It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


New process for becoming an ATS/BTS/PTS member

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 08:12 PM

Originally posted by DeltaNine
You want to punish someone for making a mistake?

Mistakes are there to learn from, not to be punished.

Sorry if i posted that too judgementally, but it is much better than totally denying an appliciant before they join.

Also, what I meant was that people who made mistakes, in thier trial run, should have some sort of punnishment. I did not say a severe punnishment, did I? The punnishment could simply consist of thier trial period being extended by sevral days or so.

posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 09:29 AM
Very good idea. My opinion is that before the 2004 US elections this forum had a lot of very intelligent people contributing to posts, now instead there are too many brain washed or manipulative members that will do anything to stop you from posting the truth.

posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 08:19 PM
I strongly agree with this new rule.There have been afew members that have been making rather unjustified topics and topics that dont have any relation to what should be discussed at all.

I am joyed staff have taken this step and hope to see more new members to have a proper debate and discussion with.

posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 11:54 PM
A Step In The Right Direction

I am among those who have lamented the apparent decline in ATS post quality, and think the staff have made a rational and pragmatic decision in implementing this new membership screening policy.

As Simon has pointed out, the number of “junk” memberships alone that have already been thwarted is significant, and we can expect that even this simple step will reduce the volume of fresh grief that finds its way into our midst each day.

This seems, as usual, like a good decision on the part of the staff.

She Turned Me Into A Newt!

As for a witch hunt, hey, don't knock it 'til you've tried it. They can be great fun!

Just kidding (or am I?).

I very strongly believe that the Terms And Conditions Of Use should be more rigorously enforced, but I also respect the patience, tolerance and professionalism shown by the staff in disciplinary matters.

Everyone has a bad day now and then, and the restraint shown by the staff encourages candid discussion where it might otherwise be stifled. To date I have not witnessed a single banning that I didn't consider well-deserved.

Thus I trust that the new screening process will be reasonable and fair, and will indeed at least reduce the number of junk memberships.

Will Insularity Ensue?

I think the reference by junglejake to Democratic Underground was quite poignant as an example of how a board can become cut off and inbred by being too selective.

I was a member of that board once, long ago, but got kicked for reasons unknown. I must presume that I fell short of the minimum profanity quotient or perhaps didn't quote enough Marx. The consequence is that they are no longer privy to my opinions, which is, in my opinion, anyway, their loss.

I won't deny that I had a flash of concern that this new policy might lead ATS in a similar direction, but my concern quickly faded.

Propaganda pits like Democratic Underground exist to program their members and promote uniformity of thought. In that particular case, radical left-wing thought -- if mindless parrotry and ideological bullying could properly be considered “thought”.

ATS, on the other hand, exists for purposes at the diametrical opposite of such sites, and is intrinsically committed to promoting free thought, rather than suppressing it.

Because of this fundamental difference in motives and philosophies, and its primacy in every action I have seen the staff take, I am confident that ATS will not devolve into just another Internet cheerleading section populated by brainwashed tools.

Taking Out The Trash

My sense is that there should be some tightening of T&C enforcement, but that simply reducing the influx of new junk memberships may be sufficient to nudge ATS back to a better place.

Most of the griefers have a way of weeding themselves out over time, and that may very well be enough.

I also think the ATS culture is beginning to police itself in more positive ways.

This “self-policing” does not involve and never has involved demanding agreement with “official” positions, but simply compliance with the Terms And Conditions Of Use we all agree to respect by posting here.

I urge my fellow members to understand and abide by them, and in so doing, reduce the need for staff intervention in our discussions -- while simultaneously improving their quality and relevance.

After all, if we don't wish to Deny Ignorance, then why the hell are we here?

posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 12:21 AM
I don't wish to Deny Ignorance because it's just a marketing slogan.

If I wanted to live my life by a sloagan, it would be the local strip club's, not ATS.

posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 01:01 AM
Independent Thought Alarm

Originally posted by DeltaNine
I don't wish to Deny Ignorance because it's just a marketing slogan.

A dissident! A heretic! A witch! Quick, ban him! Ban him!

Admittedly, slogans are a two-edged sword, and even such a lofty goal as denying ignorance could, I suppose, be driven to negative ends if held to extremes.

We are all ignorant of all kinds of things, and sometimes, that's not such a bad thing. I'm ignorant of what Rosie O'Donnell looks like naked, for example, but that's the kind of ignorance I am comfortable maintaining.

So yes, it is possible to go overboard on the “Deny Ignorance” mantra, and maybe I do.

Nonetheless, in my opinion anyway, expressing this ideal and promoting it is better than not doing so.

Board Bashing?

As a footnote, it occurs to me that my comments about Democratic Underground might reasonably be construed as “board bashing”, which is expressly prohibited by Article 9 of the Terms And Conditions Of Use.

Indeed, I have harsh words for that site, but my reference to it here is, I think, pertinent in the context of the discussion. Aside from that, I really have no interest whatsoever in DU anymore.

I don't post there anymore, don't follow threads there anymore, and if it were to suddenly evaporate into the digital aether, I would only learn about it indirectly.

If you reading this happen to be a member of Democratic Underground or are sympathetic to its causes and are offended, I make no apology for my comments.

They are my honest opinions based on my own firsthand experience with that website, and I offer them here as both a contrast and a cautionary tale about the consequences of demanding ideological conformity as a condition of membership in a discussion forum.

In mentioning it here, I really have no interest in sidetracking the topic of this thread or indulging in “board wars”, but for those who worry about ATS becoming too restrictive in its membership policies, DU offers a striking example of how bad it can really get.

Not only is ATS nowhere near as insular, but its very premise is incompatible with such insularity.

Hence my lack of concern about seeing a similar thing happen here.

[edit on 3/28/2005 by Majic]

posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 01:44 AM
this has bad news written all over it. from someone who formerly ran a website do you know how inneffective this will really be? You will soon find out that people aren't going to write you paragraphs like you imagined, but rather write in a sentence or two, or perhaps nothing at all. Most people see comment boxes and say, oh that is optional. Not to mention that I didn't have any idea that I was going to really learn from this board before I joined. I joined to talk about Aliens, yet go to that part of this board on occasion. I spend most of my time in the Religious Conspiracy forum and down that list. I just don't think you should make this like a job, in terms of handing in an application. I agree with the person who said give them a 30-90 day probational period, and don't let them know about it, that way you can kick them off no questions asked, and you will see the real them right away. Thank you. Also, if ATS becomes a paid site, are you gonna make former members pay? Cuz that would be really crappy.

posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 02:10 PM

Originally posted by spyrolot
also, what if a child was to try and join, a teen kind of age. some of them are un able to do things like that, dos thatmean they will be turned down? or are they not actually allowed on? i do tihnk it is a good idea, but have some queries, as i am sure many of the members do

Well, i do believe this could be done i suppose. The essay type thing would still weed out the bad eggs. I mean if you 13-19 and are really interested in ufology and paranorlism, then wouldn't that reflect in how you wanted to join? If someone really wanted to join, i'm sure they would. But, the only bad thing with that, even a troublemaker or troll might still be able to get in

posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 07:43 AM
And of course, people can always just write a great and thoughtful reasoning for being here and what they plan to learn and contribute, and then as soon as they show up they will spam/troll/lie/whatever. By instituting this system you are assuming people's integrity and consistency - you are assuming that what you see is what you get, that whatever they initially claim will be the fruit of their actions here. Rather naive isn't it though? Come on now, practically everyone lies to various degrees, and tricking a process such as you propose would be as easy as promising to "be good" and then as soon as you're in, wreaking havoc.

I think someone suggested a much better idea - 30 day no-tolerance, fire staff that does not do its job and hire ones that may. Essentially, "by their fruits shall you know them" applies here as well. It is when the member starts POSTING when you can really see if that member should be removed or not, in my opinion.

Once again, it is way too easy to lie at such "sign-up" processes to get in, and then institute your agenda whatever it may initially have been. And of course, there is plenty of room of legitimate and honest people being turned away because of many reasons which include but are not limited to misunderstandings, mod's personal biases, individual's inability to express himself clearly - for all you know, someone is just having a bad day, or is depressed, confused, whatever may be the case! Or mayby he adds humor or sarcasm which is misinterpreted literally and he is denied because of this. Too many possibilities to mention, and in fact, I think there is very little this system will do to clean this forum of "agents, spammers, etc" and only work to eliminate the foolish people who are not careful in their initiatory reasoning, even if the person is potentially a GREAT contributor to the forum.

You simply cannot judge a book by its cover, and if you try, you often enough make a bad mistake. Judge a book by its content, by its "fruits"!

But that's just my opinion, I think this gives mods more power than they ought to have - if someone posts something and is THEN removed, at least his post can be read by others and they can agree or disagree with the actions. But in this case, is there any "checks and balances" to make sure mods do not let their own prejudices, biases, and misconceptions interfere with their authoritative actions? Or are you putting your fraith in the integrity, honesty, and ability of your mods to always do the "right thing" - whatever the hell that would mean anyway?

Consider what happened when the US people put such faith in their governments and their "system", look where that got us! Look where it gets anyone who chooses to trust authority, while ignoring the most fundemental truth - power corrupts! The more power you have, the more chance you have of trying to try to gain even more power, and perform "unethical" actions to try to maintain the power you have already. It is just human nature, so the more power someone has, the more likely he will be corrupted by it - especially considering the alread-corrupted quality of those who usually try to GET into positions of power. Consider who are our government leaders and what is their histories, what did they do before their current posts, who are they related to, who are their friends? And you get a pretty grim picture of secret societies, closed circles, "elite", the "rich", etc. Just the sort of people who will promise you the world and then sweep it from under your feet as soon as you turn around.

You can't say that the current mods did not have an "agenda", do not have personal desires as to how ATS should run which conflict with the opinions of other mods, and will not lie to get into a position like being a mod on such a popular forum, which can be pretty ego-enhancing!

I'm not saying you should not have SOME measure of trust in your mods, but I think the line is crossed when you delegate responsibilities that you yourself cannot check for consistency and integrity. Unless of course it is your intention from the start to "filter" certain unwanted individual in the guise of cleansing the forum from spammers - in fact, it seems this system would create the environment to make it very easy to filter anyone you personally do not want on the forum, anyone whose ideas may be perceived as "unwanted" etc, and allow all the spammers who simply lie through their teeth to get in!

Gotta love those "conspiracy theories"...


[edit on 1-4-2005 by lilblam]

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 06:52 AM
I wouldn't have ended up a member here, nor would I have felt the need to try to dig up facts on the Pentagon 757, under the new signup method... My response to "why do you want to be an ATS member" would have, more likely than not, been something along the lines of.

"... there are too many idiots posting/regurgitating made up b.s. regarding such-and-such and I feel compelled to reply. "

Would I have been given "access" to ATS? Probably not.

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 10:03 AM
Oh for gods sakes. Listening to all the liberals and conservatives on here crying because of possible discrimination makes me sick. Its amazing, the persecution complexes the leftists and righters have, that because "they" are speaking the "truth" that THEY are going to be supressed. Yawn. Untie your panties from the knots please. Its obvious even to me, the resident idiot on this board, that this new system isnt going to reject people based on beliefs and orientations. Well still let in the irrational nutcases from both sides to contribute their endless but amusing diatribes about their "truths".

What this new system will do I think is help cut down on the number of banal, lame, unthinking, stupid, or just plain pointless postings and threads. Its so the rest of us wont see the forums choked up with threads like "Did gay alien devil worshipers build the pyramids for the Jerry Springer Show", with no opinions, or links to matwrial that would have spawned this thought. We do have entirely too many little kids on here, too many mentally and emotionally immature people simply posting banal nonsense that really isnt discussing anything conspiritorial, just trolling for points.

I would like to see more mods policing the forums and deleting the repetetive posts. Its one thing to bring up a controversial topic in a new post after its been dead for a few months, its another thing, in the same week, to see about three or four different threads asking if David Ickes reptilians are real, with nothing differentiating the posts in content.

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 10:20 AM
Personally, I think you guys are just going nuts with the rules and regulations...but that's just me...have fun with your new process...

posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 06:30 AM
i joined after more then 1/2 year or around that of coming here to read good post,
anything to help peeps post good post is cool, but, i also did not make the cut
on lesser sights, cause i cant write well, what you see here has come about after many
post here on AST so, grats for that, i can write a tad better but, if i could have gotten
in to other bords maybe i would have learned faster, we each are diff, and have diff learning,
and ways to speack, that said ,
threw out our hist here on earth, many peps have ben denided the chance to speach, because
a ruleing body desides that they are not worthy of the time of the people , who share the space
they live in.all people need to have a chance to talk , even if we all hate what they say, you
will make rules , we who are here will follow them , but please think about it. about what it should,
or should not show the rest of the world about the peeps that chouse ATS to have a voice,
in this world , thank you.,

posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 09:42 PM
The new process is working well. On average, all member applications are processed within 6 hours, and about 50% are approved.

We've further refined the process: now, the comments members put into their membership application are automatically used to create a new thread in the introductions forum... like this one:

When new members are approved, they receive their password and a link to their introduction thread. We hope that by they time they click the link, a few of our fine members will already have posted responses, welcoming them to ATS.

posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 09:48 PM
Longhorn's intro is none too shabby.

I expect that applicants will know they are making their first post by virtue of submitting a successful application?

Gadzooks. Lots more intros to read!


posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 12:49 AM
A friend of mine just tried to join and he told me he was just rejected just like that without being asked to fill out anything.

posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 01:15 AM
In theory, this seems like a good idea. However, I'm not sure how this practice can be used fairly.

I mean, there are people on ATS who's opinions are highly controversial. Are people who openly support the insurgents in Iraq, yet still are able to speak and have discussions on their reasons civilly, going to get rejected? What about people who are openly nazi?

As much as I - heck, as much as most people - disagree with the aforementioned opinions, they should still be allowed to be heard. I'm worried that moderators might see someone who states these opinions in the text box and reject them because the views are highly unpopular.

Also, when I joined this site in 2003 (for some reason I don't think that date is right - I know I've been browsing since before 9/11 and I don't know why I wouldn't have registered), I didn't really know what I wanted to get/contribute. I would have had no idea what to put in the textbox and subsequently might have been rejected. I think I've turned out to be a pretty good poster here, but if this had been in place back when I registered, I might not be here right now.

So, I'm torn. Stopping trolls is nice, but compared to some other message boards, ATS doesn't have that big of a trolling problem.

posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 04:01 PM
I am pleased to see Management take this no frills concept by making the honorable choice to screen potential members in a better and equal form. Often, the only way to seperate the wheat from the chaffe is to put it in the wind. I applaude the decision as some forums have for lack of a better term have become corrupted. Nice job.!

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 02:18 PM

We are not looking for long drawn-out essays when registering for membership, but simply a short passage asking why you would like to join, and what you think you can contribute.

Just something the Miss Universe would say:

I want to join ATS to help the children. I want world peace and goodwill to all men.

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 11:03 PM

Originally posted by D
A friend of mine just tried to join and he told me he was just rejected just like that without being asked to fill out anything.


Maybe the username was already taken?

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in