It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Increasing "Warn" signs lately

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by alien
...are the applications of the Warns seen as unjust? Or is it drawing attention to the 'newness' of the members who received them? Or just randomly mentioning it in passing??

Is there any specific question in regards to the Warns?


Did I say/imply anywhere in my post that these warnings are unjust? Or did I say/imply about the new members having these warnings? If it is the above, then it must be that I am just mentioning it as passing by right?


No questions. I was curious how why we have so many warnings these days?

Surf




posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobbo
I don't understand the purpose of this thread... I'm assuming Surfup is trying to make board-related small talk, since this thread serves no constructive purpose thus far.


I am sorry but my talk has no constructive purpose in it.

Maybe if you had read my original thread carefully you would have seen this line.

"What's up with those red things that happens to be on many of the members?"

I don't know what constructive purpose exactly means in your dictionary, but in my dictionary the above is an example.

If I was trying to make small board related talk, I would have logged into BTS and started a post there, but I didn't.

It can only mean two things, one I don't know where BTS is, two this isn't a small board talk.

Surf



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Surf, another reason their points might have dropped sharply is that they spent them in the ATS store.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Surf, another reason their points might have dropped sharply is that they spent them in the ATS store.


lol, I too thought of that before I posted that buddy.

If they did spend it, what on? Some are obvious, such as background and title, but I never see one of those.

I understand we have RATS and EMail, but how many buy those?

Not only that the date they joined is usually in the near past. Mostly late 03s and early 04s.

Surf



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Surf, another reason their points might have dropped sharply is that they spent them in the ATS store.


I'm sort of a newbie, so nobody jump down my throat. It seems to me that the point system encourages "posts for points". Judging any member on points, instead of contribution to the community as a whole, also reinforces this. I was guilty of jumping in on all kinds of threads that I really didn't have anything, except for opinion, to add. I could have an opinion on every single thread, but does that mean I should post on every single thread. I'm tempted. RATS, email, bling bling this and that, looks good if you don't have them. And the only way you are going to get them is to earn points and the only way to earn points(generally) is to post. I would think large accumulations of points in short periods of time brings down the quality of the contributions to the board. This has been discussed in the past on ATS. I think if a member truely accepts the T&C, and behaves in accordance with it, then they won't get banned any way.

doctorduh

[edit on 2-12-2004 by doctorduh]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Very true doctorduh, some people post junk just for points.

But once you get more certain points, you loose the feel for it. I don't think I ever posted for points, except the first couple of posts to get the label I wanted, but after that I just lost it.

Well we have a forum, we come here to discuss things, which means we state our opinion and argue, there is nothing wrong with stating your opinion buddy, so no worries.

Surf



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by surfup
lol, I too thought of that before I posted that buddy.

What was unsatisfactory about the answer given? The new posters tend to have warnings because they are new, don't understand the rules really, and keep mucking up.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Some are a "Little Out There":

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Check out the 4 reasons this guy got tagged I think this makes 7 in 7 days

Three have already vanished from sight, but that hasn't slowed down proteinx.

[edit on 12/5/2004 by bodebliss]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Ok this is not to change the topic, but it is an example of a dual standard some of you seem to have.

This community (ATS) has determined that certain forms of expression is not for this community, and have taken steps to limit it as well as outright segregate it from this community. (saying NO)
Most of you seem to think this is acceptable. (i do as well even tho i find it smacks of intellectual eliteism)

OK now on to community 2

Community2 has determined that gay marriage is not part of what their community is about, and have taken steps to limit this and outright say NO to this.

How is it any different of a decision?
Why do some of you (marg or intrepid perhaps like to answer?) think that its ok for one of these communities to have made a basically discriminatory decision, yet will adamantly say community2 is wrong for doing the exact same kind of "cultural identity" determination?

One group has the right to make this "identity" determination, yet another does not?

Again please remember that while answering this question might include some supporting reasons this is NOT to become a gay marriage thread.

My question is more to try and understand why the duplicity?
its ok to intellectually discriminate (an issue of speech) but not do it on a sexuality issue?

Its no wonder the warnings have been on the rise, as defining this speech things is far more vauge than adopting the other issue or not.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Uh, who cares what any "community2" does?



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia My question is more to try and understand why the duplicity? its ok to intellectually discriminate (an issue of speech) but not do it on a sexuality issue?
Your "point" has completely lost me. As far as I can tell, inappropriate behavior (flames, language, TOS violations) are the only things for which we apply warnings. No duplicity... but again... I think I'm not understanding your point.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Well Caz, seeing as you dragged this particular thread up, it seems like you have an axe to grind. OK, I'll answer your question if you would be so kind as telling me what the hell it is. One sentence will be sufficient.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:59 AM
link   
With reference to the warning signs, if you click on them they go to a thread, is this the post they got the warning for?



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Generally yes bondi, there may be the odd occaision where a member gets a warning for being abusive via u2u or similar (in which case the warning would go on the most recent post typically). Or is warned for some other board activity other than posting. But that is fairly uncommon.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Your "point" has completely lost me.

As far as I can tell, inappropriate behavior (flames, language, TOS violations) are the only things for which we apply warnings.

No duplicity... but again... I think I'm not understanding your point.


Well I think what Caz is trying to say that why one set of rules apply to some and others apply to others.

I don't know this is what Caz means. Take military for example. It is okay if a soldier kills someone, but wrong if you or I do it given the same circumstance.

I am guessing too.


Surf



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 12:16 AM
link   
This thread is a little nuts!

I have yet to see a WARN that was not obviously needed at the time it was given.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
This thread is a little nuts!
I have yet to see a WARN that was not obviously needed at the time it was given.


I don't know about the thread, but the author is.

He is too stupid to realize that people only read what they want to read and ignore the rest. And arguing against them is a waste of time, yet he does it!


Orginally posted by me
Did I say/imply anywhere in my post that these warnings are unjust? Or did I say/imply about the new members having these warnings? If it is the above, then it must be that I am just mentioning it as passing by right?


Maybe some people should read all the posts in the threads before just assuming the worst. Say bodebliss, isn't that a good plan?

Surf



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by surfup

Originally posted by alien
...are the applications of the Warns seen as unjust? Or is it drawing attention to the 'newness' of the members who received them? Or just randomly mentioning it in passing??

Is there any specific question in regards to the Warns?


Did I say/imply anywhere in my post that these warnings are unjust? Or did I say/imply about the new members having these warnings? If it is the above, then it must be that I am just mentioning it as passing by right?


No questions. I was curious how why we have so many warnings these days?


...okay...so we've established you were just mentioning it in passing and had no real questions. Thanks.

Thread doesn't need to remain active then.

*LOCKED



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join