ATS Banning Practices?

[Chorlton]

Did you read all his U2U's after you banned him ?

[TheSkepticOverlord]

Did you read all his U2U's after you banned him ?

No. We typically don't read U2U's unless alerted to a Terms & Conditions violation by a member who received a threatening or otherwise troubling message via U2U that violates the T&C.

The idea that we regularly read U2U's is a myth created by, and promoted by former disgruntled members. We simply don't have the time, desire, or ability to do that.

[Chorlton]

Did you read all his U2U's after you banned him ?

No. We typically don't read U2U's unless alerted to a Terms & Conditions violation by a member who received a threatening or otherwise troubling message via U2U that violates the T&C.

The idea that we regularly read U2U's is a myth created by, and promoted by former disgruntled members. We simply don't have the time, desire, or ability to do that.

Well, I'm sorry, but as a well know UK prostitute said in the 60's
"You WOULD say that, wouldnt you?"

[TheSkepticOverlord]

"You WOULD say that, wouldnt you?"

Do you have evidence to the contrary that is more than unfounded rumor and innuendo created by the disgruntled?

[Chorlton]

"You WOULD say that, wouldnt you?"

Do you have evidence to the contrary that is more than unfounded rumor and innuendo created by the disgruntled?

Do you have any evidence to support your assertions?
Theres no smoke without fire.

[TheSkepticOverlord]

Do you have any evidence to support your assertions?

If one is claiming we're doing something contrary to our state policies, it's up to the person making the claim to provide backup.

Certainly, when you've sparred with John Lear in posts, attempting to disprove something like buildings on the moon, you don't fall for a request to prove there are no buildings on the moon?

[Chorlton]

If you look carefull you will see I made no 'claim'
I merely asked a question.

Those two things are quite different

[TheSkepticOverlord]

If you look carefull you will see I made no 'claim'

Really? Let's see...

Did you read all his U2U's after you banned him ?

It clearly reads like you're using this implication to assert the claim that we read U2U's.

I said we didn't...

Do you have any evidence to support your assertions?

Then you somehow tried to see if I could prove a negative.

Certainly seems to me like you're parroting baseless claims. Have you done any research on the matter?

[Chorlton]

If you look carefull you will see I made no 'claim'

Really? Let's see...

Did you read all his U2U's after you banned him ?

It clearly reads like you're using this implication to assert the claim that we read U2U's.

No, it clearly reads like I was asking you a question.
Its one of those questions like "when did you stop beating your wife"

I said we didn't...

No thats not what you said at all. Let me remind you what you actually said:
"No. We typically don't read U2U's unless alerted to a Terms & Conditions violation by a member who received a threatening or otherwise troubling message via U2U that violates the T&C."

So you 'Typically' dont read them, which suggests that you may indeed 'atypically' read them, and indeed could have read them under your T&C's. Also you could actually read whatever you wish under the guise that 'someone had been threatened. A word so open to abuse its silly.

Certainly seems to me like you're parroting baseless claims.

Certainly seems to me you are getting paranoid over a quite simple question.
The correct responseto my original question, if indeed the response was true would have been a simple 'No'. That would have ended the matter.

Have you done any research on the matter?

Possibly, but if I have, and Im not saying I have, it would of course be confidential.
But your responses show much more than my questions ever could. Thanks.

[Jack'sDead]

Several days ago now, I was banned from ATS without warning, or even so much as an email to explain why. I simply found myself unable to log on, and found out from a friend that my profile had been marked "BANNED." I figured this might be the place to voice my concerns. As of yet, I have not received a response from ATS to my email of protest.

I have been a very active member on ATS for the better part of a year, and have never even received a red flag warning, much less ever told that I was "treading on thin ice." Coincidentally though, I was "accidentally" banned a week or so ago for a minor infraction, but the action was reversed quickly.

This was within a day or so of my complaining about some very serious infractions by another member, that went un-penalized. The T&C at ATS clearly state that trying to get members over to other message-boards is forbidden, for obvious reasons. It is also against the rules to post content from other message boards. The member I was debating copied my material without so much as even asking permission to do so, or giving me any credit. (Keep in mind that the research that went into the particular post was extensive.) Then, cherry-picked responses from the other message-boards to basically gang up on me by proxy. The member linked one or two other message boards, but pasted posts from many, so that I was unable to follow up on the myriad of conversations on my material that the member had posted elsewhere. In other words, ATS allowed me to be ganged up on by non-members from other boards without doing a thing about it, including protecting their own business interests. I wonder why this "opponent" was given such latitude, unless it was because the conpiracies about ATS really are true, and they allowed a genuine disinfo agent in and allowed them to run wild trying to debunk me. And now I am silenced.

Now, as far as my being banned goes, I have a suspicion as to what particular post may have caused it, being one of the last that I made. It was a bit bold perhaps, but most likely misinterpreted if that is indeed the reason behind my being banned. And again, after all of my contributions there, I would have expected at least a fair warning. I will reserve my opinions for the moment about the member I had responded to, in that post that I suspect that they used as an excuse to give me the boot.

I am interested to know others opinions on this matter, or if anyone here has had similar experiences.

[Access Denied]

In other words, ATS allowed me to be ganged up on by non-members from other boards without doing a thing about it, including protecting their own business interests.

Can you post a link to thread/posts in question on ATS so we can see what's up?

Why do you think ATS wasn't protecting their business interests? Is it because you thought your opponent was in effect recruiting for the other boards?

As far as using your material goes, here’s a summary of what the ATS Creative Commons license says…

In the most simple terms, we encourage people to share what they discover here on our websites, as long as they give us proper credit, and don't share entire posts on for-profit websites or other publications. You can include an entire post on another website, as long as you give the author credit, give AboveTopSecret.com credit, and link back to the URL of the discussion thread post. Linking back to the thread helps people discover the context of the discussion, especially if the content is current and evolving.

If you want to share our material on a for-profit website (one with advertising), you'll need to use a small snippet (not the entire post), and link back to the specific discussion thread post.

Basically they don’t have to ask your permission but they do have to give you credit.

Did you bring this issue up with the management?


P.S. I moved your post to this existing thread on ATS banning practices.

[ryguy]

Also, in addition to AD's questions above, could you briefly describe the topic, and whether you'd consider your stance on the "skeptical" side of the discussion?

Thanks,
-Ry

[Jack'sDead]

Can you post a link to thread/posts in question on ATS so we can see what's up?

I can't log on to snag a link, but it was the thread "Illegitimate government...martial law" by Jackinthebox.

Why do you think ATS wasn't protecting their business interests? Is it because you thought your opponent was in effect recruiting for the other boards?

Not necessarily actively recruiting, but certainly steering traffic away, including myself. The discussion disengaged for a time, and was picked up on other boards, leaving a gap in any sort of linear argument.

Referenced from ATS:

In the most simple terms, we encourage people to share what they discover here on our websites, as long as they give us proper credit, and don't share entire posts on for-profit websites or other publications. You can include an entire post on another website, as long as you give the author credit, give AboveTopSecret.com credit, and link back to the URL of the discussion thread post. Linking back to the thread helps people discover the context of the discussion, especially if the content is current and evolving.

If you want to share our material on a for-profit website (one with advertising), you'll need to use a small snippet (not the entire post), and link back to the specific discussion thread post.

If I remember correctly, there were ads running in several of the boards where I tracked down the material, and the member did in fact duplicate my entire OP.

Basically they don’t have to ask your permission but they do have to give you credit.
Did you bring this issue up with the management?

I was only given credit in one place where it had been posted, to my knowledge. I did indeed make a complaint about the issue.

P.S. I moved your post to this existing thread on ATS banning practices.

No prob, thanks for putting it where it belongs. Forgive me while I get used to the new "climate" over here.

[Jack'sDead]

The subject related to the Constitutionality of the Federal government in place since the Lincoln Administration. It was my claim that the Federal government has in fact been operating in violation of the Constitution and under declared martial law, since the Civil War.

[Jack'sDead]

Also of note, regarding that particular thread, is that I had submitted it for review as an "ATS Premium" article. It was a well-touted new initiative by them, but I was basically ignored. Not only did I not receive any answer one way or another as to wether or not it was suitable, but almost all of my questions about the new initiative were ignored. Both in the thread announcing the initiative, and in U2U messages to staff. The few responses I got were promises of answers that never came.