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.


What does it mean: "Thread closed for staff review"?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:12 PM
Traditionally threads were closed or trashed when they encouraged behavior against the Terms and Conditions.

It was not always a pleasant experience to suddenly see a thread closed into which one invested a lot of energy.
Sometimes the mods would disagree amongst themselves, and they would say that one could apply to have a thread re-opened.
Nevertheless, there was always a given reason for a thread being closed.

Now it's happened to me twice that a thread is closed and it simply says: "Closed for staff review".
There were no warnings, and few to no post bannings.

One was a thread regarding another conspiracy website (which I didn't contribute towards, but found an interesting read), and the other concerned whites becoming a minority in the USA.
I found the latter closing quite disappointing, because I'd just found quotes on how racial identity follows making a living, or "cash". The Pequot tribe, for example, reappeared from virtual extinction when they got a casino. So while previously post-colonial people wanted to appear "white", now they might look for more non-white ancestry, and change identity.

Anyway, it said the thread was closed for "staff review".
What does this mean?
Is it a fancy term for censorship, or are all the mods really reviewing it, and we will get a date when they are finished reviewing?
Will it re-open?
Do they hope we will forget, and it's a polite form of getting rid of contentious material, although nobody really transgressed the rules?

Can we have a date for such "closed" threads for when staff are finished with their review?

Forgiveness, but I just can't get any meaning from that terminology.

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:17 PM
I think they actually discuss it. I also think it gets forgotten about sooner or later, and ultimately ends up closed forever. If it's controversial enough for them to review it; I guess they think it's too controversial to keep it open.

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:33 PM
think in terms of the newly established super congress... where a committee of 12 (6 Demns/6 Repubes) make decisions about 'Debt Issues 'that the full congress can vote on either up or down--- no admendments or anything.... including debates

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:36 PM
I would link you my thread,where I asked the same question,they did answer,but it got removed.

Its pretty ironic once you get the explanation

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:38 PM
reply to post by Cyanhide

Usually they are reviewing links, posts and other things within the thread when an alert is made to the mods. I had alerted mods to a scammer once and they closed for staff review on the links and the postings to verify my assertions.
It could be for a number of reasons.

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:39 PM
reply to post by halfoldman

I have wondered the same thing...I guess in the end I was happy I never heard anything about it and I never asked - I was worried about a ban for a while. I took the silence, no penalties, etc etc to mean they thought about it, saw some rational for the thread, but ultimately decided it was just too controversial...

edit on 4-9-2011 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:40 PM
It just happened again!
My goodness, the staff has a lot to review!

OK, this time I can understand better, because a lot of posts were banned.
I think I would have closed it too (if I had such hallowed powers) because it wasn't heading anywhere good.
Of course it could also have headed into a more useful, academic direction.

I just note that previously the tendency was to move the thread to BTS.

It's not an all bad approach - the info is still there, but unfortunately the discussion is closed?

But "Staff Review" sounds so metaphorically bureaucratic and Stalinist.

I cannot imagine otherwise: the thread is marched outside, blindfolded and shot!

Review is closed!
edit on 4-9-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:44 PM
reply to post by halfoldman

Im glad they take the time to review instead of many click happy mods that ive encountered on other boards. They don't just take someones word for it when they are alerted to a thread and actually look at the content before removing or moving to a different forums.

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:52 PM
reply to post by topherman420

So you're saying it just means they are deciding what to do with the thread?

Well, I'm yet to see one reappear.

I might be wrong however.

I fear that once a thread goes down the corridor of "Staff Review" it will never return.

edit on 4-9-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:54 PM
reply to post by halfoldman

Ive seen them reappear in the hoax section, or be reopened with a warning from the mods. The scammer one I reported was obviously removed pretty quick after they had a 15 minute or so review of the thread.

It would be actually easier for them just to shut it down or bump it to a lower visited area like the hoax bin right away.

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:56 PM
Thread close for staff review.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

There are almost as many reasons why a mod might choose to temporarily close a thread as there are threads.

Sometimes it's because a thread is moving fast and in the wrong direction, typically that of the ever-popular pastime: flame wars.

Other times it may be due to more esoteric T&C concerns such as copyright issues, suitability for ATS or similar issues.

When in doubt, the best thing to do is ask the mod in question via private message if the reason isn't given publicly.

In fact, that's a good rule of thumb if a mod does something and you're not sure why.

Just ask.

edit on 9/4/2011 by Majic because: staff review

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:07 PM
reply to post by Majic

Oh the shock - and now the hiccups ... hic.
For a moment it was Kafkaesque, like the bad thread must figure out why it is a bad thread because power has labelled it "under staff review".
That's bad - no?

Well, that's the whole terminology about it, it depersonalizes staff by making them collective and faceless.
A particular mod may initiate it, but "staff review" implies a collective decision.
It makes the mod concerned appear as just a messenger.
Is that what is meant?


posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:10 PM

But "Staff Review" sounds so metaphorically bureaucratic and Stalinist.

DING DING DING we got a winner

My thoughts exactly on this.

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:17 PM
reply to post by halfoldman

Isn't it good that one moderator would be questioned on why they closed a thread by the rest of his peers? What if a moderator just closed threads at their whim no questions asked?

Or should they change the wording to be more politically correct on here?

edit on 4-9-2011 by topherman420 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:20 PM
reply to post by Cyanhide

How about "Under reflection per conservative-liberal-straight-gay-atheist-religious multi/ethnic conference"

Would that suit better?

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:21 PM
"closed for review" means that you have possibly opened a can of worms...or are about to. If not you, then maybe someone has made a remark on your thread that may be indelicate...and could lead to the can of worms being opened.

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:22 PM
reply to post by masqua

Now that was great!!

good one

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:23 PM
...heres what i think happens... they get alerted... a few go read the thread in question... the mod bunch en masse start discussing the value of it - then - someone (probably semper) gets distracted (probably by a sexy voice) and off to the moon they go and the alerted thread is forgotten about cuz theres funner thangs to investigate...

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:27 PM
Open Secrets

Originally posted by halfoldman
A particular mod may initiate it, but "staff review" implies a collective decision.
It makes the mod concerned appear as just a messenger.
Is that what is meant?


I know it sounds trite, but "staff review" is exactly what happens. The mod in question asks for other mods to review the thread and the reason for temporarily closing it.

I think most people would be shocked at how many things are routinely discussed behind the scenes. For more obvious problems we can take unilateral action, but where there's doubt, we have a staff alert feature we use to get opinions before taking action.

Of course, only we see that, so it can look rather mysterious or sinister if all you see are the curt, official-sounding comments in the public threads.

But ATS is full of mysteries.

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:29 PM
reply to post by topherman420

Well, has it ever been explained what happens to such a thread?
What is the process?
Is there always a process, considering that most people will just move on to a similar thread?
I just think that closing a thread is more honest than an uncertain phrase.

A review is an active thing - where is this review or decision?
How do we know they even bothered to look at it?

It's probably just a polite way of saying the thread is closed.
And why not?
I'm also tired of gay and race themed threads dragging on forever with the same stuff from all sides.
Perhaps encouraging new threads may lead to fresh ideas on such issues?

But on the other hand, one may also get the message - "Don't touch that material on ATS".

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in