All Members: Updates and Changes to the ATS Terms and Conditions

a reply to: Wookiep

I'm all for this rule change. This very thing was the reason I finally left the original Ukraine thread. It was super annoying and became almost impossible to find updates of the situation.

This is an interesting post.

Can I ask you a question about this?

What exactly that is being described in this thread, or new rules, would apply to that thread, in your opinion, and are the perpetrators, in your eyes, established members or new members?

Very curious about your answer because I noticed some things too.

I'm all for it as well SO. I think its a great change. No longer will i have to read threads with hundreds of posts that stray from the original topic merely based on opinion and little or no facts.

I came here for peer learning and have found that a lot of threads have been disrupted/steered by opinion alone.

That goes into groups or cliques here that star certain posts to push their agendas and opinions as facts. A lot of people only read the starred posts because its supposed to represent the most accurate information on the thread topic.

The issue with that in my opinion is that its a popularity/fashion issue. Its also the reason i don't post much in threads.

Thanks SO. Your work here has been indispensable to the boards and is much appreciated.

he/she has been a member since nearly 2 years and you only noticed this

It is called flying under the radar,and flying under the radar can be a way to create an artificial mini-status qou many people try to use defensively, not that this is the case because many times noticing people who have interesting interpretations of the rules flying under the radar is how we self diagnose the need for pro-active changes it is like a red flag, well intended unique INDIVIDUALS like this are positive impacts in the long run,what I see is a learning dynamic, and that is why we all come here at the end of the day.Someone just learned they may be involved in an unintended conflict of interest,thank yous are in order for making this known.

@ Doogle, A defensive stance to support an unnaturally catalysed mini-status quo even though it may have been unintentional is still not acceptable,just because you unknowingly straddle a border where a rule is present does not mean that when the situation is clarified that you have a defense,it means you have just had a learning experience,you should not fight this you should embrace it.Illustrating "How long" you straddled the border of the rules is not relevant unless you are trying to self-incriminate.

I do not think the Handle was intentionally created to press the rules,I believe it was what it is,a normal learning dynamic,and now we can see that it is slightly contentious,this is a learning experience,not a police action,and pointing out that there was a lag time between an action and an aknowledgment of that actions impacts is simply trying to stir the pot.

I say that it a good thing the poster has been given some good advice to clarify a potential conflict of interest ,now they know where they stand,i say that I appreciate how the Admin handles things here on ATS.

originally posted by: applesthateatpeople

All due respect, but those new stipulations to the t&c can be used to ban anyone for basically any reason...

People don't and won't get banned for no reason. And for the record, the Owners can already ban anyone they like, it's their forum. Our Right of Community management clause allows it as well. But that doesn't happen, at least not that I am aware of in 6 years as staff.

Any moderator could EASILY use this to quietly get rid of anyone they dislike.

It's there...

Things that staff do are very transparent. There is records of all staff actions taken against members so no, that type of shenanigans doesn't happen. If it did, the staff member themselves would most likely be banned themselves, which has happened in the past.

As a staff, we do our absolute best to ensure no actions happen in a vacuum and the owners have set up a system that prevents things like what you state from happening.

That probably doesn't allay your suspicions but that's the truth of the matter. Staff has been removed and banned for going rogue before.

How can one figure out if a group of people are derailing a thread on purpose or just having a diiferent point of view.

a reply to: HappyMelvin

There were 4 or 5 members who all joined around the same time, (new members) they all shared the exact same opinions and they all posted similar posts, much of which was propaganda. The thread was "hijacked" by those members, and it became very difficult to get updates on the situation. Having opinions is one thing, but those individuals just kept pushing and pushing, even the OP stopped posting eventually, there was no longer a point to it.

The thread was eventually shut down, I do not know if it was related to that or not because I gave up on it myself.

just be good, for goodness' sake

Honestly, I've been wondering about the "forum gangs." I've had some suspicions about a couple of accounts that are new or were started around the same time, that derail threads, gang up on people with opposing viewpoints and make insulting personal attacks. I was wondering if some could possibly be the same people because their wording was very similar, but this explains it. This is an excellent move by ATS!!

Love the changes that have been happening recently!

Such member/threads are easy to spot, even without Admin tools.

I applaud the Staff for trying to keep this board a productive and civil place to discuss the world around us.

They don't catch everything, but it's clear they work hard to do their best.

Let's be honest, if you don't qualify as a professional poster, your chances of getting banned under these changes are nil.

Hopefully it stops the forum gangs and groups of idiots coming into threads and spouting off utter BS and disrupting things.
Then again, I don't really get what prompted this or what's going on.

I hope this stops a same people with a same story on a same threads just killing any will in me to engage into discussion with them, and it makes me really tired reading same old stuff over and over again.

Hope this changes stop that.

originally posted by: loam

Let's be honest, if you don't qualify as a professional poster, your chances of getting banned under these changes are nil.

Maybe you could have members alert staff if they think they are dealing with a paid shill. And if you could do that, and make it kind of against the rules to call someone that simply because they are aweful at debate. I can assure you it happens a lot.

a reply to: network dude

Yup, thats been covered as well.

While I like the fact that ATS has finally admitted there are paid schills at work here, this part of the rule change leaves doubt to the integrity of ATS:

If you wish to take advantage of AboveTopSecret.com for your social media campaigns, viral advertising, news releases and updates, or any other material on behalf of another party directing the content or tonality of your posts, you must first obtain approval (by using the contact form), of The Above Network, LLC (owners of AboveTopSecret.com).

To me this is saying that only groups whose viewpoint is accepted or promoted by ATS are allowed to post.

I really hope I am reading that wrong.

a reply to: Not Authorized

but felt it was not my place to point it out.

It very much is your place to point it out. I may be wrong, but I think mods/admin would rather have too many people reporting than no one. These people mess up the site for everyone, it's in all of our interest to out them.

I am a little worried though that ATS members are going to start accusing everyone of being in a forum gang now though. Sort of like when ATS seemed to collectively learn the terms 'straw man' and 'ad hominem'. Ugh that was annoying. Every. Other. Post. someone would try to fit their distaste of another members opinion into one of the two.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
I really hope I am reading that wrong.

I think you are. What the Boss Man is saying is you need to be an 'authentic' poster with your own views and not receiving a paycheck to promote an agenda you may not even believe in.

You can dissent or disagree with a topic but if a pattern of posting is determined that indicates you may be working for a third party then you are breaking the T&C.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

I'm not sure why that's a problem. I'm assuming such memberships would be clearly disclosed. As long as these boards permit civil, but opposing views by other members, how does that change anything?

One concern I'm having is with this

If you wish to take advantage of AboveTopSecret.com for your social media campaigns, viral advertising, news releases and updates, or any other material on behalf of another party directing the content or tonality of your posts, you must first obtain approval (by using the contact form), of The Above Network, LLC (owners of AboveTopSecret.com).

Can these people be flagged in some way? I sort of detest viral marketing and take issue with seemingly ordinary/respected members having carte blanche to hock stuff if they pay $500. I don't mind ads, it keeps the site going. I do mind people being covertly manipulated by the highest bidder. I can see a certain news site that will Remain nameless Trying that tactic and getting heaps of traffic/unwarranted credibility.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
To me this is saying that only groups whose viewpoint is accepted or promoted by ATS are allowed to post.

To some degree, yes.

You wouldn't want us to allow a white supremacist to push an agenda as long as they pay us a fee, would you?

You wouldn't want us to allow a political group to be allowed to post what amounts to promotional editorial, would you?

However…

You (probably) wouldn't mind a Vice researcher posting here, overtly as a Vice researcher, for the purposes of getting our member's opinions on current events… as long as their participation isn't promotional in nature.

By asking such participants to identify themselves when they register, we not only confirm their intentions (if we allow them to continue), but help them understand how to best engage our community.

a reply to: loam

I'm assuming such memberships would be clearly disclosed.

And I believe they are. I know I've noticed one thread that has a disclaimer of being a "paid-advertisement thread". As long as it pertains to intelligent discussion on subjects that are ATS oriented then, why not... It also gives ATS another source of income in order to keep the Forums free for the membership.

Win/Win.

JMHO.