A Call To Action: Ending The Political Game on ATS, page 19

privacy

Pages: << 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 92 times

reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 01:46 PM by Bombeni

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Bombeni
Now posts are being deleted as fast as they are posted, yet certain posts which are very offensive remain.

Do you have an example?

We do our best, but we never promise to get everything without the help of our members.

Yes I do, thanks for asking. I hit the alert, I emailed the mod who deleted my post, AND I made a regular idiot out of myself at the post itself trying to get clarification. Haven't heard a word and I did all this within a few minutes of it being deleted at least 2 hours ago. Here it is:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 01:50 PM by teeveesfrank

reply to post by Bombeni

You were trying to get a member to reveal his/her sexuality. I would think an off topic post tag is the least of what you'd get. That's not something we do here.

reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 01:53 PM by Bombeni

Originally posted by teeveesfrank
reply to post by Bombeni

You were trying to get a member to reveal his/her sexuality. I would think an off topic post tag is the least of what you'd get. That's not something we do here.

Ok, I accept that. My questinn, and I brought this up before, is it ok for members to flame and bait a persons spiritual beliefs? How can asking if someone is homosexual be considered an offense, but someone saying God originally intended for us to have "tranny sex" and allude to Jesus being a homosexual be ok?

reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 02:02 PM by intrepid

reply to post by Bombeni

This is the thread to ask this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let's keep to the topic please.

reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 02:04 PM by Bombeni

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by Bombeni

This is the thread to ask this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let's keep to the topic please.

EXCUSE me, but SO asked me for an example.

reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 02:04 PM by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Bombeni
Yes I do, thanks for asking.

I asked you for examples of posts that should have been removed, and have not.

As it is, your post had no purpose in a civilized discussion environment. I think the mod who removed it was very generous in giving you wide benefit of the doubt to retain your posting status here on ATS.

reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 02:06 PM by Bombeni

reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 02:08 PM by Bombeni

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Bombeni
Yes I do, thanks for asking.

I asked you for examples of posts that should have been removed, and have not.

As it is, your post had no purpose in a civilized discussion environment. I think the mod who removed it was very generous in giving you wide benefit of the doubt to retain your posting status here on ATS.

Did you read the post I alerted? Is it ok to say things like "God meant for us to have tranny sex" -- I am not trying to be obstinate, I want to know what is acceptable and what is not.

reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 02:12 PM by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Bombeni
Did you read the post I alerted?

Yes I did. You alerted us to this post in the Conspiracies in Religion forum (what does that have to do with the subject of this thread?) In context, it's an absolutely fine and relevant comment.

I am not trying to be obstinate,

You've got me fooled.

reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 02:16 PM by Bombeni

Well that's what I needed to know. It sure took some wrangling though.

reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 02:20 PM by Aislin

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

What about this thread? It seems like it is a violation of the new rule.

reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 02:30 PM by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Aislin
What about this thread?

The date of creation and last post are well before the date and time of this announcement.

reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 02:47 PM by nyk537

Is this what we're going to do now? Try to find threads that we think should be deleted to try and "catch" the mods on this?

Come on people. We're better than this.

Just accept the rules and follow them. No one is trying to silence liberals or conservatives here. We are trying to silence idiots for lack of a better word.

Be respectful, discuss the issues, and you'll be fine.

No conspiracy there.

reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 02:54 PM by Skyfloating

reply to post by nyk537

They (the campaigners from the two sides) are now making generous use of the ATS-complaint functions to try to sting at each other.

I wish they´d just relax a bit. Its always wiser to point out issues (like in your recent thread on McCain and Education) than being hell-bent on destroying others.

reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 02:55 PM by Aislin

reply to post by nyk537

nyk,

I didn't "try" to find this thread. It was listed under the Conspiracy forum along with the other threads. I have no problem with the site having rules. We were asked to point out threads that are in violation of the new rule. I did as was requested.

reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 03:11 PM by nyk537

reply to post by Skyfloating

Agreed.

As far as I'm concerned, discussion of policy that you disagree with is a much more effective way to "destroy" a candidate than bickering and mudslinging.

It seems some don't feel that way though.

Pity.

reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 03:27 PM by alienj

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Thank you so much, hopefully ATS can get back to being a fact finding forum for all discussions instead of a political campaign, I swear if I see one more person post Matt D. bitiching or John M. postering Im going to puck and never come back... We have to have a refugee and Im glad to see ATS take a stand on this issue,

reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 03:34 PM by Alxandro

reply to post by nyk537

I agree that the rules are needed but why is the MSNBC sidebar still present on some of these ATS pages?
How often do they report based rumors, lies and innuendo?
I say make it completely unbiased across the board.

Besides, what happens when the race starts getting ugly and both candidates start the official mudslinging?

The new rules will keep us from commenting and the candidate will get away with it.

reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 03:38 PM by nyk537

reply to post by Alxandro

I'm not concerned.

When the candidates start slinging mud, I'll stick to my guns and keep discussing their politics.

reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 03:56 PM by mmariebored

Originally posted by RRconservative
Does anyone see how biased this is?

For over 7 years President Bush has been bashed endlessly here on ATS.

Then here comes Barack Hussein Obama, and all of a sudden we have to make major changes.

Who are we protecting here?

I will do my best to abide by the new rules, but I can't help but see the hipocracy.

I agree. What are people afraid of? Truth? On THIS site?
Wow.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by mmariebored]

Pages: << 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 >> ^^TOP^^