It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Banned Member Inquiry

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I have seen on other forums the specific violation, and the post that got them banned. Is there a section in here somewhere that does this? In my curious nature, I like to humor myself with other people's stupidity.





posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   
No, that information is usually not available here.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
If you are familliar with the T&C it can be pretty clear. Sometimes it's for something behind the scenes, like abusive u2us. The T&C applies there and in Chat as well. But we don't discuss what a person does to get banned most of the time.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Nope...

Not here. On the rare occasion that the membership is informed regarding a banned member, it is typically due to a hoax, or some egregious violation of the Terms & Conditions... And then, it is only conveyed by one of the "Three Amigos."

All bannings are a product of a violation of the Terms & Conditions, or the return of a previously banned member.

While it may seem like it would be entertaining, for the most part it's just annoying... We haven't been able to fill up a full "ATS Bloopers" yet, much less "ATS Bloopers 2."



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Alright, I was just curious. Thanks.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I tend to agree with the policy of not airing your dirty laundry out in public. One of the big reasons this board is so successful is that we have Moderators that spend their time keeping it the best board on the web.


Oh man, now it sounds like I'm just kissing ass. :shk:



There has always been something that I wanted to rummage through. It may be a voyeuristic side of my personality I don't like to admit to, but......

I really want to go through the "Trash Bin", that place where all the inappropriate threads go.
I think I'd pay 50,000 in points to do some dumpster diving in that treasure trove.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Isnt there another way of punishing? Cant banned people just make a new ID after changing there IP address?

Also why not just suspend people for the infractions.

Life time ban is BS



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
Cant banned people just make a new ID after changing there IP address?


Sure but have you heard the term, "A leopard can't change it's spots"? What led to their being banned would probably crop up again.


Also why not just suspend people for the infractions.


We DO post ban members in hopes of bringing them in line with ATS' T&C. Unless it's a blatant infraction.


Life time ban is BS


Hey, no one asked the members that get banned to break the Terms and Conditions that THEY agreed to when they joined. Best way not to be banned is to abide by that which was agreed upon at the beginning.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Yea but some people just have a bad day and get a little cranky and say things they dont mean.

I guess thats what red flags are for.

I still think a lifetime ban is no good, im a believer in second chances.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by earth2


I still think a lifetime ban is no good, im a believer in second chances.


I'm not. I believe in second, third and even more chances if there's progress. That's what the PB is for. If not, Hasta la Vista. They can go elsewhere to post in the manner that got them into whatever. Plenty of sites out there that allow turmoil. ATS isn't one of them.

As to the lifetime ban, hard to argue with the success of the board. I'm sure there are members here, right now, that were banned and reregistered a new account and they're abiding by the T&C. If that's what it took, all well and good. Those are few and far between though.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

As to the lifetime ban, hard to argue with the success of the board. I'm sure there are members here, right now, that were banned and reregistered a new account and they're abiding by the T&C. If that's what it took, all well and good. Those are few and far between though.


True .

Ok im convinced.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
I really want to go through the "Trash Bin", that place where all the inappropriate threads go.
I think I'd pay 50,000 in points to do some dumpster diving in that treasure trove.


That's exactly what I was looking for. Maybe one day, maybe.


[edit on 26-7-2007 by Quasar]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Actually i think the mods here are VERY tolerant with some of the users replies.They also do issue warnings to the more intolerant users so a ban doesnt just appear out of the blue,you know?



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   
If a member sings the praise of a famous person, and then another poster turns nasty and insults said famous person, and then the mamber gets offended, replies to the written style of another member (illiterate) then is that grounds for questioning the account of deaman88?



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Does this mean that ATS is really based around what the moderators are 'feeling', or is it based upon 'heresay', which when asked for evidence from the mods by deaman88 3 times, it was not forthcoming from the moderator?

Do you think that if you ground people because they don't se eye to eye on a subject, that banning or not allowing them to post is the solution?

Is a police state not supposed to be working for the state? Is katie homles and victoria beckham the grounds to ban someone? Bollocks I say

This is a true fact that happened here on ATS, and is the fault of a lowly volunteer called spacedout and his trusty supermoderator (working on the same graveyard shift no doubt), who couldn't differentiate between an initial insult, prefering instead to focus on the 'story of another member'

Since when did they start banning what you feel?

Proof yu say? Here is deaman88's dialogue towards the unfounded accustion of being rude to a member: see thread: Is Katie Holmes Morphing into Victoria Beckham? by deaman88.

Now, if you try to access the thread you wont be able to, as 'hitler and his little suck buddy have joned forces to form a mini 'Police State' of listening to 'hearsay' and accepting it as 'fact', then harrasing a contributing member over 'their' behaviour.

Note to self: shoot later ask questions first



"quote: Either stop the stupid and unfounded actions of spacedoubt, or lose a member

-and-

Either you ask spacedoubt to stop his pathetic and baseless atck on me, or you can screw this account and ban me. Remember deny ignorance and provide evidence- PUT UP OR SHUT UP


I do not receive threats and ultimatums in a positive vein. Because of those two U2U's above, I feel it necessaary to give you a bit of time to 'cool off' before posting again.

[Start of Obligation to bend over:] "Your posting priviledges will be restored on Saturday IF you agree that the name-calling in that thread was warn-worthy.

"Please feel free to U2U me during the intervening time to work this out. " [End of Obligation, only if you roll over and play shmuck.../WTF 'AT-NO'??]


As a result, deaman88 has been disallowed from any further postings until he sucks up to the fertile 'egos' of conformity, well, I think I heard him say fck you to that, so feel free to now go forth and multiply.

[edit on 26-7-2007 by observer2007]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by observer2007
Does this mean that ATS is really based around waht the moderators are 'feeling', or is it based upon heresay, which when asked for evodence by deaman88 3 times, it is not forthcoming from the moderator?

Do you think that if you ground people because they don't se eye to eye on a subject, that banning or not allowing them to post is the solution?

Is a police state not supposed to be working for the state? Is katie homles and voctoria beckham the grounds to ban someone? Bollocks I say

This is a tru factm that happened, and is the fault of a lowly volunteer calles spacedout and his trusty supermoderator (working on the same graveyard shift no doubt)


That's an interesting contribution. May I ask what competing website you come from? Just seeing as this is your 3rd post.
One comes to mind but I won't give them the time.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   
When a warn is given.
The red warning flag is a link directly to the offending post.

a U2U is also generated, and sent to the member who is being warned, that links, directly to the offending post.

The mere ACT of giving a warning provides the information needed for a member to figure out, what it's all about.


But, usually there is a second U2U written by the warn-er, to the warn-ee.
With a bit of additional information.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by observer2007
....


Ummm... what was that about a leopard and it's spots?

.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Since we're on the subject...

Of banned members... A sure fire way to end up on the outside looking in is to circumvent staff action... If you are post banned, it's nothing more than a time out... A period of reflection and an excellent time to come to an understanding. Creating a new account and posting staff U2U communication is not a constructive approach, and will earn a member a permanent ban without much discussion.

Here is two references that detail ATS's policy on bannings and how you can avoid it:

Mod Note: If You Have Been Post Banned – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: How Not To Be Banned From ATS – Please Review This Link.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join