Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution

a reply to: research100

I know what you mean, like the meter use often to keep track of financial goals and contributions.

That will be nice, if one was to be showing at the top or side of the ATS pages.

a reply to: Daedalus

Your beliefs are wrong. We have never, ever, taken advertiser desires or rules into consideration when it comes to content with the singular exception of keeping things pg13, which we would have done with or without advertisers. You get cutoff from so many visitors when you allow gore, pron, illegal, etc... that it would be flatly stupid to do so when your goal is getting your members' ideas and opinions seen by as many people on the planet as possible.

a reply to: soficrow

Sadly Google is already a monopoly and just as strong and getting stronger. I knew that when one of my favorite software that used to keep track of many searching engines in the net. suddenly was shut down and all the engines only showed google links, then I found out that they had bought most of big ones and the rest were killed.

This happen early this year, the internet will never be the same ever again when only one big name controls everything.

originally posted by: Springer
a reply to: Daedalus

Your beliefs are wrong. We have never, ever, taken advertiser desires or rules into consideration when it comes to content with the singular exception of keeping things pg13, which we would have done with or without advertisers. You get cutoff from so many visitors when you allow gore, pron, illegal, etc... that it would be flatly stupid to do so when your goal is getting your members' ideas and opinions seen by as many people on the planet as possible.

According to SO you actually have.

We no longer have ads from one of our best and longest-running advertising suppliers. The initial cause was a photo of a girl in a bikini (seriously). We removed that and submitted our appeal. That appeal was rejected because of a thread about contraceptive alternatives (again, seriously). We removed that and submitted our appeal.

You removed a thread that you previously considered acceptable, and pg13, to please your advertisors. How can you deny this when the OP clearly states that that is exactly what you did. Even though it was in vain.

a reply to: Freeborn

Still reading but if it hasn't been answered yet, one option is to purchase a green dot prepaid VISA. The one I use even sent a copy with my name on it - like a real credit card. In the case of mine if you put more than $500 per month on it, there are no fees at all ( unless you use an ATM ).

But, at least in the US, one can pick up a prepaid VISA or even a Paypal card at any convenience store for a couple of bucks.

a reply to: Springer

well, Mark, you're the marketing director, so i'll take your word for it. you're gonna know more about the inner workings of the LLC than i.

i always imagined though that the advertisers had a set of terms and conditions that you lot had to follow, just like we members do...and that certain content would result in your ads being suspended... -shrug-

as to keeping it PG13, how do you put a rating on intellectual exercises? how do you deny ignorance, when you're not allowed to even entertain an idea, without getting your thread s**tcanned, because the ideas are "to dangerous" or "too distasteful"?

i, personally, would rather discuss a topic, take in all available information, run out all leads, consider all evidence, and follow it all to it's most likely and logical conclusion, no matter how unpalatable that conclusion may be.....and i'd love to be able to do that here, among my peers, whom i know are intelligent enough to check my work, and let me know if there are any glaring errors...

a reply to: MerryChristmas

Enough.

You don't get it, and the entirety of the staff is convinced you never will (I'll give you points on that, there are only a handful of people the whole staff agrees are nothing but angry trolls). You've been banned like 437 times and only come back here to attempt to piss us off by trolling.

It won't work now just like it hasn't worked the last 436 times. Find another site to troll Martha.

Seriously, it's ridiculous. You can't taint this community as much as you'd love to. I'd suggest another hobby.

I pride myself (to my girlfriends utter disdain) on not having a fakebook account.
Im the same with bank accounts and credit cards.
So for me too cash is king.

I will get one of those pre-pay cards where you can put any amount, up to a certain limit, on it and get my donation in...

For anyone in the same situation go to a local phone shop for example and they will set you up. The mininmum here in Ireland is 10 euro

a reply to: Hefficide

or, if you have a bank account, you get a paypal, link it to the bank account, once the address is verified, you can use the paypal..and if you want a debit card, they can fix you up with one of those too, and it draws on your paypal balance....

a reply to: Springer

I think I made a fair observation.

a reply to: Springer

Martha just got owned.

a reply to: Daedalus

Exacto mundo.



Once somebody else controls information or let say content is not much left that can be worth enough for debate, as an adult I don't feel that I have to debate with children.

Still, I have been a member for many years and because of that I will support ATS, in its time of need as long as I can, for the time being, I will like to see some progress regarding that need.

a reply to: Springer

woah...really?

i mean, sorry if i'm stepping in the middle of some ancient war i didn't know about, but from my perspective, he just pointed out what he saw as an inconsistency...if i wasn't so goddamn tired, i would have caught it, and pointed it out myself....how's that trolling?

why the ire?

a reply to: Daedalus

Advertisers do have a set of TAC, every single one of them match and align with our TAC (ours are actually stricter than many ad nets' TAC). Google has one too, the issue is they claim several impossible subsets that can be interpreted in vastly different ways that it's impossible to know what breaks the rules until they say the rule has been broken.

Here's an example of the first one they disabled ads for: "Strategically covered nudity".

REALLY?!

They state "examples" of that (not definitions of that) in their TAC as "blurred pixels covering the good bits", "skimpy clothing that shows cleavage", etc...

Seriously, when declared like that a three piece suit could be "strategically covered nudity", any clothing is "strategically covering nudity" isn't it?

originally posted by: LiveForever8
a reply to: blupblup

Miserable bugger!

Just give your damn donation and shut up about it!

This just cracked me up.................

a reply to: Springer

Here's an example of the first one they disabled ads for: "Strategically covered nudity".

Oh man, that's hysterical. Also highly frustrating. I didn't realize they were such a pain.

a reply to: Springer

Sorry to say this, but with that example you don't need Google crap no matter how much money they carry in their pockets, I can never even imagine somebody else dictated what I should or not do with my business.

Just saying.

Still the more I look at what is going on with the net content this days the more I am inclined to believe that we lost the internet a long time ago.

originally posted by: Springer
Advertisers do have a set of TAC, every single one of them match and align with our TAC (ours are actually stricter than many ad nets' TAC). Google has one too, the issue is they claim several impossible subsets that can be interpreted in vastly different ways that it's impossible to know what breaks the rules until they say the rule has been broken.

sounds like shifting the goalposts around....this is what i was talking about..move the goalposts, force customers to remove content....what a bulls**t policy...i mean, it's mind-numbingly stupid..

Here's an example of the first one they disabled ads for: "Strategically covered nudity".

REALLY?!

but wait....if it's covered, then it's not nudity....what the actual fu- it makes no sense...

They state "examples" of that (not definitions of that) in their TAC as "blurred pixels covering the good bits", "skimpy clothing that shows cleavage", etc...

gotta love the super-professional lingo, lol ...how absolutely bizarre....

Seriously, when declared like that a three piece suit could be "strategically covered nudity", any clothing is "strategically covering nudity" isn't it?

again, it makes no sense at all.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: blupblup

You're out of order there. If someone chooses to donate and post about it, it's up to them. Calling them 'needy and lame' is unnecessary and just wrong.

Why set out to make them feel like crap?

You're someone I usually hold in high esteem and that comment was beneath you.

This ^^^^^^....

The discussion has been going on for days with many people saying that they would gladly donate. I imagine a few of them may want others to know they weren't FOS when they made their promise.

It doesn't hurt anyone and it isn't a requirement. Why does everything ALWAYS have to be a struggle. It's ok to just let some things go folks.

That's the reason we have A-1 and 57 sauce. Once size doesn't fit all. Just because you don't want to use it, doesn't mean someone else doesn't.

a reply to: Daedalus
Right now I think Springer is in a game of chess and its him against them. Loopholes suck.