UPDATE 2009: The Discussion Of "Illegal Activity" On The Above Network Sites (ATS, BTS, AP).

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Again, I'll say the discussion of changing the law through proper legal procedures isn't discussing illegal activity.


I'll say it a different way. Considering the amount of times this has been explained by ATS over the years, considering the amount of time you have been a member here, and considering how clear the message is...

you are either being an extremely self-centered person or you possess no reading comprehension. Unlike others who are are newer to this board, with the amount of time you've been here and the posts in which you managed to show you can actually understand what you read, I'm only left with one conclusion as to why you're so adamant about causing drama on this point.

[edit on 8-30-2007 by Valhall]




posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   
When the issue of "drugs" comes up, there are often dozens of ways members attempt to obfuscate the issue in an effort to interject continued discussion in a side-ways-round-about way.



Originally posted by djohnsto77
Well then there certainly is a change in the T&C.

You can review it, it was not changed.



If I say "George W. Bush killed 4000 people on 9/11" that's ok, even though murder is illegal.

A very large segment of rational people will understand that among our core topics is the discussion of and speculation about conspiracy theories... and a popular contemporary conspiracy theory happens to be related to 9/11... just has many conspiracy theories throughout history have murder or loss of life as a backdrop.



But, if I say "Politician X proposed a bill to decriminalize marijuana" that's not OK, even though it's a description of a completely legal activity.

We choose to avoid detailed discussion about such topics because of the clearly outlined items in my opening post. If you're not able to understand the reasons behind our decisions to inspire content quality and meaningful discussion, then there's not much we can say to sway you.

There are many other sites that are both better organized and better affiliated for the advocacy of change in drug laws. If that is your desire, your efforts on such a topic are better spent on such sites.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   
The thing I don't understand is the bolded parts here:


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by xpert11
Can we no longer discuss the likes of the legalization of dope


This topic was always officially not allowed. Lately, we've been somewhat lax.


and the CIA ties to drug smuggling

Yes, as long as the discussion doesn't contain components that advocate legalizing or using illegal drugs. But even then, we'd ask that members maintain high standards of conduct and avoid "street" or "slang" terminology for the drugs being discussed.


I get 100% about the part considering using drugs that are currently illegal.

But by the standard proposed by these standards it would have been impossible to discuss the legislation that would later become the 21st Amendment if ATS existed back then between 1/16/1919 and 12/5/1933 when it finally did actually become law.

Is that true?



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I don't want to cause drama, I will not post about this any more.

It just seems to me that there has been a change in policy that is completely understandable for the reasons stated, but for some reason people don't want to admit that there was a change.

That's all I'll say on the issue.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
by the standard proposed by these standards

Are you taking any time at all to read what I'm writing, or are you just thiking up your own conlcusions to jump to?



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I totally understand this decision by the staff. It keeps content from being on filter lists (allowing more ad revenue potential, nothing wrong with that i'm all for Capitalism), allows more users (see previous parenthetical), and generally keeps any mention of the subject from devolving into what it ALWAYS does. Even if I didn't understand, I'd have to concede that it is y'all's site and you make the rules.

However, Skepticin your own ATS mix interview by Dave and Johnny there is a not so subtle very strong drug reference at the very beginning. I personally found it HILARIOUS, but it pinged my hypocrisy meter. If you are worried about minors being able to access ATS as filtering advances to the point where it doesn't just read threads, but accesses Multimedia content, you are either gonna have to get rid of Dave ( I'd rather have to state my age to you guys than that) or put some type of age verification.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   
I'd like to take a stab at the answer to your made up question, dj.

In 1933, if society's restrictions were such as they are now, most likely ATS wouldn't have allowed threads on alcohol consumption because they would have been filtered from a vast number of people looking for alternative topics. And while talking about the woes of not getting booze or drugs - or wanting to prevent the access of booze or durgs - may seem extremely important to some of you, restricting the access of others to topics the majority of people deem MORE IMPORTANT is not that attractive a thought just to let a few people beat each other about the head over those particular issues.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Dramatis Personae


Originally posted by djohnsto77
But by the standard proposed by these standards it would have been impossible to discuss the legislation that would later become the 21st Amendment if ATS existed back then between 1/16/1919 and 12/5/1933 when it finally did actually become law.

Geez, multiply this by about a thousand and you have a pretty good approximation of what it's been like in the Complaints forum.


Rather than attempt to read too much into this, I recommend chilling out a bit and seeing how things go.

If, after giving it some time, you're still concerned that we're being too draconian, then maybe we can talk facts instead of hypotheticals.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 11:20 PM
link   
From time to time though, in reference to a member who, in my view at least, is being over hype about a certain topic. Can I still say in a half-serious way something to the effect of "chill out, sip kool aid and light some tree"...?
Or is that not acceptable now?



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jefwane
I totally understand this decision by the staff. It keeps content from being on filter lists (allowing more ad revenue potential, nothing wrong with that i'm all for Capitalism), allows more users (see previous parenthetical), and generally keeps any mention of the subject from devolving into what it ALWAYS does. Even if I didn't understand, I'd have to concede that it is y'all's site and you make the rules.

However, Skepticin your own ATS mix interview by Dave and Johnny there is a not so subtle very strong drug reference at the very beginning. I personally found it HILARIOUS, but it pinged my hypocrisy meter. If you are worried about minors being able to access ATS as filtering advances to the point where it doesn't just read threads, but accesses Multimedia content, you are either gonna have to get rid of Dave ( I'd rather have to state my age to you guys than that) or put some type of age verification.


Podcasts are NOT under the same purview or restrictions as POSTS...

Podcasts require an additional step (download) to be experienced. Podcasts have EXPLICIT warnings that inform BEFORE they are experienced.

This reassertion of existing rules is only applicable to POSTS/THREADS on the site sans the blatant reference or "use of" on podcasts.

At the end of the day we will protect our site/brand from illogical filtering as we deem necessary regardless of "file format or presentation media" but for now it's the posts we are most concerned about for what should be obvious reasons (ZERO warning or chance to "not load" a thread/post once clicked).

The point here is to AVOID the "STONEALOG", we don't desire being filtered because people feel the need to describe their personal adventures in euphoria or preferences in product/paraphernalia, etc... on ATS.


Springer...



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   
I appreciate the reply bossman, and I'd never intentionaly try to get on your guys S-List. I love what you have going here. I just thought that needed addressing.

Since I've become a parent, things that in the past would've raised my youth fueled righteous-indignation, well now I just shrug and say thats the way it is. I look at it like this I'd rather be called a hypocrite than have my child make the same mistakes I did.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
This topic was always officially not allowed. Lately, we've been somewhat lax.


Lately? Iv been having those kind of discussions since I joined ATS so I can perfectly understand why some long term members would be confused by your clarification.



Yes, as long as the discussion doesn't contain components that advocate legalizing or using illegal drugs.


IMO your on the verge of a slippery slope what's next ?
At some point will we be no longer allowed to discuss sexual orientation ?
But hey no one is forced to post here if anyone feels that the T&C is getting in the way of ATS purpose they can always leave or just read the boards.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 04:11 AM
link   
An honest question for the staff:

Illegal behavior where?

A post where I extol the virtues of codeine-infused cough syrup for treating a nasty cold would get me into trouble here, where codeine is a controlled substance. A lot of what can be bought over the counter in the USA is illegal here on that front. Likewise, in Canada possession of a small amount of pot is a very minor offense. Our posters from Holland are in a similar situation.

I understand why you feel the need to do this, but my point is that citing the legality of an action does complicate things a bit. Where shall we stop, and more importantly, at whose borders? There are a number of people posting here from China: shall we add to the list of things which cannot be discussed those topics which are blocked in China? Shall we put a blanket ban on discussions about Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, because there are nations where such conversations regularly tread into illegal waters?

Just curious.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 04:25 AM
link   

2e.) Illegal Activity: Discussion of illegal activities; specifically mind-altering drugs, computer hacking, criminal hate, sexual relations with minors, and stock scams are strictly forbidden.



Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Yes, as long as the discussion doesn't contain components that advocate legalizing or using illegal drugs.


I asked a question relating to the following on another thread and never got an answer: there are a number of powerful hallucinogens that are not illegal either to buy, cultivate or ingest. Having read this thread, the policy seems adequately clear to me now. You don't want discussion of recreational drugs. I'm only bringing this up to point to an inadequacy of the T&C language, which could be revised something like this (for extra clarity):


Discussion of illegal activities; specifically computer hacking, criminal hate, sexual relations with minors, and stock scams are strictly forbidden, as are discussions regarding either legal or illegal mind-altering recreational drugs.






[edit on 8/31/2007 by yuefo]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Sounds very concise and clear to me, thank you for the reminder.

I am very sorry to hear that the filter problem has caused much undue stress for Simon and so many others. Just yesterday I was wondering how many people stay in touch with ATS through work, and the worst news comes today on my thoughts.
I apologise for having spoken about an instance over 30 years ago in my past, fortunately it was caught very early on due to the steadfastness of the Moderators. I wish I had understood the terms and conditions clearly.
I will keep a close eye out to help you in the future, and contact a Moderator immediately if it happens in the future.
As for underage visitors to the forum I will do all I can to keep the sensors from creating that block. Let me know what I can do to help. There is a wellspring of information available for young adults here and their input is vital to the development of our future society.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Please mods just delete the offending members posts rather than killing an entire thread because someone didn't read the T&C.

Those of us who follow the rules shouldn't be punished because of those who don't.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Thread-Killers Pseudonymous


Originally posted by Kruel
Please mods just delete the offending members posts rather than killing an entire thread because someone didn't read the T&C.

What forum moderators do is up to them and depends on the situation, but as a general rule, most mods try not to let one or two errant members shut down a thread.

Threads that turn into all-out festivals of decadence, however, may end up being trashed simply because we don't have the time to edit dozens of posts in a thread.

Should that happen to a thread of yours, I recommend contacting the mod in question via U2U and seeing what can be done, such as deleting a bunch of posts, starting over (if the topic is valid), etc.

There's usually a way to resolve things amicably.


Not-So-Blind Justice


Originally posted by Kruel
Those of us who follow the rules shouldn't be punished because of those who don't.

I wholeheartedly agree, and ironically enough, that's why we're having to tighten up enforcement.

Too many threads that are on-topic for a forum have been forced into irrelevant tangents about what form of cannibis is the most potent, how wonderful and legal salvia is, why Ecstacy really isn't so bad, etc.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, there are much, much better forums for that sort of discussion elsewhere on the 'Net, and for my part, I wish them well.

The ATS family of forums, however, is not the place for it, and I'm hopeful that we won't have to fight too many of our own respected members to make that clear.

I appreciate why some folks feel compelled to focus on discussion of drugs (for those who don't already know, I'm pro-legalization myself), but it's getting in the way of what ATS is about, and therefore must end.

All members can help prevent threads from being needlessly derailed -- and possibly trashed -- by letting us know when T&C violations occur, and cutting us some slack when we have to enforce the rules.

Admittedly this isn't my favorite part of the job, but we have to do what we have to do, and I hope you can understand.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   
My point is this:

The T&C are perfectly clear as long as there isn't a policy (or lax interpretation, call it what you will) of guidelines where it's allowed to talk about illegal activity in a round about way.

If all talk of such topics are not allowed there are no grey area's - and I for one welcome this.

It's a lot easier to stick to reasonable, strict rules regarding any illegal activity.
Just think, no more good threads derailed by legalisation agenda's.

I've been more than a little confused by some mixed messages and I welcome this clarity of what's acceptable and what's not.

One question, do the same rules apply to BTS and AP?



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
One question, do the same rules apply to BTS and AP?


Yes... as both the title and content of the opening post indicates.

Also, I've had to remove several tags from this thread... tags related to drug slang and terminology... I suppose some people just have to play games no matter what.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Thanks for the additional clarity SO.

I appreciate the need for this, and I for one intend to fully comply with it, with no reservations, what if's or opposing views.


As far as "what ifs" go - I'm reminded of the old Irish joke
"If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle"




[edit on 31/8/2007 by budski]





new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join