ATS is so commercial

Oh dear....

not this subject again this subject has to be up their with the manwife threads and the ATS is controlled by the CIA *sighs*

I think some need to understand that a site like ATS costs money to run at the level it does, so money from adverts help to easy the cashflow. Its either that or ATS goes bust.

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by WolfofWar


I say if these little corporate sponsors get theyre own subforums, that I should get one to.

Lets make a WolfofWar subforum, its just about me, and my musings.


[edit on 10-6-2006 by WolfofWar]

You know what - I think you're right. So why don't you get hold of the Business Manager Amigo (that's Springer) and write your check for your sponsored forum so that we can start enjoying your musings. I really don't see anything holding you back.

Ah, so then your acknolwedging the fact that all it takes to be more important then everybody else on ats is a paycheck? isnt that what I was just making my statement against? the fact that ats is now being a corporate sponsored media, where all you need to do is pay them alittle bit and have your product or your personal media published to be more important on the site then other members posts?

lots of interesting conspiracies and thoughts.

But you gotta listen to this radio station.

You gotta buy this vietnam war dvd.

because we got paid to make it more important then you.

Yeah Valhall, thanks for clarifying my point.

I'm trying to figure out how we can assume this to be a logical argument:

Person 1 gets to post their musings for free.

Person 2 has to pay to post their musings.

Therefore "person 2" is more important.

Doesn't sound all that logical when it's repeated back to you, now does it?

Originally posted by Valhall
I'm trying to figure out how we can assume this to be a logical argument:

Person 1 gets to post their musings for free.

Person 2 has to pay to post their musings.

Therefore "person 2" is more important.

Doesn't sound all that logical when it's repeated back to you, now does it?

Ah but heres th edifference.

Person 2 gets his own devoted section on the forum, essentially giving him a soapbox above others, which allows his opinion to subliminally matter more.

"Well,I agree with person 1, but person 2 makes sense too, AND he has his own subforum, that means he must really be important."

Deny ignorance, right? sure.

I'm not clear on where this acidity is coming form.

Person 2 gets his own devoted section on the forum, essentially giving him a soapbox above others, which allows his opinion to subliminally matter more.

Can you provide an example of where the threads from a sponsored forum have been given more importance that anyone elses?

"Well,I agree with person 1, but person 2 makes sense too, AND he has his own subforum, that means he must really be important."

Deny ignorance, right? sure.

If you see it that way, I can't stop you.

The intent of the sponsored forum concept is to offer a mechanism where people with like-minded products or content can have dedicated access to the Internet's most sophisticated online audience.

The fact that they need to pay for entry does not imply they are important, no, it implies access to our membership is important (read: the members are important) and it comes at a price.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Can you provide an example of where the threads from a sponsored forum have been given more importance that anyone elses?

I'd have to dig up some links, but I think a good example is when David Icke was supposed to be here, and he had his own sponsored forum. The general flow of the subforum was that you could not critize Icke, or his statements, and much of the comments towards him, especially from staff, was usually that of praise.

It just gives an air of superiority on subjects.

And ofcourse, the most basic aspect that someone has a sponsored forum on an open Platonian styled discussion forum, where we are all equals, discussing matters of conspiracies and the like, just urks me the wrong way. It gives the appearance that these sponsored people are more important. After all, they "sponsor" the site, that must mean they are important. And so now we have a caste system in place in our own members.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
After all, they "sponsor" the site, that must mean they are important.

Actually, it's just the opposite. ATS is Sponsoring these forums, as they fit well in they're respective genres. I know for a fact there has Not been a dime received in exchange for Ross Hemsworth's "Now That's Weird" forum, on either side of the equation.

Traffic, Attention, and Increased membership for All, perhaps, but Not a dime in revenue has been realized in exchange. [directly]


[edit: to add]
I honestly have to wonder if your "concerns" aren't being "kindled" by faulty perceptions, which are beginning to seem a bit transparent. IMO

$.02

[edit on 10/6/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

WoWar, I am confused as to how you can consider these forums as more "important" than the members. Basic logic:

A messanger without a message is impotent.
A message without a messanger is also impotent.
A messanger with a message but no one to recieve the message is yet again impotent.

Now a messanger, with a message AND someone to covey it to has a purpose. Therefore all three aspects of the message are EQUALLY "important". Wouldn't you agree?

Originally posted by WolfofWar
The general flow of the subforum was that you could not critize Icke, or his statements

I think you're remembering incorrectly. We asked to refrain from such action until he finally arrived and was able to participate. Building up a backlog of criticism before he started contributing would be overwhelming and unfair.

It gives the appearance that these sponsored people are more important. After all, they "sponsor" the site, that must mean they are important.

Did you even read my post. Are you ignoring the reality on purpose?

This is getting futile.

The Missing Link

Originally posted by WolfofWar
I'd have to dig up some links, but I think a good example is when David Icke was supposed to be here, and he had his own sponsored forum. The general flow of the subforum was that you could not critize Icke, or his statements, and much of the comments towards him, especially from staff, was usually that of praise.

Please do dig up some links and share them with us, because it would be grossly irresponsible to make the kinds of allegations you're making without providing some evidence to support them.

Your perceptions of ATS differ strongly from mine, which means one of us is wrong.

If you think you're the one who's right, then prove it, because you're the one making the accusations.

I don't know why people are complaining about this...this is a great site that obviously needs a lot of money and resources to run and they have to come from somewhere.

I say let's all make a pact that if any of our members win the lottery, they'll set up a trust fund to keep ATS running forever without ads. I hope it's me!

This whole thing is nuts...

There are sponsored sports stadiums too. Do they tell you which team to cheer for during the games?

Name me ANY medium that gives you 100% free product and doesn't ask for a thing. Perhaps the early days of podcasting, but that was only until they figured out how to apply an advertizing model. Television? Books? Radio? Satellite radio? Newspapers? Magazines? Websites? Heck, there are billboards up for just walking down the street and there are ads on the side of buses. Ads on grocery bags and store receipts.

Are any of you suggesting it would be better for every member to pay a monthly fee or are you requesting that ATS now become a charity, rather then having ads or sponsored discussion?

I don't believe any sponsor forum has a disclaimer saying you what should believe OR what to say (as long as it meets the overall T&Cs).

And of course the staff should be even more polite. How many times is it pointed out when we are critical, that we reflect poorly on the site and we shouldn't have a personal opinion. It's thrown in OUR faces all the time.

A good example is this post where I have to explain something nicely, since I represent the site instead of simply saying how rude it is to come to a privately owned site, use the services for free, and then talk smack about the policies which ALLOW it to be free for you in the first place.

Sheesh.

I'm betting if the SkepticOverlord shared how many $10/month ($120/year) paying members it would take to:

1. Keep the servers and security services going, and
2. Build the war chest to pay for the endless upgrades and added security measures that are required about every 6 months now.

I'm betting once he did that they could sticky this thread to the banner thingy and it would still fall REAL silent and drop off the recent list pretty quick. Because I bet all those "old-timers" and laughing-boys lamenting the "good ol' days" wouldn't have anything else they'd like to add to the situation.

And rest assured, after all you paying members that become more important get the bills paid, all of us you deem unimportant would just keep on enjoying the site - for free....on YOUR money. That's what I want to do, I want to enjoy ATS on YOUR money. Fair enough?

Originally posted by WolfofWar
I'd have to dig up some links,

Start with this one. My response to the thread titled, "Give me a few "reasons" why I should take David Icke seriously?"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Posted by SkepticOverlord, on March 5, 2006 at 19:45 GMT

Just because Mr. Icke is afforded a dedicated forum on ATS that enables collaborative discussion with ATS members is no reason to assume the management of ATS expects you or anyone else to take him seriously or treat him different than any other ATS member.

However, we do expect that this will be a singularly unique opportunity for our valued members to understand his point of view, and present him with thought provoking challenges in the spirit of typical ATS polite discussion.

Should that just about clear this up then?

I've become immune to the adds, except for the "clown" *shudder*, and that very annoying mosquito. If these are the price we pay for a sight of this quality? So be it.

Just Ask Rush

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Should that just about clear this up then?

If not, I know something that might.

Now I know not all ATSers like Rush and just the mention of that name can send some people into conniptions.

But in situations like these, there's nothing like Rush to bring clarity to an otherwise cloudy issue.

So for those who aren't afraid to consider a controversial point of view, I offer this:

A Message From Rush

I hope it may help reduce confusion on the part of some members.

ok, my 2 cents.

It's not really 2 cents, just an expression.
I don't want to be accused of anything.

Domain names are cheap.
BB software can be had for cheap, or even nothing.

Start a discussion board. no ads.
Run it any way you like. Pay out of pocket, for bandwidth.

Work hard, and make it a popular destination. no ads.
Pay out of pocket for bandwidth.

Work harder, gain thousands of members, thousands of posts per day.
no ads (you might try to ask for member donations at this point!)

Upgrade you servers a couple of times..Pay out of pocket for that too.

re-fi your house, and sell your car, make your point.





[edit on 6-10-2006 by spacedoubt]

Something else to think on. I used to work in the grocery industry in high school. The "end caps", stacks of product on the end of the rows, are "sponsored" by the product company. They are sold to the store at a discounted rate.

Is the logic then that the store is telling you those products are better then the other ones?

No. Its simply a placement issue. The store buys it cheaper and then places it in a higher traffic location. They're not telling you that one brand of breakfast cereal is better then another.

In this case a sponsored forum is a topic placed in a higher traffic location, but ATS is not telling you it's better then any other topic. You could waltz right on by the Atlantis forum and post in the Ancient & Lost Civilizations forum if you wish. And in case you didn't realize, both of them are totally free.



If someone offer me a free Porsche to drive that had an ad on the side for hemroid cream, I'd say "hand me those damn keys and buckle your seat belt" because I'm going driving.

It's quite amusing that your (WolfofWar) mood in your mini-profile is "egotistical"... one definition of which is "a selfish, self-centered person".

I couldn't describe you better. Feel free to go find a pay-to-enter discussion website like ATS.

SkepticOverlord and Valhall have given good clarity on this subject. At it's most simply put, you are wrong.

Closed.

Originally posted by SimonGray
It's quite amusing that your (WolfofWar) mood in your mini-profile is "egotistical"... one definition of which is "a selfish, self-centered person".

I couldn't describe you better. Feel free to go find a pay-to-enter discussion website like ATS.

You are CORRECT Partner!

Springer...