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.


Terms and conditions, a slight change???

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 01:04 PM

1g.) Political Baiting: You will not engage in politically-charged rhetoric, politically-inspired name-calling, and related right-versus-left political bickering while posting in any topical forum or discussion thread on You will not alter political candidate names or party affiliations in order to insult or deride the opposition.

I propose that we add to this to apply to other topics. It is my understanding that the T&Cs only exist to promote civil discussion and debate. Under this 1g it says
"You will not engage in politically-charged rhetoric, politically-inspired name-calling, and related right-versus-left political bickering"
" You will not alter political candidate names or party affiliations in order to insult or deride the opposition. "
It is my understanding that this exists (excuse me for my violation of this point but i think it is allowable within this context) to prevent people from starting threads where people with things like "nobamba". I believe it is this way because to have an intelligent debate bating and name calling does not help convey a communication.
Now i propose that this 1g is changed or added to in order to cover religious topics. In my opinion something like this should be put in the T&Cs

You will not engage in theistic or non-theistic rhetoric, name-calling*, and related non-theistic-versus-theistic religious bickering** while posting in any topical forum or discussion thread on You will not alter the names of groups or respected figures in order to insult or deride the opposition.

* By that i mean people calling others things like "fundies" and "heathens"
** Threads on ATS for the most part about conspiracy, threads about things like athiests are going to hell and christians are dumb because there is no god really have nothing to do with conspiracy.

We have these rules for politics for a reason i do not see why we would not hold the same standard for the topic of religion.

[edit on 2-12-2009 by zaiger]

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 01:11 PM
this sounds like something that should be taken into consideration

star and flag good sir.

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 01:17 PM
reply to post by iamsupermanv2


I joined ATS because it was a very lax forum, all they really ask is that you stick to the T&Cs. It is a conspiracy site that covers a wide range of topics and all types of people post here which is what makes it so interesting. However Religion and politics are two topics that have the ability to bring out the worst in some people so that is why I am of the opinion that they should have the same guidelines.
There are forms on the net that are dedicated to spreading the intollerance on both sides but ATS is not the place for it.

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 02:58 PM
reply to post by zaiger

Nice post and I completely agree to it.

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 03:01 PM
Seems like a logical extension of the t&c.

I've mostly avoided the religious section here because of the veracity of the rhetoric I see there.

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 05:49 PM
reply to post by zaiger

Changing the TAC to include "religion" as we had to for politics won't really solve this issue (any more than it really has for politics). The reason "politics" was added was due to the overwhelming popularity of the subject during the U.S. elections. Religion represents about 1/10th the overall content/controversy/issues that politics does.

The civility clause of the TAC, in its current form, gives the staff all the rights it needs to deal with these instances.

Discussion among our staff members, due to the widely varied backgrounds, beliefs and cultures of our staff, has always served us well and if the membership will report these infractions that discussion can commence and action can be taken where warranted.


posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:04 PM
reply to post by Springer

I do understand what you are saying but the fact that it did not help the political threads is not due to the T&Cs, and correct me if i am wrong but the problem comes from a lack of enforcement.
I do see that it would probably be a burden at first but over a short time members would get the idea that they can discuss and debate topics without the need for offensive derogatory name calling. For example

noun (pl=heathen, pl2=heathens)
A person who does not follow an w:Abrahamic religion, Abrahamic religion, a pagan. (derogatory)

fund·ie [ fúndee ] (plural fund·ies) or fund·y [ fúndee ] (plural fund·ies)


fundamentalist: an offensive term for a member of a fundamentalist political or religious group ( informal ) ( offensive )

They are both offensive names that are tollerated on ATS. Im not saying that one side is better or that one side does it more that the other.
While i can handle the ignorace of statements like "all _____s are this way" i do believe that the T&Cs should be added to or more strictly enforced.

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 08:20 PM
Flag for a good suggestion, which I expect will be ignored. There has been an insane number of threads and posts, which are just disgusting personal attacks. I reported this little gem, recently...

"a good good day for those of use who have been abused by the pigs.
i will mark this on my calendar and make it an annual holiday to celebrate.


This was posted in response to the murder of the four police officers, in Tacoma, Washington. The thread is now 26 pages long and appears to be unmoderated, as it is full of similarly disgusting comments.

I know the job of moderating the enormous number of threads, is astounding, but it seems many mods only take action against posts that offend them. It seems there is a lot of subjectivity in the translation and enforcement of the T & C.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by WTFover]

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 08:37 PM
reply to post by WTFover


I see no point in having rules or regulation if they were not to be enforced. When you selectively enforce rules here and there it makes people feel that they are being singled out or censored due to their ideas. And the rules then become a running joke.
I know in some cases i have seen "extreeme T&C violation" placed over posts pretty quick. If you were to used the "n" word on a thread it would get pulled pretty fast, becasue it is an offensive derragatory name. I still do not know why name calling is tollerated in some cases and not others.

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 08:55 PM
reply to post by zaiger

To be honest I think that you need to grow a thick skin . As Truman was so fond of saying "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen . "
ATS is already the best moderated forum that I have come across . Changing the T&C can achieve only so much after all its up to the members to make a difference . Besides everyone tends to get carried away in the moment some of the time . We are human after all .

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 09:01 PM
reply to post by zaiger

You forgot to include the term Mullah, I was surprised to see a Mod doing it again and again and when I alerted against it, I got reply that it's a respectful term. However, even a kid knows that Mullah is used a derogatory words in today's running world and specially against Iranian/Pakistani/Afghanis it is considered extremely derogatory. The Mod I am talking about was using it on an Iran related thread.


Until early 20th century, the term mullah was used in Iranian hawzas (seminaries) to refer to low-level clergy who specialized in telling stories of Ashura, rather than teaching or issuing fatwas. Today, the term mullah is sometimes used as a derogatory term for any Islamic cleric. It is common in Iran to refer to an ayatollah or other high level clerics, as a mullah, to ridicule his religious authority.[citation needed] In recent years, at least among Shia mullahs, the term ruhani (spiritual) has been promoted as an alternative to mullah and akhoond, free of pejorative connotations.[4]
[edit] Afghanistan and Pakistan

In Afghanistan & Pakistan, the word is used to refer to any person of religious orientation with whom secularists might not agree.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by December_Rain]

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 09:06 PM
reply to post by zaiger

I want to add that if people don't stop using derogatory words then rplies to them to in equally derogatory words should not be censored.
If someone calls Muslims Mullah on thee boards, then it should be allowed to called Jews Kike...Americans/Britishers Fenians/Fundies ..Japenese Japo etc etc...right?
One cannot just leave 1 religion out of racism.

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 09:28 PM
reply to post by December_Rain

I was just using those as examples what i intend to do is help stop ALL name-calling.

new topics

top topics


log in