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.

 

The opinion of banned members has no worth?

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by angelwrangler
 


Members are banned permanently and "kicked" off the server. However, their posts remain, but have all stars stripped from them.




posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
If stars and flags were done away with, then there wouldn't be a problem. What's important is what is said.

If there's any facet of ATS which I believe is abused consistently, it's stars and flags.

But... that's just my opinion.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 



If stars and flags were done away with, then there wouldn't be a problem. What's important is what is said.

No, there wouldn't be a problem if that were the case. But there is a problem because what people have said (the CONTENT) isn't treated in a consistent matter - if you are banned your content can longer receive any thanks and all prior thanks is completely removed. What they have said is treated in a different manner simply because they've been banned. Sorry to push my point, but you seem like a nice mod who might understand what I'm trying to say.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Doomzilla
 


Too true, it does seem somewhat over burdened with legalese but even though I have voiced reservations about one or two things in it I agree with the vast majority of it.
And if I don't like it there's always the option of not posting.

I think the bare bones of the T&C can be summed up as; debate the topic not the person and always debate with reason, respect and civility.
Worthy aspirations I think, even though it can be hard for all of us at times, especially considering the passion and commitment of people attracted to this site.

And I think it's fair to remember that some Mods are more active than other's.

On a slightly different tack I think ATS has suffered a bit by valued members becoming Mods and thus not actively participating in threads as much as they used to.
Being a reasoned and informative poster does not mean that someone will be a balanced and impartial Mod.

But when all things are considered I think the Mods do quite a good job deserve our appreciation.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by WhizPhiz
 


So you are concerned about your previous posts and the fact that the stars and flags are gone? For instance, when I am doing research and I have searched a subject and your thread comes up, you feel I might blow it off because of your banned status? Do I have that right?

Because if that is the case, I feel your worries on baseless. Someone researching must take all information under advisement. If they do not, I feel they do not have the betterment of the collective consciousness in mind and heart, regardless of flags, stars or status.

I just did a thread, no flags or stars, but I learned a hell of a lot, most of which I would not have found in researching tomes.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by WhizPhiz
 


You seem to be completely missing the point though...the stars and flags feature is so often abused, that most serious posters don't really hold any value in it, because if people took the time to read posts, they can determine for themselves which posts have worth and which don't.

In fact a wave of intutition is currently sweeping over me, that makes me think that you, with a membership of approx 3 months are a returned banned member, who is now annoyed cos all his stars have been removed from his previous posts...Because I can't see any other reason why you would care...or notice for that matter!



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhizPhiz

No, there wouldn't be a problem if that were the case. But there is a problem because what people have said (the CONTENT) isn't treated in a consistent matter - if you are banned your content can longer receive any thanks and all prior thanks is completely removed. What they have said is treated in a different manner simply because they've been banned. Sorry to push my point, but you seem like a nice mod who might understand what I'm trying to say.


The point I was seeking to make earlier is that banned members have no way of knowing if they "receive thanks" or not. They cannot see stars without being logged in.

Why be concerned about appreciation being shown that the recipient has no possible way of being aware of?

~Heff



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
What they have said is treated in a different manner simply because they've been banned. Sorry to push my point, but you seem like a nice mod who might understand what I'm trying to say.


I understand what you're saying completely.

Stars are stripped away, true, but they were awarded by other members and reflect no position of the banned member. If anyone should be upset, it's those members who have seen the stars they handed out disappear. But the stars are applied anonymously.

Anyways, I stand by what I initially said... I don't like stars OR flags and wish they'd all go right into the bin. All they do is promote the D-Ego and, like points, are utterly useless in any way. Stars are a way members who have nothing to say involve themselves without commenting.

Flags are a way to seperate hugely popular threads from the less so, but, honestly, I've seen some very impressive OP's wither from a lack of attention while the most inane gets tons of them. Tell me, though... don't the number of responses to an OP have the same effect as flags?

That banned members lose them, imho, strips the bells and whistles to expose the real value of a member who has been banned. No popularity contest, just the message. If I never ever got another star as long as I'm a member, it wouldn't matter to me one little bit. What DOES matter is what people say in response to my posts.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by angelwrangler
 




So you are concerned about your previous posts and the fact that the stars and flags are gone? For instance, when I am doing research and I have searched a subject and your thread comes up, you feel I might blow it off because of your banned status? Do I have that right?
No, I'm trying to look at the bigger picture here, the FACT that a lot of members do in fact pay special attention to posts with a vast amount of stars. I'm saying that a lot of important information will be potentially overlooked by members because it didn't stand out as the awesome post it is. If they see the post, and choose not to read it because the member is banned - so be it, that is there CHOICE. I'm saying because all of these banned members have their posts stripped of stars, it reduces the coverage their contributions will receive - it's as simple as that - it only acts to move people away from the content of banned posters.

reply to post by destination now
 




You seem to be completely missing the point though...the stars and flags feature is so often abused, that most serious posters don't really hold any value in it, because if people took the time to read posts, they can determine for themselves which posts have worth and which don't.
Yeah, but the thing is, only seasoned or very intelligent members will pick up on the fact that stars are so extensively abused. Not to mention - they do actually work in a lot of cases, and good posts get a lot of stars. People DO pay attention to the stars more than you might think, and it does play a large role in what posts will receive the most coverage - there is no denying that. That's why they are abused so often.



In fact a wave of intutition is currently sweeping over me, that makes me think that you, with a membership of approx 3 months are a returned banned member,
Irrelevant. 1/3 of the members on here are previously banned members, it's easy to tell if you pay close attention. I would be happy if stars were removed all together, but not when valid content is treated differently from the rest. This isn't about me or my previous posts (if I indeed have any), it's about all the banned members and everything they have contributed to this website being degraded and treated in an unfair manner just because the staff don't want people paying attention to them or inquiring about them.

reply to post by Hefficide
 




Why be concerned about appreciation being shown that the recipient has no possible way of being aware of?
It's not about the member actually knowing, it's about the role of stars and how they affect what people will read and consider. Though I do think it's just shows respect to allow their content to remain the same as all other content on here, whether they know it or not, after all, they still put in the hard work to share it with the rest of us, if it's not to be deleted than it should remain in a neutral position worthy of receiving stars.


edit on 16-2-2011 by WhizPhiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua


Anyways, I stand by what I initially said... I don't like stars OR flags and wish they'd all go right into the bin.


I agree. Popularity says nothing about content or quality, it just says something about popularity.

And in the case of a banned member, what is the point in being popular or not if you arent here to enjoy that popularity? If people are using posts with many stars to determine which ones have quality and are worth reading, refer back to the first concept.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 




Flags are a way to seperate hugely popular threads from the less so, but, honestly, I've seen some very impressive OP's wither from a lack of attention while the most inane gets tons of them. Tell me, though... don't the number of responses to an OP have the same effect as flags?
The number of responses can greatly differ depending on the content, it doesn't need to be a good thread to receive lots of replies, it just needs to be controversial. But you say flags allow people to separate the very popular threads from the bad, well stars do the same thing for singular posts. I guarantee 90% of the people reading this, when they scroll through a thread, will almost always read a post if it has lots of stars. They have a purpose and it does work to some degree. Are we now saying stars are completely useless? Why does ATS strip posts of stars then?


edit on 16-2-2011 by WhizPhiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by WhizPhiz
 



Well we are all reading and contributing to this thread and it has no stars...

And I read all posts in a thread...no point in reading the thread otherwise, and I do sometimes think that the response with fewer or no stars makes more sense than the one with 20+

edit on 16-2-2011 by destination now because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by destination now
 




and I do sometimes think that the response with fewer or no stars makes more sense than the one with 20+
I think that constantly, like every time I visit ATS. People on here are amazingly naive or there are certain groups staring crap.

But that is irrelvant really when it comes to this discussion, I'm simply saying it really isn't a good practice to remove stars from banned members because they're content is just as valid as anyone else's, but most importantly, their content WILL get less attention than it would have otherwise received (which is the stated goal, and clearly works). So there's not much debate about the function of stars and how they can be used, the debate is about whether it's fair that their content is treated differently (in a matter that can potentially degrade and take focus away from it).



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
I guarantee 90% of the people reading this, when they scroll through a thread, will almost always read a post if it has lots of stars.


I see that as a problem.


They have a purpose and it does work to some degree.


Yep... it's called 'Stroking the D-Ego'.


Are we now saying stars are completely useless?


No... I am. Kinda alone in this, though. It's like the Olympics, where a bunch of judges sit at the sidelines and hold up cards (9.5, 8.7, 6.3, 9.9, 7.3 stars) and the high ones are from biased judges.



Why does ATS strip posts of stars then?


The only posts who have stripped stars are banned members. They're GONE. Returned banned members would care, I guess. But clean slates ARE clean slates.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Someone posted this .
" I will remind you, that during the Crusades it was those maniacs called "Christians" who promoted the deaths of innocents in the Muslim world. Who spitted infants on pikes."



To this another user replied

Too bad they didn't finish the job



This is a user that hasn't been banned .

Not only is he saying he approves of infants being slaughtered (NICE! )
he contributes NOTHING with his 1 line reply .

yet you ban others who are polite , detailed and try to unite people . Without explanation .



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
So it looks like you are clearly accusing ATS staff of pushing an agenda of some sort. You also seem to have a good handle on banned members. If ATS was pushing an agenda it should be simple to show that there is a high incidence of banned members who specifically oppose said agenda and this could be shown via a logical analysis.

You are making an accusation with no proof or support and this seems to be getting missed. This is a very serious accusation that could severely damage the credibility of this web site.

A baseless accusation is libel which is illegal.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla
This is a user that hasn't been banned .

Not only is he saying he approves of infants being slaughtered (NICE! )
he contributes NOTHING with his 1 line reply .

yet you ban others who are polite , detailed and try to unite people . Without explanation .


Did You Alert The Post?

Because I'd get rid of that post in a milisecond.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 




So it looks like you are clearly accusing ATS staff of pushing an agenda of some sort.
What exactly is my accusation? That ATS is trying to take attention away from banned members and their posts? Well one of the admins has clearly stated on the first page of this thread that they did in fact remove the stars as to lower member inquiries about banned members - there are several moderately reasonable reasons.



If ATS was pushing an agenda it should be simple to show that there is a high incidence of banned members who specifically oppose said agenda and this could be shown via a logical analysis.
My guess is you've never actually done an internet search on the topic of banned ATS members. There's quite a lot of info out there - but this site has been around for a VERY long time also.


edit on 16-2-2011 by WhizPhiz because: spelling



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
still not seeing or getting the whole 'stars and flags denote quality content' aspect.

you can roll through most any thread or forum here and see a multitude of posts bearing a seemingly inordinate amount of graphic bling ... when in fact the actual content and contribution is minimal or mundane at best.

it's like a teacher passed out their gold stars to their pupils, and the kids took to 'applying' them using the 'buddy system'

for me at least, it's not like a flag or star-laden post truly signifies any sort of esoteric teachings or anything.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Annie Mossity
 


Annie... I wouldn't star a post of yours because I'm afraid you'd turn quick and eat my pointer.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join