The thread title is the name of the cd I made a long time ago. It's just a name, not profanity. I know a fair amount of Frank Zappa song titles that are worse...
Moderators Are Not Above The Terms & Conditions, page 2
privacy
reply posted on 16-10-2007 @ 09:40 PM by FredT
reply to post by dr_strangecraft
Members would not be banned for that on a first or even second offense. Im sorry it simply does not happen. That type of mistake would get looked at and the member in question possibly warned etc. You don't get a perma ban on a first offence of this nature. yes there are those offences that would warrent that but a mistake like this esp. one time would be dealt with and moved on.
But I am as curious as Intrepid, you seem to have some undelying issue here and I would love to hear more about it if you would care to enlighten me on it?
Members would not be banned for that on a first or even second offense. Im sorry it simply does not happen. That type of mistake would get looked at and the member in question possibly warned etc. You don't get a perma ban on a first offence of this nature. yes there are those offences that would warrent that but a mistake like this esp. one time would be dealt with and moved on.
But I am as curious as Intrepid, you seem to have some undelying issue here and I would love to hear more about it if you would care to enlighten me on it?
reply posted on 16-10-2007 @ 10:12 PM by robert z
reply to post by Majic
I respectfully suggest that as long as certain members here are allowed to violate the T&Cs on a regular basis it will make it hard for other members to know what is expected.
One member in particular seems to be given a very wide latitude in making knowingly inaccurate and misleading posts and when others point this out, they are the ones who are warned.
For the T&C to be taken seriously, they must be applied consistently, imo.
I respectfully suggest that as long as certain members here are allowed to violate the T&Cs on a regular basis it will make it hard for other members to know what is expected.
One member in particular seems to be given a very wide latitude in making knowingly inaccurate and misleading posts and when others point this out, they are the ones who are warned.
For the T&C to be taken seriously, they must be applied consistently, imo.
reply posted on 17-10-2007 @ 03:18 AM by Majic
Bill Of Attainder, Or Ex Post Facto Law?
Indeed. July of 2005, long before Hellmutt became a mod.**
If you really have to go back over two years for examples, I think you're reaching somewhat. I can think of several more recent examples that were far more egregious -- and actually involved members who were moderators at the time.
Nonetheless, the title of that thread has been changed in response to your complaint, as we would for any such example.
As for the other issues, you're welcome to submit complaints for each of them, but if they don't involve T&C violations by mods, there's little reason to do so.
The Point Of This Thread
I think some members have completely missed the point of this thread, which is that moderators are not above the terms & conditions.
That doesn't mean mods don't violate them, because mods aren't any more perfect than anyone else, and the history of ATS is rife with notorious examples of drama involving moderator misconduct.
What matters is not what happened years, months or weeks ago, because we can't change the past, but what's going on now.
Ironically enough, that's the point of this thread: to explain the most effective way to handle problems with mods, so we can solve problems now.
Back On Topic: Handling Problems With Mods
I can understand the need to vent, but to the extent public grousing obscures and gets in the way of solving real problems, it is a disservice to our community.
I started this thread seven months ago to ask that members who observe violations of the T&C by moderators report them to us by submitting complaints.
That's the topic of this thread. Specific complaints don't belong here, and this was never intended to be an open call for generic gripes about mods in general, harassing the staff or dredging up old drama.
So let's not.
Please, work with us on this.
**Edited to concede: Although he did update it recently, so I can agree that it should have been changed sooner. Hellmutt has explained that he really didn't think it was a problem in that case, and in light of the nature of the thread (there are many songs and music-related posts on BTS that are at odds with the profanity restrictions), the fact that it had been allowed to keep that name without anyone objecting for over two years (this was the first complaint) and the fact that English is not his first language, I think he can be forgiven.
We routinely remove non-abusive profanity from posts without red-flags or bans, so this is not inconsistent.
[edit on 10/17/2007 by Majic]
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
(Edit to add: the first post on thread was in JULY)
Indeed. July of 2005, long before Hellmutt became a mod.**
If you really have to go back over two years for examples, I think you're reaching somewhat. I can think of several more recent examples that were far more egregious -- and actually involved members who were moderators at the time.
Nonetheless, the title of that thread has been changed in response to your complaint, as we would for any such example.
As for the other issues, you're welcome to submit complaints for each of them, but if they don't involve T&C violations by mods, there's little reason to do so.
The Point Of This Thread
I think some members have completely missed the point of this thread, which is that moderators are not above the terms & conditions.
That doesn't mean mods don't violate them, because mods aren't any more perfect than anyone else, and the history of ATS is rife with notorious examples of drama involving moderator misconduct.
What matters is not what happened years, months or weeks ago, because we can't change the past, but what's going on now.
Ironically enough, that's the point of this thread: to explain the most effective way to handle problems with mods, so we can solve problems now.
Back On Topic: Handling Problems With Mods
I can understand the need to vent, but to the extent public grousing obscures and gets in the way of solving real problems, it is a disservice to our community.
I started this thread seven months ago to ask that members who observe violations of the T&C by moderators report them to us by submitting complaints.
That's the topic of this thread. Specific complaints don't belong here, and this was never intended to be an open call for generic gripes about mods in general, harassing the staff or dredging up old drama.
So let's not.
Please, work with us on this.
**Edited to concede: Although he did update it recently, so I can agree that it should have been changed sooner. Hellmutt has explained that he really didn't think it was a problem in that case, and in light of the nature of the thread (there are many songs and music-related posts on BTS that are at odds with the profanity restrictions), the fact that it had been allowed to keep that name without anyone objecting for over two years (this was the first complaint) and the fact that English is not his first language, I think he can be forgiven.
We routinely remove non-abusive profanity from posts without red-flags or bans, so this is not inconsistent.
[edit on 10/17/2007 by Majic]
reply posted on 17-10-2007 @ 04:21 AM by ignorant_ape
Sigh !
mods are people too - and have opinions
that said - the " defence " that ` he [ points ] did it too ", or was guilt of some other offence is not a viable legal defence - or is it a defence against violations of the T&C
YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN CONDUCT - THE MODS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIERS
is that clear ?
as previously pointed out - mods have been banned too , the staff roster changes constantly - most leave on excellent terms and thier passing is mourned - or they continue to be valuable members [ valhal and benevolant heretic ] spring to mind
member bannings are rarely spoken of - there have only been public discussions on 2 that i reccall - [ picklewalsh and killtown ]
mod bannings when they occur are handled even more delicately - i can recall only one banned staff member - and i dont know why it was done - just that it occurred
also the T&C is an evolving document in my experience , when it is applied " post facto " punishments and such are greatly reduced - if applied at all - the offending material is simply removed - and the participents in the thread quietly reminded of the current T&C
bottom line . IMHO is that ATS is a private site - when you sign up and log in - you agree to the T&C and consent to be governed by the staff while you are here
if that disagrees with you - why the hell do you bother loging in ? there are lots of other sites - or you could even set one up yourself and run it " your way "
i dunno where i heard it first - but the most apt analogy is that :
ATS is simon grey`s " cyber sitting room " you are here by invitation , and insulting his freinds and peeing on the carpet is unacceptable behaviour - one would [ i hope ] to act that way in his real house - why do you think its acceptable on his website ?
fin .
mods are people too - and have opinions
that said - the " defence " that ` he [ points ] did it too ", or was guilt of some other offence is not a viable legal defence - or is it a defence against violations of the T&C
YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN CONDUCT - THE MODS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIERS
is that clear ?
as previously pointed out - mods have been banned too , the staff roster changes constantly - most leave on excellent terms and thier passing is mourned - or they continue to be valuable members [ valhal and benevolant heretic ] spring to mind
member bannings are rarely spoken of - there have only been public discussions on 2 that i reccall - [ picklewalsh and killtown ]
mod bannings when they occur are handled even more delicately - i can recall only one banned staff member - and i dont know why it was done - just that it occurred
also the T&C is an evolving document in my experience , when it is applied " post facto " punishments and such are greatly reduced - if applied at all - the offending material is simply removed - and the participents in the thread quietly reminded of the current T&C
bottom line . IMHO is that ATS is a private site - when you sign up and log in - you agree to the T&C and consent to be governed by the staff while you are here
if that disagrees with you - why the hell do you bother loging in ? there are lots of other sites - or you could even set one up yourself and run it " your way "
i dunno where i heard it first - but the most apt analogy is that :
ATS is simon grey`s " cyber sitting room " you are here by invitation , and insulting his freinds and peeing on the carpet is unacceptable behaviour - one would [ i hope ] to act that way in his real house - why do you think its acceptable on his website ?
fin .
. reply posted on 17-10-2007 @ 02:05 PM by intrepid
reply to post by Project_Silo
Yes, I recall the episode, It was about drugs and I said where do you draw the line on drug talk? I further stated that pedophilia was against the T&C should we allow NAMBLA to post here and then you got all bent out of shape. What's your point? Both are against the T&C.
Yes, I recall the episode, It was about drugs and I said where do you draw the line on drug talk? I further stated that pedophilia was against the T&C should we allow NAMBLA to post here and then you got all bent out of shape. What's your point? Both are against the T&C.
reply posted on 17-10-2007 @ 02:43 PM by jsobecky
reply to post by intrepid
Is that why you're always on my ass, intrepid?
One can only hope..
Originally posted by intrepid
Wow Unit, you really take this internet stuff seriously. I remember a mod that was on my ass about quoting, one liners, etc when I first got here and he just made me a better netizen.
Is that why you're always on my ass, intrepid?
One can only hope..
reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 01:24 PM by Terran Blue
Originally posted by Majic
It's not uncommon to see suggestions in some posts that ATS/BTS/AP moderators enjoy some sort of special privilege because they're mods and can therefore get away with things that other members cannot.
And here comes the message from The State...
I wish to lay this notion to rest, because it's not true.
EVIDENCE please....You should know here on ATS nobody will believe you unless you have a thousand witnesses and a few hundred pages of text from neutral sources.... oh, and chuck in a YouTube link too, a good docu goes down well.
All members of the staff, including moderators, super moderators and administrators, have agreed -- like every other member by virtue of our participation here -- to honor the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use.
NO ONE is exempt from the T&C.
If at any time you should see any staff member behave in a manner contrary to the terms & conditions, please let us know immediately by submitting a Complaint/Suggestion.
Not being funny or anything Majic, but you only need to link the thread ONCE . ONCE is enough, any more than ONCE, and people might get the impression you are taking the piss. So to summarize: ONCE is enough.
We take all such reports very seriously and will not tolerate misconduct on the part of any staff member.
Well, thank goodness. You dispelled a totally unfounded notion with that line... Good job people here don't question statements from Authority now, isn't it.
I know it's easy on a conspiracy site to assume that moderators can get away with being abusive because they're mods,
That problem is true of many sites, and is not exclusive to this patch of the Net.
but actually the opposite is true.
Can you prove that? You know, showing people things rather than telling them is always a better method of convincing. Not taking the mick or anything, just pointing out where your propaganda efforts fall flat, is all.
If any of us should give you the slightest impression otherwise, we want to hear about it.
Cool! Do you guys have like an Internal Affairs Divison or something?
Anything less would be unacceptable.
Can I quote you on... oh wait, I just did
reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 02:57 PM by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Terran Blue
one question ,
what evidence would you accept ?
it has been opined at various times that ATS is controled by the CIA , FBI , NSA - heck almost every ` alphabet soup agency
that ATS is cointelpro
that mods are biased , innept , corrupt , a nepotistic clique
that ATS " censors " controvertial topics
that ATS
some of these claims are even mutually exclusive
but all fall into the basic fallacy of demanding that ATS " proove " that the claim is unfounded
say what ? ???????????????????
yup , every one of them shifts the burden of resonsibility to demand that ATS provides evidence that thiey are NOT guilty of the assanine charges
formal logic 101 should be mandatory , in adition to curtesy is mandatory
first - what is your evidence that ATS is guilty of any of the charges ? bearing in mind that burden is on the accusor - we have NOT slipped into a parralel dimension where the ` code naploleone ` judicial system is the norm , have we ?
and second - what evidence would you accept as evidence of innocence - cos there is a lot of poo flinging - but no one even registers that one of it sticks to the teflon coated sides of ATS they just accept the filthy fingers of the poo flinger as " proof " that ATS is guilty
is critical thinking dead , or have the goal posts been moved
..................... again ?
one question ,
what evidence would you accept ?
it has been opined at various times that ATS is controled by the CIA , FBI , NSA - heck almost every ` alphabet soup agency
that ATS is cointelpro
that mods are biased , innept , corrupt , a nepotistic clique
that ATS " censors " controvertial topics
that ATS
some of these claims are even mutually exclusive
but all fall into the basic fallacy of demanding that ATS " proove " that the claim is unfounded
say what ? ???????????????????
yup , every one of them shifts the burden of resonsibility to demand that ATS provides evidence that thiey are NOT guilty of the assanine charges
formal logic 101 should be mandatory , in adition to curtesy is mandatory
first - what is your evidence that ATS is guilty of any of the charges ? bearing in mind that burden is on the accusor - we have NOT slipped into a parralel dimension where the ` code naploleone ` judicial system is the norm , have we ?
and second - what evidence would you accept as evidence of innocence - cos there is a lot of poo flinging - but no one even registers that one of it sticks to the teflon coated sides of ATS they just accept the filthy fingers of the poo flinger as " proof " that ATS is guilty
is critical thinking dead , or have the goal posts been moved
..................... again ?
