Moderator Question and/or Discussion

I'm going to make this (mostly) short and sweet. So I'll start with a simple question that may make the balance of this a waste of time. Is ATS for free and open discussion? And I'm sorry if that sounds like a baited question...it isn't meant to be. I guess what I would like to hear from someone in charge is whether we are simply guests in the ATS house or if we are a group who can discuss topics, regardless of our differing views, in an effort so share thoughts and learn?

I've seen (but not participated in) a few threads about Sandy Hook that were shut down by ATS. I can understand banning a certain member of ATS for abuse of "the rules", but sometimes there are tough questions. And so long as ANY question remains, ATS should be a place where it can be asked and discussed. Right? I mean...for some topics, if not here then where?

Moderators may not like some of our views, our questions or even our topics, but so long as a member is not being vile, completely disruptive or purposely trying to kill a thread...why can't they ask these tough questions? Using Sandy Hook...if I were a parent of a murdered child, I would avoid ATS and other such sites where debates occur. I would "change the channel" as they say. But the discussions are completely valid, the questions real and regardless who doesn't like them...there should be a place they can be posed. Isn't THAT a huge part of what ATS is? A place to discuss things that in other venues, people will simply roll their eyes and walk away. And on that note...anyone can walk away from any thread. Heck...usually the title is enough to decide if you want to stay away...or change the channel.

So...back to my question, and please don't beat around the bush. Are we just the guests in ATS's house or our are we allowed to be ourselves and have frank and sometimes tough discussions?

PS: Yes I have read the rules and yes I have read the Sandy Hook links. My question still stands.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


Not a "mod" but I can say no, we're not just "guests". We can engage in debate. But with respect to the Sandy Hook tragedy, the Mods have rightfully decided to put the Kabash on the lies and slander of the victims.

I understand that a decision was made. I understand the reason and the idea that what you refer to as "lies" may be disgusting to many, many people. Part of my point was/is...how can you limit what may be discussed and still claim to be an open forum for everyone and every question?

IMHO, the answer is yes to both. Yes, you can have open and sometimes tough discussions, but it's still ATS' house - their rules. If you don't like their rules, you are free to find another house, or you can start a party at your own house.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE

claim to be an open forum for everyone and every question

Where is this claim you speak of?

kaylaluv...that is basically what I suspect. And if that is the way it is...so be it. And I won't waste time trying to change anyone's mind. But I think it is only fair to say..."Welcome to ATS's home! If you want to chat and discuss, you may but there are topics and opinions that are not welcome here. If you want to discuss the following issues...please leave."

But that is NOT the way I believe ATS promotes this site. And I guess if your answer is correct...I'd like to hear it from the bosses.

Chadwickus...just click the ABOUT button above. At least that is my take on what is stated there.

This old topic again, huh? Read the T&C. Its all there. The statement on sandy hook is really no different than the standard t&c. Posting personal information or baseless accusations pointed at private civilians is not tolerated.

Its not that tough. And it really is all that this comes down to. The staff lets us freely discuss sandy hook, so long as you dont break those rules.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Yep I have to agree.

Certainly people can discuss the issue in broad terms without dragging those individuals through it.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


I'd suggest PMing someone important (lol internet important) rather than posting a thread.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE

Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE

I've seen (but not participated in) a few threads about Sandy Hook that were shut down by ATS. I can understand banning a certain member of ATS for abuse of "the rules", but sometimes there are tough questions. And so long as ANY question remains, ATS should be a place where it can be asked and discussed. Right? I mean...for some topics, if not here then where?

This was explained last month.
Along with the explanation, is a warning.

Who it was, I have no idea, nor do I care, but for whatever reasons, the threads which you are referring to most likely were deleted due to members who did not adhere to the warning.

Message received on 1/14/13
Title in Inbox = ALL MEMBERS please read

ALL MEMBERS Please read: Sandy Hook

We have tried to explain and we have been patient, our patience is at its end. This is the only warning you will receive.

Going forward anyone who posts a thread that seeks to implicate the innocent victims of the Sandy Hook Tragedy, for any reason, and/or posts any personal information or links to personal information on those people will have their posting privileges restricted and their thread removed without further discussion or warning.

more...

"baseless accusations pointed at private civilians is not tolerated" and then "without dragging those individuals through it".

Does that included government, police, politicians? If so, most conversations here breech the T&C. Personal information...different story. And I'm not fixated on the topic of Sandy Hook. It seems more like ATS (and sorry if this is an old, boring topic) decides what it doesn't want discussed. And don't get me wrong...I love reading and at times commenting. ATS is (or can be) a very good thing.

Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE
"baseless accusations pointed at private civilians is not tolerated" and then "without dragging those individuals through it".

Does that included government, police, politicians? If so, most conversations here breech the T&C. Personal information...different story. And I'm not fixated on the topic of Sandy Hook. It seems more like ATS (and sorry if this is an old, boring topic) decides what it doesn't want discussed. And don't get me wrong...I love reading and at times commenting. ATS is (or can be) a very good thing.

Do you understand what a private civilian is?

You're right, ATS does control, to some extent, control what is discussed. And rightfully so.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


Unfortunately, it happens.

I believe it is merely a symptom of trying to put out too many fires at once and, unfortunately, some decent (less controversial) threads get drowned.

It happened not too long ago when Hitler was put under the spotlight. A couple of silly threads popped up that were trying to portray Hitler in a positive way and, quite rightly, they were shut down. Cue an ATTENTION ALL MEMBERS thread swiftly followed by a strict crackdown on anything Hitler-ish.

As a result of this a few threads that were potentially very interesting were lost because MODS were a little too eager (in my opinion) to slap the cuffs on and throw away the key.

It happens.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


I have one word for you...

Nepotism...

Nepotism is favoritism granted to relatives regardless of merit.[1] The word nepotism is from the Latin word nepos, nepotis (m. "nephew"), from which modern Romanian nepot and Italian nipote and Catalan nebot, "nephew" or "grandchild" are also descended.

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by WeAreAWAKE

 

I have one word for you...

Nepotism...

Nepotism is favoritism granted to relatives regardless of merit.[1] The word nepotism is from the Latin word nepos, nepotis (m. "nephew"), from which modern Romanian nepot and Italian nipote and Catalan nebot, "nephew" or "grandchild" are also descended.

Are you claiming that the staff decides what they delete based on who their favorites are? While there is some leeway given to more advanced members, I havent seen anything in all my years here that says they'll let certain people break rules and not others.

Dispo...you are probably right about the PM, but considering my topic is discussion of topics, I thought I'd give it a try

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


I get the impression that you may suspect an ulterior motive employed by the site? I do not think you are unjustified if this is the case. Check out this thread;manipulation and see if it doesn't bring more clarity.

IMHO, the answer is yes to both. Yes, you can have open and sometimes tough discussions, but it's still ATS' house - their rules. If you don't like their rules, you are free to find another house, or you can start a party at your own house.

This is about as good as it gets for an answer to your question.

The SH thing got out of control, and staff reigned it back in. Simple as that. ATS is not a democracy, the proprietors are going to do what's best for their business model and interests. The same thing any of us would do in their place.

We may not always agree, but we aren't paying the bills either.

captaintyinknots...for the record, I agree with you. It is not members that are "selected" as worthy, but it may be opinions of members. Which does not make for a free and open discussion.