Member Blogs and the T&Cs

Apologies if this has been covered already - I have been closely following the subject(s) on ATS lately and haven't seen this issue addressed.

I know the staff has been agonizing over the drug issue and I don't mean to add to the conundrum. I think the new forum is a good compromise and I hope it works out.

What I'm getting at specifically, is how the T&Cs apply to the member blogs hosted at the new ATS media section. The blogs, in my opinion serve an entirely different purpose than do the discussion threads, and should be governed by a different set of rules.

What I'm going to suggest is that ATS not censor member blogs - even ones that contain "hate speech" and/or advocacy of the use of mind-altering substances, etc. I think a header with a disclaimer on all blog pages would be a good idea though - something along the lines of "ATS does not censor member blogs and the ideas or opinions expressed therein are not necessarily those of ATS or The Above Network."

Has there been any behind-the-scenes discussion along these lines? How was this handled with the old blog section?

reply to post by Teratoma


Honestly I don't see why the blogs should be different but that is just my opinion. You agree to the terms and conditions that covers all of ATS domains. Which blogs are only read by those who want to read them. They IMHO should not have a freebie on what you can talk about.

reply to post by Ant4AU


It's a very valid and reasonable opinion, too. But to play 'devil's advocate', there really isn't a point to having a blog at all then. If what you have to say is strictly within the T&Cs, why not just post a thread?

The only difference is in the 'nature' of a blog itself. I realize I can host my own blog elsewhere and talk about whatever I want, but I would rather not have to. I would rather not have my writing scattered all over a bunch of different sites. I would be much happier to have the official Teratoma blog hosted here.

I'm having a hard time expressing why I think blog content and thread content should be handled differently, but I'm sure there are some who'd agree. Can anyone else articulate it better?

I do appreciate the input and I'd like to hear what everyone thinks, but I'm primarily interested in what's been discussed by staff.

I'm absolutely fine with the way the site is run - even in areas I might handle differently. This is my favorite website and I have no problem adhering to the terms. This is kind of a new area though, so I'm simply making a suggestion. The issue is likely to come up though.

We all agreed to the T&C when we joined. Is it that unreasonable that the owners can censor what is on their website? Play nice, play by the rules and enjoy what they offer. Not too hard to comprehend.

Censoring Blogs on ATS will just lead to people using an outside site for their Blogs and just providing links to them in their sigs, if the idea of providing web space for Blogs was to generate more site traffic and they want them to take off I would suggest leaving them unmoderated.

I see the OPs point, and I agree. I also agree that you have to follow the t&c of the site..so there is no real answer imo.

I have a few poems where I have used an off color word and have to use **** instead to follow the rules. I find that annoying. It is a poem, I am not flaming anyone or posting in some thread to get a reaction... and blogs could be seen the same way.

reply to post by hoagy1199


At no point did I claim the current policies are "unreasonable". And if you go back and re-read what I've posted here you'll see that it's abundantly clear that I comprehend the situation entirely.

I'm very familiar with the rhetoric you're spouting at me; I have spouted it myself many times in defense of the site and the way it's moderated.

This is clearly a different issue - blogs serve a different purpose than the forums.

All I'm trying to do is see what the community and staff might think about my suggestion to moderate the blogs a little bit differently than the rest of the site. I think my proposal for a disclaimer is a good solution, and I don't think it's unreasonable at all to ask. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Three Amigos listened and gave it a try. If the results are disastrous then I'll eat my tin-foil hat. The new media portal is still in an experimental phase, so why not give it a try?

Originally posted by Teratoma
All I'm trying to do is see what the community and staff might think about my suggestion to moderate the blogs a little bit differently than the rest of the site.

I appreciate the point you're making, and I think it's a very valid one. I've wondered also about how exactly the T&C will be applied in the various media available to us on the new media site.

I think though that right now it's important for policy to be pretty uniform across all the ATS-related sites: ATS, BTS, MATS, and chat. Just because it's such a hot-button topic at the moment, and because there may be people looking to exploit any loopholes introduces just to incite more chaos and dissension.

Just my $0.02

reply to post by americandingbat


I'm inclined to agree with your reasoning, but I'm torn; part of me thinks that this is the ideal time to try something new. The new Narcotics Conspiracy forum, combined with the upcoming official launch of the media portal are evidence that ATS is growing and really does want a solution that will work out for everyone. So I think it makes sense to have one short transitional/experimental period, rather than drag out the process by approaching it at another time (if at all).