Subsequent to user request and modbox discussion I decided to post this poll where users could comment and a little more detail could be made in the options. This is not binding on the management. This poll may be updated with new choices or more questions in line with comments made in this thread. We are trying to formalize the posting rules for the tracker so that everyone will know what is acceptable and what is not.
The first question is multiple choice, you can select more than one option.
In addition to the fact based conspiracy documents and documentaries, I think we also should include educational documentaries that are hard to find, like a lot of the alternate energy items. I'm not totally for it but I don't have a major problem with fiction if it's conspiracy related, like "Chemical Wedding" deal with Crowley. If it is fiction that does not relate to conspiracy stuff, you can get that anywhere and we don't need to clutter our tracker with it. I think primarily the ConCen tracker should be harder to find and more hard hitting information, documents and documentaries.
The various radio shows like AJ, C2C and others are not of my interest but should be allowed as they discuss our kind of topics, even though it's biased to each broadcaster.
So desktops, drawings, cartoons and such should not be on the tracker. We have a video selection for YouTube and Google and other web vids.
I just had a big stream of consciousness post that was hard to follow that I had to erase. Basically I see it like this. Categories are difficult so case by case with some of this stuff might be useful.
Allow:
1)Things that aren't related strictly to the conspiracies that can give context. Examples include (but not limited to: historical information (especially pertinent issues such as how governments operate), alternate energy, religion, spirituality. All of these categories might have useful context but it's more of a case by case assessment.
2) Things that aren't related strictly but help offer methods to protect against the conspiracy. Examples include (but not limited to) survivalism, alternate-energy, how to make buckshot out of acorns??
3) Interesting as fuck stuff that isn't strictly conspiracy like: electric universe, atlantis, and other ideas that may be pushed out of normal channels by institutional dogma.
4) All the yahoos that have radio-shows or podcasts about conspiracies.
5) Bios on individuals, but they have to at least be somewhat related: Crowley, Hitler, Tesla, Hertzel (they got a Hertzel bio?)
Don't Allow:
1) Docu-dramas or Mock-umentaries. Example: Fake cannibalism documentary.
2) Educational material that is not relevant in one of the previously mentioned cases. Video on how to bake ginger-snaps might be an example.
3) Acknowledged fiction. Seriously? There's enough fiction on the tracker without putting acknowledged fiction into the mix.
Edit: On a side note, about comments. As someone who likes to look at all sorts of stuff, I've noticed a few things. First is that people often don't give very helpful descriptions of their torrents. So I try to check out the comments. There's a major bitch-fest going on with cross-post spams between the religious folks and the spiritualist/alien folks. I want to know what some torrent is about and all the comments are "this is alien agenda propaganda" or "Christians are ignorant douches" I don't really see how people lashing out because they have questions about their particular belief system in anyway helps me determine if the torrent is something I would find interesting. It's getting as bad as the Jesuit/Jew war that Ctrl put the smackdown on, and frankly it annoys the shit out of me. Just thought I'd add that mini rant in.
If a discriminatory distinction is going to be enforced between fact and fiction, who's going to be the enlightened arbiter in deciding such a sensitive matter necessarily on a case by case basis? Also what if some arbitrary upload contains a mixture of fact and fiction? Can it be uploaded only if a certain threshold of factual content is transgressed?
Also, who is going to decide what is factual and what is fiction? To dissuade controversy, what will be acceptable to sensibly and justifiably distinguish one from the other? What amount of evidence will suffice?
Regarding accepting or denying some prospecting upload material, who has the proper skills to responsibly and discretely decide, on the one hand, what is sufficiently factual so as to warrant acceptance and, on the other hand, what is sufficiently fictional so as to justify denial?
Is there going to be one enlightened soul taking up such a noble but daunting task? Or is there going to be panel? A council of ConCen elders, if you will... Or: "Censorship Board", if that tickles your fancy more... If the name sounds a bit too disturbing one could always dress it up in a euphemism, something that is quite fashionable in governmental agencies also. How about, "Admittance Review Committee"? Or ARC for short. It has a nice marketing ring to it since, just like Noah's Arc, it alludes to lifesaving capabilities. And that is what we like to see of course, torrents that have lifesaving potential...
Or is it perhaps left to the immeasurable wisdom of each and every prospecting uploader to sensibly decide what is factual enough and what is not? But what if, heaven forbid, the otherwise infallible uploader has a tad bit moment of mental infirmity and in the heat of the moment fails to be able to decide if his or her stuff is factual enough to be allowable?
Or is there some agnostic escape hatch a temporarily rendered incapacitated uploader can resort to? In the light of minimizing censorship and hypocrisy while optimizing integrity and open-mindedness, this personally would definitely be my favorite choice.
In addition, I would welcome disinformation to be put on the tracker also, if only for sake of being able to become familiarized with disinfo, and detect it. What good are slogans such as "know thy enemy", if one is not even able to recognize it?
In other words, convince me of the merit and justification of enforcing censorship beyond copyright concerns...
Pick up the gun... heheh
The goal is not censorship, the goal is self-determination. If you can post anything you want, which seems to be what you are arguing for, then this might as well be mininova or pirate bay. There are plenty of places you can get the latest James Bond movie why do you need to have it here? Certainly a case could be made that JB movies are propaganda for the good old Queen and Country mindset and upload justified on that basis. Due to the theme of this tracker absolutely anything could be justified with a little creative description.
What this thread is about is to try and codify the posting rules so that everyone is on the same page and nobody needs get bent out of shape if the moderators have to do their job.Beside that as I have implied elsewhere on these forums free speech is an illusion. A lot of people think they ought to be able to say anything they want with no repercussions and that cannot happen in the world unless nobody hears it. Even then it can possibly corrupt the person saying it. If you keep telling yourself lies, you will start to believe them.
So, you want to know who gets to decide? the moderators and ultimately the site administrators. You know, the people who are trying to consult you users. We already have to do it now and the rules we have to follow are in dispute. We make good faith attempts to keep the tracker properly maintained and we get reamed by people who ought to know better. If I delete your torrent, it is not because I am acting against you it is because I think it contravenes the currently nebulous rules. I don't get off on doing it and I doubt the other moderators really do either but you cannot convince the paranoid of the truth that they are not that important to be persecuted and there is a very real tendency for people who have been opressed to try and oppress others if they get the chance.
Some people around here seem to need their uploading fix and care less if it is particularly suitable. Anyway I do not expect a group of malcontents to bow down to my (insignificant) authority, my comments are my own and I have not really conspired with anyone else in creating them. This poll is a result of my frustration with the vague posting guidelines I am bound to enforce and I, in particular, am behind the push to clarify those rules.
Quote:If a discriminatory distinction is going to be enforced between fact and fiction, who's going to be the enlightened arbiter in deciding such a sensitive matter necessarily on a case by case basis? Also what if some arbitrary upload contains a mixture of fact and fiction? Can it be uploaded only if a certain threshold of factual content is transgressed?
Also, who is going to decide what is factual and what is fiction? To dissuade controversy, what will be acceptable to sensibly and justifiably distinguish one from the other? What amount of evidence will suffice?
I'm not sure if this is a response to my comments or not. Maybe you misconstrued what I meant and/or I didn't make my point clearly. I think that anything that purports to be fact should be allowed for people to decide for themselves, unless there are special circumstances like the person putting out the information has made death threats against the board admin. I just think things that admit to be fictional should be disallowed.
Quote:Quote:If a discriminatory distinction is going to be enforced between fact and fiction, who's going to be the enlightened arbiter in deciding such a sensitive matter necessarily on a case by case basis? Also what if some arbitrary upload contains a mixture of fact and fiction? Can it be uploaded only if a certain threshold of factual content is transgressed?
Also, who is going to decide what is factual and what is fiction? To dissuade controversy, what will be acceptable to sensibly and justifiably distinguish one from the other? What amount of evidence will suffice?
I'm not sure if this is a response to my comments or not. Maybe you misconstrued what I meant and/or I didn't make my point clearly. I think that anything that purports to be fact should be allowed for people to decide for themselves, unless there are special circumstances like the person putting out the information has made death threats against the board admin. I just think things that admit to be fictional should be disallowed.
Unless some stuff is entirely off-topic, such as MTV garbage or Scooby Doo episodes, I do not think it should be censored out. Even if it is known to be fictitious it can still have its merit, if it's on topic and if only for sake of propaganda analysis. Maybe a little "THIS IS FICTION" disclaimer would be in order but I do not like the idea of preventive censorship. I do not know about other folk here, but I for one am too old to be led by the hand in such matters. Also it makes ConCen look like a bully if censorship is stepped up unnecessarily IMO.
Get off it with your accusations of censorship. You get to say pretty much whatever you like and the team has been pretty lenient with the crap that has been allowed.
BTW MTV garbage? evidence of societal programming -- mind control techniques how is that not on-topic, same thing can be said about scooby doo. Nothing can be taken at face value when you start looking for conspiracies.
It is not too hard to distinguish between unabashed fiction and something that takes itself seriously. As far as I am concerned all that religious stuff is complete fiction but nobody is advocating its removal. Should we allow the Da Vinci Code? what about National Treasure? Some things have no intrinsic value to the tracker and carry significant legal liability, if you want to throw these up as torrents you are going to have to include in-depth analyses along with them to justify fair usage, on their own they have no place.
Instead of spouting off nonsense about how hard put-upon you are because we don't want you to post "Stranger In A Strange Land", try to think realistically for a second or two.
We need to keep things manageable.
1. As far as the fiction/ fact goes, my guideline would be if it is presented as such. If it is presented as fact, then that's what it gets labeled and then it's up to you to decide if the label the maker gave it is accurate or not. I'm not interested in passing judgment on it. I'm just interested in keeping "The Simpons" from being uploaded here.
2. If it's Hollywood films, you can get them anywhere. If it's an independent fictional story based on actual events that is not all over the net (for example, that recent story of a researcher into 9/11 gets caught up in the big boys game) then we would allow it here.
3. Scarcity. If it is a topic we cover here and it's more rare information, then it must be uploaded here. That's what I think is the most valuable aspect of the ConCen tracker. Over the years the info I've found on it that is damn near impossible to get anywhere else. It's how I found this site in the first place!
what i want to see is anything i can learn from. things that spark my imagination. really that includes just about everything beyond popular culture
fiction... 1984, animal farm, grapes of wrath, crime and punishment, brave new world, to kill a mocking bird, citizen kane... far more informative and valuable than most history/discovery channel documentaries:D
edit: pleased you brought the subject up - felt frustrated about just ticking a box (which i don't do anyway)
Well I was talking with ctrl in the tracker modbox the other day and he was somewhat unsatisfied with the tracker poll. I suggested the forum's polls as being more versatile and thought he would set one up here but I guess he got busy so I set this one up. If you can think of other questions related to the subject I'm sure I could modify the poll to include them but even though I set the other poll to link to this one this one does not seem as popular.
I was thinking of announcing this poll the way I announced the forum problems we had here but that is probably excessive.
Thanks for the question, Frazzled. Great start on getting a real purpose on what we are here for.
Let's not forget the mission and purpose of the tracker. This can be found in the name of the tracker itself: Conspiracy Central. First and foremost, it is a Conspiracy issue tracker. I have no problems when we delve into fringe areas, but when we get into (not even real documentaries) about people in Africa killing themselves, this is when I question WTF?
The shock value is not necessarily of value here, I'm afraid. As you said Fraz, post those on many other trackers, like TPB, or Mininova.
IMHO, our mission and purpose is exploring the conspiratorial side of history, with some variation on that, but mainly just that.
the simpsons of course is out but then if it was the episode of the simpsons which had all the 911 stuff in it prior to 'the event' it could be it becomes a necessary part of the conspiratorial archive and research materials.
just an example to suggest the angles of delineation as to what is or isn't valid is not necessarily black and white.
A Huxley's 'fictional' book - brave new world in a pdf. or the fictional film "the shape of things to come" by HG Wells for another examples
It's a difficult question and it might even be that, after what is clearly not suitable material has been purged and/or guidelines re-assembled, there would have to be a case by merit in operation essentially.
But basically I agree with what Genteel said. my 2bob
Personally I do not agree. Only by having clear guidelines can we avoid the kind of brouhaha so common on the forum.
Speaking of that Simpsons episode, I banned it last month. Once you start making exceptions to the rules the rules cease to have any meaning.
I do not see a big problem with requiring some kind of critical analysis if you want to post that kind of fiction, other than for the poster. I knew a guy who wrote a thesis on Pink Floyd's "The Wall", I am not sure what was in it but if someone wanted to post it complete with a rip of the album I'd say that was more acceptable than just posting the album.
It is just too easy to rip stuff from around the net.
I think you misunderstood my meaning - I think there SHOULD be clear guidelines.
In the case of the simpsons episode - I do not think it is the same as a thesis about Pink Floyd's 'the wall'
It's a clear case of predictive programming - conscious or not.
And therefore IMO entirely of merit
It is not at all comparative to 'ripping of an album' or etc
Quote:Once you start making exceptions to the rules the rules cease to have any meaning
I am not willing to engage in deconstructing this epithet, It is this perhaps a bit narrow though..to be functional and effective without cutting out some viable material along the way - so it needs to be considered carefully apon what the rules will be.
what I said was YES to a set of guidelines BUT due to the nature of material ie in this case an episode of a MSM fictional animation show - thereby a case by merit option also needs to be operable.
It's clear that someone can go find that episode of the simpsons on the web and download it - but that is one instance there are countless videos out there I wish I had which are not now available. some of them 'fiction' too.
Essentially, the arbitors must,together, must have a good working knowledge of the area and neither be partisan nor incredulous to subject material within the area ie conspiracy research, IMHO.