ATS Banning Practices?

[Chorlton]

Nothing I say to SO is going to alter the state of his mind in relation to the problems I and others see with ATS.

You'll never know unless you try will you.

Whats the point?. I feel your aim here is to attempt to lead me and possibly others on a merry little dance, maybe Im wrong.

I, AD and many other were banned because of our sceptic stance, the people we challenged and what we said. We wont be reinstated and I doubt I would even want to unless ATS changed its attitude towards hardened sceptics demanding evidence for ridiculous claims.

Another serious point was that you gave(or are giving) interview time to one of the most Notorious hoaxers of recent time, James Casbolt. You would supposedly give him time to expound on his delusions and fantasies? WHY?
Hes a known and proven hoaxer, a man so deluded that he calls up the MI5 info line and leaves a message on their answerphone, then when they respond to his call and call him back he posts to all and sundry that they are harassing him!. His photos were completely debunked as being absolute hoaxes, some being pictures of the Stockholm Subway system yet you still allowed him to be interviewed (Or will be interviewed I dont know but I know Dave Rabbit was going to interview him regardless of his known history.
But I'm sorry if I come over as a little biased against someone running a website that encourages the ridiculous and then says they cant even see it, whilst reaping the financial benefits of those self same loonies.

I would honestly and politely suggest you go to The Latrine and read some posts about ATS there, and possibly read up a little more, then return and ask questions.

[TheSkepticOverlord]

I, AD and many other were banned because of our sceptic stance,

Not entirely true. Yes, you had a skeptical outlook for which I've often made it very clear is an important component of any conspiracy theory discussion. However, you also had logged complaints from 17 different members along with 13 threads about your posting style in our staff-only forum. Clearly, your style (not your content) had become a problem.

We wont be reinstated

Have you ever asked? Lots of banned members return... we even have a moderator who once (years ago) participated in organizing a small board that spawned attacks on ATS.

Another serious point was that you gave(or are giving) interview time to one of the most Notorious hoaxers of recent time, James Casbolt. You would supposedly give him time to expound on his delusions and fantasies? WHY?

As I think we've made it clear, over and over and over and over again, we (ATS owners) do not get involved in editorial oversight beyond labeling what has been proven to be obvious hoaxes, or content that violates the terms and conditions. We prefer to let our members decide what is important, or not important. With that in mind, after a quick search of the threads about him, the majority of members seem to be leaning toward fraud/hoax, as well as many of the questions that were posted for his ATS MIX interview. So... uh... what was your issue with this again?

[Chorlton]

I, AD and many other were banned because of our sceptic stance,

Not entirely true. Yes, you had a skeptical outlook for which I've often made it very clear is an important component of any conspiracy theory discussion. However, you also had logged complaints from 17 different members along with 13 threads about your posting style in our staff-only forum. Clearly, your style (not your content) had become a problem.

Then why did you not simply make a post to all of those moaners to attack what I was saying and not me, as you do to everyone else?. Attack the ball and not the player I think Springer continually bleats.

Your other problem is that you would only see one side of the coin, those who moaned about me, you wouldnt see those who supported my stance and my posting style, and I contend there were more of those than the moaners, as Springer found out when he decided to take a pop at me and it came back to bite him badly.

I made complaints about bias and bigotry by your mods but nothing was done about that. On one occasion I was warned by Springer and a mod at exactly the same time and deducted double points for one offence.
I was also warned by one of your more sympathetic mods that certain mods 'had it in for me' and were watching every single post I made due to complaints from a 'certain person'

We wont be reinstated

Have you ever asked? Lots of banned members return... we even have a moderator who once (years ago) participated in organizing a small board that spawned attacks on ATS.

I think I stated I wouldnt want to return to a forum so biased towards the 'believers'. Apart from which I dont beg to anyone. (other than my wife to make another Tiramisu)

Another serious point was that you gave(or are giving) interview time to one of the most Notorious hoaxers of recent time, James Casbolt. You would supposedly give him time to expound on his delusions and fantasies? WHY?

As I think we've made it clear, over and over and over and over again, we (ATS owners) do not get involved in editorial oversight beyond labeling what has been proven to be obvious hoaxes, or content that violates the terms and conditions. We prefer to let our members decide what is important, or not important. With that in mind, after a quick search of the threads about him, the majority of members seem to be leaning toward fraud/hoax, as well as many of the questions that were posted for his ATS MIX interview. So... uh... what was your issue with this again?

Firstly your members didnt need to 'lean' towards him being a fraud/hoaxer, he was already a fraudster and hoaxer and that was well known by everyone, including Rabbit. Therefore the Interview was/is being done to attract the loony/woo woo element.
My issue is, you gave time to a well known and acknowledged hoaxer, That in itself is wrong. You cannot and will not get any reasoned interview from someone who is a liar and is known to post the most outrageous of lies to support his ideas, is happy to post hoaxes, and is seriously delusional. You banned the fool Gridkeeper for less than that yet you give Casbolt and his delusions airtime, once again feeding off the loony section which contributes to most of your posts with relation to UFO's and the supernatural.

[TheSkepticOverlord]

Then why did you not simply make a post to all of those moaners to attack what I was saying and not me, as you do to everyone else?.

First, how do you know we didn't? Typically we respond to all involved, and warn/notify as needed. But we certainly don't hand out status reports as to who was warned or not.

Second, your attitude here makes it clear you're not suited for a collaborative environment, perhaps a personal blog? We've long ago understood that ATS isn't for everyone and make no apologies for it.

I think I stated I wouldnt want to return

So why the fuss?

[Chorlton]

I love the way you dismiss most of what was said. Why did I expect anything other than that?



But I heard a distinct 'whooshing' sound, I did...... I know I did.

[lost_shaman]

I, AD and many other were banned because of our sceptic stance,

Not entirely true. Yes, you had a skeptical outlook for which I've often made it very clear is an important component of any conspiracy theory discussion. However, you also had logged complaints from 17 different members along with 13 threads about your posting style in our staff-only forum. Clearly, your style (not your content) had become a problem.

Now hold 'em up.

Complaints of "posting style" is a valid reason for "banning" on ATS?

What is the criteria here (17 members, and 13 threads)?

[caleban]

Now hold 'em up.

Complaints of "posting style" is a valid reason for "banning" on ATS?

Despite my alleged lack of comprehension, I have no trouble following that
statement about posting style. What it means is easily pointed out, right here,
especially the last few days. But I do not wish to sidetrack this thread. What I will
do is take that topic to the latrine.

[Access Denied]

I split this discussion out into a new thread since it appears "posting style" and “number of complaints” may be related to "banning style" at ATS. Understanding this might help explain a lot of things…

[TheSkepticOverlord]

Complaints of "posting style" is a valid reason for "banning" on ATS?

Yes... when "posting style" refers to the notion that someone has difficulty participating without:
being overly confrontational
regularly engaging in topic disruption
repeated offhanded insults
constant disregard of simple guidelines (big-quotes, 1-liners, political baiting, etc.)


DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying all of these things apply in this case, only in that these are examples of "posting style" that cause member complaints and require us to consider taking action.

[Chorlton]

Yep ....yep.... I can see exactly now why John Lear was banned
Good move

[Zorgon]

There are many skeptics enjoying a long stay on ATS. Do you have any specifics that would be worthy of discussion?

Yeah I can certainly vouch for the truth of THAT statement... seems I have run into a errrmmm few of em from time to time



But as I understand it John is not banned at the moment? Just doesn't wish to return at this time?

[TheSkepticOverlord]

But as I understand it John is not banned at the moment? Just doesn't wish to return at this time?

Post-banned until we learn more of his intentions direction from him.

[uberarcanist]

Post-banned until we learn more of his intentions direction from him.

Why would you guys ban him if he left of his own free will? I wasn't aware that he was "asked to resign" or anything like that.

[Chorlton]

I think they 'made him an offer he couldnt refuse' ??

[TheSkepticOverlord]

Why would you guys ban him if he left of his own free will?

The post-ban came first, then he decided to leave and we never ended up removing the ban.