Over-estimated ATS Members Revisited... A True Story

Originally posted by Gazrok
There is currently a Guest Speaker event in progress with Mr. Lear. Please look to the Guest Speaker forum for rules, and other information. After the event, other threads about the speaker will be permitted (as I understand it). It should be noted also, that Lear has been a member of ATS for some time. The thread will be locked, as a result of the following guideline...

5- During a scheduled Guest Event, we ask that you please refrain from creating or participating in threads about our guest outside of this forum. Again, this is to ensure there are no other active threads that may be confused with ongoing threads in this forum.

This is not to quell opposition, but simply to not confuse the issue with several ongoing threads in various forums. You are entitled to your opinion, but we do ask that you refrain from such threads while the event is in progress.

This is a good reason to respect this policy. It was the issue of clarity, but now it is an issue of respect.

At the beginning of the Rings contest, a highly anticipated ATS event, details of the game were left so ambiguous that no one other than staff had a clue as to what it was about. This atmosphere of total ambiguity created huge vacuum for mass-speculation, a time honored tradition of regular ATS viewers. At the outset of the game, many members, myself included, capitalized on this opportunity to inject our vast speculations on to the playing field. The paranoia flowed over the boards like Seven Sisters.

What resulted was a sensation, but in effect, all the threads about what the Rings might be about were a marginalization of the legitimacy of the original idea. As messages about the game were released by those who developed it, that information was quickly assimilated into the possibilty pool we had created from nothing. We were out of control, and had produced the approximate effect of nearly marginalizing the concept into extinction. At one point I think I could tell that those trying to make the Rings happen were becoming frustrated over how out of control the speculation had become and how it could threaten the desired amount of fun it would produce. Whenever SO posted information intending to separate the crap we were making up from information that actually pertained to the game, we were quick to 'debunk' and 'discredit' his information on the basis that it was a 'disinformation campaign' or a 'diversionary tactic'. Nobody knew what the hell to think at that point. There were also some very shady characters who played a part, as to whom I still have no clue whether they were pranksters, or actually part of the game.

All this almost spoiled an idea that a lot of people had worked on very hard, for a very long time to make successful. It would be like if you painted the best oil painting you had ever painted to a point, and then your little brother strafed and hosed it down with a super-soaker full of terpentine. That would suck.

So in the case of the John Lear interview, I believe that a bunch of people aiming to debunk, discredit, and generally disrespect a very special guest (one which could spell a much greater degree of success for our beloved virtual home) in his presence would not reflect meritoriously upon any of us. We probably wouldn't get many more guests after that, either.

Not only that, but it might make the difference between John saying, "Hey, screw you clown shoes..." or something like, "Damn, nice working with you. You wanna fly to Vegas for the weekend?" You get my point.

And yes, success is a consideration, since we do have an agenda that we ultimately want to promote, and that is... Deny Ignorance.

I never really intended to play the Rings game, as I am particularly averse to numbers, and all for which they stand, but I intend to go to that site that the winners won and find out what the hell it was about.

All in all, I'm glad things turned out how they did. That was the most fun I've had on the internet since AA. You know what I'm talkin' 'bout, zero-six?

[edit on 21-9-2004 by DeltaChaos]