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.

 

A Conspiracy Against ATS?

page: 11
132
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 





As I've repeatedly said, and many choose to ignore or reject, our decision was not based on legalities or revenue... but on community management.


Fair enough. I find it choosing the easy way.

And if you do that, at least be honest about what it is exactly.

Don't sugarcoat it.

Censorship is censorship, no matter the reason.

Well off to bed now, goodnight or goodday to all, hope y'all still wish me the same.

Peace.




posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Is discussing drugs on public forumns legal in the united states? I am quite certain that in many countries it is not! Perhaps ats does not wish to allow such discussion for fear of lawsuits. In that case I don't blame them!

And whats the big deal if you can't discuss this topic? Not all topics are
suitable for public discourse and for good reason I might add....common sense!



Discussion of legal drugs like ecstacy and salvia divinorum is legal, but afaik this website isn't set up to discuss drug use


Even if it is legal in the united states what about people posting from countries where such discussion is banned, especially muslim countries!

I think this is a huge gray area and could get people into trouble without them even knowing it. Probably the best policy is to censor this topic on all public forumns, unless special considerations are met.



That depends on how strictly the country applies its law
The website has to block access from countries that are liable to take legal action

It's not even a matter of censoring, just keeping discussion within the predetermined topics. For example, you can talk about a conspiracy to breed drug-sniffing dogs. However, talking about how to sniff drugs, or the effects of sniffing drugs is probably unrelated to any of the site's topics.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 





Interesting so you're saying you actually don't believe what you're saying? Which leaves us with the fact that you're agruing to argue.


Please, I didn't respond to you for the sake of not furthering the off topic arguing, you were coming up with hypothetical situations for me to answer.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Back to the OP's topic

 


From my earlier post:

The patterns are there and its always interesting to see who comes out fo the woodwork.

Its interesting and begs the question what exactly are these groups afraid of?

I have a simple answer. Because of the environment in which we post, the typical tactics of disruption become ineffective. You cannot use bombast and simple angry rhetoric to bury an solid ATS member. No matter what your take on the issue at hand, a solid ATS member will stand thier grown confident in the fact that the way this site is set up will simply not allow this particulary nasty type of troll much longevity.

The ad hom attacks, the roving forum gangs and the like are simply not allowed to ply thier trade here. Rather than debate the merits of thier position its far less easy for a simply mind to resort to the tried and true scorched earth tactic.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by 2Resistance
 


I lost my link grr , and now I can't find it, I had link about ats watchers, a group of people " who watch" ATS, I could have sworn SO was a member and other admins and mods to give ATS's side of the story of things,
but from what I read it seams that if your still a member here, your wrong, even if you show proof that ATS was right.

I had the link and lost it, I can't even find it in my history either grrr

But I'm not saying its all one group.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


And here we have a classic example of the mods being hypocrites when it comes to forum rules, there was absolutely no reason for you to quote the WHOLE OP, that is known as excessive quoting. You could have trimmed it to show just the parts that you emboldened, whilst you and many other mods would reprimanded or have there post edited with a note from a mod about excessive quoting, I've seen it happen before, don't ask me for examples because I'm not willing to sift through hundreds of thousands of posts to show you.

Here's one of the "rules" or whatever that you see (apparently not you though) that proves my point, that the "rules" don't apply to you jerks:


From the damn Reply window

If you need to quote a member's post in your reply, please ensure you edit down the quoted amount to the minimum needed to make your point. Overly large quotes or minimal replies are subject to warnings or deletion.


So you may want to mod yourself, no doubt I will receive a warning for calling you out on this though, I'm pretty disgusted with the majority of the highly bias and hypocritical mods (I'm saying all mods are this way, but a heck of a lot of them are).

-Lahara

[edit on 28-2-2009 by TheRandom1]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
Fair enough. I find it choosing the easy way.

You call this drama-fest easy? Really?

Staying true to the founding standards of this community -- strict policies that enforce rules of civility and decorum -- is easy? You try it.



Censorship is censorship, no matter the reason.

You have a narrow understanding of the concept of censorship.

Would you go to the neighborhood mall and shout at the top of your lungs about your personal use of narcotics? You might, but if you did, you'd be escorted off the private property. If you tried to do it again, you'd be prevented from re-entering, ever again.

The situation here is slightly different, but the analogy is very similar... we're a very public place that is privately owned. As such, we've defined a set of simple standards that are no different than what anyone would use to get by in public life at school, shopping, and mixed company. Since we are a text medium, those standards deal with what you write. We, the private owners of ATS enforcing those standards is not censorship. If the government forced topical standards on us, THAT would be censorship. Simple.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
We, the private owners of ATS enforcing those standards is not censorship. If the government forced topical standards on us, THAT would be censorship. Simple.


Problem is you don't enforce it on your own folks, your own mods, see my above post.

Really, you won't do a damn thing about it because the mods are a clique.

-Lahara



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Personally, I don't mind that some topics get temporarily shut down for a while because I have seen the madness that shows up from time to time on different topics.

When I read some of the posts, I literally shake my head in disbelief at the loss of reality in the words and assumptions made. I sometimes want to post something angry in response, but I usually just take the attitude of nothing I say will help them or change their mind. They are so out of touch and beyond anyone's help.

I don't know if it is a conspiracy to shut down the site or if it is those who are starting to wake up and see truth for the first time in their lives, that they have an adverse reaction to it and immediately go into a state of denial and anger.

I know that I was pretty jingoistic when I first arrived on ATS but when you are able to see more and more information and connect more and more dots, the image which emerges, is beyond argument.

I have also had my moments when someone just pressed all of my buttons and even I lashed out. I later apologized, but man, I could have crawled through the ethernet and throttled someone at the time.

Perhaps this is a conspiracy which goes much deeper. Maybe we are all being triggered into anger by some unknown catalyst.

Just a thought.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRandom1
Really, you won't do a damn thing about it because the mods are a clique.

Relax. You over-reacted. He was clearly seeking to get the thread back on topic.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRandom1
 


You are complaining about a Mod reposting the OP of this thread??

Gee, could that have been to get the thread back on track??

Off of censorship claims and back onto the topic at hand which is the possibility of a conspiracy against ATS??



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Because of the environment in which we post, the typical tactics of disruption become ineffective. You cannot use bombast and simple angry rhetoric to bury an solid ATS member. No matter what your take on the issue at hand, a solid ATS member will stand thier grown confident in the fact that the way this site is set up will simply not allow this particulary nasty type of troll much longevity.


Excellent point. And I would like to point out to all member that this is not a passive process. If you encounter those who you feel are 'disruptive', and have 'agendas', don't simply build a wall of your own certainty, and ignore them. Instead, take a deep breath, ignore any manipulated emotion response you might initially feel, and then look beyond the veil, as you perceive it, and try to learn. Because you will find, there will always be something to learn. Even when we encounter those who we feel are 'out of line' or otherwise objectionable, there is room to find out, and understand, exactly what they really feel and why they are motivated.

And, in the best tradition of ATS, let's express our opinions on such issues, as we extrapolate them beyond petty personal bickering, and use 'their ammunition' to educate others.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by TheRandom1
Really, you won't do a damn thing about it because the mods are a clique.

Relax. You over-reacted. He was clearly seeking to get the thread back on topic.


You're right about me overacting, I'm just pissed at the way things go down here, how hatred towards certain groups are allowed and not others, how mods don't follow the rules, how some people get special treatment on here for no good reason, other than they are butt kissers, how some people will bring up a good point, another bashes them for making that point and the mods do nothing, sometimes they even join in. The little "Alert" button must be broken cause I honestly don't think mods or whoever see the complaints I've made, I get that generic "F U we don't give a crap" response letter, like what you get when you write your congressman.

So is that the excuse to NOT follow the rules? I should actually thank Intrepid for helping me prove a point though, so I'll give him a star


-Lahara



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by vcwxvwligen
 


Exactly my point. But there were some calls to what the laws on free speech were and who can not eliminate free speech. I am firmly against the ban now in place because it is too broad in scope. But if forced to argue for keeping it in place, I could do so just on the T&C as I spelled out. But could also do so reluctantly for other reasons as well.



The mission of this website is to civilly discuss a pre-determined range of topics. Drug use isn't one of those topics, and the discussion of drug use has attracted uncivil and abusive behavior in the past.


[edit on 28-2-2009 by vcwxvwligen]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ian McLean
[If you encounter those who you feel are 'disruptive', and have 'agendas', don't simply build a wall of your own certainty, and ignore them. Instead, take a deep breath, ignore any manipulated emotion response you might initially feel, and then look beyond the veil, as you perceive it, and try to learn. Because you will find, there will always be something to learn.


Well put
The last election was a good example of exactly what you bring up. There is always something to learn. You may not move me off my position, but if you force me to defend it in a manner befitting the traditions of ATS we both should come out ahead even if we never ever agree or reach concensus on the issue



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRandom1
 




FM T&C
Quoting an entire post: Size doesn't matter unless the post is already small, less than 3 sentences. You will receive a warning if you quote an entire post that exceeds four or more sentences.


Thanks for pointing that out!.... Others seem to be blind to what's going on, or think that someone's out to get ATS. How about all the talk of ATS having CIA connections earlier? All squashed...

There is no conspiracy against ATS, unless they are doing it. I think they are causing all the things themselves.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by TheRandom1
 


You are complaining about a Mod reposting the OP of this thread??

Gee, could that have been to get the thread back on track??

Off of censorship claims and back onto the topic at hand which is the possibility of a conspiracy against ATS??


No, you obviously have absolutely no reading comprehension, LOOK AT MY QUOTE! In fact sense you can't see what's in front of your face every time you make a post, I'll post it again and make it bigger cause you obviously have a hard time reading:

"If you need to quote a member's post in your reply, please ensure you edit down the quoted amount to the minimum needed to make your point. Overly large quotes or minimal replies are subject to warnings or deletion."

That's one of the things I'm complaining about, he did'nt follow the rules, yet he will be given points probably for doing so, much like how these corrupt cops get a paid leave (paid vacation) for senselessly beating or killing and innocent person.

-Lahara

[wtf wont the size tags work?]

[edit on 28-2-2009 by TheRandom1]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vasilis Azoth

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by enigmania
 


A website gets to choose which topics it will feature and which it will not feature. And if it defines itself as "a website that is safe for the underaged to visit" and "a website that does not discuss illegal activities" it has the right to do so.



What a load a crap.


We talk about terrorism. Terrorism is illegal.

We talk about murder. Murder is illegal.

We talk about rape. Rape is illegal.

We talk about breaking into Area 51. That would be illegal.

We have people who claimed they work for the government coming here to give us their secrets. These people are coming here for the express purpose to breaking the law.

Whatever....





Any website can discuss any of those topics, but not suggest that those activities are OK, or instruct readers on how to personally benefit from them.

The last item describes whistle-blowing, which is not illegal



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRandom1
I get that generic *SNIP* response letter, like what you get when you write your congressman.

Ha! Good point there. Myself, I assume, when I click an alert, that it will actually go somewhere and be read by someone. It would be much more 'satisfying' to get a U2U when an alert has been dealt with, rather than when I just clicked a button that I already know I had pressed.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 





You call this drama-fest easy? Really?


Apparently it's easier than closely moderating those forbidden subjects that alledgedly always take a turn for the worse.




strict policies that enforce rules of civility and decorum


The banning of subjects has no direct relation to those rules.




You have a narrow understanding of the concept of censorship.


You guys seem to be completely unable to grasp the concept.




Would you go to the neighborhood mall and shout at the top of your lungs about your personal use of narcotics?


Would you shout about murder, terrorism, conspiracy in that mall.

Probably has the same effect.

Still, those subjects are allowed




The situation here is slightly different, but the analogy is very similar...


No, the analogy sucks.



new topics

top topics



 
132
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join