Disinfo Agents, Self Moderated Threads - New Forum Ideas - Question to the Mods

Hello,
This is a question mostly for the mods.

I have noticed over the years, in many forums, when someone wants to be serious and ask a question or share information, there is an overwhelming enticement for troublemakers or disinfo agents to jump in and break up the momentum that gets going.

For instance, I might post something about 911 and then someone keeps bringing chupacabras into it, because they believe the aliens did it...just for example.

Well, things like this are discouraging for the original poster, and those who want to read all about the original post and stick to the thread. We all know this is a serious problem. We call many of these people "trolls" but sometimes they are intentional misleaders. Another problem occurs when people keep bringing up side issues that are nothing more than a distraction or sometimes people "troll" threads and just don't go away or leave the issue to really be debated, then what happens is that people have to read through all the junk to try to get to the points, and they get tired, and move on.

Is it possible....??? Hypothetically, if people wanted this, would it be possible to create a way for people to self moderate their own threads?

What would this do?

I think it would keep things more focused overall. If the original poster doesn't like everyone and keeps all debate out, then people will go elsewhere every time they start a thread. BUT, on the other hand, the original poster would get to decide what was fit for the question or information share that was the purpose of the original thread. People would be able to block trolls themselves, but just for their thread.

It just seems proper and right, that if I start a discussion, I should be able to choose who I want to discuss the issue with, and still have that discussion open to all....and available for public viewing....

But just because I post a question or share information, why should I always be subjected to disinfo agents and trolls who follow my threads around and heckle me constantly? Aren't we entitled to discuss issues and keep them serious, or directed in some way that suits the purpose of the original poster?

If the mods have any responses, I would appreciate it. Also, if anyone has anything positive to contribute here, please do, or better suggestions, even.....if you think it's a bad idea, then why?

Mini-Mod Status for Personal Threads?
yes or No, and if no, why not?


[edit on 5-8-2009 by videoworldwide]

The mods stay on top of things around here pretty well.

I could easily see this power being abused.

One of the reasons, in my opinion, that our system works is that we never take an action without discussion. As a result, potential bias's and/or misperceptions can be muted in favor of the objective answer.

Self Modding ones own thread would bypass this process and allow for various arbritrary and biased exclusions from the thread.

We here on ATS are here to stimulate conversation for everyone. Those who cannot discuss civilly are dealt with as best as we can. If you feel that we as a Moderating Team have missed something, please use the alert function (located at the bottom of each post) to gain our attention so that we can take a look at the issue. Due to the amount of posts, we may not always respond to you personally regarding your alert but I can assure you that we look at all of them.

Hope this helps...

reply to post by phi1618


I never said the mods didn't do a good job, and you never provided a reason why the power or how it would be abused, specifically.

Hi, mods and OPers. . .

The question could also be:

Could we have threads, on any subject, with ONLY persons that
are agreeing on the subject ??

I mean:

Subject: Reptilians. We all know, some say they don't exist, some
say they do. Some + some -. We ALL konw that !
Same thing with chemtrails. there are the + and -.

But **what if**, a small gang of pro-anything want to chat
on a subject, without interruption ?? Is it possible ?

So we could have threads of peoples AGAINST CHEMtrails,
talking ALONE !! and
we could have threads of peoples seeing the CHEMtrails,
talking ALONE !! Possible ?

Blue skies and thanks.

OP: I know exactly what you mean...

thats where stricter enforcement of the "off topic post" must be used
when people try to side track a legitimate discussion

Why do people even want to discuss reptilians, when the ufo phenomena has yet to be dealt with?

[edit on 5-8-2009 by patientobserver]

reply to post by MemoryShock


I was not complaining about you guys, here.

I was trying to figure out a way to provide a BETTER solution for everyone. And it was hypothetical, meaning i'm not asking you to actually do this, like "please do this for us" i/m asking if it would be possible to do, and what exactly would be the reasons for NOT doing it.

I believe it would give more power to the people.

Also, please don't misunderstand the thread intention. There would of course, be higher up mods too, just like there are now....the main difference is that people would get to decide who was abusing their thread and ban them from that thread if they wanted to. Or delete a particular post and let them know to please avoid something or to keep it on point.

This is all about having more control over one's own conversation. Of course, we would not be able to ban a higher up mod, and of course, if the Original poster was deleting too many posts and was not allowing fair discussiion of their own topis, someone could just post the same thing under their own name and have their own discussion about it with people, or whatever......

What would be the downside? Why would this not work?

Think about it...if people liked it....it would be REVOLUTIONARY.....and ATS would be leading the way.

Any forum on the internet that didn't have it, would be jealous and have to switch over too. Just think of the possibilities...if the people wanted it....

Originally posted by videoworldwide
I was not complaining about you guys, here.

I certainly didn't interpret it as such...

Originally posted by videoworldwide
the main difference is that people would get to decide who was abusing their thread and ban them from that thread if they wanted to. Or delete a particular post and let them know to please avoid something or to keep it on point.

This is all about having more control over one's own conversation.

There is a way to exert control over one's thread and the quality of content - the Alert button that I mentioned above.

What would be the downside? Why would this not work?

The downside is that cliques could form, that threads would invariably become limited to specific people et cetera. Restricting the type of people or specific people tends to be a 'negative reinforcement' tactic that would breed discontent and invite arbritrary retaliation. And allowing every member to wield that ability could very easily turn the board into a mess of discontent.

Besides, a proper discussion, in my opinion, requires adverse opinions and different perspectives. How else would one learn?

I can understand wanting to ban a particular individual if that individual was abusive but there is that alert button...

Originally posted by C-JEAN
Hi, mods and OPers. . .

The question could also be:

Could we have threads, on any subject, with ONLY persons that
are agreeing on the subject ??

I mean:

Subject: Reptilians. We all know, some say they don't exist, some
say they do. Some + some -. We ALL konw that !
Same thing with chemtrails. there are the + and -.

But **what if**, a small gang of pro-anything want to chat
on a subject, without interruption ?? Is it possible ?

So we could have threads of peoples AGAINST CHEMtrails,
talking ALONE !! and
we could have threads of peoples seeing the CHEMtrails,
talking ALONE !! Possible ?

Blue skies and thanks.

The only problem I see with this, is that it goes a little too far...in that, if I post something, and I believe I am correct, I want the opportunity to be shown I may be wrong, but not by a heckler or an intentional agent of some sort.

If we don't have access to opposition in our theories, it gives us no opportunity to learn and grow from our own misunderstandings.

It does get tiring talking to people who agree with you all the time. There should be better controls over the opposition though in case they get out of hand, unruly, rude, or intentionally misleading.

reply to post by videoworldwide



videoworldwide, I don't think I could of said it better myself..

2nd line here

How about having a thread title of sorts that indicates the thread is designed to address the OP's subject matter only for academic discussion, not for "dude your idea is wack" type of comments or multiple comments from the same person disagreeing with everything the OP says with substantive proof. Some people want to explore the possibilities of a issue, not get distracted by people wanting to prove their idea is better.

reply to post by videoworldwide


One of the venues you might want to explore is the debate forum ... where you and another member can have a formal debate on a subject of your mutual choosing. If you want to know more details about that MemoryShock happens to be a moderator there and I'm sure he'll be happy to take you through the process.

Alternatively, you can "buy in" to the RATS (Really Above Top Secret) forum where discussion, whilst slower paced, can be a little more cerebral. If your topic is politically oriented, you can also join the Bully Pulpit forum where only considered responses are encouraged/tolerated. You can ask a moderator how to go about doing that.

Other than that, as long as folk participating on one of your threads are within the T&C, there's very little that can be done. As we are often reminded, the best way to deal with trollish posts, is to simply ignore them.

Hope some of the above helps.

[edit on 5 Aug 2009 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by schrodingers dog



Well then maybe this kind of thing could be added as well, as an option to post in. Self Moderated Threads Forum

Even to test it out and see how it flies....
Might be a good idea.

Your response BTW, is well taken, but it does not address my needs and the needs of some people.

I do not want to choose who I have discussion with, until after they blow it, and I want to get rid of them.

And...
I really don't want to debate sometimes, only to discuss. I don't mind opposition to my ideas, as long as it is courteous.

The main problem is the trolls, and then their endless posts of nonesense and the disinfo agents who keep attacking, but in ways they could never get banned or kicked off the thread. This just creates pages of endless gibberish people have to sort through to get to the meat of the post.

My idea would allow the "meat" of the post to be held intact, according to the original poster, and they would be able to sort out what they believed was either complete bs, or intentioanl misleading or some arbitrary idea or rambling.

None of the forums address this need, exactly, and it's a very important thing that people should have access to and be able to use.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
reply to post by MemoryShock

 

I was not complaining about you guys, here.

I did not take you post to be the case. But I have to disagree with your thesis.

The whole point of ATS is a discussion of the issues. I find it very difficult to believe that someone who has a vested interest in a particular point of view would be able to handle dissenting opinions on a fair or rational basis.

As you note, the mod staff here at ATS does participate in discussions: we are members first, staff second. It is a rule that a moderator participating as a member in a thread will not take action as a moderator in said thread. Its a simple premise, if you have a vested interest in the thread your ability to moderate said thread without bias is in question.

In that light, if you want a thread where you have 100's of replies that agree with you and no dissention ATS may not be the place for it. As an OP of a thread, as is any member if you feel the thread is drifing away from the topic or other members are violating the Terms and Conditions of the site, file a complaint. This allows multiple members of the staff to review the issue at hand.

Hope this helps

Fred

reply to post by MemoryShock


You could be right, about the cliques, but you could be wrong as well, because it hasn't been tried out, ever, I don't think.

And, if people were just banned form a particular thread, but not everything that person posts, it could be more democratic for everyone.

Of course, the usual rules still apply, no attacking people, period.
But, say for instance,
my recent post on Zebra Imaging,...it got overtaken in some ways by _boneZ_.
This really upsets me because my intention was to post about holograms and a particular company, but instead he kept challenging me on proving there were no planes on 911. Although I do believe there were no planes, I do not believe it was necessarily holograms, but I wanted to open that up for discussion, around this company.
His posts were not completely off topic, since they were about 911, but he kept baiting me over and over, and would not let up, leading to endless pages of gibberish, then folowed me onto another thread and did the same thing, even though I made no mention of either planes or holograms.

No mods would ever get him off my posts, or stop him since he didn;t violate any rules, but he drowned out my post in gibberish and there is nothing I can do about it.

With this option, I could have banned him right away, for his direct violations on my right to have a particular kind of conversation....
Before he ever "invaded" my thread, he would have thought twice about his approach and attitude, since it would be "my thread" and he would have to have respect or he would get booted and post removed.

If he has a problem with the material we are discussing, he could post a "retort to discussion about so and so...thread, and he could then moderate that one and have a discussion on HIS OWN TURF, NOT MINE.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE SO COOL!!!!

Personally, I would be MUCH more encouraged to promote real discussion on this board.

Usually, I don;t because I already know what will happen with all the trolls and disinfo agents and now that we all know that Israeli Intelligence and the CIA spend millions hiring people to infiltrate forums and twist and distort conversations and information, GOD KNOWS it would be a blessing a long time coming to the REAL TRUTHERS.


[edit on 5-8-2009 by videoworldwide]

I understand your dilemma, and all of us run across this issue on a daily basis, but ...

You must also consider the nature of any forum community including ATS.

In "real life" you can pick and choose whom you converse with, who's opinions you cherish and/or respect, and discard those you wish to distance yourself from.

A forum such as ATS does not afford one such caprice. The price one pays for being exposed to a multitude of new information, interesting perspectives, and rewarding discourse is that one's opinion is open to the community as a whole.

What you are talking about is essentially the application of real life personal dynamics onto a forum context. This of course cannot work by definition ...

Not only because of the inherent chaotic abuse that would ensue, but also because it is at its very essence counterintuitive and counterproductive to the idea of an internet community.

As such, you have to take (again providing that others are within the T&C) the good with the bad. Ultimately the choice always lies in whether you believe the benefits you get by participating in any forum exceed the distractions.

To expect otherwise (and I don't mean this in a negative way) is an issue stemming from false expectations on your end.

reply to post by videoworldwide



You seem to be asking for a forum or means by which to Control the flow of discussion in Your threads by merely "actioning" those who voice dissenting views or opinions. In my opinion, that's far from what ATS is all about... for that matter, free and open discussion, too.

Personally,
Finding one's self unable to fend off or simply ignore those who who display "trollish" tendencies, or those who seem to make an appearance merely to disrupt said discussions, would, to me, demonstrate that perhaps that individual doesn't Really have all their ducks or facts in a row - An individual who is not truly capable of supporting, defending and/or backing their stances with facts and documented information or data.

i.e.
Kicking other "chefs" from the kitchen when it either gets to hot or the stew no longer tastes to Your liking.

?


[edit on 5-8-2009 by Annie Mossity]

reply to post by schrodingers dog


There are many things we can do on the internet that we cannot do in real life.

Why put limitations on our experiences?

We can experience everything.

We do not need to place ourselves in such limited thought and freedoms anymore.

If some people want this, they should be able to have it, if enough people want it, it would be beneficial for a forum to adopt this approach, even if it's limited to one forum that is set up that way.

And obviously, this is not something I "expect", it's something that I think would be beneficial for everyone.

And, in case you missed this...I did say that everyone can participate in the beginning of the thread...but if and once the OP sees a pattern of consistent abuses or mindless posts they can be deleted, and warned, and then banned if the person get's out of hand. The ban would only be for that one thread.

This is like saying to a group of people, hey, come on into this room, for discussion, and if you can keep it cool, you won;t be asked to leave.

Like turning a forum into a chat room, in some ways, but better than chat, since it's a forum.

Let's not limit ourselves and what we can have by what we are used to.

Originally posted by Annie Mossity
reply to post by videoworldwide

 

You seem to be asking for a forum or means by which to Control the flow of discussion in Your threads by merely "actioning" those who voice dissenting views or opinions. In my opinion, that's far from what ATS is all about... for that matter, free and open discussion, too.

Personally,
Finding one's self unable to fend off or simply ignore those who who display "trollish" tendencies, or those who seem to make an appearance merely to disrupt said discussions, would, to me, demonstrate that perhaps that individual doesn't Really have all their ducks or facts in a row - An individual who is not truly capable of supporting, defending and/or backing their stances with facts and documented information or data.

i.e.
Kicking other "chefs" from the kitchen when it either gets to hot or the stew is no longer tastes to their liking.

?

Please read all my posts here before responding, please....
I can tell you have not, because I stated I never wanted to limit opposing discussion, and that I actually embrace it whenever it is respectful.

I have been involved in activism for 22 years now. I have been online since 1996, and I have been a part of dozens and dozens of forums. I am not "unable to deal with" anything.

You really don't appear to follow my intentions, so please re-read the posts, first.