The ATS Issues Thread

reply to post by Acharya


You know, without further researching the thread you linked, when someone puts a link with items for sale, as a near 4 year ATS member, I would consider that suspect.

As a member, I would hope that Mods, would target and remove anyone members attempt at commercialize this site for their own personal benefit.

The site itself has proven to me it maintains a general code of ethics and a a standard of responsibility and disclosure which is acceptable. I will continue to support that as long as that is their standard.

Lets move on.

Peace

[edit on 14-10-2008 by HIFIGUY]

reply to post by HIFIGUY

I will personally GUARANTEE you that anyone who attempts to sell our members a product will be booted swiftly, just as soon as the staff discovers it. I highly recommend "alerting" any and ALL threads/posts of that nature.

Springer...

Ok, lets do a mental experiment...

Lets say I started a rumour on the internet that aliens are coming December 25th 2008, then I made me a nice web site where I sold books and CD's for $20 USD a pop etc. Its PRETTY obvious that I am a fraud, right? Then someone I don't know posts the rumour on a popular forum and gets me a lot of "customers", and at this forum the rumour blossoms (phun intended ) . Its pretty obvious that I am a fraud, and its also obvious that I will fool lots of members on this forum as they wait for Desember 25th; but you say that the forum admins have NO responsibility?

[edit on 15-10-2008 by Acharya]

Originally posted by Acharya
but you say that the forum admins have NO responsibility?

Let me modify your hypothesis with descriptions of two types of forums...

FORUM-A: This is a big popular forum, run and managed by one (or small group) of high-profile personalities that do a great deal of posting as the forum bears the their name in some way. Here, the admin and their staff are very involved in creating and promoting topics.

FORUM-B: This is another big popular forum, run and managed by one (or small group) of low-profile personalities that rarely post, and the name of the forum/site, is not related to them. Here, the admin and their staff are not involved in creating and promoting topics, they choose to leave it completely up to members (including deciding which topics are important).

The owners/operators of Forum-A would certainly be accountable for fraudulent content they willingly post. But those who run Forum-B (ATS) intervene only when the members have determined that a topic is a fraud or hoax.

We prefer to impose no editorial control over the topics our members choose to discuss, other than that necessary to enforce the decorum required by our terms & conditions.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


And there's the rub, and the confusion.

It comes down to editorial input - and here there is little or none.

My understanding of it is that what you have described is exactly what is meant by "user generated content ecosystems."

It's not a blog site or an op-ed site, it's member generated, and pretty much anything that abides by the T&C can be and IS discussed.

Which IMO can only be a good thing - if I don't like a thread or a post, I always have the option NOT to discuss, the same as all members.

ok, i was warned for speaking my opinion about false prophets within a thread so i started my own, now that has been closed. I have been directed here.

this is the thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

this is what I wrote:

'I come to ATS to read educated opinion on subjects which I am interested in but find no development of, whilst talking to people outside of cyberspace.

Recently, as many people have mentioned there have been many topics discussed -at great length- which are based on nothing more than false prophecy. This, considering the fear prevalent in society at the moment, does nothing to further the members of ATS and could be seen as a real negative force. Posts of this type waste huge amounts of time and detract from more important threads.

If people are proved right on their prophecy, they should be respected. On the other hand, if someone is proved to be deliberately misleading members I believe they should be banned.

What do you think? '

so i suppose i am directing this query directly at you now? what do you think?

[edit on 15-10-2008 by Cedik]

Originally posted by Cedik
Posts of this type waste huge amounts of time and detract from more important threads.

How does it waste time?

I have a quick scan of a thread, and if it looks anything like the GFL threads, I don't bother with it - I like to think I'm old and ugly enough not to be sidetracked by things that I have little interest in.

It's the best option there is - don't post in the threads you don't like

reply to post by budski


what i mean is that people are drawn here for a reason and people's opinions count, the more that people's attention is directed towards false information the more of them we waste

i think that we as a people need to progress, letting people like this continually misdirect people's interest helps no-one but the false prophets ego

reply to post by budski


I could'nt agree more. If your not interested or have no belief in a particular thread, then you have no need to input your opinion.

All that happens is unessecary and often insulting remarks posted to other members trying to have a constructive debate.

Not everyone agrees on topics otherwise what would be the point of the disccussion in the first place.

At least have a valid point and some sort of evidence/link/photo wherepossible if requested.

My personal opinion.

Also i agree that members should not post misleading or knowingly false information. (Sorry Cedik)


[edit on 15/10/08 by logicalview]

[edit on 15/10/08 by logicalview]

reply to post by logicalview


i think you should have read the thread. what i said was that people who have been proven to have been DELIBERATELY misleading readers through false testimony should be banned from ATS.

this would have to be proven using scientific means

not for one minute do i suggest that speculative threads or their proponents be banned

reply to post by Cedik


And who decides what is "false information?" You? It sounds as though you are implying that people here are too ignorant to decide for themselves what is false and what isn't, or what is worthy of discussion and what isn't, and we need to "help them out" by not allowing topics that might distract them from "more important" issues.

Does this remind anyone other than me of something called "censorship?"

If you don't like a topic, don't read it! How simple is that? Your concern reminds me of someone saying that romance novels or science fiction should be taken off the market because they distract people from reading "important" books.

ATSers are going to discuss whatever they want to discuss (within the T&C) and luckily for us the policy of the site owners and admin is to allow us that freedom.

"Take what you like and leave the rest."

reply to post by Heike


i see your point and I agree with you in part.

I do not wish to argue as we will get nowhere.

I will shut up and move on.

I looked yesterday for an ATS mission statement, I could not find one. I think you have helped me to better understand what is going on with this site. (added as it was bugging me)

[edit on 15-10-2008 by Cedik]

Was the color change planned? Parts of my screen is now gray. Fine color, but topic headers, if I'm saying that right, are a little difficult to read.

edit: nvm the complaint. Seems some things are being bolded and compensate.

[edit on 15-10-2008 by TravelerintheDark]

Originally posted by Cedik
i think you should have read the thread. what i said was that people who have been proven to have been DELIBERATELY misleading readers through false testimony should be banned from ATS.

Can you cite an example so I can better understand just how deliberate this is?

[edit on 15-10-2008 by HIFIGUY]

Well, I saw the thread regarding VP Cheney's medical condition and was surprised that it took so long for someone to realize where it was headed- then zap - GONE!

Clearly the overall schadenfreude was ruling the thread and while distasteful in some cases, it didn't seem to merit anything other than a post warning. I assume such things can be terribly time-consuming for the Mods and I don't wish that kind of grind on anyone.

However, people may have had more to contribute and have been denied the opportunity to do so. I feel I might have had a meaningful comment or two to make (that didn't revolve around feeling malicious glee at the suffering of another)

What do you think?

I'm sure the VP could care less about my or any average person's health and life so I can see why people might not care about his. As far as removal I would think Cheney, Halliburton and other degrees of separation.

Ok, I am not one to complain, in fact I do very little of it...especially when it comes to the decisions of staff and owners, I have only the highest respect for them. But I'm really curious about this and need some clarity.

There are two (reallly fun) BTS threads that were just closed:

Guilty or Not Guilty???...

and

Kiss or Kill.....

I'm having a hard time understanding why they were closed. The closing post had a link to this...

The End of "Post in My Thread" threads...

...and I think I'm missing the point on how this is related to those threads. IMO these were fun little games that contributed to the whole point of BTS....to deny boredom. And if they didn't belong in chit-chat then maybe they could have been moved to games or jokes.

I can somewhat understand the need for no 'post in my thread' threads, but I don't think that these two in particular were doing that. I could understand closing them if they were say..."post in my thread what color shirt you chose today", or something along those lines, but I whole-heartedly disagree that these two threads fell under those guidelines.

We love to get to know each other in BTS, and we do it in fun and creative ways. Heck, the BTS Mix just mentioned one of these threads. So, I'm confused as I'm sure both OP's are being that they are new members, a little explanation might help them understand why they were closed and not just a one line link, I've been here almost a year and I'm not understanding it.

Much love and respect....but really, help me understand this.

Rush

reply to post by HIFIGUY


I have personally witnessed a number of people deliberately misleading members of ATS with false testimony. I am sure you have to. Sometimes I think that people do not understand the implications of their statements and make them to improve their rating or simply get some attention.

Maybe banning people for their first incursion is too harsh. Maybe a warning and then banned. I have mellowed a bit after the passing of the 14th and the board returning to some semblance of normality.

Around page 199 of the Oct 14th Hoax megathread there is a post by someone called Born2 (squared). Over the next few pages he claims that the craft is passing over his house. He is warned by a mod but continues to make wild claims about being scared etc. of course people ask him to prove his point. In the end he sends a ridiculous picture to the mod and I am unsure of the outcome.

I am not going to go over my point again.

also. What does annoy me is that any thread which takes into account ATS actions is dumped into this megathread (or whatever). Many specific points get lost in this scenario. I mean if you were to continue with this thinking you could dump all of the NWO, UFO, 9/11 threads into a single thread to make modding easier etc. This does not work and actually makes the problem worse, rather than letting people air their concerns and deal with them in a more constructive way.



[edit on 16-10-2008 by Cedik]

Can someone please explain to me why it is ok for someone to post a doomsday thread (Are You Stocked Up Yet? Time Is Running Out) inciting people to panic and not ok for me to call the OP out?

It starts:
"Folks this is REAL, not fear mongering. Shipping disruptions are in the MSM.
Please take the time to read the following stories. It's no longer tinfoil, it's #ing real!!! "

The OP takes "examples" of a spark and shouts your house is on FIRE!
It's ok in my opinion to discuss anthing, but to incite panic without "proof" is quite another.

I get warned and my post gets taken down by an overzealous mod who probably just rushed out to CostCo to "stock up".
The OP gets to incite hundreds of people into spending their savings (or rent money)on MRE's, portable potties, Hunting Knives and cases of duct tape and all you guys do is warn ME.

I "insulted" the OP so shame on me....

This is a perfect example of what is wrong with this forum.
It happens CONSTANTLY, people telling others the end is neigh and prompting them to act accordingly. Knowing the fine line some of the people here walk on mentally, it's akin to a criminal act.

And I can't call them on it...

your idea of free speech really sucks.



[edit on 16-10-2008 by gormly]

reply to post by Cedik


Okay, Cedik, I agree with you. People who (can be PROVEN to have) deliberately, purposefully, and knowingly hoaxed, lied, misrepresented, and misinformed on ATS should be warned and/or banned.

However, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and I've seen the cry of "HOAX!!" or "FAKE!!" go up way too easily just because someone doesn't have "proof." Come on now, who's really gonna have PROOF anyway?

I had my own encounter, it happened way back when I was a kid, more than 30 years ago. Umm .. no I don't have a picture, or the police report, or any other proof. Should I be "dealt with" for telling my (true) story just because I don't have the evidence that people want?

Many of the Goodchild believers were probably real believers who were fooled, and if anything they are now embarrassed, hurt, and disappointed already - why heap more criticism on them? Goodchild herself has a video out now claiming that it wasn't a deliberate hoax, she really thought they were coming and she doesnt' know why they didn't .. Do I really, really believe her? I don't know... But I'm not ready to condemn her because there's a chance she might be telling the truth, especially since she had the guts to post an apology video on youtube.

Do some hoaxers and liars get away with it because of giving the "benefit of the doubt?" Yeah, I'm sure they do. But I'd rather see a few bored teenagers "get away with" hoaxing the boards than have one genuine person be harassed and warned or banned for sharing an incredible experience without "evidence."

Just my opinion.