Yes, We Who Run ATS "Sold Out"

Reinstate "WorldShadow" to again login. The account remains as showing member but the database email and login was wiped. Contact was made several times to fix the issue but ignore was all there came.

Well... I think a lot of this has to do from going from a Newb to a Seasoned ATSer. When I first came to ATS in 2006, I was totally blown away by the content, the members, the comments, etc. Now going on my 3rd year at ATS, I look at things from the perspective of someone who knows the site, the members and the pulse. For the members of ATS to GROW so must the SITE ITSELF. Those of us who were NEWB's back in 2006 should be proud that we were part of the REVOLUTION that has made ATS what it is today.

IMEO, of course.

Dave

The only contact e-mail we have from someone identifying themselves as "WorldShadow" is from September 8th, 2007 regarding problems with the BBcode for YouTube videos... none since then.

I suggest creating another rats style forum, that requires 100,000 pts for entry, and 25,000 pts a month.


Here is where we should plot our destruction of our fellow members...

The ultimate conspiracy forum!

The ATS is a Conspiracy within a Conspiracy forum.


I can see the points flowing back already...



Coven

The site is getting bigger. It is, at times, tough to get around and view all of the threads and posts. We moderators are members too and still enjoy being a part of the multi-tiered conversations. There are still threads and 'projects' I would love to get around to doing, but am overwhelmed with the sheer immensity of the site and the hectic pace of discussion.

The best advice I can give is this...interact with non-sequiter post in a polite fashion. Draw attention to the post as not being in context with the thread and then continue the thread/topic. At no time should an attempt be made to interact with someone on a personal level if they are indeed there to interrupt...it'll get you and everyone else nowhere.

And then alert to it. It may take us some time, but we eventually will get there and in the interim, you were able to get the thread back on topic and potentially disillusion a would be derailer into cessation.

The membership really needs to recognize that these types of subtle actions not only contribute to the quality of their own experience but as helps dissuade similar action from others.

The poster should never be the reason for the post.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

---

A message was e-mailed:


Than, with no word back, an attempt was made numerous times to request a new password from the the login page. It reported no such email in the database.

Than a message was sent over the contact the above network, LLC team. Again nothing.

It's all just growing pains. I guess ATS is somewhat reflective of the collective world consciousness.

I have no problem with wide open posting topics. However, I strongly feel that we should do away with the anonymous post as it de-values membership and we should be able to vote a post "up" or "down" on the forum board - or at least offer a negative editorial option to balance out stars and flags. Not all stars and flags are used judiciously, often times it is "political," so to speak. Forum gangs or zealot members pushing an agenda.

I think the Mods are doing a great job. But, as the forum is membership driven, we should be given larger say in content control. At least for a trial period.

[edit on 25/6/2008 by kosmicjack]

SO - I agree 100% that the freedom of expression you refer to must be protected. But at all costs? For example , how can you protect a member's freedom to express themselves when that idea or thought being expressed amounts to hate-speech? How can you include the knowingly and heartfelt ethnic and racial bigotry and degrading references to their intelligence, humanity or even their right to exist under that umbrella of protection? Doesn't protection of that sort of thing at some point come to mean tacit condoning of the very thought they are expressing? Mustn't there always be a distinction between the free and open expression of thoughts and ideas and the hate-filled invective and ethnic slurring that occurs daily on this site?

It is my opinion that, for the most part, those who advance such ideas and rhetoric are not likely to change their opinion or world view based on the observations of how other members respond or advance a different view. To let this sort of behavior pass, unchecked, seems to me to be the worst possible way to ensure quality over quantity. I suppose that, to be fair, no one should be banned immediately for such as I have described; but at some point it must be glaringly clear that certain members are more concerned with advancing their racial and political agendas than they are in the long-term growth and quality of ATS, as a whole.

Just my take on the subject and not meant to be contrary or obnoxious. As I noted in an earlier post on another thread, I have quite a few years of time and effort invested in ATS and am only concerned that it still be as intellectually stimulating and profitable to be a member five years from now as it is today.

1] Do you believe our focus on members-in-control is resulting in a low-quality "product?"

No, it has given some of us who may not have dared post on a given subject in the past a way to have our voices heard. Quality = popularity at ATS. The pointless post get little if any replies and the poster either changes his/hers way or just goes away.

2] Should we (ATS) find a way to exert editorial management over new threads?

You are doing great for the most part. My only peeve is to those who post a totally off topic reply to the given post and/or hateful remarks towards the OP.

3] Is there a list of subject matter (such as racism) you believe should be completely avoided?

That's a tough question. However since ATS one of the last outlets for free speech I would have to say no. Perhaps tag any thread titles with warnings to possible readers in advance to keep from being possibly offended by what is posted.

4] In the case of item 4, would you like to see us alter thread titles to reflect the actual discussion?

Yes, certainly.

In a sense yes. When things are unfiltered you are going to get a lot of "sediment" for lack of a better word. You are going to get your share and then some of substandard threads and posts.

Even though #1 is true, I like the format of the board. To be truthful, I just ignore the stupid threads, just like the ones that get into petty Joe vs Jane exchanges and get personal. I really would like to see the latter nipped in the bud (warnings, U2U's, whatever it takes) as they just destroy any energy a thread had going for it.

Hmmm, hard call there. I think overly inflamtory posts of any sort that go towards sensitive topics should be "monitored". Obviously the T & C's of the site need to be followed and enforced. There have been a few threads I truly despise but have posted on, just to call attention to the vile behavior of the original poster. They may not have violated the T & C's of being here but I still contemn them. I think you have to show the bad along with the good, otherwise people will get a distorted view.



I have no problems with doing that.

I won't go into a long discourse on this one.

It ain't broke, so don't fix it.

image source: http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/6561/atssellsoutfk2.jpg

I knew it!



I'm with RockPuck on the anti-censoring bit. I also agree with others that thread titles should accurately reflect their contents.

reply to post by JoshNorton

---

Ok, I know we're not allowed to do one-liners, off topic posts, etc., but that still deserves a huge:



It's always refreshing to see a member who is brave enough to interject creative humor into a BBQ thread.

I already stated I don't believe ATS is selling out earlier in this thread nor do I believe it is on the decline but that was funny. 'Odor-o-no.' Oh my goodness.

[edit on 6/25/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

1] Do you believe our focus on members-in-control is resulting in a low-quality "product?"

No, each individual can have "their say" that is a good thing, and I don't have to visit a thread if I don't like the subject or title or the way the discussion is going.


2] Should we (ATS) find a way to exert editorial management over new threads?

As long as ATS's Terms and Conditions are followed: No

If a thread is meant to create chaos or a posting is meant to be abusive and deliberately infringe on another member's rights: Yes


3] Is there a list of subject matter (such as racism) you believe should be completely avoided?

No, I think each member will gain in personal growth based on the fact that any subject (only limited by T&C) can be addressed & dscussed.


4] In the case of item 4, would you like to see us alter thread titles to reflect the actual discussion?

Only if Op is consulted (given the choice) as to why the title change could clarify the original intention and subject matter. If Op refuses, then let it stay as it is . Then, if other members desire to open a new thread, that subject could possibly be discussed on a different level of understanding.

Lastly, I think it is important to keep the "Anonymous Postings." Obviously, free speech on ATS, if I am understanding correctly, is allowed as long as it does not break the ATS's terms and conditions.

Thanks for giving members a chance to have our say!!!

reply to post by AshleyD

---

No....Ash....it doesn't!!

It is not funny. It is just gross.

reply to post by weedwhacker

---

Hm. Maybe you're right. Then again, my sense of humor is pretty twisted- which is why I get in trouble 9 out of 10 times I try to be funny on ATS! You're probably right. Don't ever listen to my judgment concerning what is funny or not. I'm always 'that person' in the room laughing when no one else is. It makes for some awkward moments.

Oh, and edited to clarify: It wasn't necessarily what was being advertised in the Photoshop job that made me laugh- it was the flashback it gave me of the movie Wayne's World when Wayne and Garth were making fun of endorsements in the movie by making it obvious they were drinking Pepsi, Eating Dominoes Pizza, and wearing Footlocker. The above comment reminded me of that scene and I could picture Simon and Bill doing that. But it did make me laugh and that I cannot deny.

[edit on 6/26/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

---

1] Do you believe our focus on members-in-control is resulting in a low-quality "product?"

No... IMHO, that is a skewed perception due to the increased activity. Simple, the more posts/threads, the more trash threads, the greater the perception of "low quality.
The high quality stuff is still here, you just have to find it.

2] Should we (ATS) find a way to exert editorial management over new threads?

Mildly maybe, but I'm not committed to this. ATS is excellent and like Granny said: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

3] Is there a list of subject matter (such as racism) you believe should be completely avoided?

No more than is already in place. The topics we can not discuss are denied due to certain search functions and I believe that is as it should be.

4] In the case of item 2, would you like to see us alter thread titles to reflect the actual discussion?

No if you begin to alter titles, it will simply cause more drama, and while a little drama is interesting, it can get out of control...

Just my 2 cents...

Semper

There is an inherent problem with a thread like this, fear.
People who do not agree with ScepticOverlord and the other mods, may feel uncomfortable in posting their true opinions through fear of losing points or being discriminated against in some way in the future becuase they dis-agreed with the owner and moderators of the site.
if you notice the amount of pure sycophantic posts in this thread far outweighs the posts who don't agree with ScepticOverlord and the mods.
I am on neither side on this, i saw the site years ago and i am a member of the site now so i could post answers to threads i found particularly interesting or felt a need to comment.
This thread is one where i felt i needed to comment and play the so-called devils advocate by putting forward some thoughts that others may be wary of bringing up.
I myself am not wary of broaching any subject or of dis-agreeing with certain people, i personally think this site allows a large-ish amount of free speech although speech can never truly be free if people fear replying to a thread becuase they don't want to annoy the wrong people.

[edit on 26/6/2008 by smokey101]

[edit on 26/6/2008 by smokey101]

In response to the OP, first up I want to say that I'm glad the owners of this site have recognised this as being an 'issue' of sorts and not simply something to ignore or laugh at. That's a good sign... Onto the questions!

1] Do you believe our focus on members-in-control is resulting in a low-quality "product?"

Yes. I don't think it's a good idea. Freedom is fine but you need at least some limits... After all there is already a restriction on drug related topics (THANK GOD!) so why the double standards? I know that one is for different reasons but it's still a restriction on our freedom, it's not exactly promoting neutrality.

And because I know someone will mention it, no I don't think it'd be a better idea to just allow that too, even if that'd be easier. I think it needs to stay and I think more restrictions need to be put in place.

Where is the quality here? Half the stories now are just that... stories, they're all about how some guy took acid one night with some friends and went on a reptilian adventure or something. Give me a break! These threads clog the forum and aren't constructive, they're just made up or they're drug induced. Bleh.

2] Should we (ATS) find a way to exert editorial management over new threads?

Yes. We need to get rid of the chaff. Remove the threads that are obviously totally unprovable, unverifiable... Remove the threads that are racist unless they're toned down at the very least. Remove flaming awful posts! Basically enforce an ethical, logical, polite discussion atmosphere. I'm sick of the racist, childish, flaming, stupid, unscientific bull**** on this forum lately.

I don't think that has anything to do with me just 'getting used to the same old threads', it's the quality of those similar threads that is the problem. Half of them seem to have been written by demented 13 year olds looking for attention or looking for a fight, or just trolls. Who knows, but they have to go if this site is to continue as a place of quality.

3] Is there a list of subject matter (such as racism) you believe should be completely avoided?

I don't know. Drugs, racism, sexism. Threads should also be banned if they seem to be stories or are totally unscientific. Flamers should be dealt with more harshly. At the moment they seem to just get warns and continue on forever not caring about their 'rep'. Basically what I said above.

4] In the case of item 4, would you like to see us alter thread titles to reflect the actual discussion?

YES, GOD YES, PLEASE DO THIS. I am sick to DEATH of these ridiculous thread titles like "WAKE UP" or "THE TRUTH HERE" or "YOURE DYING - READ WHY". Sensationalist, alarmist, ridiculously vague thread titles need to stop being allowed on this forum.

This is especially bad in conjunction with the other things I've mentioned. It means that while there is already a torrent of garbage, it is allowed to float to the surface, smothering the quality threads with stupid 'exciting' titles.

Anyway this is a rough post, I don't have time to edit it right now. Might do so later on.

1] Do you believe our focus on members-in-control is resulting in a low-quality "product?"

who the hell cares? those that do are the ones contributing to its low quality and don't get the point of what is being done on this board.

2] Should we (ATS) find a way to exert editorial management over new threads?

you are the owner and therefore this is your call. anyone who argues w/ whatever path you decide to go concerning this issue should neither call themselves "freedom lovers" or true americans (as it was originally intended to be)f

3] Is there a list of subject matter (such as racism) you believe should be completely avoided?

again up to you. were it my site, i'd tell em all to go screw themselves. someone who is against one thing deserves just as much right to be heard as the person who is for it. and just to get the point across, the person who is for something deserves the right to be heard as much as the person who is against it. and i thank those in charge for allowing this bc it is one of the last places containing such a large group of ppl where this is allowed. never sell out!!

4] In the case of item 4, would you like to see us alter thread titles to reflect the actual discussion?

again, since the owner of the site asked, i say it is the owners call. i have been fooled by many titles here, but there are always buttons that exist to click me out of it should it be a waste of my time and therefore i don't feel the need to complain.


basically, should you change things, you won't find me arguing as this is not my site and i feel grateful just to be able to have a place to come and talk about such things that are discussed here, but i respect your right to change it as this is YOUR creation.

you just won't find me complaining about the way things are run. you will find me complaining though about those who are lucky to have this place but want to whine, b*tch, and moan bc discussions aren't going their way or someone holds a different view point than they do and maybe, if i am bored enough, because someone wants to complain that a title wasn't to their liking.