative. As such, many of my views fall in line with said "right wing" views. However, I've made a couple of threads expressing these views since the rule change and have had great success generating discussion.

Why? Because my threads focused on the issues that I support and/or disagree with. They didn't focus on smearing or attacking Obama or Biden.

ATS is still business as usual around here. The only difference now is that threads attacking people will not be tolerated.

It's really not that out of line with the regular T&C. Attacks on members are not tolerated here at all. Just imagine now that Obama and McCain are members.

Originally posted by SectionEight I believe ATS created a magnet for this with its left wing hate america slant.

Can I infer from your statement, then, that to disagree with your right wing culture is to hate America? Isn't that a pretty good example of why this new policy has been applied? I mean a position like that makes for a pretty rugged base for discourse.

Divide and conquer, I suppose.

You haven't figured it out yet?

We are all here to manipulate, confuse, and steer you to our nefarious agenda.

Resistance is futile.

On a serious note. I don't think these blokes could give a rats patoot in a turkish prison about politics.

reply to post by SectionEight


Ordinarily, I think I would have to agree with you, except with Palin there are so many areas to criticize. It wasn't for the most part baseless attacks against her such as calling her names or smearing. Folks were legitimately attacking her on things that she said with proof that they were false, and various items she voted for in the past and things she has done. Of course I'm bias, because Ice cubes would melt in hell before these two would get my vote, but it seems to me that if you put up someone with so many skeletons and then have them read a speech full of holes, and then follow it up with absolutely no interviews by the press for almost a week after, and refuse to cooperate in a pertinent investigation...hey that's open season for talking about each one...perhaps they should have been put in alphabetical order?

Agreeing and disagreeing in politics does not mean that fairness in the debate means a 50/50 split always in scandal areas, dishonesty, or allegations. In other words, say we run two convicts for an office, one from both sides, but one convict only did one crime ten years ago and the other has 20 convictions over the past 10 years that have come to the surface. Does this mean that in the interest of fairness we should only talk about one?

Now if the GOP bosses had picked Romney or Huckabee for instance, I doubt there would have been a shower of threads posted as we saw with this woman.

Anyway, I'm glad for the new policies, however another side of me thinks even with people posting run amuck wild accusations and acting like jr. high schoolers at times, I think their own fallacies become quite obvious and what they post speaks for itself. Most of us on ATS, no matter what side of the ideological coin we see, are pretty smart to smell a rat when one is there.

It appears that a LOT of telecommunications companies are suppling the most visits. Don't forget about T.H.E. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. A.C.T. In light of the sad fact that nearly all communication is now being monitored via satellite (and probably other means) by the government, I am not surprised. I don't like it, but I'm not surprised.

Disgusting, isn't it?