All Members: Updates and Changes to the ATS Terms and Conditions

All members. Due to some recent "behind the scenes" observations by staff, it has become necessary to change on paragraph in our Terms and Conditions, and add another. The changes are outlined below.


16d is changed:


This used to read…
Forum Gangs
You will not engage in an organized collaboration with other members to disrupt thread topics or interrupt the flow of normal collaborative discussion. Doing so will result in removal of your Post(s) and immediate termination of your account.


It now reads...
Forum Gangs and Topic Control
You will not engaged in an organized collaboration with other members to disrupt thread topics or interrupt the flow of normal collaborative discussion. You will not attempt to control or otherwise shutdown valid conversation on a topic through the use of prolific posting of an unpopular viewpoint or other single-purpose standpoint. Doing so will result in removal of your Post(s) and immediate termination of your account.




16i is added:


Social Media Professionals
If you wish to take advantage of AboveTopSecret.com for your social media campaigns, viral advertising, news releases and updates, or any other material on behalf of another party directing the content or tonality of your posts, you must first obtain approval (by using the contact form), of The Above Network, LLC (owners of AboveTopSecret.com). Failure to do so will result in the immediate termination of your account, removal of your posts, and a $500.00 per post fee invoiced against your employer or client.



These changes are effective immediately.



One example is outlined in page two of this thread, in response to member questions.

That last one is a nice money maker, well played

a reply to: SkepticOverlord
I am curious, how could you possibly enforce that? Are admin going to be looking through people's U2U?

Also please clarify this:

You will not attempt to control or otherwise shutdown valid conversation on a topic through the use of prolific posting of an unpopular viewpoint or other single-purpose standpoint.

It seems to me that someone that takes an "unpopular viewpoint" and sticks to it now runs the risk of being banned? Tell me I am wrong and ATS did not just jump the shark with though crime bannings......

I think you should drop the d from engaged.

I know I'm just a normal member, but could you give an example? a "forum gang" is something I am ignorant, or simply naïve about.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
You will not attempt to control or otherwise shutdown valid conversation on a topic through the use of prolific posting of an unpopular viewpoint or other single-purpose standpoint.

Thank you.

Good call. There's stating your view and then there's beating a dead horse. I'm always annoyed when I read things like that.

Im not into social media so I can't comment on that one.

Good work fella's.

a reply to: TKDRL

I'm confused too.

originally posted by: Night Star
a reply to: TKDRL

I'm confused too.

Just don't do it and you'll never have to find out

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
You will not attempt to control or otherwise shutdown valid conversation on a topic through the use of prolific posting of an unpopular viewpoint or other single-purpose standpoint.

So now if I have an "unpopular viewpoint" I'll get banned?

Nice way to censor what we have to say.

a reply to: jimmyx
Yeah some links to threads with some examples might help clear it up.

Don't forget to put the Effective Date next to each change or the Mods will have mass chaos with threads written before these amendments.

STM

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha

originally posted by: Night Star
a reply to: TKDRL

I'm confused too.

Just don't do it and you'll never have to find out

I never ever want to get banned for any reason. This is my home. I want to make sure I don't break the rules, but am not clear yet on the new rules.

"and a $500.00 per post fee invoiced against your employer or client."

So, hypothetically speaking.., if I were to say my client was the RNC & then I posted 1000 posts of RNC spam, you'd send the RNC a bill for $500,000 after banning me?

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

16d is changed:

It now reads...
Forum Gangs and Topic Control
You will not engaged in an organized collaboration with other members to disrupt thread topics or interrupt the flow of normal collaborative discussion. You will not attempt to control or otherwise shutdown valid conversation on a topic through the use of prolific posting of an unpopular viewpoint or other single-purpose standpoint. Doing so will result in removal of your Post(s) and immediate termination of your account.

I hate to seem dense on this one, but could you or one of the mods give an example of this one? I'm not sure if you folks mean ixnay on someone pulling practically C & P broken record posts, or if something akin to a thread derail is no longer tolerated?

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: jimmyx
Yeah some links to threads with some examples might help clear it up.

yeah right...I have always thought it was just a bunch of regular A**holes, not organized and/or paid A**holes

Be original!

(this post was brought to you by the be original campaign for originality)

a reply to: jimmyx
I figured there were probably some here, but I never seen a thread where I thought "Hey these guys must be organized shills." even if I don't agree with the opinions they hold. Then I generally give people the benefit of the doubt as a rule of thumb.

Well done, Skeptic. This has been needed for some time now.

As far as staff looking at u2u's. We would all do well to remember, this site is privately owned. They have the right to look at all personal communication if they so choose. Just as google, microsoft, and yahoo do. Don't say in a u2u what you don't want read by staff. That said...

If I understand correctly. Only admins can look at u2u's, last I heard. Though that may change with the latest issues. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm off the mark on that.

originally posted by: Night Star
a reply to: TKDRL

I'm confused too.

Me too.

There must be some evidence of collaboration for a ban right?

as TKDRL pointed out will the mods be reading U2Us, would that even be able find evidence of any collaboration going on, say if two or more members communicate via personal emails and come here to to gang post, can ATS ban members for simply being suspect?


Meaning if a number of members have very similar thoughts about a subject and there are no U2Us showing any collaborating can ATS ban them for this term above if there no evidence of calibrating?

"Social Media Professionals"

So if you want to help a fellow member and give advice on let's say a gun or knife brand, this will be considered product placement from now on ?????