A Public Banning Today...

Obviously its not hard to follow from the perspective of those whom publically banned a member. And doing it publically so that perhaps he may browse to see, is that neccesary? A mass email could've been sufficient to let people know for the reasons. And so I don't speak unitelligently on a topic I did some looking at his threads and didn't see too much harshness that I don't see on a daily basis.

Again, I was just inquiring about the protocols that were explained to me about the warning system in another mass email I recieved. To see him just removed peaked some curiosity. Which btw hasn't really been justified imho. But I like it here because I can happily agree to disagree with people that I still respect.

AAC

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
To see him just removed peaked some curiosity. Which btw hasn't really been justified imho. But I like it here because I can happily agree to disagree with people that I still respect.

AAC

Which is your perogative. Not against the T&C. That's where the difference is.

Killtown WAS warned, and he was told a couple of times in a thread by thelibra that he was on thin ice, and to watch his step. He kept pushing, and then posted to his blog and other places about how ATS was censoring him. It seems to ME that his agenda was to get banned so he could point at ATS and say how they censor the truth movement. (Yes, that is my and only my personal opinion.)

Originally posted by Zaphod58
(Yes, that is my and only my personal opinion.)

Interesting ideed. Thanks for adding this.

AAC

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It seems to ME that his agenda was to get banned so he could point at ATS and say how they censor the truth movement.

I was thinking the same thing, and so he's achieved his goal if that was it. Like I said, he did the same thing at the LC forums and made himself a sort of martyr for it.

It's kind of like non-sequitur credibility.

For the record...

Originally posted by carnival_of_souls2047
Wow! I was under the belief that Killtown was at least warned for rude behaviour before being banned. Now I am curious if he was banned just because of his beliefs in 911. Interesting.

The member "killtown" was post banned over the weekend for violating the new "Closer Scrutiny" policy for the 9/11 Forum... The member also recently received a warning for conduct in the 9/11 Forum, and has had several U2U exchanges with senior staffers (as has most of the regulars within the 9/11 Forum). Killtown was well aware that everyone was under the microscope, and he continued to post in a manner that was not to "Deny Ignorance, but to bait and troll... Apparently to allow him to play the role of the oppressed "truther" on other sites. This had become his sole reason for participating here at ATS, and as such was "contributing" in a manner that does in fact violate the Terms & Conditions. After an examination of his participation here at ATS, and the content he was posting on other sites, the decision was made to terminate his privileges (yes, it's a privilege) here at ATS. The decision to ban a member is never made lightly, nor unilaterally (the one exception would be a new member who spams the discount prices for every cell phone in existence plus their website, that guy is shown the door so fast his rug burns have rug burns), but after deliberation and many attempts to correct the issue that would lead to a permanent ban. I know that many of you have the mental image of the staff doing some maniacal dance around a roaring fire, drink with an umbrella in it, randomly pressing the "BAN" button... Nothing could be further from the truth... Most of the staff won't drink anything with an umbrella in it, so I hope that clears things up. The banning process is lengthy, and used as a last resort... Those that have managed to achieve it had to work at it.

I appreciate this mirth,

I may have played devils advocate harder because this answer wasn't provided in my reading of this thread. Thanks.

AAC

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
This last POST is exactly what I am talking about I didn't want to go into it that far out of fear of being banned on this site myself ... But why, how, and WHO was monitoring his postings on other sites as well as this one ?? Seems like a lot of work for an ATS mod to do on his/her own.

Google is a marvelous thing. You'd be surprised what you can find out about some people just by doing a search on their screen names. Some of us use our real names, and others tend to use the same screen name on every board they have an account with. The net result (pardon the pun) is that you can find an "electronic trail." THAT is how anyone can back track on you.

I can do this. You can do this. Any web site owner can do this. In most cases, a random web surfer turns up the naked truth or the inconsistencies about about somebody or thier material, and it all goes downhill from there. In the same way the emploers check your credentials, we on the web can and should do some of those same things.

If any web site owner doesn't like somebody's traffic--for whatever reason--they have the legal right to "pull it." Sorry, couldn't help that 9/11 reference. It was there. It was begging to be said.

The thing that I thought odd was the fact that he remained 99% exclusively on the 911 forum. That to me would be like going to 31 flavors and only ordering one flavor each time!

For those who followed the recently intensified rhetoric inspired by this member and others of his "Conspiracy Tycoon Group" my disdain will be no secret. But I cannot find cause to celebrate this action. While I understand the motivations of the owners, and the responses of many members, I feel the better "battle strategy" involves engagement not separation.

It is true that real engagement is becoming difficult due to attitudinal barriers. But make no mistake, a war is waged on territory upon which ATS has an occupying interest, 9/11 conspiracy resolution. No matter how we ostracize the officers and soldiers of this war, it exists. The casualties of truth, common-sense, logic, and reason are mounting daily.

We may feel safe in rejecting participation, opting instead for observation. But as the battles progress, we will soon smell the smoke and hear the artillery -- and by then it may be too late.

This war needs us. It needs our rational agnosticism. It needs the inexorable gravity of deny ignorance. Truth is shedding tears from our neutrality.

mister.old.school

Very well put, very find words indeed and I totally agree with you. We need to engage this, and we need to do it logically and rationally. I actually am sad to see killtown go, he was a little harsh with me in his last thread. But I really think the theories they put up need to be properly addressed and refuted with rational discussion.

I think all of us are human, at least that is what I think, there maybe a few Aliens here But we all have emotions and sometimes it gets the best of us. But in reality I am sad this had to happen. I am also sad that people from other conspiracy places, are waging some kind of war against everyone and making enemies and not interested in rational discussion.

This topic of tv fakery needs the same efforts that a UFO claim gets, a lot of people looking at it and going through all rational and logical explanations.

I realize what the mods did was in the best interest of the site, and there is even hope of some kind of discussion in the future depending on the research.

I hope all of us learn from this and instead of using words to put down people let use use words to properly put certain theories in their place. It is theories we judge and not people. I know it is difficult but that is the goal.



[edit on 14-6-2007 by talisman]

If you need to explain why you banned someone means you are in the wrong side of the fence...
Its yur house its your decision.
With those standards you should ban 30/40% of 911 members including myselfs oh well who cares right .
Free speech long gone...

Originally posted by truthalive
My take: In the fight versus 911 truth and those that believe the "official story" the point goes to the official story for the art of silencing those you disagree with.

No more from me on the subject.....

I cant believe the number of people that missed the whole point of SO's post.

As far as I could tell, it was not the discussion, and from the OP it was to do with KT enticing people to his website whilst refusing to converse further here with any meaning, and then on his website taking sly jabs at the people who disagreed with him here. I saw a number comments that implied he himself had censored the comments on his website, thus making it not a discussion.

I agree wholeheartedly with SO et al in their action. It has nothing to do with silencing someone with an opinion, but removing someone with a thinly veiled agenda at making ATS appear something it's not.

Thats how I see it..

I don't disagree with you badwolf, but at some point the 'theories' will have to be debated logically, because I think some people are generally confused and it doesn't help when certain fallacies are not brought out into the light. I also agree with you on what he was doing on his blog, it was in poor taste that is for sure and the mods here operated well within the abiding rules here.

Its just with this is has become a catch-22, when you ban these people they run and start to cry censorship elsewhere trying to bolster their views. If you don't ban then look what happens.

I think more then ever if a rational discussion is held on these theories of NO PLANES, then everything these people are claiming will be shown to be false in terms of false accusations etc.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by talisman]

Want to prove those allegations?

Killtown
Posted: Jun 15 2007, 01:44 AM


Member


Group: Admin
Posts: 82
Member No.: 13
Joined: 30-May 07




QUOTE (Natasha @ Jun 14 2007, 11:38 PM)
To be publicly banned and referred to in such a way, by those guys, is truly an honor Killtown.

I'm taking it like that. wink.gif

His latest message in their " lame " forum, shows exactly what he was about..
I think the right decision has been made by ATS, honourable to be banned for spreading disinfo?

Originally posted by truthalive
I noticed that it was only a handful of people that constantly refuted and fought everything he said. As far as I'm concerned, they were worse name callers than he was...

Yeah that's a problem I have with this whole thing, some of the folks complaining about killtown and painting his threads were worse than he was when it came to mudslinging. I saw some very rude crap from them as well, and while I'm not defending the multiple threads and the name calling, it's no wonder he was hostile. I would have responded in the same manner. It's a subtle, even perhaps unwitting tactic, but effective apparently. I've personally said far worse things to other members here on ATS before, particularly the zionist acacia gnawing hobnobbing freemasons that lurk here, why others aren't held to the same standards as proponents of this tv fakery theory are is beyond me, but I could understand how that would be perceived as biased.
How many got people got banned specifically because of the whole TV fakery thing? Natasha, killtown, were there others? I hope that this topic isn't going to be some kind of taboo here as I just spent an hour working up a boolean add animation to try to explain the emerging nose of the aircraft.

Originally posted by twitchy
I hope that this topic isn't going to be some kind of taboo here as I just spent an hour working up a boolean add animation to try to explain the emerging nose of the aircraft.

I'd very much like to see your animation. Perhaps you could post it in the thread. If there was one issue that really needed further scrutiny it was the alleged 'nose out'.

Originally posted by twitchy
How many got people got banned specifically because of the whole TV fakery thing? Natasha, killtown, were there others? I hope that this topic isn't going to be some kind of taboo here as I just spent an hour working up a boolean add animation to try to explain the emerging nose of the aircraft.

THE TOPIC IS NOT BANNED

Despite off-site commentary to the contrary, no 9/11-related topic (such as TV Fakery or no-planes) is forbidden from discussion on ATS.

The catalyst for the actions that appear as though we targeted a topic are directly from our Terms & Conditions:
2d.) Forum Gangs: You will not engaged in an organized collaboration with other members to disrupt thread topics or interrupt the flow of normal collaborative discussion.
2g.) Board Wars: You will not use these boards to organize "attacks" on other boards, blogs, or discussion groups, and similarly, you will not organize such attacks against this board.

Even this thread has become debatable about the "public banning" this kind of event is raising awareness on me that have not active roll on the 9/11 conspiracies.

I wish I had read his post and threads, that would have given me the chance to have a better input of why he did what he did before making my own opinion.