9/11 Threads under review...

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
I'm making this to get some clarification on 9/11 threads under review..

Recently mods have taken it upon themselves to put certain 9/11 threads 'under review'

These mods never actually participate in debating in those threads, they just put them under review and give no explanation as to why.

It would be good if mods like 'donttreadonme' could explain in the thread why they feel to put it under review, and give some clarification as to what the outcome of the 'review' was.

Take the 'Intercepted' thread for example, that is supposed to be under review, but no reason given as to why, and no outcome has been decided on when the 'review' will be concluded, and what the review consisted of.

Can you please give us some idea of who takes part in these reviews, what parts of the thread do you review, and what made you enforce the review in the first place.

It seems that it's all a bit vague, and reviews never come to their fruition. I'm personally waiting to see if the Intercepted thread will become active again.

If anyone has any views on 9/11 thread reviews and their processes then feel free to post some comments on this subject, I feel it deserves to be addressed by the mods at least. Cheers




posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by kidtwist
 


Some of them just do this sort of thing because they don't agree with the general consensus in the thread.
Simple.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
This thread is "closed for review" in 3.... 2.... 1.....

I have wondered about this as well. It's kind of like how politicians "suspend" their campaigns when they drop out of the race. How long is it suspended for?

Why can't we just say what it really means? The thread is closed permanently. It's not being reviewed, it's dead.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by kidtwist
 


Best thing for you to do, would be to send a U2U to the mod(s) in question, & clarify you concerns about threads being under review.

It could be that certain threads go against the site's T&C's..Just hazarding a guess though.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
It does make me wonder if ATS hasn't borrowed a few tricks from the government...

They take a pacifist term and apply a totalitarian action to it. It looks constructive, it sounds constructive, but in the end...well, you never know until you come back two months later and find the thread is still under review.

Or 404'd.

I'm not accusing ATS or its moderators of anything; I'm simply expressing curiosity at something I have observed and might like adjusted a bit. After all, what's the good of having a team of guardians if you can't question their methods once in a while? That's democracy at its finest.
edit on 30-5-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by InTheFlesh1980
This thread is "closed for review" in 3.... 2.... 1.....

I have wondered about this as well. It's kind of like how politicians "suspend" their campaigns when they drop out of the race. How long is it suspended for?

Why can't we just say what it really means? The thread is closed permanently. It's not being reviewed, it's dead.


I think it's healthy to have an open discussion about it, mods and members alike. I'm not defaming mods, they have a job to do to keep out certain types of behaviour, and I commend keeping out idiosts like racists etc, but sometimes threads get closed down and no reason is given, just a generic statement like this:

[quote9/11 Conspiracies: This forum is dedicated to the discussion and speculation of cover-ups, scandals, and other conspiracies surrounding the events of 9/11/2001. Participants should be aware that this forum is under close staff scrutiny due to general rudeness by some. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.

And then no further follow up...

As I say, it'd be nice to know the workings of reviews and why outcomes of those reviews never seem to materialise.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
reply to post by kidtwist
 


Best thing for you to do, would be to send a U2U to the mod(s) in question, & clarify you concerns about threads being under review.

It could be that certain threads go against the site's T&C's..Just hazarding a guess though.


That is one possibility, but if they are under review, then there should be a review outcome without the need for a U2U.

Also, it's nice to get other people's thoughts on this mysterious process.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Fair warning any disagreement you may have with a MOD can result in your account being banned.
Publicly questioning anything related to this forum will likely result in a ban. I care less about stars and flags then I do truth and honesty. Some mods are creeps. Does not matter where you go.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
When something is "under review" it's being reviewed by more than just one mod. And just because you see DTOM make an action, it doesn't mean it hasn't been discussed with other mods or the decision was made as a group by the staff.

I made the same insinuation about the spoken mod you did in the past and it was wrong of me, eventually it led me to talk completely out my backside and left me with egg on my face.

I suggest u2u'ing the mods for clarification.
edit on 30-5-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I've noticed threads being under review for infinity with no explanation



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
When something is "under review" it's being reviewed by more than just one mod. And just because you see DTOM make an action, it doesn't mean it hasn't been discussed with other mods or the decision was made as a group by the staff.

I made the same insinuation about the spoken mod you did in the past and it was wrong of me, eventually it led me to talk completely out my backside and left me with egg on my face.

I suggest u2u'ing the mods for clarification.
edit on 30-5-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)


I'm not insinuating anything, I'm asking questions that I feel would be great to have answers to.

I'm sure there are lots of different mods that put threads under review. It's not about any specific mods, I've just used that as an example.

I'm not going to U2U every mod about every thread that hasn't had a review outcome, that would take me a long time. So an open discussion would be a good idea so that everyone has a chance to share their thoughts on that process.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Hi People,


As always anything you wish to query you can do so via the Suggestions and Complaints Form. You'll likely get a speedier answer that way.


Additionally, another option is that the Staff Member who locked it will normally post a reply advising of such - in which case you can query them via u2u directly to find out whats up.

If the Staff Member concerned hasn't posted an advisory reply, then the thread-starter will know who it was so they can query directly as well.


As dripping with irony as this will seem, I am going to have to lock this thread now.

Again - feel free to utilise the Suggestions and Complaints Form to question/query any actions taken by Staff.



Cheers.





top topics
 
6

log in

join