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.

 

prohibition conspiracy threads

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 06:38 AM
link   
i don't wish to be critical but there is something which is starting to get really annoying and i just want some clarity.

from time to time there is a thread started that has mention of narcotics. these threads almost always have a few people who can't self edit mouthing off about taking this or that. this is against the T&C, discussion of engaging in illegal activity, i understand that, but why are the threads closed rather than the posts edited? there are many valid conspiracies attached to drugs and their control and it ties into many conspiracies indirectly.

so many conspiracies that i feel the strictness applied to this issue restricts the discussion of all conspiracies.

is it a policy that ATS, as an entity, has a particular problem with the prohibition conspiracy or is it an individual moderator issue? do the T&C differ in RATS? is there an official policy on how much personal discussion is too much? why aren't posts redacted as they would be in other cases of violation like flaming or off topic posts, again, policy or personal?

i have quite a few theories related, like the idea that afghanistan was invaded because the taliban were restricting opium exports, but i really see little point in going through all the trouble of writing up a good post just to have it thrashed.

i can't control the behavior of other posters, i feel some may well set out to have threads thrashed, so how can i raise the issue and not have the thread killed?




posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


RATS is where most of them get moved to.

Despite best intentions (and it's happened to me) threads of this nature ALWAYS degenerate into a mess of people talking about personal usage.

If you have genuine conspiracy theories related to controlled substances, then I would post it in RATS - if it contains good info, people will respond.


Hope this helps



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 07:50 AM
link   
You pretty much answered your own question here...


...these threads almost always have a few people who can't self edit mouthing off about taking this or that. this is against the T&C, discussion of engaging in illegal activity...


I think the issue is also about self incrimination. When a member starts saying "I use (insert narcotic here) every day and blah blah blah" it's actually a statement of guilt.

Not only do Net Nanny type programs search for and pick up on key phrases which makes it block ATS from some computers (thereby limiting the amount of people that can access ATS), but it potentially sets up a member for prosecution under the law.

Blogs can be used in court cases, so can posts if it is determined that a person is the author of the post.

I really feel your pain too, I had once made what I thought was a brilliant thread about the dangers of prescription medication, only to sadly see it degrade into an off topic discussion about illegal drugs.



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   
thanks for the reply, unfortunately it doesn't really help a huge amount, i know i can go off and earn the points to subscribe to RATS but, to be fair, i've been on here three years and earned a grand total of 7000 odd points, 5000 a month seems more trouble than it's worth.

i've heard they get moved to RATS, i just don't see why they're against the T&C on ATS but not RATS.

and whatukno, the thing is, the thread could be redacted as it is for sexually explicit content or swearing or flameing or anything else against the T&C.

[edit on 4/12/08 by pieman]



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   
It's only a one off payment of 5000 points - after that it's something like 250 per month, so it's easily do-able.

If you do access, send me a link - I'd be very interested to hear your idea's.



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


hmmmm, didn't know that, i might just do that. thanks.

EDIT: turns out it's mostly BTS negative point that i needed to spend

[edit on 4/12/08 by pieman]



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 07:58 AM
link   
edit:doubled post

[edit on 4/12/08 by pieman]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join