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

page: 6
52
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
I have also watched many "True Believers" simply ignore plausible facts and or evidence simply because it refutes their world view or belief systems.


And how do experiencers fit into this equation? Is that not beyond belief?

Should not sharers be given a level of credence and protection, say the process of sharing provide in comparison to regurgitating others information holds more personal truth, and that critisicm of that truth might deserve a less brutal analysis.




posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

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




I totally agree on that.
I don't think negative voting could or would work.


here is some traffic info on boxingscene.com

www.alexa.com...



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by chapter29
Should we (ATS) step into some moderate editorial oversight to better police obviously outlandish topics


Like this statement? Come on now, Above Top Secret, what is the center line you are trying to pull people to here. There is a nice way to disagree and then there is a brutal way to disagree. There are other people on the other side of this message box, keep that in mind is all that is being said.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Why do some topics have a rough and maybe personal offence?

Well there might be a good reason.

NO one likes to be stepped on when they present a topic or a comment.

We all have pride in our work and knowledge, or even our source of knowledge.

But knowledge is not just what you know. Knowledge also falls in under how you present your work to a public audience. And how you behave with your knowledge.

Presenting the facts or ideas is one thing. But building up a sentence with facts and ideas in a non offending way is a trick in it self.



Responding to a topic or comment using personal feelings within your response is also very common. Some people just have to fit in their subjective personal whews, just to make the point offencive on a personal level. This is of course hidden well within the facts in their response.

This is probably a common behaviour with some people. It falls natural for some people to respond in this manner. And they don't even see anything wrong with it. Because they had their facts right. Therefor they feel they have the right to abuse and offend.

Some people on ATS don't like each other and can't get along. They often tend to attack or find mistakes in his or her comment or Topic, just to let him know that he or she is watching them. Its like you trashed my last topic or comment. Here i am right back at yeah!!.... you messed up this time. Now we are even.

I think the solution to ATS culture lies within every one. We all have to take responsibility for our actions. Non of us knows everything so we should respect the level of knowledge other people have compare to our own.

The challenge is to do the right thing, because its so easy to the wrong thing.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
One thing that might be nice is to have the grey area actually specifically spelled out in terms of what this category means at the top of every page so this wouldn't have to be posted over and over again.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mystiq & QBSneak000
 


I have never been to the Grey Area, and probably never will. I've probably missed out on alot.

That means that my bigfoot story, instead of going to the knowledgeable Crypto forum, gets sent to the garbage almost immediately. I'm posting because I want answers and to hear about other people's experiences.

My idea is not that you can't question what the person is saying. Someone could purposefully say "That area lacks proper food sources to support a 600 lb primate...". They can't say "Provide a picture for my analysis" or something like that.

The more I think about it, the more vague I see it is. Oh well, it was an idea.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
What I've seen repeatedly over the years is that a very positive thread with many positive and constructive replies will eventually be hit with an unnecessarily harsh negative reply, and the thread then devolves into a mudslinging argument, usually between the lone negative poster and the original poster. This destroys an otherwise positive and uplifting thread.

But the thing that really bugs me is that the majority of positive posters on such a thread don't speak up to refute the negative interloper. Almost invariably, the ensuing verbal battle is limited to two or three angry voices, but the other 75 positive posters choose not to get involved and just abandon the thread. If this majority of positive posters had simply stood up to defend the thread, I feel fairly certain that the negative minority could be quickly driven away.

I think the "invertebrate" assessment was spot-on, not only in the sense that many members are overly sensitive, but in that too many of us simply give up and flee when a bully walks into the room.

We need to stand up as a community and kick some ass now and then in the interest of maintaining the quality of these forums.

— Doc Velocity



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Just look at the mess over at www.n4g.com a console game site. You have to post items and then they get voted in or reported.. Just a mess.

And it has become over run with "fan boys". I do not not fancy having to read "STFU you clown, Your just a Nibiru Fan boy" type replies



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Bill, the voting system would take care of much of the negativity, as people would see those responses as nothing but one sided rhetoric and vote those answers down.

This would also be much less burdensome on the mods trying to keep the peace.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Well first just what is an outlandish subject? I find a lot of subjects outlandish and so I debate them, but to start some “moderate editorial oversight” reminds me of Fahrenheit 451 in you start to have a group determining just what is outlandish and what is not.

I would think the community can regulate their own and leave the moderation to personal attacks. When you think about it, many times when someone posts a post that is not overly outlandish their bias, perceived facts and inflated evidence to prove their point is what actually makes it outlandish, and this would make it hard to moderate other than in debate.

I also suggest that those who like to post in this way then it should not be a surprise if the community reacts harshly and with justification. I see many posts that started out as nothing more than extreme bashing, but what is extreme to me might not be extreme to someone else, so in any case it is still a freedom of speech and the freedom to counter it in dialogue should be there too.



[edit on 5-5-2009 by Xtrozero]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Esoterica
 


No, if its a personal testimony given without proof, and most of them don't have that due to the nature of the event being disclosed, its often transferred to the grey area. To me this should be a safer and more neutral place to discuss experiences. But it ends up being far more stressful than that in the end. For those whose sole purpose seems to be to attack people constantly with demands for proof and question their sanity, surely another thread in some other category would suit you better.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by mystiq]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
i also have something to say about this, i've not been here long but on most of the conspiricy threads and the more esoteric threads usually the same people jump in with there 2 cents worth, not mentionong any names but i have seen a pattern in the same people and usually can predict what they are going to say, and instead of any healthy type of arguement to the contrary they just seem to be getting their kicks out of ridiculing people and insulting them, its a free world and people should be entitled to express their beliefs without fear of being headhunted on a site thats devoted to opening the mind and being out and out blatantly insulted! people like that do not belong here, they belong on some type of fight site taking their aggression out on like minded people like themselves, as none of us open minded people are here for a fight, just to academically discuss things, be it as well if its of an outlandish or esoteric nature, anyway thats my rant over for the day so carry on as normal peeps! i love you all really...



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
With all due respect, perhaps the focus shouldn't be on whether comments are too negative, or trumpeting how many new members the site has, but on the administration of the forums.

Perhaps what is needed is to turn your attention from quantity to quality. Maybe the goal of moderation should not be to censor people but to create a better ATS experience. I know I tend to read much more than I post here because I see this site becoming more and more of a time waster due to a lack of sensible moderation (IMHO).

I am sure everyone on here can relate to the issue of sensational thread topics -- the ones where someone posts some "astounding proof" of alien life which is neither proof nor astounding. Currently, there is a thread titled, Very Scary Prediction and it is about Billy Meier. Now, if the thread title was changed to Billy Meier Scary Prediction, it would reflect the content, plus get the attention it deserves, which is little to none.

The tabloid headline stuff really should stop and this is the simplest way to use moderation to improve the site. Simply allow members to report threads that do not have an appropriate title, and even suggest a better one. It should follow journalism rules.

This would stop probably one-third of the negativity. Too many people enter threads that they would have avoided, become angry and attack the OP. In the above thread, my guess is that only one person would have commented had the title reflected the post.

The quickest way to kill the success of a site is to demand that people "play nice" because you ultimately run off those who wish to debate on an intellectual level. Instead, make it easier for people to use and find what they want.

The less time a member spends wading through the crap on here, the more time they will have to devote to providing interesting content.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by VelmaLu]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I guess I am trying to understans the nature of that which is considered "negative." I see those who post articles with a red notation placed to the left saying "ignore." As a newbie, that seems negative to me - am I wrong in my interpretation? I have come across articles from an outside sorce - is it negative because someone does not like the topic?

"Aussies consider population control
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 5/5/2009 8:00:00 AM
An extreme environmental group in Australia has proposed a radical fix for the alleged problem of man-made climate change.

The group is called Sustainable Population Australia, and they are calling for a one-child policy similar to China's. The reason, they claim, is that Australia's population of roughly 22 million is taking too much of a toll on the country's environment and creating a large carbon footprint. With the one-child policy, they hope to eventually reduce Australia's population to 7 million.

Jack Sonnemann is with the Australian Federation for the Family. "These people do not have our best in mind," he contends. "And the sustainable population thing, I mean my goodness, they talk about the pollution that we produce. Australia produces I think one-tenth of one percent of worldwide emissions, and yet they are talking about needing to cut our population here? It's just not feasible."

Tim Flannery, 2007's Australian of the year, is a member of the radical group and believes that wealthy Australians need to pay poor farmers to plow carbon into their fields in an attempt to curb so-called climate change, Sonnemann says. Flannery is also an advocate of global dimming and says sulfur should be added to jet fuel to accomplish that task.

Global dimming advocates believe that adding pollution to the upper atmosphere will block out the sun and thus decrease any warming. In the United States, Obama's science advisor suggested a similar approach to combating alleged climate change."

Some might say the characterization of the group as "radical" or "extreme"is negative. So I guess I need clarification on the term "negative", since it could be based on "whose ox is getting gored."



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Before I read through all the replies to this thread, apologies if already suggested, my first thought would be to have a scoring system on posts similar to youtube comments. That way if a post receives a certain amount of "thumbs down"
it becomes omitted from the thread unless you specifically click on it.
Now I'm going back to read the other replies.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
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]


So how hard would it be to track members votes on a particular thread for computers that are now able to do 1 billion terraflops or whatever it is per second.

I mean, if you allow say 3 votes per thread to vote that crap down, and no more, then how could the "clique" gang up. The voting limit, and favorable by the other voters would negate any chance of ganging up by online mobs.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I just want to say I'm sorry for saying all that stuff about all of your moms.

I am quite sure they are all lovely women and in the interest of full disclosure I haven't slept with that many of them personally, I just tend to use hyperbole.






But seriously... I love ATS *because* of the non-censorship, the acceptance of alternative viewpoints and all the thousands of folks like me who come here to learn, to debate and to debunk.

Aside from posts that are blatant attacks/insults without any redeeming content I think it's great the way it is.

I have always had good luck and a prompt response with the Alert function.

Let's face it... in this crazy jacked-up world the places where you can go and talk freely about controversial subjects are getting rarer and rarer.

So, speaking for myself (and your mom) I say keep up the good work!



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I think ATS basically is just fine the way it is. The Mods do a great job. As long as the T&C are followed i don't think there is a real problem. Other than personal insults (which we have an alert button for) i think everything else just comes with a site like this that has such a large membership. Perhaps the members just need to be a little more responsible for reporting any abuse or violations of the T&C's.

Personally i do believe that we have a certain number of members that seem to strive for a thread where they can bash religion, a certain country, etc. However i also believe it's up to the members to either ignore these members and threads if it offends them, or hit the alert button if they are offended, or feel it's a problem. I've learned to just stay away from threads and posters like this.

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "this culture of negativity" I think maybe we're all just a little negative right now due to the economical situation that we're all faced with.

Please don't "police" this site, we get enough of that from our government


ATS is like a sanctuary where we can all come and dicuss things that are important to us, (whether it be mainstream concerns, or outlandish ideas) in an open enviroment, and have a real chance to expand our minds.

You have created a GREAT site
please keep it that way.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Yes and there is something to be said also about those who would want to view the site in "AS POSTED" fashion as well as by popular ordered vote.

Springer, I know this would really take ATS to the highest level of network organization possible. Imagine the ability to view ATS in either fashion.

Not to mention the chance to give people an "online" voice that has a chance of getting recognized.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
This forum is one of the best moderated and unbiasly moderated forums I've ever been on, and the standards are clearly higher than most. Kudos for that!

As a parent, I would approach this problem from a similar perspective. Sure, you could implement more rules about behavior and responses, and even delete posts based on required criteria, but it would tax your staff and limit the natural flow of the community. I think approaching this from the opposite standpoint would not only be creative, but far more effective. Instead of dealing with the offense by lumping everyone together, groom the overwhelming majority to tackle the problem in a better way.

For instance, ENCOURAGE respectful responses, regardless of how silly a post may seem. I can't count how many times I've witnessed general, overall rudeness just because they feel like it. It's as if they are LOOKING for an argument, and it doesn't matter what they argue about as long as they get it. Personally, I respond to what floats my boat. If it's a silly post, I move on. Plain and simple. If no one is responding to a certain line of posts from a particular poster, then that poster will do one of two things: a. give up and leave, b. reach down and tap into his/her normal human behavior of wanting to be accepted, and thus reevaluate the quality of their posts. Responses are an affirmation that says "hey, you're not alone". Replying to a poster just to argue, flame, or criticize because they disagree, is not a good reason in my mind to give attention to it. Instead of replying to people you disagree with, ignore it....reply to those you DO agree with. Just a like raising children, you give more attention to the good things you want, rather than the bad things. It's no different here.

Everyone has hot "buttons", in which a topic hits a little too close to home, but if the majority were to exercise more restraint in replying to ANYTHING negetive, the problem will go away, or at the very least, will diminish. This may seem like an impossible task, but no more impossible than approaching it from the other way of stepping on roaches every time you see them enter the room....you know the problem is still there and will never go away unless you address the source and clean up your own behaviors (don't leave crumbs to feed the roaches). I'm not equating members to roaches, only the behavior that all of us are succeptable to unless we use restraint.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we have an atmosphere where no one gets to disagree, but there should be a respectful way of going about it. What I'm suggesting is, if that is the sole reason for a response, then don't do it. This forum is like a microcosm of what is going on in the world, where everyone is pushing, pushing, pushing their beliefs and ideas on everyone else, rather than allowing each and every person their freedom to evolve their own thinking without conflict. Everyone can find a niche without conflict, and there is a very wide spectrum of people here with which to do that! The lack of response should send a clear message that either the topic is boring, absurd, or the readers disagree and choose to move on to something else that interests them. Is it really necessary to injure feelings and create more of a negetive atmosphere by stating that you disagree for no other reason than to just be disagreable? However, if a reader finds at least one aspect that they do agree with, it is far more productive to say, "while I don't agree with everything, I like your view on....."

If this were implemented, the absurd posts would manage themselves without any effort on the part of the staff, and the mindset of the group as a whole would start to change by adopting a "reply to what interests you, not what you disagree with" mentality. "Maintenance" will be all that is required after that.

Just my two cents worth!



new topics
top topics
 
52
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join



 
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread460832/pg6
www.abovetopsecret.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2014-10
71148
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:XA5725M5R2WSCEEOKN67LU6ARESMWMMV
<urn:uuid:776db4da-14f6-44e0-991b-8baba637f1bd>
2014-03-08T10:51:18Z
173.193.40.5
sha1:Z6Q5K2N2WPKE3C4F3LB46D2O7HGDX363
<urn:uuid:250a201f-b1aa-4b78-b44a-d6b54364716a>
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread460832/pg6
length
response
<urn:uuid:59d66b15-6ba9-4c81-8e01-64475083576c>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-183-142-35.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2014-10
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for March 2014
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf