Are we limiting the information available to ATS? *Warning*

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by endrun

OK, mods, I'm sure you'll ban me without warning for writing this, but so be it. We are supposed to be able to express our opinions freely here and if you ban me or even post ban me, we will know that that simply isn't true.




Did the possibility ever occur to you that they might think about banning you simply for being cheeky?




posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny

What may discredit ATS are knee-jerk reactions, responding with emotion, and failing to apply reason and contemplation.



You're making a mistake if you think this is a knee-jerk reaction.

As i said, my perspective may be tainted by experiences with the so-called "Forum World".



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 


Nah, none of those instances were intended to specifically characterize your contribution. I mean in a general sense.

And getting banned for having some "cheek", would result in a very bland forum. "Cheeky" and "Impertinent" can still fall within the bounds of civility and decorum. Heh, if that were the case....I'da been gone long ago.

On topic question.....does the prohibition on links to certain forums and sites apply in the RATS forum?



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 


And getting banned for having some "cheek", would result in a very bland forum. "Cheeky" and "Impertinent" can still fall within the bounds of civility and decorum. Heh, if that were the case....I'da been gone long ago.



Well, there's a difference between being cheeky and being innocently good-natured.

When people are being cheeky, they are trying to provoke a reaction, so it only seems natural for them to be banned, to my eyes.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   
to list every site that is not allowed to be linked would be impossible as there are probably thousands upon thousands of sites which would go against our policy for linking. General rule, if the site you want to link to contains content that is not suitable for this site, it cannot be linked. I used the child pornography example as we don't allow that. It goes for all pornography and nude photos, even the artsy kind. It includes all illegal activity and it includes illegal activities, such as drug talk. The discussions on drug use in RATS are strictly a discussion on other uses and benefits to using certain drugs and when the talk turns to personal use or experience for entertainment and pleasure purposes, the discussions terminate. The drug talk in the site in question focuses on purely personal use and the talk of drugs goes way beyond one type of herb.

There are plenty of "anti-ats" sites that are discussed on these forums and we allow linking to almost all of them. Why? Because they are not doing anything that would violate our linking policy. The stuff on these other sites is, at times, far more critical of ATS than on the sites we don't allow linking too and yet we still allow them to be linked.


edited to add:

that warning in the original post seems to be for dramatic purposes as I am unsure where it was originally posted. In the first Rasobasi authored thread he's referring to, the only admin edits state that they don't allow linking to that site. no warning, no red ink, nothing.


[edit on 1-7-2008 by Crakeur]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   
I see these threads so often, the ones trying to find some way to twist ATS into the role of the bad guy forum. They always try to come off as "poor innocent me, I'm just searching for the truth." Or they want to include some convoluted hypothetical approach to the reasoning, the "What if..." ploy.

Deep down, there's a core of people, small and insignificant really, that want to have a cause for the own bitterness at not appearing as important to others as they see themselves. I mostly ignore them, putting it on the same par as those demented souls that start UFO threads about returning in "X" amount of time with proof of something or the other. It seems to be ninty percent hot air "Just blowing in the wind".

And before someone thinks it wrong for a moderator to be so blunt, bear in mind that I am also a member, first and foremost. This is NGC the member having an opinion on a subject. Fortunately, I can keep the two aspects separate.

As a moderator following the T&C, the OP has a right to ask any question not in direct violation of the T&C, and I'll defend that right for anyone, as I have in the past. As a member, I feel this need to discredit ATS by whatever means available to be low and without class.

(Yeah, I know; I'm too blunt and straightforward. But nobody ever has to doubt where they stand with me.
)



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
I support Rasobasi420's point, to an extent. What can and can't be linked is certainly a question. Is there a list somewhere?

The terms and conditions define the kinds of sites for which we don't allow linking.



Why is it wrong to question things that don't seem to make sense?

It's not wrong at all, which is why we created the ATS Issues Thread in an attempt to create a unified and easy-to-find repository of such questions.



I think ATS should not be threatened by any other web site

As indicated, the issue is not related to a threat, but content.




Originally posted by endrun
And the reference to child porn is just, well, in bad taste, Crakeur.

If we're correct about the site in question, some time ago a member had provided us a link to a waist-down naked child on a toilet posted to the site used for jokes. Perhaps "child pornography" might be a minor stretch, but not inaccurate.



[edit on 1-7-2008 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


Honestly, I find your argument no different than saying I am unpatriotic if I dare to question the government. One doesn't mean I love my country less than you and the other doesn't mean I don't appreciate ATS as much as you.

Specious at best.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736

(Yeah, I know; I'm too blunt and straightforward. But nobody ever has to doubt where they stand with me.
)



Ah, a fellow after my own heart!

NGC, you might not care, but i understand enough to say that your honesty is quite inspiring.

You get a metaphorical star too.



[edit on 1-7-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
It seems as though on here when the hard questions come into place, the questions really get dogged or the OP gets bashed.

I am wondering did the ATS issues thread get a no crawl for the search engines? Do we not want the outsiders to know, members bring up these issues?

I could be wrong and this is pure speculation. But, for example, when members ask about John Lear, I see them threads get closed fast.

Also, I heard about certain sites that can't be linked into U2, but they don't deal in illegal activity, so I was wondering about that also.

***I understand from an owners perspective, that this is your baby and you want it to flourish, that is why you will rid out any means to an end.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Is it Tuesday already?

Must be time for another bash ATS with "innocent questions" by disgruntled members with an agenda.

Speaking of drug references being against the T&C, shouldn't the OP be banned for using one in his name?

SNIP

I read this site almost everyday and let me tell you that the constant whining by a certain contingent of members if getting louder and louder for some reason.

ATS sucks? LOG OUT SNIP!!!


edited out personal attack and name calling.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Crakeur]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76

I could be wrong and this is pure speculation. But, for example, when members ask about John Lear, I see them threads get closed fast.



It's probably because a lot of the newer members have swamped the "conspiracy masters" of ATS with pointless comments and questions (p.s; i don't know this for a fact, but it's quite feasible).

I got a nasty feeling a few months back that a lot of the people in the "Forum world" were essentially taking too much of a liking to ATS, essentially choking it with new ideas and stories.

Which is something that is predominant in today's world, really - people are often unable to stop themselves from killing a good thing if they're addicted to the internet, at least, where the internet is concerned.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76
I could be wrong and this is pure speculation. But, for example, when members ask about John Lear, I see them threads get closed fast.


Yeah because John Lear went to another forum and published an open letter there addressed to ATS. Those members - who were ATS members - then started asking questions here. If John had a problem, he should of contacted ATS and not start board wars instead
Closing them prevents drama starting on the board.

There are countless forums on the internet which ex ATS members post and even run in some cases (which include posts criticising this place). So, naturally, people get curious and come here, ask questions and create drama. The drama results in them being banned and the person then runs back to the other fourm to say "OMG! you ex ATS members are right!". I have seen it before, threads like this are a classic sign, and we shall see more in the future.

As for drugs and illegal activity, not all of ATS are above 18. I know of members who are between 14 - 17. ATS has legal responsibilities to its members, so its not draconian to restrict certain topics. In the New World Order section, there have been links posted which included sites that planned an armed rebellion against the US government. I doubt the owners of ATS want to be in court for supporting terrorism



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


the john lear threads get closed because we have answered the questions and, like any other repeat thread, we close it with a redirect.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur

There are plenty of "anti-ats" sites that are discussed on these forums and we allow linking to almost all of them. Why? Because they are not doing anything that would violate our linking policy. The stuff on these other sites is, at times, far more critical of ATS than on the sites we don't allow linking too and yet we still allow them to be linked.




GLP has many threads that discuss drugs openly including personal experience yet that site is allowed to be discussed or linked to.
Or at least i think it is because springer didnt edit there name out in raso's other thread.
So i think raso raises a good point, how can a member be certain that what they are linking to will not get them banned.
Ive seen mention of sites on this board that ive visited and they have public discussion of drug use.
It doe's seem as if there are differing standards.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I for one am kind of getting annoyed by all of the terminology that is starting to get used for our rules that gives it a really weird elitist tinge.... do we really need to give all our terms and conditions LATIN phrases like "sites non gratis" and "decorum"??? It reminds me of the "as per the ____ policy" of the business world... I hear enough of that all day, I don't want to read all that bureaucracy when I get home. I try to avoid the forums like Board Business & Questions whenever possible for this reason, but now this stuff is getting regurgitated in all my other beloved sections of this site. Everything is just becoming so fake and toned down... we are conspiracy theorists, we are supposed to be ANGRY and LOUD. You can express your point, but for god's sake don't tell anyone they might be WRONG.

I have personally seen so many long-time great members here who contributed so much leave because of the ways things have gone... I still talk to a number of them.

I know that part of trying to make the site more mainstream means that it will also become "safer" and more "friendly to everyone", but this kind of contradicts the whole idea. We have stoppd denying ignorance and we have begun to breed it. "Yes "the man" is out to get you and all other mainstream media is wrong.... the truth is in here, as long as you don't talk about this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this, link to outside sources, risk hurting someone's feelings, get political, discuss any kind of substance for any kind of intented purpose or even provide news articles about them, call hoaxes as hoaxes before we officially do, or sneeze.

Maybe I need a vacation too



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Sarkazmon
 


No the OP shouldn't be banned because of his name. That is pure speculation. Prove that his name beyond a reasonable doubt deals with an illegal substance. It's all about intent. His intent could be that, but we should know his intent before making an assumption.

Flip-Side: His name is his personal preference, if his name said alljoin420, then it would be different.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Just as I am to mine.

I try to change my government within the framework allowed for such change, and I am not hesitant to question it. Yet, I don't do so with hint and inuendo, all the while claiming I'm just "helping". That would be like trying to claim being a patriot while spending time cuddling the enemy.

And I was against the war in Vietnam, but that doesn't mean I thought Jane Fonda had a moral right to act the way she did.

A person either has the class to act in honest and integrity inspired manner or they don't. And if the difference isn't obvious, then I doubt it can be taught electronically here on a forum.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yarcofin
Everything is just becoming so fake and toned down... we are conspiracy theorists, we are supposed to be ANGRY and LOUD. You can express your point, but for god's sake don't tell anyone they might be WRONG.

I know that part of trying to make the site more mainstream means that it will also become "safer" and more "friendly to everyone", but this kind of contradicts the whole idea. We have stoppd denying ignorance and we have begun to breed it. "Yes "the man" is out to get you and all other mainstream media is wrong.... the truth is in here, as long as you don't talk about this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this, link to outside sources, risk hurting someone's feelings, get political, discuss any kind of substance for any kind of intented purpose or even provide news articles about them, call hoaxes as hoaxes before we officially do, or sneeze.


That is so true, I second that one. I have been silent in voicing some of these concerns because they have instilled that fear in us, that we might get banned. It's not that important because this is a hobby, but I still like to post in the intellectual places of ATS.

I just think this will come at a cost in the future, only time will tell.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by sinema
 


we won't ban someone for linking to site we don't allow linking to, unless they do so with malicious intent (we've had porn links intentionally posted). If you spam the boards with a site we might ban you but, if you innocently link to a site that we don't allow, we will edit the link and that will be that.

Rasobasi is still posting and he's linked to it, several sock puppets of formerly banned members have also mentioned the site and they have not been banned.

The truth is, it takes a lot to get banned from ATS. There are many members who are given chance after chance to learn the ropes and posting rules here. Some of our best members were, at one time, thorns in the side of the staff.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join