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.

 

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

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Im sure they would be flooded with the same complaints if they just closed the thread down. No one will be happy, at this point it seems pointless to try and make people happy with reviewing before closing so I vote for just closing threads and ignoring any complaints that follow. Dictatorship would be alot more efficient for them I think.




posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 

Ha, ha - yes it would Masqua, and then make people choose one of those when their thread is closed.
"Thank You - your thread is closed - please choose the reason why we have initiated this action".
That'll teach e'm!



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

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


We don't publicly reveal our discussions pertaining to members who, by their varied methods, derail and cause a thread to be closed. I know everyone would just LOVE to find out, but it isn't going to happen. Honestly.



It's probably just a polite way of saying the thread is closed.


Often, but not always. I've re-opened threads for continued discussion before but, many times, it's safer to take the sticks from those members beating dead horses and inadvertantly hitting each other over their own heads.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


When the mods close a thread for staff review.....I just wish at the time of closing the thread...they would give specific reasons to the members... why that particular thread is being closed.

Please tell us the reasons why...at the time of closing the thread.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by caladonea
 

I think I understand from both sides, but you've summed it up.
It just sounds too vague and bureaucratic.

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



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by caladonea
When the mods close a thread for staff review.....I just wish at the time of closing the thread...they would give specific reasons to the members... why that particular thread is being closed.

Please tell us the reasons why...at the time of closing the thread.


OK, posting as a staffer here.

I can understand where you are coming from. We are an open bunch and interact with the membership openly. Well, except for semper. Inside joke. I blame him for everything.
The thing is that we make hundreds of decisions a day. It MIGHT be that members aren't supposed to be privy to that info. It might also be time constraints. "Staff review" pretty much covers it. The staff needs to determine whether a given topic and/or content is T&C compliant.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by caladonea
Please tell us the reasons why...at the time of closing the thread.


As in:

Since the topic at hand is one which is within the sole perview of staff alone and, for the safety, sanity and well being of all concerned, it regretfully has come to be the unified consensus of the well-intended conservative-liberal-straight-gay-atheist-religious multi/ethnic Conference Staff Board of ATS (CSBA ) to close this informative BBQ thread at this time. We thank you all for your valued contributions.

Please do not feel offended as we are always dilligently listening to our membership and ever open to further discussion per private PM (if anyone should deem it worthy).

Better?

(no... I'm not really closing this thread)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 

No, more like what we got previously.

Something like: "Your topic is heading into a train-smash regarding the terms and conditions. You may not have broken such terms yourself, but your topic threatens to develop into a moderating nightmare.
We have thus initiated a "cool-off" session for all concerned until ..."
Short staff review: "Your thread initiated intolerant debate of homosexuality (for example) when we expect social graces from our members at all times. However we are not against freedom of speech and the topic itself. Please frame your topic more professionally concerning conspiracy next time. If you think your topic is important, why not make a thread to ask how it could presented better?"

Oh bollocks.
I made a stupid thread once, and Masqua saved me, but I was told exactly what was wrong.
That's basically what people want.
They don't want heavy moderation if they are treated like machines or branded cattle with one stamp fits all.



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

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



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


I completely understand what you and others are saying in this matter because I dislike officiousness myself and prefer a personal way wherever possible.

On threads where a multitude of people are acting badly, it's difficult to point fingers and say "You, you, you and you are responsible for this thread being closed for this. that and the other reasons."



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Thread open for staff review.

Reason: Members have asked for more information regarding staff reviews.




posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 

Yeah, I think I understand, because everyone wants to keep ATS a pleasant, civil place.
I guess it's something for the experts to "review".
I just thought I'd make my ideas known, because it wasn't heard before as a phrase to my knowledge.
But in a way it also denigrates the ATS staff for me, because it's like saying they are responsible for stopping a thread because of problems caused by members. Or, it's putting the reputation of the whole staff on the line because of the subjectivity of one staff member.
We should then also see threads re-opened (perhaps with reminders to stick to the rules).
That would give the system a bit of a boost, and make it seem less disingenuous.

Currently I fear it's going to lead to an "us and them situation", and perceptions of blatant censorship.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
The problems I have with the ''thread closed for staff review'' posts, is that 95%+ of the time it means that the thread is permanently closed.

Very occasionally you see a message along the lines of ''thread re-opened'', but most of time the ''staff review'' message means that the thread has been permanently closed, despite the purported possibility of the review facilitating the re-opening of the thread.

Why not just say: ''thread closed due to T&C violations'', or whatever other reasons a thread may be closed for ?

Furthermore, why, when the staff have obviously agreed with the thread closure, do we not just receive a simple follow-up message informing us that the thread has been closed permanently ?

''Pending staff review'' kind of leaves the issue in perpetual limbo, despite the fact that most people know the thread has been closed for good.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by masqua
 

We should then also see threads re-opened (perhaps with reminders to stick to the rules).
That would give the system a bit of a boost, and make it seem less disingenuous.


Sometimes that does happen.


Sometimes we do add mod notes to thread that are being derailed, contain multiple violations, are very lengthy, or other reasons.
Sometimes there are several mod notes.
Sometimes it works, sometimes the thread gets closed.

And, sometimes the best thing to do is close the thread so staff has time to look at the thread without further posts being made.
When the thread is moving very quickly and is very heated, a temporary closure is needed to get members' attention....or to cool things off.
As Majic said on page one, there's almost as many reasons to close a thread as there are threads closed.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Which begs the question for those active on those threads...
They must make their own deductions, and that deduction is censorship.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 



Anyway, it said the thread was closed for "staff review".


Essentially, the thread is closed for staff review

edit on 4/9/11 by Death_Kron because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Extra Censory Perception


Originally posted by halfoldman
They must make their own deductions, and that deduction is censorship.

That is the most common assumption, yes.

And of course, the more we deny it, the more that proves we have something to hide, does it not?

Thus, when it comes to staff reviews, the choice is clear.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


So, was the The Death of Death_Kron thread also closed for staff review?

Maybe, I was just hallucinating, though I do find it strange that you would
be posting in this thread if I was.

Another ATS post swept under the dirty rug of censorship!

On the other hand...glad to see you are still with us! This place can
be very frustrating at times and for so many reasons.
edit on 5-9-2011 by AlternateEnding because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by AlternateEnding
 


ATS does not allow goodbye thread or threads discussing banned members.
Expect those threads to be removed.

And about censorship:
The issue of "Freedom of Speech" on ATS



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 

Thanks for that! This place could become the wild-wild west without some moderation.

My instinct though tells me when a hatchet comes down as quick as sometimes happens
here...check twice to make sure nothing was severed!



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join