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.

 

Why Complain?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
but this is not so much about complaints as about censorship

This gets me every time... how is it "censorship" if a private managed board decides a given topic is better served by moving it form one board to another?



the whole "it's drugs related, quick get rid of it".

Yes... and your use of slang terminology for the drug in question did nothing to instill a feeling that you were intending something of a serious discussion. But no matter... yes, if it's drugs related I'd rather get rid of it... and quick.

You're not aware of the battles that are fought behind the scenes on behalf of this website. There are automated filtering services that flag sites based on the propensity for certain key words, without any regard to context. I'm currently in lengthy discussions with the largest such firm that supplies automated domain filtering services to homes, schools, government, and corporations. We may actually end up contributing to the formulation of new contextually-sensitive filtering methods.

Our stance on swearing, insults, and discussion of illegal activity is not an arbitrarily chosen stance because of prudish ninnies behind the scenes that can't stand such talk. Our stance has been in place for years expressly to avoid automated filtering systems so that every post from every member on ATS has the best possible chance to be noticed by the broadest possible range of people.

Given what we've worked hard to build, and that we continue to work hard to maintain the highest standards on the Internet, I have little patience for someone moaning about a "story" about drugs who should certainly know our policies, our reasons for our policies, and respect that they are carefully chosen for good reason.




posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Can I ask if you've read the article?
That was the article headline - it wasn't my headline, and the reasons for it become clear as the article progresses.

I don't even know why I'm bothering - not if you've made a snap decision without even reading it.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski


I don't even know why I'm bothering - not if you've made a snap decision without even reading it.



Who is not reading before they respond?

SO said...


You're not aware of the battles that are fought behind the scenes on behalf of this website. There are automated filtering services that flag sites based on the propensity for certain key words, without any regard to context. I'm currently in lengthy discussions with the largest such firm that supplies automated domain filtering services to homes, schools, government, and corporations. We may actually end up contributing to the formulation of new contextually-sensitive filtering methods.


Please take a minute and re-read that paragraph.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 



I've only used the complaint/suggestion a few times and action has been taken every time.
I think patience needs to be shown when using this feature, there are only so many mods on at any one time and probably hundreds or more posts a day.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Oh, I read it - it has no relevance to me though.
The article in question wasn't read, and a snap decision was made to quietly hide it out of the way based on a false premise of what the article was about.

Next time I post, I'll just do what everyone else seems to and not bother to read what's actually being said, rather I'll just use the cherry picking, knee jerk method of rebuttal, and not answer the question by avoidance.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by Valhall
 


Oh, I read it - it has no relevance to me though.



lmao - you know what, you're a self-centered little dude, aren't you? That or your reading comprehension hasn't reached 8th grade level yet. I'll wait for more evidence before I draw my conclusion.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Decision Snap


Originally posted by budski
I don't even know why I'm bothering - not if you've made a snap decision without even reading it.

We're trying to be nice about it, but your false claims and arguments made from the standpoint of gross conceptual errors are not helping.

Please, read this!

Having the reviewed your complaints, the complaints of others, the discussions of the staff members behind the scenes and the public discussions in this thread and the related threads, I can say this with great confidence:

You're wrong.

You are arguing against the very terms and conditions you've agreed to honor by being a member here, and worse, you're slandering and denigrating the staff for enforcing them.

Please, cease the childish tantrums, stop posting lies about us (you are NOT a mind-reader), study the T&C and try to give this matter a little more thought.

This is embarrassing to watch.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

May I bring this thread to your attention, in support of my side of the argument:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



How does this thread support your argument, exactly?

Is it the title that has you upset or is it the content?



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Majic
 


Sorry if I'm coming off that way, but the mixed messages don't help
www.abovetopsecret.com...
particularly when it's raised and no reply is forthcoming.

The article in question wasn't actually about drugs - this is why I made a reference to knee jerk reactions.

If you'd care to read the whole article you'll see what I mean.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


No masqua, not the title, the content. Which clearly states that as long as you don't mention personal drug use, the topic can be explored - and the drug part of the article I posted was a very small part of it. Although the inference is that it is an article about drugs, it's not.

I was very careful not to infer that this article was about drug use, and I researched and verified the info it contained.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Thanks for that, budski... because the only post you made in that thread was really positive.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It had me confused, thinking it was something with that particular thread.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by Valhall
 


Oh, I read it - it has no relevance to me though.



lmao - you know what, you're a self-centered little dude, aren't you? That or your reading comprehension hasn't reached 8th grade level yet. I'll wait for more evidence before I draw my conclusion.


Well, if you can show me how that relates directly to me, other than as a member of this site, who always tries very hard to stay within the TAC, then I'll apologise - when I say it has no relevance to me, I mean that I haven't, to my knowledge, been in breach of the rules - apart from one time using excessive quoting.
So I'm not being self centred, I'm already very careful about what I post and how I post it, so therefore the filtering issue is not one that's relevant to me.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


I thoroughly enjoyed that thread masqua - a very interesting and lively debate, but it transpires now that I can't use the guidelines you set out.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Drug-Free Zone


Originally posted by budski
The article in question wasn't actually about drugs - this is why I made a reference to knee jerk reactions.

The hand-waving is not going anywhere.

Just so we're clear about what the point of contention is, please post a link to the article you're talking about.

Also, while we're at it, please explain what you mean when you accuse us of "censorship".



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Majic
 


Here's the article:
www.alternet.org...

And my point about censorship is that as soon as the title was seen, it was whisked away to a quiet corner of BTS, despite the conspiratorial nature of the article, which led me to believe that it hadn't been read.

The article is in three parts, and is very interesting, despite the title.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Your comments from your news submission read:

They can't prove cannabis is harmful...

You took an article covering the expansion of terrorism laws into the illegal drug arena and added a personal comment that can be easily construed as supportive of the use of illegal drugs.

Why are we still talking about censorship?



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


In fairness, that was a point made in the article itself, and I should have worded it differently so as not to mislead.

I've also stated that it's a form of censorship, and haven't mentioned total censorship.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Censorship Without Censorship


Originally posted by budski
And my point about censorship is that as soon as the title was seen, it was whisked away to a quiet corner of BTS, despite the conspiratorial nature of the article, which led me to believe that it hadn't been read.

Okay, now I know that you are in fact talking about this thread and the related complaint.

Here's my take on that:

1. Moving the thread to Breaking General News is not censorship. Calling it "censorship" (or a "form of censorship") is patently wrong.

2. I've read the DrugReporter article, and while it covers more than just drugs, it and the discussion accompanying it are most definitely centered on the issues surrounding the cultivation and use of marijuana.

3. Your own comments in the thread seem to overlook what I would consider to be the more significant issue, which is the government's use of the "War on Terror" as a "justification for any and every abuse of power". But what you want to focus on is up to you, and that's fine.

4. The thread was moved because the staff member who moved it decided the discussion was more suited to the Breaking General News forum. That's all. No sinister agenda. Mods are encouraged and expected to use their judgment in managing their respective forums.

5. As far as I can tell, the actual topic of the thread has nothing to do with personal drug use. We don't move threads about personal drug use, we trash them, so I'm not sure what the connection to this thread was.

6. The thread you're complaining about is still open and discussion is quite welcome to continue, provided it complies with the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use.

So I'm left wondering: what's the point of this thread?



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:21 PM
link   
The point is that moving it to a forum where it won't get much of a readership is ensuring that less people read it (hence a "form" of censoring) - and whilst it may be a contentious issue, it has elements of conspiracy and doesn't belong where it is.
This is also a culmination of events where threads have been moved and the explanation received was, to me, inadequate.

I've said it before, I have a lot of respect for the mods, who do a very difficult job.

But the frustration I feel about some things has boiled over.

I had intended to introduce the terror aspect once people had read the article, and perhaps my comments could have been worded better.
Nevertheless, I stand by my opinion that it should not have been moved for the reasons it was.

The connection to masqua's thread was that it laid down guidelines for threads that had elements pertaining to illegal substances, which I adhered to.
I wasn't, as SO said, trying to slip it under the radar.

[edit on 29/8/2007 by budski]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Lots of people read BTS, budski -- that's where I saw the article myself for the first time.

I understand your frustration, but sometimes online we let things that are really not that bad affect us too much. I know I have.

My advice, for what it's worth, step back, take a few deep breaths, have some chocolate therapy, watch the Colbert Report perhaps, and sleep on it. I've done that before, and it really has helped reduce the tension. It seems like you're really cycling on anger right now, no offense, and stepping back for a little bit might put it all in perspective again.

The internet can do weird things to people sometimes. It's just a thread in a message board. It wasn't a personal attack or anything.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join