UPDATE 2009: The Discussion Of "Illegal Activity" On The Above Network Sites (ATS, BTS, AP).

I couldn't help but notice one of the tags: "t&c illegal", I'm curious as to the reasoning behind that particular tag.

Anyway, the clarification is welcomed by me. I've no dog in this fight, either way. My only interest is in how it may or may not effect this site as a whole,since ATS constitutes a large portion of my online activities. ATS has come to mean a great deal to me, both for it's information, and the rather cool folks I've met herein. I don't want it to have problems that are completely avoidable if people merely avoid one topic out of the multitudes available. If drugs are all you have to talk about, maybe you might want to take a look at your priorities.

It boils down rather simply: It's their house, their rules...live by them.

In the context of the topic I thought that the story below was worth posting.

The firm, 2Clix, is suing the owner of the popular broadband community site Whirlpool, Simon Wright, for "injurious falsehood", asking for $150,000 in damages and an injunction requiring Whirlpool to remove forum threads highly critical of 2Clix's accounting software.
The statement said Whirlpool, which has more than 180,000 registered users, believed the case was without merit and that it would "defend the matter vigorously, despite being a community website with little resources".

source

Even thou ATS has caved in on one front already I would hope that if some person or company ever tried to use a court case to suppress a legit discussion the owners of ATS would stand there ground. Members who cause trouble get banned pretty quickly so I cant see there ever being a situation where anything more then a bogus lawsuit could be brought against ATS.

So why then, is it within the boundaries of the T&C for a Moderator to start a topic, referencing the results of a study performed on an "illegal substance" (not illegal for all, even in the U.S.), but it's a "clear violation" for a member to reference the results of a study on the same? And why is it when this comparison is introduced through U2U's, requesting an explanation, said U2U's go ignored by the administration?

Is there a special set of Terms & Conditions for ATS staff? Are regular members subject to different, or additional rules and regulations?

Originally posted by Unit541
So why then, is it within the boundaries of the T&C for a Moderator to start a topic, referencing the results of a study performed on an "illegal substance" (not illegal for all, even in the U.S.), but it's a "clear violation" for a member to reference the results of a study on the same? And why is it when this comparison is introduced through U2U's, requesting an explanation, said U2U's go ignored by the administration?

What thread are you talking about?

Is there a special set of Terms & Conditions for ATS staff? Are regular members subject to different, or additional rules and regulations?

Actually the opposite is true. We are held MORE accountable for our words than anyone else here. As has been demonstrated in the past by staff members, Admin to Mod, that have been removed from the staff due to not following the T&C.

Reminds me of Orwell's 1984...

Some words just cannot be used.

I was once on a forum and was scolded for using the word '___'. Even though it's a naturally occuring chemical in the human body (linked to spiritual and astral advancement)...

Originally posted by intrepid
What thread are you talking about?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by intrepid
Actually the opposite is true. We are held MORE accountable for our words than anyone else here. As has been demonstrated in the past by staff members, Admin to Mod, that have been removed from the staff due to not following the T&C.

Well, if this is indeed the case, there's currently a need for a little more 'pruning' of the staff then. Unfortunately, these matters don't reach the point of discussion between Mods, Admins, and involved members. I'll admit, it's a lot of trouble for a Mod or Admin to go to in order to hear a lowly member out. Not that these situations affect even a small percentage of the member base, but as a matter of principal, a veil of hypocrisy has been cast over my view of the entire Above Network.

Thinking about it makes me sad... due to the fact we will never live in a world of freedom of discussion...

Today we can be scolded for discussing a chemical reaction and we can be placed on a terror list for taking photo's of a bridge.

It's a sad world.

Originally posted by Unit541

Originally posted by intrepid
What thread are you talking about?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes and that thread has been closed.

Well, if this is indeed the case, there's currently a need for a little more 'pruning' of the staff then.

So your beef is with the staff. Personally I'd have to differ though. I've been doing this for 3 years and I think this is the best crew we've ever had.

Unfortunately, these matters don't reach the point of discussion between Mods, Admins, and involved members. I'll admit, it's a lot of trouble for a Mod or Admin to go to in order to hear a lowly member out.

I don't see what's so lowly being a member on the best conspiracy board on the net. BTW the staff DOES listen to the members. You can see this right here. We may even agree on a personal level but have to disagree on matters of protocol.

Not that these situations affect even a small percentage of the member base, but as a matter of principal, a veil of hypocrisy has been cast over my view of the entire Above Network.

Well, you can feel that way, nothing I can say will help. I will say though that you are in a small minority in that.

Intrepid, I appreciate your candor, and your participation in this conversation, as it's the most staff interaction I've had regarding this matter.

Yes, the referenced thread is indeed closed. However, only after 15 pages of discussion, and the decision to close the thread was obviously not made in response to the initial post.

So, this leads one to believe that the initial post is deemed compliant with the terms and conditions of ATS. Either that, or it was deemed compliant because the thread starter is a member of the staff. That is my question.

I'll U2U you the specifics of my grievance if you like, which clearly illustrate a dilemma with terms & conditions that are open to interpretation. Much like the administration of our country, it seems that the "laws" of ATS are open to interpretation by those responsible for enforcement, in any way they see fit at the time. I must have missed the signing statement on the T&C page.

[edit on 9/13/2007 by Unit541]

Originally posted by Unit541
Yes, the referenced thread is indeed closed. However, only after 15 pages of discussion, and the decision to close the thread was obviously not made in response to the initial post.

So, this leads one to believe that the initial post is deemed compliant with the terms and conditions of ATS. Either that, or it was deemed compliant because the thread starter is a member of the staff. That is my question.

We trashed some threads when this reinforcement of the rules came down. I may be wrong but I think we just missed this one.

I'll U2U you the specifics of my grievance if you like, which clearly illustrate a dilemma with terms & conditions that are open to interpretation. Much like the administration of our country, it seems that the "laws" of ATS are open to interpretation by those responsible for enforcement, in any way they see fit at the time. I must have missed the signing statement on the T&C page.

[edit on 9/13/2007 by Unit541]

I'm always a u2u away. That goes for anyone.

Heh... imagine this. I've been censored once again, this time for being critical of the administration of this website. It seems that this site is being run in a manor that is in direct contradiction to the subject matter of the site itself. And this time, there is no way that the content that was censored could be twisted or contorted, or angularly perceived, to be in violation of any term, or any condition, any rule or regulation, of this website.

i just have to chime in and say how ludicrous this is.

There can be posts on all kinds off off-color topics, ranging from genocide, to nazis, to mutilation and child abuse...

but when it comes to altered states of consciousness through use of substances, thats where you draw the line? Lol.

anyways, i realize resistance is futile, and figured I would do a quick venting.

i understand all the reasonings, just dont agree with them. If being "filtered" is a main concern, then post some proxy websites.

Okay, I get it now. Certain terms & conditions are used to render other terms & conditions obsolete when the situation calls for it. I gotta hand it to you guys, this is one of the better CYA jobs I've seen lately. You're as good as the dubya!

reply to post by Unit541


A thread of mine which was derailed due to a legalisation agenda by some members remains open, and I'm very glad about this.
If the title had been written in a different way, then it would and should have been closed under the T&C - there are no grey area's if the rules are applied properly, and I for one appreciate this.
These kind of threads (about usage, effects of etc) always seem to turn into a legalisation debate - and often, that's not the intention of the OP - so someone who writes a thread with nothing to do with the subject of legalisation finds it co-opted for someones political agenda, and negates the whole point of the discussion.

I have to say I agree with intrepid on this one.

reply to post by budski


And I agree with that argument as well. It's just too bad this argument has nothing to do with my grievance. Also, I respectfully disagree with your 'no gray' areas statement. As the staff has recently pointed out to me, the T&C's are built on gray.

So let me ask bluntly, do you feel that the initial post in the above referenced thread is within the boundaries of the terms & conditions?

reply to post by Unit541


SOME of the t&c's are built on grey (those that have no discussion on illegal activity), and are open to interpretation in order to facilitate discussion - the thread that I used as a guideline regarding illegal substances has also been removed (at least I can't find it) and it was written by a super mod - so your argument is moot.
FredT's thread has been removed too, so I don't really get your point.
I was probably somewhat to blame in opening this can of worms, as I thought the same as you - but SO has been VERY clear on this, and I don't have a problem with that.

reply to post by budski


So this thread has been removed? It seems you're mistaken on this point.

You still haven't answered the question I posed. Read the very first post of the above thread, then read the T & C as they pertain to discussion of illegal substances, and offer your opinion as to whether or not the post is in violation of said T&C.

reply to post by Unit541


I was of the understanding that it had been closed - this after the illegal substances can of worms had been opened. Some things did used to slip through, but SO addressed that in the OP.

That aside, it's really not my place to answer your question(although I probably have) - I've already been through this with the mods and SO and don't really want to re-visit as they answered all my questions to my satisfaction.





[edit on 13/9/2007 by budski]

id still like answers to my questions, they were not sarcastic.

reply to post by scientist


And I reserve the right not to answer - like I said, it's not my place.

I'll point out one thing - look at the date on the last post of fredT's thread, then look at the date of SO's OP on this thread - it probably just slipped through the net as the thread had already been closed.

Sorry, got mixed up - answered UNIT541 by mistake though he hadn't posted


My mistake

[edit on 13/9/2007 by budski]