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.

 

The ATS Issues Thread

page: 166
126
<< 163  164  165    167  168  169 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
As you said earlier, to receive a warning and fine without being told why is ridiculous.
I didn't said that, I said it would loose its educational value, not that it was ridiculous.




posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
As you said earlier, to receive a warning and fine without being told why is ridiculous.
I didn't said that, I said it would loose its educational value, not that it was ridiculous.


Sorry, I stand corrected but you get my gist.
Anyway, like I said, I'm not bothered anymore. The argument is over because it's becoming personal rather than just dealing with the facts. Gemstone and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. . .



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Because I paid a lot of money for my phone, not to mention monthly net access to be able to browse the web anymore in the form I would on a PC... the problem on ATS has only stated in the past week, so I thought it was a glitch. I can still use my Navigation Ball to move from link to link under the image, I just didn't understand why all of a sudden they were there.

But if its something I'll have to get used to I guess I will.

I like posting being able to see the site as if I were at my desk, and my posts like right now don't say "posted via ats mobile".




posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Is it possible to embed external videos that are not from Google or Youtube?

Disclose.tv NWO and their ways Video

just testing

Nope didn't work

Disclose.tv NWO and their ways Video

Here's the link anyway if you're interested Its a new NWO vid. with nothing new. lol
Here
[edit on 22-8-2009 by deadoralive]

[edit on 22-8-2009 by deadoralive]

[edit on 22-8-2009 by deadoralive]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Ok.. my subscribed threads have gone again, and this time I know it wasnt me. lol.

Looked at myATS they were there (and I never pressed anything else), I went to BTS, read the recent posts, came back to ATS and read the recent posts here.. and then clicked myATS again and they were gone.

I did only have 2 subscribed threads lol because of what happened before (and havent had time to rebuild them yet) so its not the end of the world.

But if this keeps happening then this option is useless for me (although its a very useful option to have), any help is appreciated.

Is there any other way they can be deleted or is anyone else having the same problem.

Thanks in advance,

JQ.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by John Q
 

As far as I know there are only 4 ways of making the threads disappear from your subscribed threads list, and only one of those (the famous "all" button) removes all the threads in one action.

That has never happened to me, so I don't know what may be happening, but one thing you may do when you have all the threads subscribed again is to go to the "Manage Subscriptions" option on your "ATS Account Settings" page and save that page. If things go wrong again at least you a backup.


PS: there is also a button to delete your subscriptions on that page, but you have to select them first, one by one.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Why are all pages now wider than 1024 pixels, forcing the appearance of a horizontal scroll bar?

At first I thought it was some post with an image that was messing the layout of the page, but now I am seeing it in all pages.

I hope it's just temporary.

Edit: now I noticed what's the problem, it's the "!!Attention Do Not Go To www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com Government Owned!!" link on the right, apparently "www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com" is considered as a word and it does not break to a new line, messing the page layout like used to happen in the myATS page.

Sorry for that.


[edit on 23/8/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I have noticed that happens sometimes, but then it usually goes away when I refresh...



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Hello, I'm posting in the special ghetto!

In response to this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Apart from a couple of specific topics that involve illegal things, I've not seen any topic that is too outlandish for ATS, as long as it's put in the correct area of the forum. I'd like to know what the topics are that the poster thought would get a user banned.

Something I would like to correct though is this



It's simple enough to see which members are actually banned, and which simply choose not to post.

"member tools" button, up above. Has a "members list" function.

Tells all about the active members.


That's not actually correct, some people get banned without actually getting the "banned" tag on their account. A friend of mine got banned here in that manner. His post privileges were revoked, and his posts to the complaints forum apologizing were ignored, but his account still shows him as active. He now posts on GLP with all the other trolls where he belongs!



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by harpsounds
 


You are right.

I got banned a few days ago after a post being deleted for not being on topic. I didn't get any warnings, just got banned.

I was told that the reason I was banned was because I had maybe 7 or 8 posts removed in the last month for not being on topic. That excuse still had me upset for a day or two, but I got over it. I chalk it up to me disagreeing with to many mods.

Anyways, my profile didn't show that I was banned and after several U2Us with a mod the matter got straightened out.

Still wondering why I never got any warnings though.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Remember, there are two kinds of Bans. There is a permanent ban that bans your account and allows no more interaction through ATS. The permanent ban also adds the Ban tag to your profile.

Secondly there is a Post Ban. This stops you from posting in the public forums, but you are still able to send U2Us to staff and communicate with them. This is more a "Time Out" than anything else. We typically use it when we notice a member is in "crash and burn" mode, i.e. his emotions are running high and he's violating one T&C after the other. We would also use it if a member refuses to follow instructions, such as "No profanity" or "Keep on Topic".

A posting ban can last from several minutes (simply to get the attention of the member), but typically lasts 3 days. If the post banned member refuses to communicate with staff about the post ban, the post ban can last for as long as the member refuses to communicate.

@ jd140 - Every time you receive a U2U for being off-topic it serves as a "warning". The automated U2Us explains the concept of being off-topic, and also asks the member to stop doing it. If the member continues to ignore the requests to stay on topic, the next step is to post ban him. If the member continues to post off-topic posts after the post ban is over, then the next step will obviously be a permanent ban.

During all of these actions there are always communication from the staff's side to the member, in other words the member usually has ample time to change his ways before being permanently banned.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Gemwolf
 

If the post banned member refuses to communicate with staff about the post ban, the post ban can last for as long as the member refuses to communicate.


So, we as users can get banned for an indeterminate amount of time if we refuse to communicate with the staff. Gotcha.

How goes it when a ATS member sends U2U’s to the staff (if that means a specific Mod) who refuse to communicate with back?

(When only 3 U2U’s have been sent, all are polite, on topic, and the last extending an olive branch of peace over a difference of opinion)?

Does that mean we’re compelled to answer staff but the staff is under no such compulsion to respond to us?

Just call me purely curious.

thanks



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


I can't really give a fair reply if I know only half of the story.

It depends on what the U2Us are about.

If it's merely chit-chat, then obviously the staff member is under no obligation to respond.

If the message is insulting or confrontational (i.e. "picking a fight") then it is unlikely that the staff member will respond. Many a time a member will keep sending messages to the staffer, after the issue has been explained to the member, simply to get in "the last word". As soon as this point is reach the staffer may decide not to respond, seeing that everything that could have been said, was said.

Sometimes a message from a member simply doesn't need a response.

A staff member will rarely if ever respond to an abusive U2U.

On other occasions a staffer may realize that s/he can no longer be objective and will ask another staffer to handle the member. As soon as the issue has been handed over to another staffer, the original staffer doesn't have to respond to the member anymore.

The bottom line is, you will always have a line of communication to the moderation staff. If you don't get a response from one staffer you can use the "complaints/suggestions" feature in your Member Tools. This will bring the issue under the attention of the entire moderation body. Otherwise you can send a U2U to another staff member you know and/or trust.

But as I said. This is all hypothetical, and I can't really give a straight answer because I don't know the background. If you feel there is an unresolved issue with a staff member, there are many ways to get it resolved.

Edit to add:

So, we as users can get banned for an indeterminate amount of time if we refuse to communicate with the staff. Gotcha.


If a member that has been post banned wishes to post again, and be a member of the community, then he will communicate with the staff to resolve the issue. If he doesn't want to participate on ATS then he won't bother to resolve the issue. Makes sense to me.


[edit on 24-8-2009 by Gemwolf]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Gemwolf
 


I understand that reasoning, a little flawed, but I understand. I witnessed in a span of a few hours one member getting 10 posts removed for being off topic on the same thread. I asked if he had gotten a post ban and he informed me that he hadn't.

Now I had gotten less then him in a month removed for the same thing and I had gotten a post ban. Doesn't make sense to me.

But lets say that is the case could you tell me what the warning labels are for if the posts being removed is our warning?



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
Now I had gotten less then him in a month removed for the same thing and I had gotten a post ban. Doesn't make sense to me.


All actions taken are based upon the sum total of overall content, Context and to what extent a given member May have a demonstrable history of the same.

Just as points may seem a "level or bar" by which fellow members May judge or "see" each other, staff tends to give appreciable consideration to a given member's "track history" ... unless it's an outright and/or gross T&C issue, violation.


But lets say that is the case could you tell me what the warning labels are for if the posts being removed is our warning?


The in-thread "graphic" warnings each come with their own specific points deduction (Off-Topic, Manners, etc) as well as the entire post being removed. They're typically only initiated when either the vast majority of a given post falls under one or several respective classifications.

Otherwise, if there is a severe enough T&C infraction, whilst the remainder of said post remains on-topic, relevant and contributive, it may result in a mere Edit, Note or possible Warn ... with the Warn "flag" only showing for the 72-hr period it's valid for. Again, depending upon the severity.

Hope this helps.


[edit on 24-8-2009 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by 12m8keall2c
 


Doesn't help really.

It seems to me there really isn't any set rules in that regard and a member can be banned at the discreation of the mod.

7 or 8 posts removed for being off topic- I get post ban

10 posts removed for the same thing in the same thread- member goes on as if nothing happened.

Doesn't exactly seem consistant does it?

I didn't mean to make this the focal point. I have taken it all in stride and come to the conclusion that I have stepped on the toes of a few members that for one reason or another they are thought highly of. Now I get to reap the benefits so to speak.

Thanks for the input though.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Would This be a good idea as well as a star feature have a thumbs down?



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by deadoralive
 

ATS already had a system like that, and it was abused by some members.

In the same way we now see people flock to star their friends' posts, regardless of their quality, when that system was used we see mostly the enemies flocking to give a bad rating to a post, regardless of the content, so I think that the star system that we use today is the best way of giving some rating to the posts, even if it's not perfect.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by deadoralive
 


I think having stars and a thumbs down rating system would cause confusion.

If you don't like something, just don't give it a star.



new topics

top topics



 
126
<< 163  164  165    167  168  169 >>

log in

join