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

reply to post by rufusdrak


That's ridiculous. Why would I not be allowed to comment on your story, question your evidence, and have a frank discussion of why I think I'm correct and you're wrong? Maybe you'll change my mind, maybe I'll change yours. But that's discussion and debate. If you don't want to be questioned, then don't post on ATS.

Under your system, people should be punished for having an opinion different from your own. That's a horrible state of affairs. Might as well shut down the message board and go back to having the articles, since we're not allowed to talk about them any more.

Originally posted by mystiq
reply to post by Kandinsky

 

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.

You have touched on a major irritation and point of disgust to me, hereon.

The naysayers seem to exalt in preening their prissy negativism. Flush that, imho.

Perhaps it would help to have a 1-10 clickable rating line on:

UNBELIEVABLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BELIEVABLE scale

and insure that the naysaying attitude stuff was confined to clicking on the left end of that scale.

OTHERWISE, WHY WOULD ANY SANE PERSON WANT TO POST THEIR PERSONAL, . . . USUALLY VERY PERSONAL . . . STORY?

AND WHY NOT treat it as just a story, if you choose to disbelieve it?

Why have to treat it as a slug to be stomped to smithereens?

I personally believe that all such stories--REGARDLESS OF THEIR MOTIAVTION0--need to be treated as cherished PERSONAL STORIES, PERSONAL EXPERIENCES . . . and let those that earn respect by the qualities of expressions in their stories stand on that merit. Those that don't can wither on the vine. They don't need axes whacking away at every word and nuance. Sheesh!

Originally posted by 44soulslayer

I believe this fundamentally stems from the overexpansion of your user base. Just recently, you chaps posted a triumphant ... declaring ATS' user base to be at its highest point ever.

Is it possible for all these users to be of the same level of understanding or indeed intellect as those who would have sought out a more arcane site? I don't think so.

I belive that as you have propagated ATS wider than ever before, the inherent control over those who register as users has diminished.

For example take a look at facebook. 3 years ago facebook was reserved only for university students, and had an air of intellectualism about it. Over the next 3 years, as they expanded their user base, infantilism creeped in all over the site. Glittery applications appeared, language used in groups became base and crude etc.

There is a basic tradeoff between user volumes and user quality. In order for ATS to become big, the attitude of mutual respect between users diminished (in part through less familiarity). At the risk of being banned... could I reiterate that in recent times the last bastion of mutual respect has been dismantled by the management.

You, the ATS management, have to decide between user quantity and quality. I wish you the best of luck and admire your intentions, but I doubt you will ever have both.

I am getting the same impression. ATS is cool and kids in high schools everywhere, or of that level of intellect, are having fun seeing if they can outdo themselves with outrageously provocative topics and riling serious minded people in threads. The ratio of noise to sound just derails topics.

Looking at new members joining, there are many new accounts with absurd, racist, and profane names just to see what they can get away with. Many new members join, post a vile comment or two and are banned the same day.

Something like putting new entrants on some sort of close watch status might be recommended or is already in place.

Not to get too histrionic, but I think the increased activity, a lot unwanted qualitatively, might threaten the delicate balance integrity ATS has worked hard to maintain.

Could this turn into another Facebook, wildly successful, but discouraging substantive content, I would give a qualified yes. It does require reading a few thousand word at a time with minimal visuals, so that already filters out
many millions.

But I hope the staff is looking at ways to encourage the high level of discourse and discourage the agitators trying to get attention by invoking outrage.


Mike

Originally posted by jkrog08
BTW, what is a 'troll', lol.

Somebody who wants to be negative for the sake of negativity, pretty much...

Donath provides a concise overview of identity deception games which trade on the confusion between physical and epistemic community:

“ Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they — and the troll — understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group.
Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized to trolling — where the rate of deception is high — many honestly naïve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation.[9]
”
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by rufusdrak

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?

See, now that's one of the things I do like about this site. When we can do a little back and forth and in doing so I really can understand your point. I guess I never really thought of myself as a "troll", just stating my opinion in an attempt to help someone see the "truth" from my point of view. I guess, with that perspective, I could actually get behind your idea of a "karma" thing.
On the other hand, though, this is also exactly what this site is about - to intellectually debate these topics. So the karma thing may actually stop debates and just force ATS to have threads of "believers" and threads of "skeptics" high fiving each other. When I post something that I believe or don't believe and another member posts an opposing view and why they disagree, it forces me to try to see where they are coming from.

reply to post by blupblup


You're right he has every right to enter a thread but if he acts and behaves civilly as you say then I can't imagine why anyone would ever flag him with red karma.

Furthermore, all of his objections can be easily taken care of in the same way that they are in boxingscene.com:

1. you can only karma the same person once in a while. You can't repeatedly karma the same person good OR bad karma prior to first spreading it around to others.
2. When you karma someone, there is a compulsory comment box that attaches a brief explanation for why karma was given. It can be left blank but the point is that if a person is giving out red karma for idiotic or NO reasons at all then an objection can be raised with a moderator who need only to review the karma comment (or lack thereof) and the alleged offense in whatever thread it could have occurred and then use his moderator discretion to remove the negative karma. This system prevents any trolls or kids from just red karma bombing someone into negativity.

The other points you made about Reptilians and such had nothing to do with the previous poster I was replying to, that was a hypothetical example.

Originally posted by Esoterica
reply to post by rufusdrak

 

That's ridiculous. Why would I not be allowed to comment on your story, question your evidence, and have a frank discussion of why I think I'm correct and you're wrong? Maybe you'll change my mind, maybe I'll change yours. But that's discussion and debate. If you don't want to be questioned, then don't post on ATS.

Under your system, people should be punished for having an opinion different from your own. That's a horrible state of affairs. Might as well shut down the message board and go back to having the articles, since we're not allowed to talk about them any more.

Wrong no one should be punished unless you behave uncivilly or in a troll manner. And as you can see by my last post, unwarranted red karma scores can be removed at the discretion of a moderator should an objection be raised towards the validity of the negative karma given.

reply to post by 27jd




Cool, thanks..lol, for being a member for over a year I shoulda' known that.

Originally posted by rufusdrak
reply to post by blupblup

 

You're right he has every right to enter a thread but if he acts and behaves civilly as you say then I can't imagine why anyone would ever flag him with red karma.

Fair enough, but you said he deserved "red karma" just for entering a thread on alien visitation....just because he doesn't believe.
That makes no sense.

Edit to add... i see what you meant.

If he only enters to bait or troll.

Fair enough.




[edit on 5/5/09 by blupblup]

Ok, a few weeks back, I posted on the ats Civility discussion thread, got a few slaps, got some in.

I clearly stated it was a move in the right direction, and the need for moderator reform, also. Nothing was done with the mods, insofar as 'moderating,' except some personal-interest response intervention.

I said, give it a few weeks, and it will be Right Back Where It Was before the Civility discussion thread.

Ho-hum, here we are.

What happened in the interim...Well, I got mangled and attacked by 2-3 rather thick-skulled denegraters, tag-teaming against me with real abuse. I notified the mods twice, and apparently they all had laughs with their coffee. Sure, I got the u2u notice about we 'need conspirator's backbones' (haha...prejudicial ats favoritism, you mean, yes?), and decided to just avoid the discussions occuring on those threads. Animal House.

Now, Your Back Again, just like the Old Wise-Man's Intuition prophesised. Makes me Top Dog for getting that right, right? Right.

Now, wise up and take some Firm Advice from the Dog: Here We Go:

1) Ban anyone Annoying your T & C Rules Interpretation(s).

2) Punish with Point Removal and Posting Ban anyone who doesn't Do It like You Like.

3) Screw Fairness...just Lower the Hammer when and where you like, sort of like a national government Military Force enforcing Civil Disobedience (or free thought).

4) Finally, the Big One: allow the moderator's to continue with their Favoritism, which is the True Spirit of Open Discussion & Debate that we all Appreciate.

That'll fix everything. Hammer It Down.

Ats --> the Perfect World Reflection...Might against Right.

Or... you could keep the Lights of Civility On at the Top of the Page every so Often, and Educate the Mods, Or Get Rid Of Them...(replace the free help, with wiser, more appreciate, new free help...perhaps you'll get lucky, and find some with true goodness and an awareness of fairness in their minds & hearts, who knows?).

reply to post by tallcool1


Yep and I just want to make clear I wasn't attacking you like the other poster seemed to imply. You do have full rights to enter any thread even if you're a 100% skeptic and unbeliever in that thread's subject matter, however I'm just saying that I don't see why anyone would red karma flag you if you do so civilly and using modest decorum. I see so many people enter UFO threads who start off with nasty snide remarks like "Oh please here we go again with this garbage, do you have a SINGLE SHRED of evidence??? Or are you like all the other fake abductees??" etc etc..these people SHOULD justifiably be flagged with red karma because they are putting in negative energy and contributing to a negative atmosphere that is bringing everyone down to a lower vibrational energy and makes people get defensive and start attacking each other.
Lastly, read my previous posts as you can see there CAN be many safeguards to protect you from unwarranted karma bombing.

Another comment though, I think that "It happened to me" stories are treated too harshly. If I saw bigfoot but didn't take a photo or find a footprint, I would still post about it. I would also feel very bad if all of the replies were "show me proof or STFU", since I admit to having no evidence.

Here's a thought- implement a thread "tag" to something called "It Happened to Me (IHTM) or something similiar- say "Speculation". These are for threads in which no evidence or external content is being provide in the OP. simply a personal opinion or experience. The rules would be as follows-

1. Demanding evidence of the thread topic is not allowed and will be punished.
2. Posting a thread making an outlandish claim with no evidence in the OP that is NOT tagged will also be punished.

I don't know if this could work, but it's an idea.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by Esoterica]

When I came to ATS first time I was amazed and very excited. I was always under the assumption that this site was a place for logical, adult debate on many obscure topics and that members, no mater what side of the fence they were on, could contribute to te debate to try and come to some kind of truth.

For the most part, that still holds true, but what I am finding more and more of here is that whole argument of "If you dont like it or dont believe it, then leave" kind of attitude in the threads. I suppose I feel that, if you don't want people to possibly disagree with you or prove you wrong, then DONT post. You cant expect everyone to just take people on face value without any shred of evidence, fact or proof to help back your post up.

This is what this site is about no? debating issues and trying to come to some truth. To deny ignorance.

Also, I see that in a lot of posts, that when anyone does post proof against a topic, they are immediately called names or harassed. "government stooge", "Paid disinfo agent"....sound familiar to anyone?

Again, is there something that the owners should do? to be honest, im not sure. But the schoolyard BS needs to stop because it makes us ALL look like a bunch of flipping morons. If we (as a community) want to be taken seriously and not looked upon as a bunch of crackpots, then the immature arguing has to come to an end.

Lets get back to the roots of ATS. A place where we can logically and scientifically discuss and debate obscure topics and try to come to some kind of truth for the betterment of us all.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
That's what makes ATS so great... I love these outlandish topics.

It's part of what makes conspiracy theories. It's all about what is possible... if the world wasn't so negative or such a bad place people would be less negative.

There is nothing we can do about it... lying about it won't make things better.

I agree with this statement.

I just dont get the debunking with attitude. Like anyone here really knows anything (lets be honest). We come together with our theories and issues which is what ATS is about I guess.

Sometimes the wording makes the response a little harsh but maybe not intentional.

I come here for a reason (early posts) but have yet to understand or talk about it as I know it may come back and bite me later when I am trying to add a response to an article.

I suppose as us lower lvl members cannot gain access to the really good stuff I would expect that what we talk about in the lesser forums is a little OLD hat and thus the "oh not again" routine.

I like it here and I read more than I post.

I would also like to keep the outrageous posts. WHO KNOWS if they have some truth or not.

Applying facts is of course what we want as a reply.

reply to post by SS,Naga


This post seems to be a good example of trolling and negativity for the sake of negativity, although this person may not always be a troll. This post had all the good stuff; pretending to be interested in the topic, and even pretended to give suggestions, but notice that they are nothing but sarcasm and negativity directed at ATS, apparantly over a personal experience that went bad.

We actually had a "negative voting" a few years ago... It bombed horribly, was abused by cliques who were out to gte their rivals.

This "Karma" system seems much more elegant (and most likely a coding/huge data base nightmare) though I don't think at our traffic levels it's possible.

Do you have any information on how much traffic (unique IPs/new posts per day) this boxingscene site gets?

Springer...

[edit on 5-5-2009 by Springer]

reply to post by Esoterica


If its a topic that has no possible evidence then I can see what you mean, but I still think people have the right to (in an adult manner) argue with the claim.

The old "if you don't like it, leave" doesn't wash with me. While I can accept that everyone has their own beliefs that I may or may not agree with, a healthy debate about certain topics can be a good thing for knowledge on both side..............again as long as the school yard BS stays out of it.

Bit late in the day but...

I've thought of bringing up this point myself. A conversion with a good friend:
ME: I've just spent the last hour being lambasted by someone on ATS...
HIM: Haha, that's not like ATS... I got sick of my opinions being shot down so I left.

This guy has some good knowledge and we have lost his input.
Some negativity probably arises because we're a group who see things in society that others do not. This results in frustration in some people. It's no excuse though. I've been guilty of undue negativity in the past but would like to think I've followed up the post with an apology (post reflexion).

Keep it real but don't forget we're all brothers (and sisters).

reply to post by Esoterica


They do have this, its the grey area. No proof should be require. Also continually asking for it, and calling people insane delusional fools and saying they should seek medical treatment repeatedly is trolling. However, despite this, often these kind of posts outweigh the discussion continuing more meaningfully page after page anyway, despite this area being for personal testimonies.

reply to post by rufusdrak


As I said, I am quite thick skinned. i didn't feel you were attacking me, you just are quite passionate about your beliefs - as am I. And I agree, there should be some sort of "punishment" for being derogatory about another member or entering a discussion just to attack another member, but the debate on a topic shouldn't be stopped. With the previous example of alien visitation, from my perspective they may be out there, but believing that they visit earth is ridiculously foolish. People that believe they are here or have visited look at my lack of belief as equally foolish. When we debate about our beliefs intelligently I should not be segregated because I believe differently. Yes, punish me if I attack a person - not if I question a belief or want some sort of tangible proof.

This sort of behavior is covered in the T&C and as someone earlier stated, we don't need new rules - just enforcement of the existing ones.