Moderator Question and/or Discussion

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   
But it wasn't "and staff reigned it back in"...it was squashed. I don't know all the details and views that occurred during that specific discussion (but I can guess). But squashed?




posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Klassified...but I do suspect that which you quoted (as I said before) is likely the case.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Ahhh...this is where I was going. ATS should police the forums for CONDUCT not CONTENT. I knew eventually my old brain would state it more clearly.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE
Ahhh...this is where I was going. ATS should police the forums for CONDUCT not CONTENT. I knew eventually my old brain would state it more clearly.


I agree with you, but I think the two sometimes inter tangle. Like all the threads about Gene Rosen, for example. The content was a show of poor conduct. It went from honest questions to accusing a man devastated by tragedy of things like pedophilia. The content of the threads were based on improper conduct.

I hope that makes sense.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Sorry, lost you a bit there. Could be that I don't know about Gene Rosen or the discussion. I was referring to ATS managing the conduct of members as opposed to the content members discuss. "You're a jerk" being conduct..."I think that parent is a jerk" is content.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE
Sorry, lost you a bit there. Could be that I don't know about Gene Rosen or the discussion. I was referring to ATS managing the conduct of members as opposed to the content members discuss. "You're a jerk" being conduct..."I think that parent is a jerk" is content.


Ill sum it up. gene Rosen was a person involved in Sandy Hook. There are some inconsistencies in his story. The conversations quickly devolved from "there are inconsistencies" to "he seems creepy, might be a pedophile"

Questioning inconsistencies is content. Blindly accusing someone of child abuse is conduct.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Thanks to everyone for your comments. I appreciate the views. But considering no mods commented and this thread was kind of addressed to them...I can probably assume my answer. Gotta run.

Hey, but it is still a fun house to visit



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   
captaintyinknots...gotcha! Gotta run but appreciate the insight.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE
Thanks to everyone for your comments. I appreciate the views. But considering no mods commented and this thread was kind of addressed to them...I can probably assume my answer. Gotta run.

Hey, but it is still a fun house to visit


You have to understand, this question has been asked, and answered, dozens of times .Some people choose not to accept the answer, but its there. Mods and admin are tired of it.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I would imagine on this, apart from trying to keep discusions in order (which must be quite tricky)
There is surely a legal requirement in some cases,not sure but wouldn't suprise me.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by WeAreAWAKE
 


We are just guests. That analogy has been made to me before by someone in power.

Edit: I do agree with you. It sure is a nice, fun house to visit with many different and interesting characters!
edit on 24-2-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   
we allow topics, and discussions, so long as they are within the confines of the terms and conditions each member agrees to when they sign up.

there are cases, like sandy hook, where we reign in the postings. this may be because there's too many threads on the same topic which results in disjointed discussions. if all the informaiton is on one place, the topic is more easily discussed. With sandy hook, there were also some rather wild, and unfounded, accusations flying that were incredibly insensitive to the families who suffered that day.

other cases are more clear - like the previously mentioned hitler threads. we won't allow the glorification of a man like hitler on the site. plain and simple.

each case is different and each case is handled by the staff and owners before decisions are made. we don't like it but, at times, there are topics that simply don't work out here. the drug topic is a huge one. there are so many valid conspiracies surrounding narcotics but, sadly, every time we try and allow the topic, we wind up with a whole mess of posts talking about personal use and the end result is the shuttering of the topic.


We've got a very large group of staff and, amongst them, are beliefs across the spectrum of ATS so all sides are always considered. When we do make a decision to shut down certain topics or to reign in the members' postings, it is always done with the site's best interest. That translates into the members' best interests. Remember, we do all this free for the members and we have to take the advertisers into consideration beacuse losing the ad revenue will result in us being unable to provide this massive site to y'all, for free.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 

I completely understand where you are coming from in regards to advertisers, I do find your explanation a bit tasteless though.
We do this for free for the members. That's like saying you provide food free to the cattle to fatten them up, there is a reason why they are being fed.

The Catch-22 must suck when it comes to moderating some threads though.
None of this was meant tongue in cheek. It was just an observation I made.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
I do find your explanation a bit tasteless though.
We do this for free for the members. That's like saying you provide food free to the cattle to fatten them up, there is a reason why they are being fed.


that's not quite the same thing and it wasn't meant to come across in the manner you are twisting it. .



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


Again, I was just letting you know how it came across to me, no twisting needed.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


Hi!



there are cases, like sandy hook, where we reign in the postings. this may be because there's too many threads on the same topic which results in disjointed discussions. if all the informaiton is on one place, the topic is more easily discussed.


Yes, very convenient, could you point me towards the single, centralised 911 thread? Or the 2012 thread? Or the single chemtrail thread. What, there are tons of them you say? How is this consistent with the above misinformation?




With sandy hook, there were also some rather wild, and unfounded, accusations flying that were incredibly insensitive to the families who suffered that day.


The alleged families that suffered that day you mean? This is a conspiracy site right? So the conspiracy theory was that it was a staged event. Are you omnipotent? Can you know for sure that it wasn't?

It looks like there is no need for any conspiracy discussion, as long we have you to tell us what the truth is.




Remember, we do all this free for the members and we have to take the advertisers into consideration beacuse losing the ad revenue will result in us being unable to provide this massive site to y'all, for free.


Also, don't forget the members are providing your site with content and without them there would be no site that creates revenue.

Lol, the whole idea is prepostrous. You actually suggest that we should be glad we don't have to pay to be a member here?



This site makes money of off the members, and you are part of the staffers that actually share in the profit.

So remember Crackeur, the members do this all for free so you and your associates can get paid.

And what you are also saying is that the opinion of the sponsors is actually dictating what topics are allowed here.

So much for,


The simple yet effective motto of our membership is "deny ignorance", which signifies an effort to apply the principals of critical thought and peer review to the provocative topics covered within. More than a slogan, our members have embraced the motto as our collective cultural standard, demanding all to aspire to a higher standard. These simple two words have galvanized a broad membership that spans the spectrum from highly speculative conspiracy writers to staunch doubters. The result is a unique collaboration of diverse individuals rallying under this simple statement to learn from each other, discover new truths, and imagine new ideas that expand our minds. This motto has life. It has purpose. It demands ATS members to think. It is a state of mind. It is a sense of purpose. It is a statement against the paradigm. It is a rage against the mindless status-quo. The idea of "deny ignorance" isn't a goal that ATS hopes to accomplish. Instead, it's a challenge. A call to all those who come here to aspire to a higher state of awareness through informed discussion and debate. Deny ignorance is what we do. It's how we think. It's how we talk. It's how we listen. Ignorance is the social disease of history. Is the evil that men do, the reason history repeats, and the cause of intolerance. We deny it. it's not welcome here. Within these boundaries, it has no strength. Here, ignorance is denied.







posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
There was no insensitivity to the alleged families at Newtown because there were no children killed in a supposed 'massacre' at Sandy Hook Elementary School, because its all a big propaganda set-up. Its a fabrication, so how is it that those of us who know this and who bring it to the attention of ATS membership are acting in an insensitive manner?

I have a question to ask of the people who control this website - In light of the ongoing censorship of all ATS membership ‘reporting’ on the false flag operation at Newtown CT, are ATS administrators any different than the group of Connecticut politicians (lawmakers) led by Rep. Deems who called all journalists who question or otherwise seek information related to Sandy Hook “jackals?”



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Ble88edMother
 


Ha!

No, same .... different toilet.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Ble88edMother
 

Basically what the mods are saying is their is no conspiracy in short. I don't feel either way on the subject at hand. Not allowing for conjecture is another way of saying no real conspiracy. It's good to know who the "authority" is. Now rather then offer insight or political conjecture or creative analysis or read to see what road the evidence takes us down we should direct all questions to staff.

I know that seems rude but I'm simply stating the hard reality of what the actions suggest.

Rather then be angry please address my point and I may be swayed to believe otherwise. I have noticed nepotism has slowly become apart of the corporate culture so to speak. I could be wrong however but I think content is what we should address without personal or emotional biased.
edit on 25-2-2013 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Some Mods do a good job of finding where the rukus began and then work it on down the line with the smackdown. Not often but in have seen what looks like a mod covering one position a little better than the other.

As well it would seem traffic on the tread will sometimes dictate how much vitriol is tolerated. You know if its just a few folks on a long thread going at it the mod may let it go to a greater degree but if its a crowded thread they break out the speed guns and post up along the road way.

Sometimes you can get nuked without seeing why and then someone will come right behind you with the same sort of comment without getting nuked. And some times you know...I mean you just know your getting nuked for political reason....I mean you just know.





top topics
 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join