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

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: network dude

Yup, thats been covered as well.

Yes, my friend, it sure has. I'll be sure to remember that in the future when it happens over, and over, and over.
(not directed at you BFFT, just frustration talking.)

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

From TC 16i:

you must first obtain approval

I would have felt better if it said contact ATS to buy ad space, or simply that it was not allowed.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
I would have felt better if it said contact ATS to buy ad space, or simply that it was not allowed.

In the end it still boils down to the same thing; their website, their rules.

They really are not too hard to follow. I rarely post on other forums since they are so poorly moderated and it is a insane free for all. This site is one of the best run I have visited.

Plus, where else can a I poke networkdude with a stick every once in awhile?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Thank you for your reply, having been a lead mod of a large 500,000 user forum I realize that there is a need to control some content as well as reign in spammers.

Have a great day!

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: HappyMelvin

There were 4 or 5 members who all joined around the same time, (new members) they all shared the exact same opinions and they all posted similar posts, much of which was propaganda.

Yes, I was rather stunned by this. I am fully accustomed to certain political issues drawing out particular members in full attack mode...I mean outside of the usual suspects. But this latest example was almost amusing in its transparency and lack of sophistication.

Nice to see issues such as this addressed...and I agree that consequences should be based upon complaints. Mods are busy herding cats as is.
Cheers, JC

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
While I like the fact that ATS has finally admitted there are paid schills at work here, this part of the rule change leaves doubt to the integrity of ATS:

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).

To me this is saying that only groups whose viewpoint is accepted or promoted by ATS are allowed to post.

I really hope I am reading that wrong.

From what I understand, yes, there are indeed members of ATS who are paid to represent someone's interest and admin is aware of them. Perhaps they pay ATS for the privilege. "S.O." has confirmed our suspicions, I think I know who some of them are.

My concern is about the perception of organized "gangs". There are posters who continually post threads that point towards a personal political goal, (I am one of them, as "pro-choice" is a passion of mine) who have a "fan base" that rallies around the poster and supports their efforts in their threads. Alas, I'm not one of those posters. as I don't happen to have a fan base. But I do support my friends' threads, with similar political goals and I get U2Us with invitations to join the discussion, or offering support in a particular debate they're watching me argue.

I would hate to have to defend myself in such instances.

originally posted by: windword
Perhaps they pay ATS for the privilege.

If there ever is a member posting on behalf of an entity, and paying ATS to do so, it will be obvious (as has been in the rare cases in the past) that they are doing so.

a reply to: 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. Doing so will result in removal of your Post(s) and immediate termination of your account.

What's that mean? Make your point and move on?



P.S. Hey congratulations on inventing "single-purpose standpoint". I'm trying to figure out how to use it in a sentence so I can take it out for a test-drive.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I'm actually surprised "Forum Gang" rules weren't enforced already.



-SAP-

a reply to: Bybyots

You're taking the wrong context…

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.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

You're taking the wrong context…

Oo, I sure did.

In that case single-purpose standpoint makes really good sense. It's nice and has the ring of post-modernity in the "single-purpose", it's sort of like "single-serving", like out of a vending machine so I totally get you.



P.S. Wow, that ain't easy. You need a word to describe a person that wields "a viewpoint" as a sort of forum-weapon on behalf of another party.

This is why I love the future despite the lack of jet-packs: watching language struggle to keep up. Neat stuff. The other two words that I thought might be useful here are "factotum" and "surrogate", but neither have the ring of "single-purpose".

a reply to: TKDRL

at the risk of being immediately banned....i believe he's talking about genuine shills....

still..the new additions to the T&C are a little distressing.....it seems like it's becoming easier and easier to get banned.

there's this one, and the other one regarding decorum....seems a bit much maybe....

originally posted by: Domo1
One concern I'm having is with this

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).

Can these people be flagged in some way? I sort of detest viral marketing and take issue with seemingly ordinary/respected members having carte blanche to hock stuff if they pay $500. I don't mind ads, it keeps the site going. I do mind people being covertly manipulated by the highest bidder. I can see a certain news site that will Remain nameless Trying that tactic and getting heaps of traffic/unwarranted credibility.

"$500 per post" was whaqt the changes says and that will actually be very likely to eliminate most of those who are paid to post as freelancers are not paid very highly. It makes the cost of doing what they do prohibitive in and of itself and should eliminate a great deal of it. Whereas an entity would probably fork over $500 to post at will promotional views, $500 per post might be considered "not worth it". That's my take on it from a marketing and accounting stand point. The cost would outweigh the potential benefit.

To SO: I like the changes. I think it'll do this site some good and thank you for the clarification of the unpopular view. Sometimes I post those things that would be deemed unpopular just to try to stimulate additional thought when it seems like thinking is going into a rut. Would hate to be penalized for that and now I'm not worried because I also back those thoughts up with supporting evidence.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: windword
Perhaps they pay ATS for the privilege.

If there ever is a member posting on behalf of an entity, and paying ATS to do so, it will be obvious (as has been in the rare cases in the past) that they are doing so.

Good, that was my only real concern.

I trust staff and admin and it should probably be noted this isn't a democracy anyway. Some of the responses are acting like human rights are being scoffed at.

originally posted by: Daedalus
still..the new additions to the T&C are a little distressing.....it seems like it's becoming easier and easier to get banned.

This has been part of the T&C for at least seven years now:

24) Right of Community Management. This is a privately owned discussion board community. TAN reserves the right to take action against any member, or member Posting, which is deemed to be devoted purely to disruption, represents behavior contrary to community building, or in cases where the content is contrary to the core ideals of the Websites. This action may include removal of your Posting and/or complete banning of your username and IP address. TAN reserves the right to eliminate or edit any content deemed inappropriate for the discussion boards, news network or any affiliated sites. TAN reserves the right to establish limits on topics that may be discussed if, in their opinion, the discussion of those topics attract an audience that is counterproductive to maintaining the ideals set forth in the Terms and Conditions of Use and the Terms and Conditions of Membership.

with all due respect to the other members, if you have doubts about what you want to post, run it by a moderator first. I say that because I've had experience being temporarily banned. I called a fellow member a...uh...uhmmm... a chapeau-wearing buttock, but in slightly more vulgar terminology. it was during the 2012 election season, so things were a little heated to say the least.

originally posted by: jimmyx
I called a fellow member a...uh...uhmmm... a chapeau-wearing buttock, but in slightly more vulgar terminology.

'Butt bonnet'? 'Posterior head piece'? 'Tush turban'?

How bad were you?

a reply to: Zaphod58

i'm talking about the specifics, Zaph.....

i know about the bit you posted.....which makes the first bit bill announced, a little redundant....

and the "decorum" update feels like a setup, open to individual interpretation by staff, and selective enforcement...i've already seen it used to ban someone for what, from my position, appeared to be no reason at all...

this isn't the place to get into this, and, well, screw it, i can't say anymore without getting myself banned....have a good one, man..

a reply to: SkepticOverlord


I like these new rules.. they make shillin' that bit tougher!

originally posted by: jimmyx
with all due respect to the other members, if you have doubts about what you want to post, run it by a moderator first.

I want to add that 99.5% of currently active members have no concern about these two additions.

These two additions are intended to send a message to those attempting to create an account here, then begin pushing an agenda with little or no involvement in topics outside their specific attempts to disrupt collaborative discussion.