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: 85
126
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
These threads should not have been closed in my opinion.

Read my explanation on the previous page. That is, how it is.

You're more than welcome to open a new thread and hope that things turn out better.




posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
the mod while having such great difficulty keeping the subject on 'chemtrails' was able to put in his opinion on the derailing subject...


Moderators Are People Too. (and they have opinions)

Time and time again, I see heated discussion where staff members are involved, and community members are presenting controversial or even confrontational positions. Sooner or later, the staff member will respond in-kind, and like clockwork, a complaint shows up through the suggestion form of "staff abuse". In about 90% of these situations, the only apparent issue is that a staff-member is "mixing it up" in a complex discussion like any other member would.


A staff member contributing to a discussion IS NOT derailing the subject.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Applying a bit of common sense, courtesy, and benefit of the doubt helps too.

Just today a super mod who I haven't had much (any?) prior contact with challenged me in a thread. After my first response s/he came back at me again, and I was left feeling not quite sure of their intent.

So I u2u'ed the super mod and asked "Did I tick you off or are we just debating?"

The reply came back very quickly that s/he was debating as a member, no worries.

So I fired back, let 'em have it with all guns, so to speak, but civilly, and it's all good.

So, you know, if you aren't sure what a mod's intent is or what capacity they're acting in, just ask. I'm sure they'd much rather answer a question now than have to deal with a problem later. I'm also sure that if they have an interest in that topic, they would love to sometimes have a member ignore that Mod or Super Mod tag and really debate with them. Just like the good old days before they were staff....

After all, Mods joined ATS initially as members for the same reasons you and I did, and Mods sometimes wanna have fun too!




posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 





A staff member contributing to a discussion IS NOT derailing the subject.


But a staff member that contributes to a thread that he just told others to keep on subject on, which was chemtrails, and then makes a comment much the same as those that have been told to stay on subject



Side note - the UK has never had F-111's in its inventory.


IS 'Derailing' the subject. If he calls a member's post not on subject and then makes a comment about that same subject, what is it then?

I know they are human... we all are. But how about a solution like I mentioned where the mods have a separate account which tells the members that this is a Moderator on 'Time off' and then you won't have the overall feeling that people get.... That ATS is pushing certain points that may be construed as misguided or pushing an agenda...

Mods shouldn't be in a heated discussion using their mod titles.... this leads to people believing there's a bias there. If there isn't then OK, but it looks like there is. If you notice throughout the threads on chemtrails and other 'Conspiracies' on the ATS forums you will find very little from the mods that show they have an opinion that agrees with a large percentage of the ATS crowd.. Statistics should show that at least some of them would agree with the data that is being presented here showing chemtrails as valid, unless your telling us that the ATS Moderators are of some type of intellectual higher ability than the normal ATSr. Or maybe it's the fact that they know where some of the truth really lies in the threads....



Rgds



[edit on 27-3-2009 by AllTiedTogether]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
If he calls a member's post not on subject and then makes a comment about that same subject, what is it then?

He's doing the equivalent of a dog-and-cat pet store manager engaging one customer in a productive conversation about the right kind of dog food while telling another customer, who can't stop complaining they don't cary Llama food, to please leave the store.




Mods shouldn't be in a heated discussion using their mod titles.... this leads to people believing there's a bias there.

You are wrong. Most people will tend to believe the staff member is interested in the topic.




unless your telling us that the ATS Moderators are of some type of intellectual higher ability than the normal ATSr. Or maybe it's the fact that they know where some of the truth really lies in the threads

No. However, most of our mods have been discussing and researching many of these topics much longer than our members. For example, I first started looking into the issue of chemicals in contrails in the late 1970's... other mods may not be similar old-timers, but many are.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
If he calls a member's post not on subject and then makes a comment about that same subject, what is it then?

He's doing the equivalent of a dog-and-cat pet store manager engaging one customer in a productive conversation about the right kind of dog food while telling another customer, who can't stop complaining they don't cary Llama food, to please leave the store.




Mods shouldn't be in a heated discussion using their mod titles.... this leads to people believing there's a bias there.

You are wrong. Most people will tend to believe the staff member is interested in the topic.

However, those who would be disruptive or seek to aggressively push a particular topical agenda have been, in my opinion, the type of member who most often will have problems with moderators posting their opinions in discussion threads.

Also, in my experience, members who have a problem controlling their temper and rhetoric within discussions on ATS will typically be those who complain the loudest and most-often about our moderators being so bold as to participate in discussion threads.

And finally, those with a misplaced problem with "authority figures" in general will always find reasons to distrust our staff, no matter what they/we/I do.

Let that sink-in, m'kay?




unless your telling us that the ATS Moderators are of some type of intellectual higher ability than the normal ATSr. Or maybe it's the fact that they know where some of the truth really lies in the threads

No. However, most of our mods have been discussing and researching many of these topics much longer than our members. For example, I first started looking into the issue of chemicals in contrails in the late 1970's... other mods may not be similar old-timers, but many are.

[edit on 27-3-2009 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 




Most of the mods on this board are very reasonable people and act as such. I guess my point was if "regular" members are held to a certain code of conduct-so should "mod" members, even more so because they are supposed to set the example that we follow-so I think( please correct me if that is wrong). If we as "regular" members should calmly listen to issues brought up to us, the same should be true of "mod" members (imo).
Source

wow if that's how you deal with a person who mentions something which is against the T&C then I guess your right because your the boss. I for one would not have made the comment about the F111 aircraft because that would have been a clear and very obvious T&C violation, which I think that the above member pointed out that the mods should be the ones showing exemplary stature in upholding the rules....

A comment like that leads the person that it was directed at to either disagree by making another post showing his disagreement or to just leaving it as the Mod is correct and then that 'fallacy' or 'believe' or 'mistruth' is then taken as correct. I'm not really sure whether F111s have been in the UK inventory but this MOD made it so this is a fact with little to discuss... Is this how you want ATS to be viewed, that a mods word is gospel when it comes to debating anything that is NOT the T&C?

I know that a Moderator on ATS is only as smart as the rest of the ATS population. I don't take anything anyone of your Mods would say as being proven beyond doubt without checking... Just as I do for anything found on ATS. I'm sure other ATS members are the same way, not just BELIEVING a person because he is noted as an ATS moderator.

You sing praises of how the T&C is there to make it better for all yet the only ones affected by it are the ones that have 'certain' opinions. Maybe that customer saw Llama food in the store and the staff just doesn't know where it is because they haven't bothered to look because its too much trouble to them.

If people thought that mods were able to be in heated discussions and therefore be 'unbiased' then I'd agree but if you check all the posts in the threads you've provided you will see that the majority of those that support your views are those that are from ATS workers. Those unaffiliated with ATS seem to feel that ATS may have over-stepped its bounds....

Now I'm not saying that ATS is bad, wrong, a CIA front or nothing like that SO. I've stated that earlier too in other posts also. I have an OPINION. My opinion is based on threads that leave the reader with questions as to the runnings of ATS. I do not agree with these threads or comments whole-heartedly and do not take them for gospel. I do know how to see the trees when someone tries to place a forest in front to block my view. My opinion is that, an opinion that is not wrong. No ones opinion is wrong. An opinion is an opinion which is based on evidence that the person sees and uses to base his understanding on.

If most of the mods are old-timers on ATS then them following their own T&C which is their job shouldn't be a problem. But I guess I'm wrong on this one then eh?

IMHO
Rgds


[edit on 27-3-2009 by AllTiedTogether]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
If most of the mods are old-timers on ATS then them following their own T&C which is their job shouldn't be a problem. But I guess I'm wrong on this one then eh?

No offense, but being human and all, it's very difficult to take you seriously when you grossly exaggerated your complaints and cried to us about being called "names," when you yourself used those same "names" directed at other members. Really... that episode significantly reduced any credibility factor you may have in the eyes of staff... just trying to be forthright and honest. Your complaints ring shallow because of what you did.

Why not step down off your misplaced and misdirected high-horse and simply focus on contributing to interesting threads in a meaningful way?



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


That's what I'm doing there SO.

In ref to my complaints about being called names.... I also stated in the threads that addressed this, this very one I believe, that I wouldn't mind being called a disinfo agent if I had the same ability to do it to the person who was making the accusation against me. Is that not fair? That's what I've asked for time and time again here...



As to me having a long standing 'disagreement' with this person, I and others are continually called various things because of the views we present. All I'm saying here is that this one individual is coddled so obviously within this thread because he can say anything he wishes without being dealt with himself that it is shameful that you make it out that you are not biased....




That is correct and a good example that in some of those threads I've used the term because it was used or alluded to against me... Just like I say... either tit for tat or be fair to both sides unlike what is happening now...


Numerous other quotes have shown that I certainly wouldn't mind if someone used the term as long as I can use the same against them....

***ADDED*** After all, that's what you say the mods are there for, to 'steer' the conversation. I'd rather have them moderate instead of steer personally...




IMHO


[edit on 27-3-2009 by AllTiedTogether]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
Meaning I was the only one down....

Your assumptions are repeatedly wrong.

Our hosting provider is performing various maintenance items on their network for the next few hours. There may be short-lived outages.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Thanks for that.... Any chance you can have some type of indicator on your main page that shows when your servers go down? I've had this 'ATS down for maintenance... check back in a couple of hours' screen occur to me three times and most others seemed to be able to make comments which was evident by the number of posts from members during the time I was told it was down...

Oh and by the way... My assumptions are not wrong.. I've been lead to believe the above because of the following.... Therefore I'm not wrong until someone proves me wrong....

Rgds


[edit on 27-3-2009 by AllTiedTogether]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by AllTiedTogether
 


It just happened to me, too. It's not terribly frequent but it's not rare, either. All websites endure maintenance from time to time. There is even a humorous video about it because we've all 'been there.'

Hope this helps. It just happens from time to time.


(click to open player in new window)



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Thank you so much for adding to the SOs and my discussion.... Extremely hilarious and not at all condescending to anyone that may have a valid point to bring up...

Thanks

**ADDED** I hope you didn't spend too much of your moderating time searching for that video so you could prove something to me.... because I think it would be a waste of time if you did....



[edit on 27-3-2009 by AllTiedTogether]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
I hope you didn't spend too much of your moderating time searching for that video so you could prove something to me.... because I think it would be a waste of time if you did....

I think that's quite enough.

Please move on, your concerns have been answered.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by AllTiedTogether
 


My oh my, someone likes attention ...

So let me get this straight,

You think ATS staff went out of it's way to shut you out of ATS when everyone including myself got the same server error message.

You also think that this thread is your conversation with SO.

You also seem to have many a complaint and obviously you are not averse to the sound of your own posts.

Oh, and all the mods are against you

Thus it seems impossible for you, why with all these issues, to remain here. I mean what self-respecting person would remain in a relationship in which they feel so wronged.

I am sure you will be missed.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Many thanks for the response SO... All the best to you

Peace and Love to All


Rgds



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
And now for something totally different,

I want a "next" button!
.. down there, and up there, where we have an option to pick a specific page by number, or go to the very front, or the very end, but not just a simple "next".
Most times thats all I want to do when trying to catch up on a thread that is long, I want to be able to click something fast and easy and not have to balance my mouse pointer over a tiny little digit representing the next page.

cheers!



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   
I have a question .

Has the Narcotics Conspiracies forum been official canned and I just managed to miss the announcement ?

Cheers xpert11 .



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Has the Narcotics Conspiracies forum been official canned and I just managed to miss the announcement ?

Yes.

Despite all our efforts and announcements, it ended up being impossible for the forum to exist without threads being started, or replies being posted, that advocated or discussed personal use of narcotics. The restraint we required for the forum's existence never materialized.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Hmm, surely you knew that such discussion is all but impossible except on a very superficial level without discussing the activity which is as of now considered illegal for bogus reasons in the first place. Obviously it's not going to change if it's not possible to talk about it frankly. I get the feeling some just don't like the subject and want it to go away. Of course there is the issue of lawsuits, loss of ad revenue, and threat of being shut down. A watered down debate is better than none at all.

I guess this brings up the bigger issue of how do we go about discussing unjust laws anyway, and how do we change them if we are being manipulated and controlled (I don't mean here but more generally via higher entities engaging in media indoctrination, censorship, and social control), if the whole system is corrupt anyway? Technically a solution offered to the overall problem to just start over is not debatable too since that incites [illegal activity]. Quite a conundrum, eh?



new topics

top topics



 
126
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join