ATS and censorship.

Hrm... not even a member for two months... and already some issues with long-standing rules. Let's see if we can resolve some of these:


The "slippery slope" concept applies here. If we were to allow these things, do we allow all of them? If not, who decides which are inappropriate? And even the "appropriate" items might become so numerous that none are effective. The line needed to be drawn and it was drawn high so that our discussion board can focus on what it does best... discussing important issues.


I think you have no idea what our real potential is. Pick any relevant conspiracy topic, or even a remotely connected topic... search it in Google... we're likely in the top 10. In October alone, over 15,000 unique searches brought over 800,000 visitors to ATS.

Many call our current period in history the "information age," as the Internet has revolutionized content delivery. Where else can you have your own theories, ideas, and opinions efficiently published and delivered (for free) to such a massive audience? Information is key. We provide a place to examine alternative angles to important issues, and make sure the world knows about it. Seems like we're already a massive group taking action with information.


Excuse me?


We've provided free advertising for worthy efforts before, and would certainly do so in the future. However, this is often hard due to our efforts to maintain a neutral stance.


Again, you've completely missed what ATS is.

This is only my opinon and not necessarily that of the guys that run this site, but from what I have observed ATS has built itself an excellent reputation and particularly with the podcasting and TV show has even more opportunity to grow and expand, and the more it does so the more our voices can be heard.

Obviously because of this and so it can continue, I imagine the board has to be careful about what it associates itself with and in what way for one thing, otherwise it would quickly be looked at as a disreputable source.
It is hard enough to do this by simply moderating forums, without the additional hassles of exploring individual websites which is what would effectively have to be done I would think.

Raising money and such is a no-no in my opinon, I hated stepping outside LA airport and getting ambushed by the numerous people wanting money and people wouldn't like it here, I know it may not be quite like that but this isn't information eBay or something. You also don't know what the money may be for, there would be confidentiality issues with having to deal with transactions and there is the possibility of fraud.
All things I imagine ATS to rather do without.

And anyway, if you have a good idea then I have always found the Admin to be most helpful and I'm sure if you contact them they would consider your ideas. And if they say no then they wouldn't want it on here anyway I imagine?

What you want is a free ride to advertise and accomplish your goals or dreams on OUR backs. Nothing more, nothing less.

We didn't build this site and work this hard to make it a charitable advertising agency for anyone who wants to sell something to our members or solicit them for "donations".

As S.O. pointed out, we do, from time to time, provide FREE promotion for worthy causes, and like he said that's hard to do since we won't be labeled as having a stance one way or the other in a certain issue. WE choose what to promote because WE are charged with the stewardship of this community.

You have completely MISSED what ATS is.

ATS is the culmination of years of hard work, capital investment and COMMUNITY Collaboration. This happened in large part because we DON'T so what you are advocating.


We are taking this community and it's ideals, to the Television to enhance the site and community NOT individual projects or money making schemes.

A major Hollywood production company and a major television network are making ATSTV a reality because they agree that we have done well by NOT selling out or caving into the obvious cash cow this site could be if greed or ego was our motivation.

That's the bottom line, it's one thing for you to proclaim a desire for this but yet another when you start criticizing us for not doing it. If we are so wrong and ignorant, go build a site and see how you feel about it after 4 or 5 years of hard work and the earned[/] trust of a huge membership. If, after all that assuming you succeed, you still think that taking advantage of the membership you have attracted is the right thing to do then by all means do it.

Springer...

Not being Springer but this is my thread , I think you just summed it up. Would these new and amazing changes have come about without the vast amount of work by Admin, members and staff? We may be looking at a blueprint to future online action.



I don't think ATS has ever "played it safe". I believe we play it "fair".



Appreciate that but things are appearently in hand.

Hmmm, I see that my question was sidestepped in the answer that was provided by "ADVISOR". So can anyone else answer? Why are sexual themes and foul language banned, but violence is allowed except for "gratuitous gore and/or mutilation"?

i think banned members should not be prevented from posting in other forums..

this gives a single moderator too much power over an entire board..
(What is "super mods", i dun kno what this means..
how do we kno they are not NWO or
aliens?

I don't think you fully grasp the meaning of the term "banned" then.



A single moderator has next to no power. Everything is reviewed and typically done via consensus anyway.



You really don't know. I think I think Supers are A.I. At least that's what they programmed me to say. But I suspect some are crime fighting billionare playboys and gals.

i disagree.

Lately, i've seen
some hav red warnings while others are banned without?

Most often, these are members who have returned under a new account after being banned, to cause new trouble. Also, from time to time, a new member will get off on the wrong foot by immediately posting either spam or something highly abusive (for example a new member was banned today for creating a new thread titled "Hitler" with a post full of nothing but smilies).

Our goal here is to run an efficient and engaging discussion board where anyone and everyone can participate in through-provoking discussions on interesting topics within an atmosphere of polite decorum. We're not running ATS simply to find reasons to ban people.

And remember, if someone feels that they're banned for no reason, they are completely free to start their own forum and say what they want and run it how they want.
In my experience most people are banned with a good reason and some of them should've / could've been banned even earlier. Applies equally well here and everywhere else.

I used to own and run a board with close to 7000 members and 1.8M posts. Sometimes I was questioned and even accused of censorship and obstructing free speech. But free speech doesn't mean that you're free to say whatever you want where ever you want.

Administrators and moderators have a broader view of the board and they can see if someone is only venting momentarily or if they're consistently being mostly (or at all times) abusive. First being grounds for a warning and latter for a ban. For a user with a narrower view it can appear that someone is banned needlessly because they haven't seen what other things the banned one has done to necessitate the action.

During my time here I've noticed a few cases where I haven't understood why someone has been banned, but experience tells me that they have deserved it, even if I don't know the details why.

ATS is one of the best (or perhaps The best) administered boards I've run across, and I wish that I had found ATS before I started my own forum. There are things I would've done quite a bit differently if that had been the case.

i find things get pretty hot around here when certain members become swollen with pride in sensitive areas. if people could learn to apply less pressure, perhaps things wouldn't erupt so soon, into violently heated, passionate exhcanges. if you can get the thrust of what i'm saying, here, you would realise that i agree with craig732. but, you have to withdraw the whole 'moral code' that's been slipped through our collective back door by the illuminati.

i also find it diconnected that satanists can calmily discuss the virtues of blood sacrifice and hedonism with little uproar from the 'moral majority' or 'censors'.
links to snuff films are 'okay' on the politically correct web, as long as their real snuff films.

so, remember the moral code:

love=bad
hate=good

happy apocalypso

yea, i tried that once after being warned for a one sentence response (which was actually a joke i made trying to lighten up a thread that was turning ugly) and was basically told if i didn't like it i didn't have to post here anymore. not a very professional way to deal with complaints.

Suggestions And Comments


Wow, has it been five months already?

I can't speak for other staff members, and I don't know the details of this particular exchange, but that does sound rather brusque.

Not everyone is as fond of flowery prose as I am.

I wrote the comment you're responding to five months ago as a Councilor, and of course my role on ATS has changed since then, but I still stand by my recommendation.

It's called the "Suggestion" button now, but it's still a great resource for members.

However, there's also another option for situations like these...

Just Between U And Me

Now that I'm a moderator, I'm really coming to appreciate the power of U2Us. A huge percentage of moderator business takes place via U2U, member-to-member, privately, to avoid unneeded drama.

My advice: if you still feel hurt by what a staff member told you, send that person a U2U saying so. Just be honest and try to be nice. You never know, you may well get the apology you've felt you deserved.

Or not. It's up to the staff member in question, and hey, we're people too. Maybe you hurt someone's feelings yourself.

No harm in asking, and no harm in talking about it, person to person.

Just sayin'.




[edit on 3/23/2006 by Majic]

I've already been censored.