Just a thought to help prevent thread repetition... Mod/ATS Approval before thread goes live?

originally posted by: Ahabstar

They might have even made me a mod so I could trash my own darn threads, now that I think about it...

and the penny finally drops

a reply to: Sauron

Also don't forget the impact having moderator approved threads has on th bee safe harbor provision of the DMCA .

What if there is an existing thread but it is years old with the last post being also years old. What if there is something we want to discuss or eleborate on but no one sees because I posted in a years old thread from fear of making a duplicate new thread ? Seems almost catch 22 or a paradox to me. How would this be resoved besides swallowing my passion to inform ?

originally posted by: MGaddafi
What if there is an existing thread but it is years old with the last post being also years old. What if there is something we want to discuss or eleborate on but no one sees because I posted in a years old thread from fear of making a duplicate new thread ? Seems almost catch 22 or a paradox to me. How would this be resoved besides swallowing my passion to inform ?

I'm perfectly okay with starting a new thread when a previous thread is a year or so older. This is more directed at topics like Ebola, where we have a new thread forming every 5 minutes... It would be nice to consolidate all that information into a few threads and not 100+, by doing so I think we would all have an easier time following all the updated information/discussions..

originally posted by: MGaddafi
What if there is an existing thread but it is years old with the last post being also years old. What if there is something we want to discuss or eleborate on but no one sees because I posted in a years old thread from fear of making a duplicate new thread ? Seems almost catch 22 or a paradox to me. How would this be resoved besides swallowing my passion to inform ?

This isn't generally an issue. If a topic has been covered before, years ago, but you have new info or a new take on the conspiracy, then you may open a new thread and certainly post it.

What we would frown on are repeat subjects with the same old information we've already covered. In that case it's best to revive the original.

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Ahh I see. Thanks for this.

And I know what you mean jhn. The countless ebola threads are tiresome but it shows what interests people have concerning the world.

originally posted by: MGaddafi
What if there is an existing thread but it is years old with the last post being also years old. What if there is something we want to discuss or eleborate on but no one sees because I posted in a years old thread from fear of making a duplicate new thread ? Seems almost catch 22 or a paradox to me. How would this be resoved besides swallowing my passion to inform ?

Well, I could be wrong, but I thought that if you post on an old thread, it gets kicked up front again.
And as far as Thread Pre-Approval goes--NO! If I want to read something that is Politically Correct, I'll leave ATS and read the newspaper. Even similar, duplicated, very much alike, interchangable threads do have a few differences because they may have been responded to by different people. If a thread can be caught in the first page or two, then yes, close it and link it to a longer clone. Personally, I prefer to think for myself. If that means I find duplicate threads, I can look elsewhere OR alert somebody with my findings and request it be checked out.

I hereby approve all threads that may be started that fall within the minimal content guidelines of our Terms and Conditions of Use.

a reply to: Springer

Cool. Thanks Springer. I hope that people wont abuse this leniency knowingly.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: jhn7537
Not going to happen.
The mods rely on other members to self police as it is.

As a new member of ATS, I have found that some members take the "self policing" a bit too far, and do not always bother to read the actual content of the OP, with linked sources, etc. Example: I posted on an op ed piece that had just been published. The material was new. A couple of members with loads of stars wrote snide, belittling comments stating the material was "old". It went downhill from there, and now they pounce on every post I make, and have gotten a mod to believe their distorted version of reality and now that mod seems to be after me as well. Point being that there needs to be better enforcement of the standards of conduct that members engage in. Those members who act as "little moderators" likely run many new members off the site, members who might have many valuable contributions to make. If you look at my stats based on the 10 days I've been here, it would seem that I might be one such member, meaning, others appear to value my presence here. Yet, because of two little police people, I'm about to throw in the towel.