A suggestion for TOC violation closes

I was thinking, when a thread is closed for review of TOC violation, I think it would be helpful to list what TOC it might be violating underneath the TOC link. Just a thought really, I am sometimes curious what rule a closed thread was skirting close enough to, that it gets put under review.

TKDRL
I was thinking, when a thread is closed for review of TOC violation, I think it would be helpful to list what TOC it might be violating underneath the TOC link. Just a thought really, I am sometimes curious what rule a closed thread was skirting close enough to, that it gets put under review.

edit on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:04:10 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

Agree, it would also serve to help others not make same mistake.

The Bot

reply to post by dlbott


That is usually the reason for my curiosity. Most times I come across closed threads, it's because I was looking to post the same story or topic, and came across a closed thread in search.

I totally agree would be very helpful

I also think that they should just close threads and none of this 404 stuff, sure there are some threads that should be 404'd but sometimes i find a thread that i was posting on just goes away simply because members could talk nice with each other.

and one last thing "closed pending staff review", i see that one a lot, it would be really nice if they actually told us the outcome of the "review" and why the thread is either opened up again or closed permanently

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


That would add a bit of professionalism to the site I think. Normally all we get is a thread reopened and a bunch of "Off topic" replies edited.

I know the MODS and staff are busy but it would help others from repeating the same types of violations imho.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I think it'd be nice if the Trash Bin was an actual forum. I've had a short story rejected before for being too severe a jab at the Bush administration. Or being too obscene, or something like that. But it was genuine satire that I believe they mistook for mal-intent, or trolling. Apparently, somewhere along the lines of this twisted, savage parable of the 90s, I violated terms of conditions.

So, I edited it for content, removed the foul language and the alleged sexuality of the story. Well, it ended up in the trash bin a second time, and this time, they couldn't give me much of a reason beyond "We didn't like it".

I worked hard on that story. It's really discouraging to put a lot of effort into something, and get called crazy because they're reading it without seeing the subtext and the metaphor of it. I couldn't improve it because of a lack of useful constructive criticism. A real shame.

I'm pretty sure all that stuff is handled behind the scenes. It would be counter intuitive to document/share specific T&C violations or other issues for stuff that is going on behind the scenes.

It's also fairly obvious most of the time.

TKDRL
I was thinking, when a thread is closed for review of TOC violation, I think it would be helpful to list what TOC it might be violating underneath the TOC link. Just a thought really, I am sometimes curious what rule a closed thread was skirting close enough to, that it gets put under review.

edit on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:04:10 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

I had a thread closed.

Had no idea why until I was told people on it were disscusing how to posion bullets.

Bit miffed my thread got pulled and those post wernt just given T&C violations instead or that I didnt at least get a courtsy message from the mods as it wasnt my fault others violated the T&C's while I was asleep and at work .

It would be counter intuitive to document/share specific T&C violations or other issues for stuff that is going on behind the scenes.

Of course, why have examples so people will understand how it is a violation. Violation here can be almost anything anyway. My bet, Not happening.

reply to post by roadgravel


It frightens me how even upon a board about sticking it to the establishment and revealing it's dirty secrets, that we still deal with censorship, and things deemed unacceptable speech. Even on ATS, the Man prevails.

One day, there'll be acceptable conspiracies on this forum, like the Reptilians, Nibiru, and incompetent time travelers forgetting to put their cell phones away before a photo opportunity. Then, there'll be unacceptable conspiracies, like the murder of Barry Seal and his government sanctioned coc aine smuggling operations, or how the government started the fire at Waco.

They'll just divide and conquer, leaving only the crazies to voice their opinion about how it's not the corporatocracy that runs the planet, it's the demons masquerading as aliens, don't cha know?

Of course, this is the worst case scenario, but this censorship leads one to wonder what happens next?

Frankly, the Terms and Conditions seem to be a nice catch all for anything that goes against the grain, and they seem open to interpretation by the moderators. Technically, you can contest the deletion of a thread, and have it put on review by a group of administrators, but in practice, they all put forth the same verdict as the first guy. It's a strange microcosm, the trial by jury that the defendant has no chance of winning. Kafkaesque that even on a forum about oppression by the man that we have oppression by the man. I mean, as long as something has a unique viewpoint, and isn't entirely comprised of threats towards people, I think it ought to be allowed.

I might be crazy, but so are a lot of people here, and there's no sense in making a short story board on a conspiracy site if you're not going to accept the sort of stories a conspiracy theorist would write. I don't see the point in making this site especially child friendly. They're not exactly a large percentage of the ATS community.

Maybe I'm rambling, and I don't know what I'm talking about. Still, it's frustrating. Being told you can't say something makes you want to say it all that much more. These terms and conditions really ought to only be enforced in the most extreme situations, let's say when someone makes a threat against a political figure, or starts up some hate speech. As it is now, there's perfectly good threads being deleted because of personal preference, or mood, or etcetera. Let people write what they want to write. What's wrong with that idea?

If you've been around long enough, you know instantly why a thread is closed for review or locked. If you make it before a 404 or a post removal you know as well... Reach it late and obviously it's hard to tell because it vanishes into the internet afterlife.

reply to post by Grifter42


I had this issue originaly.

But SO gave a good reason.

Basicaly the people that own the server ATS are based on would close down ATS if certain subjects were broached IE anything to do with drug use.

reply to post by crazyewok


So we have to skate on thin ice when we're talking about Iran-Contra, or Air America, or the CIA smuggling operation. Can't mention what they're smuggling. There are several conspiracies about the involvement of the good ol' Central Intelligence Agency being in bed with cartels and syndicates. But don't mention what it is that these cartels and syndicates produce. Did you know that in order to help fund the chinese capitalist government in exile that they allowed them safe passage along the trade routes that they transported their poppies along? Yep. Just poppies. Totally normal, legal, non-refined poppies.

See, it's really hard to talk about how the government is in bed with the drug trade without mentioning what it is that they've done. That's not to say that this forum ought to turn into a drug discussion forum, but they have their room in conspiracy lore. Like how the government invented "something" and introduced "something" into the inner cities to weaken the resolve of the african american community.

If you've been around long enough, you know instantly why a thread is closed for review or locked.

Kidding right?

There was a thread this morning talking about cyclists and a car hitting one. Close at 4 pages. What's the obvious violation there?

reply to post by roadgravel

Of course, why have examples so people will understand how it is a violation. Violation here can be almost anything anyway. My bey, Not happening.

I've read them a few times, just for fun. They are pretty darned well written. I mean, you can't account for everything. But, imagine if every thread closed got pointed to the specific number of the T&C (if available) that it violated? Then you'd have to point out the exact post that caused the violation and that would open things up to public debate and... wasted time and effort for something that in most cases should be completely obvious.

Not cool.

reply to post by Zarniwoop


Sure, when there are 278 things that violate the T&C, you are right.

In reality, many that are closed do not seem to be violations. They appear to be something someone doesn't want discussed. Fine, management decision, but it would be nice to know which things really are.

Maybe add a list of topics that are off limits.

I have heard of only two "officially".

roadgravel

If you've been around long enough, you know instantly why a thread is closed for review or locked.

Kidding right?

There was a thread this morning talking about cyclists and a car hitting one. Close at 4 pages. What's the obvious violation there?

They didn't like it.

reply to post by roadgravel

Maybe add a list of topics that are off limits.

You can't really do that, as there are so many ways you can talk about a certain topic. You'd have to make a list of all the different ways you could possibly talk about a certain topic, which would be almost impossible.

Zarniwoop
reply to post by roadgravel

 

Maybe add a list of topics that are off limits.

You can't really do that, as there are so many ways you can talk about a certain topic. You'd have to make a list of all the different ways you could possibly talk about a certain topic, which would be almost impossible.

How one talks about a topic isn't the same as a topic...

reply to post by roadgravel

How one talks about a topic isn't the same as a topic...

I think you just answered you're own question as to why this won't work