Why is a member here allowed to knowingly lie when there have been plenty of complaints?

Wow. I honestly didn't mean to cause this much drama for the mods and the members. My only concern was that it seemed to me that some members get rushed by mods when they state their opinion as fact but others are allowed to continue doing it. That was all.

reply to post by Project_Silo


Ayup, P_S, and the more the mods criticize dissenters for trivial or irrelevant issues and generally ignore the critical issues, the worse they will look and the more out-of-hand the damage they are trying to control will get.

OK, here's a constructive suggestion-we start a thread where the mods listen to member concerns with the ACTUAL intent of making needed changes-no matter how tough of a pill to swallow the proposed changes are.

Even if it means booting Lear.

Even if it means axing sleeper.

Even if it means opening up the complaint thread.

Even if it means enacting real member democracy on the board.

Originally posted by Project_Silo
Skeptic I did respond to your U2U.....

I mean, my response to your response.

reply to post by Griff


Don't apologize. If anyone is to blame for the serious discontent on ATS today it is the mods. Until serious changes are made, this stuff will be continue to be discussed and will probably get even worse. You are not to blame for causing this ruckus, it is only coincidence that your post set it all off.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Until serious changes are made,

There's been a lot of broad statements... do you have a specific example we can look at?

SO, in response to your post, I will take the unusual step of quoting myself. I don't know how what I think you guys need to do can get any clearer than what I have posted here.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
reply to post by Project_Silo

 

OK, here's a constructive suggestion-we start a thread where the mods listen to member concerns with the ACTUAL intent of making needed changes-no matter how tough of a pill to swallow the proposed changes are.

Even if it means booting Lear.

Even if it means axing sleeper.

Even if it means opening up the complaint forum.

Even if it means enacting real member democracy on the board.

[edit on 24-10-2007 by uberarcanist]

Originally posted by uberarcanist
I don't know how what I think you guys need to do can get any clearer than what I have posted here.

No, I mean a specific example of staff action that has caused your current discontent.

Originally posted by uberarcanist

Even if it means enacting real member democracy on the board.

But this isn’t a democracy, ATS is a business, and for a business they are incredibly democratic and egalitarian.

See they just deleted a post that included Intrepids foolishness and LYING play on words.

Pathetic how fast you removed it to.Really is sad

Why can't I post the U2U from Intrepid?Because he is a sad excuse of a mod and just one of the many here?Im pissed now because he proved my point about how ignorant and blatently foolish mods act here and I cannot provide the proof.

Deny Ignorance my ass.

[edit on 24-10-2007 by Project_Silo]

Originally posted by uberarcanist

OK, here's a constructive suggestion-we start a thread where the mods listen to member concerns with the ACTUAL intent of making needed changes-no matter how tough of a pill to swallow the proposed changes are.

Even if it means booting Lear.

Even if it means axing sleeper.

Even if it means opening up the complaint thread.

Even if it means enacting real member democracy on the board.

This place woud become somewhat boring without any conflict, wouldnt you say? The democracy you suggest is only possible if controversial figures are allowed to participate.

You also say "real discontent about ATS". Is there? Or is it discontent about some people?

reply to post by uberarcanist


Booting controversial members? NO FCK WAY.

Opening a complaint thread? Sure, good idea.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


SO, I could do that, but this isn't about me. This is about concerns that many members on this board share. All I'm saying is that we should all "sit down at the table" where all interested members voice these concerns, with the mods having the willingness to make changes.

reply to post by Project_Silo


I've just read this thread and I don't see where any thing was removed.

Originally posted by Project_Silo
Deny Ignorance my ass.

I've repeatedly provided this member with a wide-open invitation to express his specific issue here in this thread, or to me via U2U, and he has not done so. Instead he's seen fit to knowingly go against our simple rules by a modified private messages from staff.

It seems clear, at this point, that he's more interested in disruption that a solution, so I've applied a temporary posting ban while we try to work this out via private messages.

reply to post by Skyfloating


But what you're forgetting is that the mods ALREADY boot controversial members, what I'm calling for is rule of law-a uniform policy that everyone must follow-if you claim something is a fact, implicitly or explicitly and can't back it up with external evidence (appeals to your own credentials don't count), you should be banned. Maybe a one-time warning, but banning should be uniformly enforced.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
All I'm saying is that we should all "sit down at the table" where all interested members voice these concerns, with the mods having the willingness to make changes.

So go ahead... here I am... CEO... da-guy in charge... ever willing to embrace change... let's begin with a specific issue... this is your chance.

Don't waste your chance like Project_Silo did... get it out. Let's start with a specific point and see where we can go from there... right here, right now.

reply to post by Mr Mxyztplk


That's very true, but if members concerns are not addressed, and people become discouraged by this and don't post as much, if at all, then surely that would be BAD for the business aspect of the site.
With that in mind, I'd suggest a certain amount of democracy MUST prevail as long as people stay within the T&C - after all, the staff are always telling us how it is the members board.

reply to post by timeless test


I can't believe you're taking the mods' side on this. A concern for orderly discussion is no excuse to try to squelch legitimate dissent. If anyone is to blame for this ruckus, it's the mods for chronically ignoring our legitimate demands.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
for chronically ignoring our legitimate demands.

Read my reply above... let's start.

Once again, I will quote myself in response to your last post, SO...here is the biggest problem-lack of either a uniform policy on "hoaxing" or whatever you want to call it or lack of uniform enforcement of aforementioned policy or both.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

But what you're forgetting is that the mods ALREADY boot controversial members, what I'm calling for is rule of law-a uniform policy that everyone must follow-if you claim something is a fact, implicitly or explicitly and can't back it up with external evidence (appeals to your own credentials don't count), you should be banned. Maybe a one-time warning, but banning should be uniformly enforced.