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.


Important Information: If you want to start your own website on ATS topics...

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:14 PM

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Like, let's say you have a single post from another competing site linked in your sig. Does that qualify as a no no?

You're extending this into illogical territory beyond the intent and content of the opening post.

No, that's not a problem.

The primary issue relates to people who attempt to create a new site, and expect to recruit ATS members to their new site "under the radar."

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:16 PM
I have a blog where I post mainly my own personal and political views. I think it's clear that I am speaking only for myself.

I have once posted a link in my blog to a thread on ATS. I assume that is ok as long as the original source is made perfectly clear.

If you want to check it out, it's: Blogspot Blog

Again, I assume that blogs like mine are not a problem but don't want to cross the line inadvertently.

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:18 PM

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
One recently banned popular member who I was friends with confided in me privately through U2U shortly before he was banned that he was concerned about the prior recent banning of another popular member and had heard some chatter that he was considered by some as being a trouble maker and was concerned he too might soon be banned.

Without getting into details, I believe you've touched on a perfect and recent example of this issue.

Significant "under the radar" efforts were made to recruit from ATS... after warnings, post-bans, and full-out account bans, those involved never once inquired as to the reason or how/if they could return to ATS in good standing.

The unfortunate thing is, that if they had simply discussed their intentions with us, things would have been very different and we most likely would have been helpful. Instead, they jumped to a long list of inaccurate conclusions based on our clear actions to their T&C violations.

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link seemed pretty darn clear what was stated:

no advertising without prior permission.

this seems like it has many purposes.

a) of course they want to keep people here and not lose to other sites...but those other sites probably frown on the same thing

b) they have the interest of their sponsors to keep in mind. i recruit for a white supremacists site (would never do so, but an example) then their sponsor doesn't like that, they lose sponsorship

if it's questionable, ask. that's all. theyd rather spend time fielding those questions then banning members.

this thread was for our benefit. they want to keep us...if they didn't, they would not have posted this to inform us.

it's like anything else...abide by the rules, and you will be fine. and i think we can all agree the admins here are not out to get us, to censor us, or to harm us.

and i refuse to think anyone was stupid enough to think that the OP said we have to have their permission to create a site. that would just be erroneous on all accounts.

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:22 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:23 PM

However, keep in mind that, in almost all cases, any public display of minor-to-major staff animosity toward problematic members often includes significant "behind the scenes" communications for which most members will never be aware.

I realize that we are all human, and I do understand that there will always be behind the scenes animosity. However, that animosity should not be reflected in threads, nor should it extend to those uninvolved. This smacks of bullying to those that witness the event, be that the case or not. This is a free website, yes, but it is also a business and good business practice is to provide equal customer service. We are, as you've put it, an ecosystem. The Abovenetwork, something I have been proud to be a part of, will grow in accordance with the size of this ecosystem. The moderators need to remember that in the same way that customer service agents do. Always be impartial. Always be polite. Talk about us after work, but be nice to us while we're here.

As for the people posting here...I stand by my position that there are people here who laugh and jeer at others--in fact I would love for those ridiculous icons to go away because they are used inappropriately. This is not IMDB where we are talking about movies. We talk politics, religion, spirituality, etc. Emotions are involved. The laughter icons feed the flames, and too much laughter chases people away.

When you came out with the zero-tolerance policy on racism I applauded. I do not believe that this is the type of behavior you would condone.

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:25 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:26 PM
Interesting thread, if i may say so myself. But since sites which i own have no area for conspiracy issues, although as i have stated, your new News section is very appealing but if and when the time arises i am sure as i have stated i will be contacting your directly


*Deliberate offtopic, Anonymous is really improving, looking forward to your next news cast. ( Delete if you feel this is inappropriate )

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:28 PM
reply to post by A Fortiori

I can understand where you are coming from. But you and I both know that there are times where a good laugh is warranted. Let's not forget we have a skunk works forum and the summer months are OHH SO LONG when we have the school kids on here in droves.

I see them being mis-used, but I see every other aspect of EVERY website every created being mis-used as some point or another. The staff cannot be everywhere at once.

Furthermore, upon further research, if we look at the ammount of members who cry wolf over censorship when the mods are attempting to add civility and decorum to the website, this removing of the laughing icons/sarcasm ones would not go over well at all.

We can't start choosing the emotions that we want to express on the web, that would really defeat the purpose of this place all together.

People are people, and the system will never be perfect, all we can do is moderate and provide proper oversight for things that are REAL problems on these boards, not just the few or even many members who choose to laugh at a post every now and then.


posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:31 PM

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Significant "under the radar" efforts were made to recruit from ATS... after warnings, post-bans, and full-out account bans, those involved never once inquired as to the reason or how/if they could return to ATS in good standing.

What kind of 'under the radar' attempts?

Do you mean by u2u?

And how would you know this unless you were reading personal u2u's?

Just asking....

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:32 PM
i think your opening post was pretty clear SO, i don't know where the confusion is coming from...this doesn't apply to me, but i tend to read what you post, and i would think what you expressed would be pretty obvious. hhmm...

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:32 PM

Originally posted by lucentenigma
And how would you know this unless you were reading personal u2u's?

We don't look into U2U's unless alerted by a member, and we received two such alerts.

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:33 PM
Anyone who has ever administered a website… even a free blog at Blogger, must already understand the issues of maintaining control of your product. Free speech is an excellent concept but if you are exercising it, speaking on someone else’s stump, they do have the right to yank it out from under you if they don’t like what you say.

I have a blog and on one occasion, a visitor wanted to use the comments feature to carry on a little personal war with another commenter. They got really bent when I didn’t allow them to turn my website into their personal battleground. But since it was my dime that paid for that particular piece of cyber dirt, I wasn’t inclined to let someone else come in and usurp my rights and squat on it for their own purposes and also in so doing, sully it for all my other guests.

I do think that there are instances here at ATS when the policing becomes a little heavy-handed. But it’s not my site, not my money that pays the bills, not my work that maintains it. I just have a visitor’s visa and like visiting any foreign land, I am subject to the local customs and rules… and their interpretation of the same. If I don’t like it, I am free to go elsewhere.

That’s just life.

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:34 PM
This is simple.

We don't care what anyone does OFF of ATS. You want to start a new site that covers the same topics as ATS?

GREAT! By all means do so, and NO, you don't need to ask us or even tell us. (WHY would you?)


If you want to promote your new site on ATS by sending out U2Us to our membership asking them to join it, you WILL BE BANNED. Our privacy rules FORBID recruiting for VERY good reasons.

It's very easy to gather IP information on our membership by having them join a new site and identify themselves with their ATS user name.

Not to mention it's absolutely unethical and SNEAKY.

The other "sneaky method" to promote and try to build traffic to a new site is to post dozens of links to your new site in every thread and or reply you make on ATS. That is blatant advertising and it violates not only our TAC that you agreed to when you joined, it is totally unfair to the legitimate advertisers who pay money to have their ads here.

The reality is, everyone who has ever started a new site and come to us asking if they can post a link to it in their signature has been accommodated as long as their site wasn't pron, drugs, hate speech, etc...

People who are being honest and ethical ASK for permission, those who seek to STEAL sneak around about it.


posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:36 PM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Are you saying that if these members apologized and then asked for permission, then you would allow them their original accounts back? I think it would be sad to lose those accounts forever, if they truly wanted to return. Some can work very hard to build up an account.

Also, is it merely the act of not asking for permission first that will get you into "trouble", even if you would have permitted it? I guess the safe bet is to just always ask no matter what.


posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Unlimitedpossibilities
Are you saying that if these members apologized and then asked for permission, then you would allow them their original accounts back?

Given that there was never any attempt to communicate with us after their accounts were disabled, and their actions immediately turned hostile... "forgiveness" will be difficult (but not impossible).

Some of their actions closely mirror the prior events mentioned where ill-intended people created boards specifically for the purpose of harvesting the emails and passwords of ATS members. (Most people use the same email and password wherever they register)

But the unfortunate reality is... if they came to us first and explained their intentions, they most likely would have had our blessings.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by SkepticOverlord]

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:42 PM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

I am not talking "censorship" because this is a private website. Skeptic Overlord can censor as he likes because he owns the place. Not that he has/ I said that personally I feel the ridicule is a motivator for people leaving. I do not mean the "banned" people because they are obviously no longer a part of the site.

This is a business now. It is probably a fun business to be in, but a business. When you allow people to attack Christians and it goes unchecked, you will see Christians leave. When you compare homosexuals to pedophiles and it goes unchecked, homosexuals will leave. When you laugh at people who believe in reptilians they will go to Icke's site. That is how it works. You will lose business.

I am not advocating banning. I am advocating more moderation on everyone--and that does not mean slapping a warning label on someone necessarily. It means a moderator saying: Hey, that wasn't nice. Ease up. It means the moderator doing it in equal measure.

I had someone tell me that I was "worse than a rapist" because I said Polanski was convicted and should go to jail like other convicted felons. Did someone step in and "moderate" that person when they said it? Nope. We even had admin on that particular thread. Yes, I am still here because I put the big girl britches on when I post, but other people might not be under the same set of circumstances.

That is what I am saying. Just a recommendation.

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:43 PM
I can't believe for a second that the people who have written long, drawn out posts in this thread, describing how this is so "wrong" and "Freedom of Speech, blah blah", actually read the OP beginning to end.

I can believe Springer had to come in and make it almost monosyllabic. It's not that tough to understand. I think he used the word "Simple". It was the right word.

Sorry it came to this, Springer. SkepticO. I'm totally behind your keeping your plates, crap-free.

"Read more, post less, people!" (That's what I always want to screm here!)


posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:45 PM
I will hesitantly jump in here with a couple of thoughts …

First of all, any active poster who's been a member here, or on any other forum for that matter, for enough time will sooner or later have disagreements with staff and/or policy.

Trust me I have been there, took it slightly personally, and threw a mini tantrum joining a competing website which I actually hated just out of spite. Thankfully for myself I didn't breach the T&C, didn't get banned, and learned a couple of valuable lessons …

The first one is to truly never take anything personally and to get over myself and sense of self importance. It sounds funny to say now, but there was a time that I truly thought I was the reason for the policy decisions that somewhat affected me.
Apparently that wasn't the case.
So after pouting for a day or two, and with the help of some wise ATS friends I managed some much needed ego calibration, chilled, and now nothing that happens here is either about me or my feelings.

Second and most important, I realized that I'm not here to indulge the ptb .. Sure I have a few staff members whom I consider friends, hold appropriate respect for the staff and amigos, but if they don't like me that's just fine also. What I mean is that the reason I am really here is because I have a fondness, respect, and affection for the WHOLE community, ALL of it members owners and staff alike. I am not here for one friendship, one person, one topic, etc … I am here because it makes ME happy and I find it rewarding on multiple levels. Thus I will not spite myself because I may happen to disagree with a staff decision or two, especially when it has very little to do with me.

At the end of the day it boils down to a simple question … do you or do you not trust that ATS management have the best interest of the community at heart. If you trust that then you will realize that like any person they also make mistakes but in the long run they will get most things right. If you don't then every decision from a simple OTP to major policy decisions is going to be a battle for you and your ego.

As far as the topic at hand …

I have seen many blogs and forums advertised on peeps signatures with staff consent. Do you know what they all have in common? They are no ATS bashfests!

There's nothing lamer imho than spite and sour grapes. It's like your girlfriend dumped you and you need to go around telling everyone she's a whore. Even if she is, you're the one that ends up looking small and petty.

So if you get frustrated with ATS and feel you can do better with your own forum you will, for what it is worth, have my complete respect.. Primarily because i respect people who actually follow through and act on their convictions. But you will not have it if your only intent is to live in the past and knock other forums.

And think about this … if one of your house guests was going around the neighborhood telling everyone what a prick you are, would you invite them back in your house?

Be yourself and let be.

2 drachmas.

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:46 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in