reply to post by daystrom
You're missing the point daystrom. W needed the kind of capital you typically only get in the venture capital market. There were no grants and
certainly not enough donors to get the deal done.
We are businessmen not charity directors, we hope to create the first real "crowd sourced" and ethical media company that hopefully makes
piles of money we can expand even more with and PROVE that the people do "get it" and the MSM is all wrong.
We seek to prove that you can have a very successful media company without outside corporate ownership and control. That's the biggest part of why we
declined the offers in the past, the companies wanted control, we aren't relinquishing control.
To be honest, I wouldn't have the patience to deal with donations, and I couldn't stand the thought of something not being allowed to profit on its
own merits, it just goes against my nature I guess.
Springer...
The ATS Issues Thread, page 39
privacy
reply posted on 20-9-2008 @ 11:37 AM by Amaterasu
Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by daystrom
We are businessmen not charity directors, we hope to create the first real "crowd sourced" and ethical media company that hopefully makes piles of money we can expand even more with and PROVE that the people do "get it" and the MSM is all wrong.
We seek to prove that you can have a very successful media company without outside corporate ownership and control. That's the biggest part of why we declined the offers in the past, the companies wanted control, we aren't relinquishing control.
Not to be a thorn in your side - for I fully understand where you are coming from - but I wonder...
Suppose, just suppose, that there is some scandal with one of your investors... The investor would likely want it hushed up, I would imagine. What happens should a poster come across the scandal and post about it?
How ethical will ATS be?
I ask because very often that is why the MSM doesn't report issues - because the companies involved are investors or advertisers.
So what would ATS do? Delete the post? Or allow it to carry on?
This is the dilemma one has a potential of when releasing one's company to investors, and one is in the "market" of truth.
reply posted on 20-9-2008 @ 11:46 AM by schrodingers dog
reply to post by Amaterasu
Hi amaterasu,
There are many pretty standard clauses in most investors' contracts that deny any minority , and sometimes majority, investor any control on the daily operations of the businesses in which they invest.
This, as I said, is standard MO and a part of any due diligence work which I'm sure has been undertaken on behalf of ATS.
It is hard for me to believe that after working so hard for so many years to make ATS what it is today, that the powers that be would allow anyone anywhere near operations just because they have invested. In fact I am sure that they will not.
Any potential investor walking in the room would be told of this condition before he sat down. We can call it: Deal breaker No. 1
Hi amaterasu,
There are many pretty standard clauses in most investors' contracts that deny any minority , and sometimes majority, investor any control on the daily operations of the businesses in which they invest.
This, as I said, is standard MO and a part of any due diligence work which I'm sure has been undertaken on behalf of ATS.
It is hard for me to believe that after working so hard for so many years to make ATS what it is today, that the powers that be would allow anyone anywhere near operations just because they have invested. In fact I am sure that they will not.
Any potential investor walking in the room would be told of this condition before he sat down. We can call it: Deal breaker No. 1
reply posted on 20-9-2008 @ 12:09 PM by Crakeur
reply to post by Amaterasu
well, let's see, if, say one of the amigos decided to split, for all you know the terms of the deal could dictate that, should one leave, the deal is off. as I said, you don't know the deal. was it a purchase, a merger, a loan?
and yes, the terms of a deal, when drawn up by attorneys, can dictate anything. if the investors demanded that whenever they log into the site, it must be bright orange, that would have to be done if the deal was agreed upon so, if the investors had specific rules written into the contract, then the amigos are bound to honor those rules, however ridiculous they might be. not saying the investment group did anything of the sort, just saying they could have if they wanted to.
well, let's see, if, say one of the amigos decided to split, for all you know the terms of the deal could dictate that, should one leave, the deal is off. as I said, you don't know the deal. was it a purchase, a merger, a loan?
and yes, the terms of a deal, when drawn up by attorneys, can dictate anything. if the investors demanded that whenever they log into the site, it must be bright orange, that would have to be done if the deal was agreed upon so, if the investors had specific rules written into the contract, then the amigos are bound to honor those rules, however ridiculous they might be. not saying the investment group did anything of the sort, just saying they could have if they wanted to.
reply posted on 20-9-2008 @ 01:02 PM by Amaterasu
Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by Amaterasu
well, let's see, if, say one of the amigos decided to split, for all you know the terms of the deal could dictate that, should one leave, the deal is off. as I said, you don't know the deal. was it a purchase, a merger, a loan?
and yes, the terms of a deal, when drawn up by attorneys, can dictate anything. if the investors demanded that whenever they log into the site, it must be bright orange, that would have to be done if the deal was agreed upon so, if the investors had specific rules written into the contract, then the amigos are bound to honor those rules, however ridiculous they might be. not saying the investment group did anything of the sort, just saying they could have if they wanted to.
I guess I'm missing your point here. I am fully aware of the fact that agreements can be made involving most anything. I'm fully aware of the fact that *I* don't have the details of this specific arrangement. My point was merely that one detail that could NOT be part of the deal - because things changed - was for nothing to change.
That is all. [shrug]
reply posted on 20-9-2008 @ 01:08 PM by dodgygeeza
reply to post by 27jd
You fail to remember that the community are the life blood of this website. Without the members, ATS wouldn't be here.
Anyway, I'm satisfied that the ATS team have given their side of the story so I won't be pursuing it any further (not that anything I say matters anyway)
Thanks
[edit on 20-9-2008 by dodgygeeza]
You fail to remember that the community are the life blood of this website. Without the members, ATS wouldn't be here.
Anyway, I'm satisfied that the ATS team have given their side of the story so I won't be pursuing it any further (not that anything I say matters anyway)
Thanks
[edit on 20-9-2008 by dodgygeeza]
reply posted on 20-9-2008 @ 01:16 PM by Crakeur
reply to post by Amaterasu
your mixing up two points. one, WMA made a suggestion, which was taken and followed, based on a consensus of the managing team.
two, the investors might have inserted requirements that dictate that the management team follow the same pattern as before they got involved, taking a certain path, following certain guidelines etc.
I wasn't saying the second was the case, merely stating that it might have been.
in any event, the issue with nomadrush boiled down to factors that, apparently, weren't to his liking and, instead of discussing things with one of the amigos, he opted for the break the t&c method of dealing.
then he went and badmouthed the site (and me) and that's pointless and immature. truth is, the u2u exchange between Nomadrush and myself is quite the opposite of what he claims. His response to the automated u2u one gets from an offtopic tag was childish and rude and I responded with a single line offering to return his points since the offtopic post was then deleted by a higher up. his response was more of the same and then I explained the issue regarding his offtopic post and told him I was going to overlook the snide remarks in the previous u2u's.
that was it.
the issue he had after this exchange was other staffers and I am sure they were no more rude than I was.
He was angry over something. He let it get the best of him and the end result is that he left in a huff when he could have still been here.
your mixing up two points. one, WMA made a suggestion, which was taken and followed, based on a consensus of the managing team.
two, the investors might have inserted requirements that dictate that the management team follow the same pattern as before they got involved, taking a certain path, following certain guidelines etc.
I wasn't saying the second was the case, merely stating that it might have been.
in any event, the issue with nomadrush boiled down to factors that, apparently, weren't to his liking and, instead of discussing things with one of the amigos, he opted for the break the t&c method of dealing.
then he went and badmouthed the site (and me) and that's pointless and immature. truth is, the u2u exchange between Nomadrush and myself is quite the opposite of what he claims. His response to the automated u2u one gets from an offtopic tag was childish and rude and I responded with a single line offering to return his points since the offtopic post was then deleted by a higher up. his response was more of the same and then I explained the issue regarding his offtopic post and told him I was going to overlook the snide remarks in the previous u2u's.
that was it.
the issue he had after this exchange was other staffers and I am sure they were no more rude than I was.
He was angry over something. He let it get the best of him and the end result is that he left in a huff when he could have still been here.
You gotta give it the site owners for even discussing business topics with the members of their site. Go to any other site and see if you see
any site owners explaining their business deals with members of their site. You wouldn't see ohh lets say Rupert Murdoch explaining his business
deals with a myspace user 
reply posted on 20-9-2008 @ 01:34 PM by 27jd
reply to post by dodgygeeza
Right, and I don't see any decline in the number of members here. I am a member, and have been for quite a while. Not all members are angry because your friend feels like he/she got a raw deal. Like ANY community, there are going to be clashes and conflicts of interest. I guess it's my fault for reading the drama thread, but I'm annoyed reading this back and forth, even though it's really none of your business, your questions have been answered graciously. Yet, you continue to ask the same sarcastic questions in different ways. It's obvious you're not going to be happy until SO is groveling for your forgiveness, until then you're going to search your mind for all the ways you can think of to spin the answers given into some underhanded deception, and re-ask the question relentlessly like some paranoid, morbidly jealous person trying to catch their spouse cheating. Whatever though, as you were. I forget this thread is set up for drama, so thanks at least for keeping it here.
Right, and I don't see any decline in the number of members here. I am a member, and have been for quite a while. Not all members are angry because your friend feels like he/she got a raw deal. Like ANY community, there are going to be clashes and conflicts of interest. I guess it's my fault for reading the drama thread, but I'm annoyed reading this back and forth, even though it's really none of your business, your questions have been answered graciously. Yet, you continue to ask the same sarcastic questions in different ways. It's obvious you're not going to be happy until SO is groveling for your forgiveness, until then you're going to search your mind for all the ways you can think of to spin the answers given into some underhanded deception, and re-ask the question relentlessly like some paranoid, morbidly jealous person trying to catch their spouse cheating. Whatever though, as you were. I forget this thread is set up for drama, so thanks at least for keeping it here.
reply posted on 20-9-2008 @ 01:37 PM by Amaterasu
Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by Amaterasu
your mixing up two points. one, WMA made a suggestion, which was taken and followed, based on a consensus of the managing team.
two, the investors might have inserted requirements that dictate that the management team follow the same pattern as before they got involved, taking a certain path, following certain guidelines etc.
I wasn't saying the second was the case, merely stating that it might have been.
And I was saying that bringing up what "might have been" is a rather moot exercise. But you're free to do so. [smile]
in any event, the issue with nomadrush boiled down to factors that, apparently, weren't to his liking and, instead of discussing things with one of the amigos, he opted for the break the t&c method of dealing.
I agree that his choice of behavior was poor. But I also think that in boiling it down, one must also include the fact that ATS failed to act on a personal level, terminating the arrangement with nomadrush abruptly and with no sensitivity for his point of view.
Both sides chose poorly.
then he went and badmouthed the site (and me) and that's pointless and immature.
Agreed, but when one feels hurt by what appears to be cavalier dismissal, this is not an unexpected behavior. Poor choice, yes. Unexpected, no.
truth is, the u2u exchange between Nomadrush and myself is quite the opposite of what he claims. His response to the automated u2u one gets from an offtopic tag was childish and rude and I responded with a single line offering to return his points since the offtopic post was then deleted by a higher up. his response was more of the same and then I explained the issue regarding his offtopic post and told him I was going to overlook the snide remarks in the previous u2u's.
Was all this before or after the "legalese" U2U he posted on his blog that informed him of a deal that precluded the continuation of the then present arrangement?
I suspect it was after... And I can assure you that from the moment that original U2U was received, all behavior was driven by pain and, though poor, as I have said, still understandable.
the issue he had after this exchange was other staffers and I am sure they were no more rude than I was.
I do not doubt that the staff comported themselves well at that point.
He was angry over something. He let it get the best of him and the end result is that he left in a huff when he could have still been here.
Agreed.
I could "woulda, coulda, shoulda" about how that initial information was delivered and how this whole affair might have gone better.
At this point, though, I recommend letting the anger run its course. And to keep in mind for the future that it is always best to break bad news with a personal and gentle touch.
[edit on 9/20/2008 by Amaterasu]
reply posted on 20-9-2008 @ 01:41 PM by masqua
Originally posted by dodgygeeza
reply to post by 27jd
You fail to remember that the community is the life blood of this website. Without the members, ATS wouldn't be here.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
And what you seem to be missing is that 27jd is also a member here, expressing exactly what many other members are alluding to.
I would prefer to see a preponderance of members focussed on the real issues facing the population of the world during these tumultuous times rather than naval gazing on what promises to be a viable alternative to the main stream media which, by all acounts, has been slowly subverted by corporate and political interests.
What ATS brings to the world which is so different is the voice of the people... you, me and everyone else that is capable of logging on and expressing what is important to us.
That this site is based completely on what humans, regardless of where they live or what they believe, have to say is (imo) the first opportunity for us all to come together from around the globe. What may eventually emerge from these discussions boggles my mind and consider it on a par with the invention of the printing press and all that entailed. Pray that we are given the chance to make a success out of this venture.
While I'd never dispute any member the right to criticize whatever may arise out of the evolution of ATS, let us not forget the big picture here.
Where else can Russians, Chinese, Americans and Australians debate issues of global importance with Malaysians, Irish, Scots and English, Canadians and Norwegians (just to name a few examples of the melting pot here)?
To put my thoughts quite succintly... if I dropped off the face of this earth tomorrow, it wouldn't change ATS much in relation to the membership as a whole. No individual member is more important than the collective minds of the membership. We matter, individually, for what we bring to the table, to be discussed and thought about, but the real value is what the rest of us learn from these revelations. My ego is just not that focussed on the 'self' that I consider MY input all that important.
I've changed a lot over the past 4 years because of ALL OF YOU. I could not, however, point to any one particular member and say the same, even though I have met some amazing minds through their postings here.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
