We must end the rising "culture of negativity" (SOLUTION POSTED)

Originally posted by Exuberant1I was a lurker during the Oct.14 GFL situation and I could definitely see the need for additional ignore space then.

All those "Blabla bla. Proof coming next week!" type of threads should be deleted not ignored.
But this is just my opinion..

I feel the members are smart enough to know what threads are "outlandish" and what threads are not. I believe the members themselves take care of the "outlandish" threads, by not visiting them.

ATS - would not be as cool nor interesting, if mods or administrators began deleting threads, due to feeling they are "outlandish".

We all get criticism in our threads, it does not even matter what the thread is about, if other members find it of interest and post, then others are naturally attracted to it, to post something against it. That is the nature that will always be. There is no getting rid of it.

I enjoy ATS and get some great laughs sometimes, just seeing thread "headlines", I then as all of us do, make the decision whether to enter the thread or not. It is up to us individually to read the thread.

Please don't start policing the threads, that seem "out there" - many of us enjoy those too.

Besides, aren't most of the threads here on ATS, by the general public perceived as being "out there" since they are discussions about UFOs, Aliens, TPTB, conspiracies, etc?

So whose perception of "outlandish" threads are you employing? The members of ATS or the general public.

The members of ATS - are more enlightened than most others, in being that way, we are all smart enough to bypass threads or join in them on our own. We don't need a "outlandish thread policing".

That is my 2 cents of this discussion.

I totally agree with what 27jd said above. There should be something done about the blatantly obvious trolls, but otherwise I believe the current rules we all agreed to when we became members are fairly sufficient. My big "issue" with this site, however, is the constant "I have proof of something outstanding or earth changing but I can't show you the proof until later" type of threads that always end up not showing what they promised, but are also always defended. While I do not believe there should be some oppression of speech or opinion - even for these fictional stories for attention, perhaps there can be some "Unproven personal claim" section or something. I always seem to get suckered into these threads and am so irritated by the time I read through 15 pages with no revealing of the big proof that was promised.

As for the "karma" suggested by rufusdrak, in theory it may seem like a good idea, but in practice...
For example, I am one of the "closed minded skeptics" of alien visitation. I have thick enough skin and have been around long enough to answer the same old criticisms, but with this "karma" button, there would be the whole "church" of alien visitation giving me negative "karma" simply because I don't believe the same as them. And to be honest, I would likely be tempted to do the same. So it would just end up being a "point war" between believers and skeptics.

Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye; and he who remembers this when he sees any one whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter light, and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light.

Plato

Ok, Im going to give my 2cents on this one. First of all, with all respect, it has not been JUST creeping in here lately. You run a conspiracy forum. You do so in order to spread truths. Because of the wonderfull world wide web, people can not just tell us something and expect us to believe it. Due to websites like yours, we are able to rethink everything we have been told. That has each of us on our own personal quest to find the truths that mean the most to us. In a world where everything has its opposites, it is only natural that people will find different truths. There are people who have honest information and there are people who believe what they need to believe. Trying to get them to believe something else is quite frightning to them because it might open up a whole new can of worms.

I believe what you are finding here is nothing more than nature taking its course. You started this by opening pandoras box so to speak. Trying to shut the box now and limit what is said will only cause more harm than good. I suggest you stick by your origional standards and make your own "policing activities" more complex. When I first came to ATS I paid attention because your standards were quite high. A person could not just post anything, they had to have something to back it up. A story they read or news clip, pictures, something. No cussing was allowed which made me feel comfortable. For the past few years, you have had more and more people pop up on here and they do not just dissagree they feel like it is their duty to make the person stop talking. That is what I have found to be the worst crime on here. Harassment should not be allowed.

I feel that if you crack down on the harassments, everything else will fall into place.

If someone posts something that is out there, no big deal, especially for BTS. However, I do feel that if someone is going to start a thread, the rule that they have to have a link or photo to back it up should still be rule #1. After that there was a group of mods that would look into the story and say yes there is enough to talk about or proof that it was false and then the thread was closed. IF someone felt that it was not false, and were able to provide something to show it deemed further conversations the thread was again opened.

Somewhere along the line those standards were lost. (except for the breaking news forums) Between that and the harassments I stopped participating in conversations, and do not any longer read most of the threads.

To make sure I am clear, I do not find a disagreement harassment. I do however find that when a person fills page after page with insults and negativity to the point where no conversation can comfortably happen it is harassment and needs to be stopped.

-mrsdudara

[edit on 5-5-2009 by mrsdudara]

Not wishing to add more work for some of the excellent Mods, but don't the T&Cs cover 'negative' posting? I've rarely noticed 'negative' posting and I spend a bit of time in the Aliens and UFO section. I've noticed hostile posting frequently, but a lot of us are adults and handle it without blinking.

Policing 'negativity' requires a clear definition of 'negativity'. Very shaky, subjective ground. One guy's negative is another's pragmatism. A couple of recent threads regarding abduction claims have seen members telling other members to leave the thread if they don't agree with the topic. Is that negative?

I think the place is running pretty well as it is..keep applying warnings and the T&Cs. If the issue needs readdressing at a later date, changes could applied then

I'm like a geyser of innovation right now, here's some more:


I would assume ATS began its humble days as a site for aging tinfoilers and little by little the trend has been the acquisition of a more hip and younger demographic, i.e. 16-30yo group. As you should well know this younger Gen-x (or whatever you want to call them) demographic is seditious, rebellious, strong and freespirited and doesn't put up with restrictive control. They are coming out younger and younger with open minds and as you can glean from the general climate and tone of the responses so far, it seems to be overwhelmingly in support of NO further restrictions and increased moderatorship. So in line with that, the ONLY plausible and logical system to kill 2 birds with one stone is the one I have outlined.
The two mentioned 'birds' being
1. make the site "experience" more attractive to the influx of the new demographic. This can be done with some of the ideas I suggested previously, i.e. the expansion of 'fun' extras and perquisites like gifts and such.
2. the placation (via giving THEM control as outlined previously) of the increasingly wary (and weary) and rebellious anti-establishment core membership who will correlate any restrictive actions from the ATS leadership as NWO-esque control and thought police tactics and will begin to view ATS execs as greedy corporate opportunists who stand for big bucks/revenue/corporate greed rather than for the intrinsic values of ATS's original mission statement.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by rufusdrak]

reply to post by rufusdrak



Agreed, I think the members should be allowed to sort this 'conflict' out, I have faith we can. All things eventually pass, people will get sick of the pointless arguments and derailment. I mean what is everyone going to do, stop posting!

BTW, what is a 'troll', lol.

I don't know, mabye I am way off, but I am thinking that it would be appropriate to mabye enforce the TAC just a bit more than it already is.

Stick with me here, Mabye it is just me but it seems like wher I used to see one "warning in a thread" before the whole thing was locked up, or before warnings and what not started getting passed out, I am now seeing two or three warnings and then mabye a post removal or two.

I have noticed what seems to me to be a bit of the rules relaxing some what.

I am thinking mabye a few new moderators to help enforce the TAC or get the current moderators to be a tad more strict.

Now that is not to say I do not appreciate the hard work our mods do everyday, because I do, but I am thinking that the ones to set an example of what is appropriate to post would be the moderators and staff.

What does everyone else think?

By the way, thank you for the oppurtunity to say my piece. Thank you as well for considereing and listening to what I say.

Originally posted by tallcool1


As for the "karma" suggested by rufusdrak, in theory it may seem like a good idea, but in practice...
For example, I am one of the "closed minded skeptics" of alien visitation. I have thick enough skin and have been around long enough to answer the same old criticisms, but with this "karma" button, there would be the whole "church" of alien visitation giving me negative "karma" simply because I don't believe the same as them. And to be honest, I would likely be tempted to do the same. So it would just end up being a "point war" between believers and skeptics.

No offense, and I could be wrong on this (let me know if you disagree) but shouldn't you DESERVE negative 'karma' if you are a professed skeptic that admittedly refuses to even acknowledge the possibility (seemingly at least) of alien visitation and yet you deliberately enter into alien visitation threads? If you don't believe in the topic why would you even go into the thread to start trouble and accuse people of lying and/or hoaxing. That is the definition of a troll and as such in this system the trolls will justifiably be punished with red karma.
If you absolutely HATE Reptilian "garbage" and Reptilian threads, not a SINGLE Pro-Reptilian David Icke idolizing poster would EVER have the need to give you red karma so long as you don't DELIBERATELY and wantonly enter their threads to bait, start trouble, and troll. Do you see what I'm saying here?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

ATS is a 'social-site' ...

Because 'certain needs' are not being 'met' elsewhere, people come here for 'contact' with others.

If the site starts 'policing' thought, opinion and indeed even the 'motive' of participants here, then ATS will sink down to the 'lowest common denominator' - the MSM, and hence will no longer be an 'alternative' site ...

IMHO, members should consider that everybody tries to 'socialize' here for the same reason. If some are less 'skillfull' in their efforts than others, why should this offend anybody ?

I, for one, really believe that those 'qualities' an individual finds irritating or offensive in others are those same qualities in him/her self he/she would rather not see ...

Then, of course, there is the individual who is only able to relate to others through conflict and agression - this is what the 'ignore list' is for.

Things seem pretty good here for the most part - lots of different people all pursuing their own particular interest, and everybody trying to expand their understanding of a very confusing and crazy world. This is a good thing.

Why 'ruin it' by instituting the 'though police?'

reply to post by DGFenrir

All those "Blabla bla. Proof coming next week!" type of threads should be deleted not ignored.
But this is just my opinion..

Yea but if you do that then what happens when someone who really does have proof comes along? After all the ultimate goal of this site is to uncover the truth is it not?

Originally posted by rufusdrak

No offense, and I could be wrong on this (let me know if you disagree) but shouldn't you DESERVE negative 'karma' if you are a professed skeptic that admittedly refuses to even acknowledge the possibility (seemingly at least) of alien visitation and yet you deliberately enter into alien visitation threads? If you don't believe in the topic why would you even go into the thread to start trouble and accuse people of lying and/or hoaxing. That is the definition of a troll and as such in this system the trolls will justifiably be punished with red karma.
If you absolutely HATE Reptilian "garbage" and Reptilian threads, not a SINGLE Pro-Reptilian David Icke idolizing poster would EVER have the need to give you red karma so long as you don't DELIBERATELY and wantonly enter their threads to bait, start trouble, and troll. Do you see what I'm saying here?

My case in point

If you don't believe it, you're not supposed to comment on it. Questioning alien visitation is now tantamount to trolling.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by Esoterica]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

we're seeing an unsettling increase in those who appear to be here for no purpose other than to present harsh arguments from one side of whichever fence is their preference.

This, I believe, is an unintended consequence of the growth of ATS membership. A widely diverse membership means widely diverse attitudes. You cannot "police" this without being accused of censorship. It is the price you pay for getting bigger.

My opinion is that the membership itself will police this and that it is cyclical. People and events come and go so the "negativity" will also.

What should we do?

Nothing except what you are doing with this post. Bringing it to everyone's attention.

Should we (ATS) step into some moderate editorial oversight to better police obviously outlandish topics as well as those who post nothing but negativity?

Absolutely not. What's outlandish to some is not outlandish to others and doing this would destroy what this site is supposed to be about.

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by rufusdrak

No offense, and I could be wrong on this (let me know if you disagree) but shouldn't you DESERVE negative 'karma' if you are a professed skeptic that admittedly refuses to even acknowledge the possibility (seemingly at least) of alien visitation and yet you deliberately enter into alien visitation threads? If you don't believe in the topic why would you even go into the thread to start trouble and accuse people of lying and/or hoaxing. That is the definition of a troll and as such in this system the trolls will justifiably be punished with red karma.
If you absolutely HATE Reptilian "garbage" and Reptilian threads, not a SINGLE Pro-Reptilian David Icke idolizing poster would EVER have the need to give you red karma so long as you don't DELIBERATELY and wantonly enter their threads to bait, start trouble, and troll. Do you see what I'm saying here?

My case in point

If you don't believe it, you're not supposed to comment on it.

Exactly, if you are an ARDENT OPPONENT of reptilian/alien visititation/what have you threads, why would you EVER deliberately enter into those threads? That's the equivalent of a racist deliberately going into a place where the race he hates reside, the ONLY possible explanation is for ILL, i.e. to start trouble and/or TROLL so my point is if you let the people you don't like have their own threads and not bother them, then they would never have a reason to give you negative points or whatever. If they come into YOUR thread then feel free to bombard them with red karma.

I should state that there could be restrictions instituted. For example you can't post threads anymore unless you have a certain level of green karma etc. That could be TOO restrictive but just ideas, this would mean if enough people gave an obvious agitator/instigator red karma then they could be forbidden from commenting a certain amount of times or forbidden to post threads or what have you until they act nice and get their karma back up to safe levels. Some of these ideas may seem communal and utopian but they're just ideas.

reply to post by Kandinsky


This is the whole reason why its hard to share anything on grey area threads.
And people weren't asked to leave, but questioned about their interest in the thread, and it was suggested that if they weren't contributing that they should find another thread. When someone is sharing an abduction experience, repeatedly asking for proof and pictures and telling them they should promptly go and submit to medical and often psychiatric examinations, never just once, but usually a litany of these posts by the same people, is undue negativity. In which case, finding another thread that is not in the grey area would make more sense.

WOW.

What a . . . sticky wicket area this will likely be/is.

1. The negativity is troublesome . . . sometimes to the max.

2. It DOES discourage lots of us from posting many times on many threads and topics. Sometimes, it even turns us off from reading a topic that we are normally interested in.

3. That can't be good for business nor the community of shared, masticated ideas.

4. How to engineer a cure that's not worse than the problem will likely be challenging.

5. The times we are in are overtly negative. They are becoming more so by the minute. They will become horrifically so, imho.

5.1 Hell, by definition, is not positive in the least. And Hell is literally determined to rule the world--and will--for a short time, imho.

6. Even the faintest foundation for any shred of a positive perspective will likely become in very short supply. Thankfully, we are not THERE, yet. However, the view of the near looming horizon is not promising on that score, imho.

7. People are enormously defined, conditioned, influenced by their context, environment, contingencies.

8. Throw in the 'natural' human tendency to focus on the negative--and we are off and running persistently down a very black path.

9. We focus on the negative . . . apart from because of 'original sin' . . . . because (A) it seems and often is more 'exciting,' (B) dramatic, (C) intense. (D) It's also easier and probably (E) more habitual to get an interesting, energetic response from others over negative stuff.

10. (F) That tends to affirm in perverse psychological ways that one is worth something, truly exists because one triggered an intense response from someone else regardless of how prickly, brittle, destructive.

11. THERE IS ALSO A KIND OF CULTURAL GESTALT that's increasingly become the norm--THAT TO BE AGIN' something EQUALS brilliance, erudition, coolness etc.

12. Far too many folks have sooooo much REACTIVE ATTACHMENT DISORDER from poor parenting the first 8 years of life . . . that THEY NEVER LEARNED the MORE interesting, MORE CONSTRUCTIVE, MORE exciting truths and principles of CREATING GROWTHFUL IDENTITIES BY CONSTRUCTING IMPROVED PERSONHOOD, IMPROVED REALITIES, IMPROVED ART, IMPROVED WIDGETS. They've been treated like a stinking pile from near birth and a stinking pile is about all they have the ability to see or comment on. The brown stinking goo certainly all they seem to be able to sculpt their identities out of.

. . . yada . . . yada . . . yada . . . this psychologist could go on for many pages in that vein.

13. I think the point system MIGHT be used to good effect.

A) more liberally applied bonus points for modeling positive styles, tones, attitudes, phrasing etc. Perhaps easier ways to click to recommend a poster for such. A certain number of such clicks might automatically deliver 500 or so points.

B) Perhaps a point "tax" on a certain level of; severity of; frequency of negativity. Definitions could be tricky but might still be worth hammering out.

C) Perhaps a rating set of buttons on negativity to postivity . . . say a forced choice scale . . .

C.1) 1-10 with no midpoint. A certain percentage of clicks rating a post 1-2 well in the end of negativity would result in XXX point tax subtracted.

C.2) After the person's points were reduced to zero, they'd be limited to a 50 word posting limit or some such. If the 50 words continued to be rated overwhelmingly negative--they'd get a 2-4 week time out.

C.3) A person who's posts were consistently rated 9-10 on the positive end would rapidly accrue more points in say 300-500 point chunks.

14. One must not underestimate the challenges in overcoming this problem. All the forces of hell are arrayed AGAINST A WORKABLE solution. I mostly mean that literally and I'm mostly not kidding. There ARE destructive spiritual forces loose in the world which are determined to bring the house down around their own ears . . . to their own maniacal laughter--wallowing gleefully in the blood of the humans afflicted with their deadly negativity and destructiveness.

15. It is a valiant, worthy, necessary goal. Otherwise, the poison and uncomfortable smell will relentlessly erode all the pleasant worth to being on here.

16. Folks may temporarily enjoy a free-for-all fray and take smug comfort and 'fun' in zinging other posters 'some good ones.' Eventually, however, the smell, the blood and the generally bitter sawdust taste in the mouth overcomes the excitement and one just passes on by.

17. A lot of posters hereon have majored in rebellion instead of majoring in excellence (again, because of the RAD mentioned above). I don't know how many of those are trainable. They will present some major challenges. The rebellion lurking in or near all of us is challenging enough. When it rules the person, negativity is a major theme and hallmark of such a soul.

18. FREEREPUBLIC.COM has a "smokey back room" where temporary incorrigibles are sent for their raging brick bat fights. The worst such are simply not tolerated and folks are banned. The transitory sort of brief flash-point type of thing that erupts a bit over the line is relegated to the back room. IIRC, the hostile dialogue then is out-of-sight of visitors and members and only those involved originally see the text. I don't know if that's worth the bother, or not.

19. I believe there are SOME MODS and certainly what I've seen of the principals . . . FOR WHOM MODELING EXCELLENT BEHAVIOR . . . with a trainable corps of 'disciples' could have incredibly powerful influence. Increased access and dialogue with wonderful people can be very reinforcing and rewarding--way above that of points.

20. Of course, some MODS are not that removed from negativity and rebellious attitudes themselves. They just have more polished ways of flinging such. I think that's a whole 'nother level of problem. And, they tend to fling such only toward those in their targeted OUT-GROUPS.

===========

21. 21 points plus is enough for now. Thanks for asking these questions about this problem. It's one worth a lot of prayerful thought for this Christian psychologist. Christians hereon tend to take it relentlessly in the groin from the majority of mods and members. WE CERTAINLY FEEL THE BRUNT OF THE NEGATIVITY probably far in excess of our numbers or the number of our posts.

22. NO other religion nor value system, philosophy, philosophical identity suffers NEAR as much verbal abuse and flung-at-them negativity hereon as do Christians--routinely--regardless of how little justified. And sometimes, MODS lead the pack--or used to. Haven't paid much attention to such recently.

BLESSINGS IN YOUR ADMIRABLE EFFORT. Will try to check back on this thread to see if you'd like further comment from me or have questions of me.

reply to post by rufusdrak



Although not aimed at me.... i do take exception to your reply to the other member.

Originally posted by rufusdrak
No offense, and I could be wrong on this (let me know if you disagree) but shouldn't you DESERVE negative 'karma' if you are a professed skeptic that admittedly refuses to even acknowledge the possibility (seemingly at least) of alien visitation and yet you deliberately enter into alien visitation threads?

I didn't see the member mention he didn't believe in alien visitation.... he said he didn't believe "the same" as the church of alien believers.
A pretty ambiguous statement TBH.

And perhaps he just wants to engage in a healthy debate and try and uncover some truths....and deny ignorance.
It would be pretty sad if every thread about aliens only allowed believers to post or only skeptics....what would be the point?

He has EVERY right to enter any thread he wants and discuss any topic he wants as long as he does so in a civil manner.

If you don't believe in the topic why would you even go into the thread to start trouble and accuse people of lying and/or hoaxing. That is the definition of a troll and as such in this system the trolls will justifiably be punished with red karma.

To try and uncover some truths and have a discussion.
I think most skeptics would love nothing more than a piece of absolute proof or evidence of alien visitation or a conclusive picture/video of UFO's.
Again, he has every right to enter the thread.

If you absolutely HATE Reptilian "garbage" and Reptilian threads, not a SINGLE Pro-Reptilian David Icke idolizing poster would EVER have the need to give you red karma so long as you don't DELIBERATELY and wantonly enter their threads to bait, start trouble, and troll. Do you see what I'm saying here?

I don't see any mention of reptilians in his post?
But again.... you said "enter their threads" ?????

"their threads" ...... this is an OPEN forum my friend....anybody can post anything they like within the T's and C's and if they're civil.

You should perhaps give the whole civility thing a whirl?

I hope something is done, I keep running into these people a good bit lately, and it makes it rather hard for me not to get negative as well. In fact, I'd have to say I have been a bit more negative in general lately because of it.

Last night it took me a good 30 minutes to respond to a rather simple post, because it was that difficult not to be negative in response to that person. I'm rather certain that person is nothing more than a troll trying to get a rise out of people, is devoid of any reasonable debate and so forth. I seriously rewrote the same post like 5 different times, each time trying to be "nice" while getting a point across. Which is not easy to do with someone who is purposely trying to cause problems etc.

Entered a thread a few days ago, posted a reply and all I got in response was the person attacking my character, and even worse they were attacking it based on their own assumptions, and even after trying to tell them it was false - they keep on going.

I'd like to just ignore these people, but it doesn't matter if you ignore them or not. They just keep filling up the threads with the stuff over and over. And I don't generally like to report people, because I'd probably be throwing rocks from a glass house as I know I get negative towards them in response, it's hard not too.

And it's not that I'm offended so much, I'm of the opinion that if someone is offended by something the problem generally lies with the offended, but it's really hard to have a good debate/discussion about a topic with it.

I guess mostly it would be nice if a mod stepped in from time to time to say to the person - you aren't really making honest and intelligent discussions here, please pick it up a bit. If that applies to me, I would be thankful for the heads up.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


This is it in a nutshell

"The culture of the offended" I go around worring who I am going to offend

It seems that all too many of us, and I include myself in this at times, are looking to be offended, and there are a few people who are looking to offend (they call it being antiPC, it's not, it's being rude.)

This I feel is a reflection of todays culture. Being rude is called "keeping it real", or somesuch nonsense.