It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Yarcofin
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.

Thank you for expressing your opinion in an honest manner, Yarco.

It's important to remember that the T&C are not absolute, but the moderators do enforce them if they think it's nessecary.

One should not be afraid of breaking T&C if one thinks he has a valid point to make.

Just don't get all pissy if the moderators don't think it's valid.

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:49 AM
reply to post by Crakeur

Some of our best members were, at one time, thorns in the side of the staff.

I second that one, me and MirthfulMe would "argue/debate" all of the time in the U2U system. Now, I go to him when I need something staff related.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by jhill76]

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:59 AM
As a note, I wrote that warning in the OP just as that, and not to make a point. I did not want my thread to result in disciplinary action against any members for being inquisitive.

That aside, yes, I suppose I have been rather vocal lately regarding my views of the direction of this site. From what I see, good posters are dropping like flies. And, with my conspiratorial mind, it seems like the ATS staff are 'disappearing' them. Although they often say it's with good reason, I think that ATS is getting a bit big for the 'trust us' phase, however, this is a private site, and it is their prerogative, and there is by no means a need for transparency.

I suppose I'm just concerned more about the members than about the administration.

I've read plenty of posts saying 'If you don't like it you can get out' or something to that effect from the membership. I'm of a different mind regarding these kinds of things. I say, 'If you don't like it, make your points known, ask the membership if they agree, change it if possible.'

Saying 'get out' means that I've given up on making this site (and this world in a larger scheme) a better place.

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:59 AM

Originally posted by Crakeur
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.

This is actually true. I've had precisely 40 chances (no exaggeration). I've blown nearly all of them. And although I really didn't agree with some of my bannings, I think now I've finally got it right... almost.

Thank you, staff.

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Saying 'get out' means that I've given up on making this site (and this world in a larger scheme) a better place.

Given up, or been restricted from?

Is it truly about the T&C, Raso, or is it about something deeper, more... subversive?

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:05 AM
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant

Please be more descriptive. I'm not sure what to infer by this.

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:06 AM
As someone who garnered a few warnings in my early days here, I would have to say that the mods and management of this site are more than fair. It seemed to me, at first, that mods were warning me because I dared disagree with a poster promoting a conspiracy theory. It soon became clear that the warnings were not given because of the content of my arguments but rather the abrasive way in which they were being presented.

I'll be honest, when I came here, I thought most of today's conspiracy theorists were nutbags. I have always been intensely interested in the JFK Assassination because I loved through it. I came away, after years of reading everything I could get my hands on, that a great percentage of those who called themselves conspiracists were really opportunists and saw the conspiracy market as a cottage industry.

Then, following 9/11, I heard and read some of the most outlandish theories being put forth as if they were truth. That just re-inforced my feelings about what kind of people believed such things.

This site has given me a different perspective. I still find some of the things folks post here less than believable but what has struck me is that many here are honestly searching for truth. Many here are intelligent, thoughtful posters who make me re-evaluate some of the theories I once thought were outlandish.

Even some of the most hard-to-believe theories put forth here are supported by documentation and links. When someone takes the time to present a case in this way, they deserve to be heard. I try to do so. I'm much more liable to be open minded today than I was when I first started coming here.

I can't comment on what ATS WAS but I can say that today I consider it a valuable resource.

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:07 AM
reply to post by Rasobasi420

Well, surely you cannot be truly worried about the T&C, because if you were it would be expected of you to offer alternatives.

Which leads me to believe that there is something more to all this, something you're not telling us for some reason.

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:49 AM
I think Ras makes some valid points.

That said, I have come across stories that I have ended up NOT posting because of the sites they originate from - nothing bad, I was just unsure, so I left it alone.

When I first joined, I had my run-ins with "authority", I had a couple of moans and I had a few warns, BUT the only person who lost out was me, because I had denied myself the opportunity to learn about things that interest me.

My own opinion is that it comes down to what a member wants from a forum.

If clarity of rules and issues regarding decorum are an important part of what a person looks for, then ATS is a great place to be.

If a person is looking for more of a free for all, with no restrictions on use of language (i.e. profanity) or subject matter in general, then there are other sites where that is the accepted norm.

ATS is the first forum that I joined, that I visited on a regular, even daily basis, and the reason for that is that IMO the site is well managed within the rules and framework that are stated in the T&C - it's not everyones cup of tea, but it does exactly what it says on the tin, and that's why I like it.

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I might think that it would ultimately be beneficial for the board to openly acknowledge that there are other sources outside of ATS with a wealth of knowledge.

We do acknowledge that other sites have a wealth of information.

That acknowledgement doesn't tend to include sites where the far and away champion of discussions are centered on "Chit Chat"....

Seriously, Ras. You are wasting your talents on inanity and for what? Greener Pastures that contain "Chit Chat" under the false pretention of being an "in-depth" source of knowledge?

Whatever...I'm starting to get bored of this. I second kleverone...

[ Originally posted by kleverone
I say just leave if you don't like it here. I'm tired of defending you when you are obviously not you anymore. I know it sounds harsh but at this point I'm pretty frustrated with the attitude.

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 12:21 PM
Is it just me but apart from a few posts all i see is members and staff bashing the OP for questioning something that he believes should be better explained.
ie if you dont like it just leave.

This is denying ignorance?

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 12:55 PM
reply to post by sinema

I just think there are more to this than Ras would like to admit. If all of this came from another member I wouldn't have given it a second thought. I may even have agreed. But Ras - whom used to be an outstanding member with posts that was worth the read - is now suddenly anti-ATS or at least pro-ATS but with an agenda? One thread after the other? (Look at his latest threads). I mean he achieved something with his first thread SO started a thread especially to answer Ras' concerns. I don't see what he wants to accomplish here? That members are allowed to link to any site they want to? That ATS becomes a feeding place for smaller sites? And let's say Ras achieve something with this thread as well. What's next? Something else that isn't to Ras' liking? And every time the site owners must bend backwards to accommodate Ras? In the end we'll end up with a board that's to Ras' satisfaction? Is it perhaps because Ras has been a member for over three years with an excellent track record but hasn’t been chosen as a mod? Or something more personal?

I'm sorry but I'm tired of seeing threads like this. ATS isn't about boring drama like this. It's about Conspiracies after all. And this, I'm afraid is not one of them. I'll rather go have another look at the grassy knoll. Riveting stuff compared to this.


[edit on 7/1/08 by Gaspode]

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 01:05 PM

Originally posted by endrun
One more thing: I have heard the mods say many times that they don't read U2U's unless it's for a very good purpose. What reason would you have to read U2U's in the first place in order to think you should read someone's U2U's? And it also proves that our U2U's ARE indeed read by mods/admin, which IMHO, is a major breach of privacy.

Well, endrun/forestlady... I'm the only one able to run a query on member U2U's, we've said that over, and over, and over again. I'm sorry if you're unwilling to believe that.

Also, just for your edification, this message appears below the U2U form field: "Please Note: Your U2U communications are subject to review in the event we receive reports of private communications outside the boundaries of the site Terms & Conditions. Abusive private messages may result in immediate account termination." This makes it very clear that, if we receive specific complaints, we may review a member's U2U outbox.

Additionally, our Privacy Policy is clearly linked on every page of the board. As you may (or may not) be aware, it's rather serious for a website to conduct affairs in a fashion contrary to their stated privacy policy... in fact, in some states, very serious. If you really do believe we're conducting ourselves in a less-than-ethical way, I urge you to contact your state's Attorney General's office and file a report.

As to the more important issue at hand, linking to offsite content. I have no doubt that someone with something important to say, that is worthy of discussion by our members, will do so on domains that are perfectly fine for our members link to.

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 01:15 PM
Interesting thread, valid points are brought up on both ends, more so on one. One thing to add I didn’t like the general “Thanks ATS for giving me a *insert number* chance.” Statements….reminded me of how the Mormon missionaries would react to how thankful they were for Joseph Smith….ugh. It was a bit too much “ ass kissing” for my eyes. lol

Best Regards,

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Gaspode
Is it perhaps because Ras has been a member for over three years with an excellent track record but hasn’t been chosen as a mod? Or something more personal?

Hmm, interesting.

I actually don't want to, and wouldn't likely be a very good mod. I have a tendency to take things over the top, and don't respond well to a chain of command or hierarchy.

Aside from that, my main reasons for posting these threads have been discussed with the powers that be, and I'll leave it at that. Of course there are some criticisms that I prefer to hear the member's views on, rather than relying on assumptions and staff suggestions.

But then again, I suppose I put too much stock in member opinions.

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 02:37 PM
reply to post by Rasobasi420

Rasobasi......we have knocked heads on a few issues....pretty much every issue. But I have always respected what you had to say and you always made your point.

I never really pegged you for a whiner or a "poor me" type of guy.

What is all of this about? No disrespect intended.

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 02:40 PM
reply to post by Rasobasi420

This is my view. Some members want to become mods so every post they post will be like butt kissing. You can see this evident in a lot of threads. I don't know why members want to become mods though, maybe it's a glorified title, but it's going to be more of a headache than a prestigious award.

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Of course there are some criticisms that I prefer to hear the member's views on, rather than relying on assumptions and staff suggestions.

That sounds reasonable. Assumptions tend to lead to confusion. Staff suggestions? Whatever.

But then again, I suppose I put too much stock in member opinions.

Now the Kernel is confused. If you don't want to rely on assumptions or staff suggestions and want members opinion and NOW you're saying that you might be putting "too much stock in members opinions", what's the point of all this then? The Kernel isn't too much into the mash to miss this incongruity.

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 02:57 PM
reply to post by Kernel Korn

You sure about that "too much into the mash" thing?

Ras was being sarcastic, by expressing the exact opposite of what he actually means. I'm sure Ras is aware of the ATS owner's position that the members will decide what is important and that will drive the content on ATS/BTS. So, I'm guessing he actually feels the member's opinions are important.

Ras, forgive me if that is not the correct interpretation.

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 02:59 PM
reply to post by Kernel Korn

Just saying that If I'm going to take assumptions and staff comments with a grain of salt, maybe I should take the average member's opinion in the same way, or half a grain.

As for the BlackOps 'poor me' comment, this thread has nothing to do with me in particular, which I'm pretty sure I've said before.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in