[Hoax] threads on the front page

It would seem that the [Hoax] tags only serve to add interest to a thread which has been deemed as a hoax and most often even caused the author to be banned.

Why are these topics left in the system even after the author has been banned? If the thread was in violation of board policy and it's author was banned for posting a hoax why is the thread not locked with an explanation stating the details? Allowing such a thread to persist only serves the initial intentions of the author to bring chaos to the forum and subverts the stated intentions of ATS to Deny Ignorance, not to mention providing the author with a sense of accomplishment.

Why are these threads allowed front page real estate even after the OP has been bannished from ATS?


admin edit: Removed second HOAX tag to avoid confusion

[edit on 4-26-2008 by Springer]

reply to post by SystemiK

---

I think they usually stay active for a few days afterward. That way, everyone can laugh about proving the hoax, high five each other, and what not. Then the thread dies, and goes into the depths.

I see no reason to delete them. Sometimes they are fun to review, and definitely good to keep for reference.

Each one of these that we compile and keep around for reference is one more example of the bollocks hoaxers try to pull. Having these examples to compare with "new suspects" makes the sorting out process a little easier.

And like Sublime620 says, there's a few of them that are somewhat entertaining to read as the reality sets in.

As far as generating more interest, I hadn't thought of that, but I am thrilled with the prospect. The more people who read these will hopefully mean fewer people to get suckered in on the next one.

Springer...

Springer.... just hypothetically.... would it not also be an added benefit to leave the (HOAX) threads up, just in case HYPOTHETICALLY there was truth to them, and somehow that truth got subverted by a "dirty" staff member, and in doing so, the thread was labelled a hoax in order to divert serious truthers away from it?

And... if so... how would you go about rectifying a situation where a thread got hastily labeled as such?



[edit on 26-4-2008 by indierockalien]

Fair enough. I can accept that.

Not wanting to speak for Springer on the matter I can give you my observations having been on staff quite a bit.

(HOAX) Tags are not used very often and cannot by applied by a single staff member at will. There must and always is discussion on the matter by the staff as a whole. As you can see the membership is quite adept and sniffing out bogus claims or shopped images. We in fact have become a place to vett such claims and images.

As such we as a community are able to further the cause of UFO research and study by such vetting.

reply to post by indierockalien

---

Our policy dictates that only one of the Three Amigos (owners) may label a thread with dreaded ATS [HOAX] Tag. This, to the best of our ability, limits the possibility of anything like what you describe happening.

I would also point out that I do not apply the [HOAX] tag to any thread unless the evidence is solid and we have a consensus from the members participating in the thread and the staff.

Again, only one of the owners may apply the tag and even then it's with much discussion and solid evidence.

As FredT points out, our membership are champions at ferreting out the details and tracking down the evidence that can either support a claim or refute one. With millions of people reading this site every month it's a great venue to "get the word out" along with that comes the fact it's also an easy way to attempt to get LOTS of attention for a hoax.

It's a balance that, we as a community, seem to do very well at maintaining.

Should new evidence come forth that refutes a [HOAX] tag, we will certainly discuss it, and if it holds water we will reverse the call, it hasn't happened yet but you never know.

Springer...


[edit on 4-26-2008 by Springer]

We also have become quite skilled at debunking some "Official Studies".



I am not kidding when I say that I love this site and would choose to work with everyone here on just about anything...

reply to post by FredT

---

i can say i agree with this, but to take it a step further, just look at the process of some of the research that goes into some of these claims. theres so much good work that guys like me can get the cliffs notes version of some of the backround history/research/resources and its quite amazing at times.

take 'serpo' for example. the template find? incredible!!! so by applying the same research and backround checking that goes into a {hoax} to a more credible story the truth can come out for or against, but its the PROCESS i find so amazing.

i think when the day comes that the members of ATS have ruled out all mundane explainations for someones story, the other explainations are going to be quite intriguing

but, that may just be me

Right on the money, as usual mate.

They attract people to more serious threads as well, simply by advertising the fact that they are there.

It's all good.

reply to post by Damocles

---

We are bascially a Massive parallel processing organic computer. You get a problem and everybody involved puts his or her expertise to work. We all bring unique and individual contributions to the game and it shows.

The UFO forum is not unique to this either. Many of the other forums have this hard hitting but fair analysis of topics. You really have to bring your A game if you want to play.

LOL THIS my friend, i have noticed time and time again.

i like to think ive measured up a time or two though