Epic Win!

[pack3tg0st]

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o223/mojo4sale/linkbanner.jpg

[offsite=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread483921/pg1:38crr7is]

Our New Approach To Plagiarized ATS Member Content

We've recently been through a few rounds of rather frustrating responses from website admins after encountering ATS member posts being used on other sites without proper attribution -- the method to provide attribution is clearly specified on every post of ATS.

The reactions have ranged from a startling degree of vindictive anger to threats of counter legal action, and everything imaginable in-between. Presumably, the reactions stem from some type of assumption that we (ATS management) are terrible people who believe we own the content of our contributing members. Far from it, we're idealists who care deeply about the effort each of our members put into their posts, and have an overriding desire to see credit given where credit is due.

In short, we're refining our notification policy, and only doing so when the ATS member who authored a plagiarized post authorizes us to do so.

In more detail...



Misinterpretation of Attribution Requirements

Clearly, there is a misunderstanding of our intent which apparently has been at the root of a rather deep rift between us (ATS) and a very-short of list other sites. Our intent is not to create animosity. Our core ideals have always been focused on collaborative learning through cooperation and shared knowledge... this has been, and continues to be, the driving force behind our efforts to grow ATS. And, in our eyes, giving credit to the author and source of important or interesting information is a vitally important aspect of the collaborative process.

In fact, we feel so strongly about this that we don't allow entire pieces of content to be lifter from other sites to use on ATS, we insist on snippets & link-backs, and we've banned people found to be representing the content of others as their own.



Revising Our Approach

In the vast majority of instances where ATS member content is used elsewhere online, those doing so have provided proper attribution. However, oddly enough, the only sites/admins that have responded with intense animosity and anger are other "conspiracy theory" or "alternative topics" sites, our online peers... the very sites which should be on the same collaborative page as us. Since the intense animosity in this sub-set of sites is counterproductive, we're modifying our approach. Our new policies regarding potentially plagiarized ATS member content online will be:


Individual Posts:
If we encounter a member's post on another website without attribution, we'll notify our member. We will take no overt action to rectify the improper use unless our member asks us to do so. Also, if an ATS member alerts us to a plagiarized post of theirs, we'll take action.


Entire Threads:
We will only take proactive action in the much-more-rare cases of where entire threads of content, including the rather unique formatting of ATS, have been used without attribution or permission.


All Other Potential Violations:
All other violations of partial content, artwork, video, or audio material that is seen elsewhere online, but lacks attribution, must be brought to our attention by the ATS member who originally created the work. Only then, and with their say-so, will we seek to rectify the improper use.



This IS NOT A License To Steal Member Content

In fact, with the go-sign from our members on specific violations, we're likely to be even more diligent and aggressive in ensuring member content is either properly attributed, or removed.

However, it's our sincere hope that this refinement of our policy and clearly defined collaborative intent inspires these other sites to finally adopt the spirit of cooperation and give credit (and link-backs) to our members when using their content.

Also, we realize that some of our members may not be concerned that their posts are used without attribution, and our refined approach places the decision for potential action in their hands.



There Is NO Relaxation of ATS Content Rules

Our members, as always, are still expected to provide proper attribution and refrain from inserting entire pieces of content from other sites.



Frustration and Being a Good Internet Citizen

Proper link-backs to the sources of content we use online has been a core value of the Internet culture since hyper-text links were first introduced. It's unfortunate, and incredibly frustrating, that this core principal is seeing erosion such that people either don't care, are malicious, or seek to misrepresent their own talent.

If you encounter plagiarism of your posts, and desire proper attribution, we will go to bat for you.

If you encounter plagiarism of your posts, and are fine with that, we will respect your stance.






Feel free to offer your opinions or observations.

But if you do encounter plagiarism for which action is needed, please contact site admin privately via U2U, don't post examples in this thread.

Thank you.[/offsite:38crr7is]

Yah... guess he realized that Fair use is a bitch eh?

LOL

Fun shit! I take this as a WIN in our column!

[pack3tg0st]

However, it's our sincere hope that this refinement of our policy and clearly defined collaborative intent inspires these other sites to finally adopt the spirit of cooperation and give credit (and link-backs) to our members when using their content.

Bill... And I know you're reading this...

Jasn might be more willing to cooperate with you if it wasn't for the fact that links to AMKON aren't allowed on your site...

Take my banning for instance...

I was banned for sending a U2U to an Amkon member linking back to a thread over here...

(Yah, I know the "member complaint" you told me about was bullshit, as is your "we don't read U2Us" stance)

Lift the restrictions against linking to AMKON... Stop insta-banning people for mentioning amkon... Disable the word filter...

bet if you do all that, Jasn will be a little more keen on cooperating...

Until then...

[attachment=0:1ggsxalx]promptbox2.gif[/attachment:1ggsxalx]

[Cogburn]

Which is the point.

I give a rat's ass about content on ATS as much as ATS gives about content elsewhere.

It's a nice step, but you're not done yet making yourself that "Good Internet Citizen," Bill.

Don't worry. We're here to help keep you honest.

*snicker*

[skunk]

Nice.

[GhostOfCaptSpaulding]

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee162/21b45o13x25c54o34d45e/icons%20pngs/yep.png

[Jackinthebox]

So Bill, ever gonna give me an answer as to why I was banned? Was it for calling one of your mods an asshole in a U2U? Or was it something deeper?

[hp]

...with the go-sign from our members on specific violations, we're likely to be even more diligent and aggressive in ensuring member content is either properly attributed, or removed.

As picky as Bill is, Google is in violation of his decree.

[pack3tg0st]

http://www.stellabooks.com/images/informationsource/william/willliam-dictator(s).JPG

[hp]

I think Bill has most of the members thinking that people are using their posts as research material and in books with the 3rd party claiming it is their material.

No one seems to mention it is mostly people commenting on the wackiness or truth of the post. He should just come out and state the value of the material is the inbound link to his site, not the material itself.

[Cogburn]

Heh... the implications of this are now just starting to sink in...

Bill has setup his copyright protection so that he must now do the one thing that he always dreaded: direct his users to another site. Except now it's under the premise of calling to their attention possible use of their material without attribution.

I wonder how much time, money and effort Bill is putting into DCMA violations compared to the return....

[hp]

I'm trying to find out what exactly constitutes copyright management information. Is there a definition or requirement or can the copyright hold to define whatever he desires.

Creating Commons

[offsite=http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FFAQ:17qao9zy]How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work?

All current CC licenses require that you attribute the original author(s). If the copyright holder has not specified any particular way to attribute them, this does not mean that you do not have to give attribution. It simply means that you will have to give attribution to the best of your ability with the information you do have. Generally speaking, this implies five things:

* If the work itself contains any copyright notices placed there by the copyright holder, you must leave those notices in tact, or reproduce them in a way that is reasonable to the medium in which you are re-publishing the work.

* Cite the author's name, screen name, user identification, etc. If you are publishing on the Internet, it is nice to link that name to the person's profile page, if such a page exists.

* Cite the work's title or name, if such a thing exists. If you are publishing on the Internet, it is nice to link the name or title directly to the original work.

* Cite the specific CC license the work is under. If you are publishing on the Internet, it is nice if the license citation links to the license on the CC website.

* If you are making a derivative word or adaptation, in addition to the above, you need to identify that your work is a derivative work i.e., “This is a Finnish translation of the [original work] by [author].” or “Screenplay based on [original work] by [author].”

In the case where a copyright holder does choose to specify the manner of attribution, in addition to the requirement of leaving in tact existing copyright notices, they are only able to require certain things. Namely:

* They may require that you attribute the work to a certain name, pseudonym or even an organization of some sort.

* They may require you to associate/provide a certain URL (web address) for the work.[/offsite:17qao9zy]

IMO 'associate/provide' does not a link make. Just displaying the url should be enough.

[Cogburn]

IMO 'associate/provide' does not a link make. Just displaying the url should be enough.ATS is acting as the copyright holder in dictating how the material should be attributed... specifically the full URL. The problem is that ATS is not the copyright holder, the individual that originate the work is, therefore any demands made by them as to the style of the attribution are meaningless and invalid.

This bit is interesting...
[offsite:1zqga20s]* If you are making a derivative word or adaptation, in addition to the above, you need to identify that your work is a derivative work i.e., “This is a Finnish translation of the [original work] by [author].” or “Screenplay based on [original work] by [author].”[/offsite:1zqga20s]
Given the examples, if we were to make a screenplay about ATS's involvement in the SERPO hoax, we'd have to attribute our source material. However it does not necessarily mean that works utilizing the material for criticism, parody, or promotion are in violation of Creative Commons.

It almost seems as if Creative Commons was specifically drafted as not to conflict with Fair Use.

[Jackinthebox]

IMO 'associate/provide' does not a link make. Just displaying the url should be enough.ATS is acting as the copyright holder in dictating how the material should be attributed... specifically the full URL. The problem is that ATS is not the copyright holder, the individual that originate the work is, therefore any demands made by them as to the style of the attribution are meaningless and invalid.

This bit is interesting...
[offsite:1x7o0ybk]* If you are making a derivative word or adaptation, in addition to the above, you need to identify that your work is a derivative work i.e., “This is a Finnish translation of the [original work] by [author].” or “Screenplay based on [original work] by [author].”[/offsite:1x7o0ybk]
Given the examples, if we were to make a screenplay about ATS's involvement in the SERPO hoax, we'd have to attribute our source material. However it does not necessarily mean that works utilizing the material for criticism, parody, or promotion are in violation of Creative Commons.

It almost seems as if Creative Commons was specifically drafted as not to conflict with Fair Use.

So Rugburn, you wanna explain to me once again how I'm a plagiarist?

[Cogburn]

Allllllllllllll the way down at the bottom... you find the bit that applies to you.

[offsite=http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_what_is_plagiarism.html:2zuwyyyb]All of the following are considered plagiarism:

* turning in someone else's work as your own
* copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
* failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
* giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
* changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
* copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules)[/offsite:2zuwyyyb]

Let me know if this is still unclear to you.

[pack3tg0st]

LOL

PWNed

[hp]

Standard copyright notice is (c)year author. That isn't there. A link 'copyright & usage' goes to CC. He is using creative commons but is expanding on it. Not so sure that will hold up. Giving the url reference instead of a link, IMO, would be valid. CC does expressly save HTML hyperlink.

DMCA and creative commons are two different things. DMCA doesn't spell out what is 'copyright management information' just that it must not be removed. His posts have an author but no standard copyright.

[Jackinthebox]

Allllllllllllll the way down at the bottom... you find the bit that applies to you.

[offsite=http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_what_is_plagiarism.html:2f5vpfpo]All of the following are considered plagiarism:

* turning in someone else's work as your own
* copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
* failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
* giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
* changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
* copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules)[/offsite:2f5vpfpo]

Let me know if this is still unclear to you.

Okay, so maybe Bill is right after all.

[pack3tg0st]

Nah, bill tries to squash "fair use".

When we "research" its fair use...

[Jackinthebox]

Nah, bill tries to squash "fair use".

When we "research" its fair use...

Define "fair use."

[Snow Crash]

So Bill, ever gonna give me an answer as to why I was banned? Was it for calling one of your mods an asshole in a U2U? Or was it something deeper?

As a nasty, vindictive, spiteful, egotistical, hypocritical, two-faced, authoritarian, self important, Rupert Murdoch wannabe piece of shit bully, Bill has a real issue with people telling it like it is.

As I said fairly recently to Asala, ATS Supermod, when she asked me if I was back on ATS, I said I was sick of not being able to call a spade a fucking spade. A member acts a dick, they get crucified. A Mod/Supermod acts like a dick, not a peep. An Admin acts like a dick? It gets fucking praised by the majority of the Mods and the hardcore Deny Ignorance Fanatics, the toadying little slutbags. And don't you even dream of letting them know they are doing something wrong lol.

Bill likes to think, if actions on the ATS Board are anything to go on, that he is Smarter Than The Average Bear, though reality paints a far different picture. Likes to try and play mind games. My crime was pointing out his little games. Naughteh. Though I can see why he was vexed. It's never nice to get called out in front of your own fanbois, is it Billiam?

Now on Amkon, I can call said spade a spade. The stench of freedom of speech is......... 'inhale'.... beautiful...

[pack3tg0st]

Nah, bill tries to squash "fair use".

When we "research" its fair use...

Define "fair use."
[offsite=http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html:v9evq3qi]“quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”[/offsite:v9evq3qi]

[Cogburn]

[offsite=http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_plagiarism_faq.html#fair_use:39kmu6oy]What is "fair use," anyway?

The United States government has established rough guidelines for determining the nature and amount of work that may be "borrowed" without explicit written consent. These are called "fair use" laws, because they try to establish whether certain uses of original material are reasonable. The laws themselves are vague and complicated. Below we have condensed them into some rubrics you can apply to help determine the fairness of any given usage.

The nature of your use.
If you have merely copied something, it is unlikely to be considered fair use. But if the material has been transformed in an original way through interpretation, analysis, etc., it is more likely to be considered "fair use."

The amount you've used.
The more you've "borrowed," the less likely it is to be considered fair use. What percentage of your work is "borrowed" material? What percentage of the original did you use? The lower the better.

The effect of your use on the original
If you are creating a work that competes with the original in its own market, and may do the original author economic harm, any substantial borrowing is unlikely to be considered fair use. The more the content of your work or its target audience differs from that of the original, the better.[/offsite:39kmu6oy]

The Definitive Site for Fair Use Interpretations (http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/ccmcguid.htm)

[Jackinthebox]

So Bill, ever gonna give me an answer as to why I was banned? Was it for calling one of your mods an asshole in a U2U? Or was it something deeper?

As a nasty, vindictive, spiteful, egotistical, hypocritical, two-faced, authoritarian, self important, Rupert Murdoch wannabe piece of shit bully, Bill has a real issue with people telling it like it is.

As I said fairly recently to Asala, ATS Supermod, when she asked me if I was back on ATS, I said I was sick of not being able to call a spade a fucking spade. A member acts a dick, they get crucified. A Mod/Supermod acts like a dick, not a peep. An Admin acts like a dick? It gets fucking praised by the majority of the Mods and the hardcore Deny Ignorance Fanatics, the toadying little slutbags. And don't you even dream of letting them know they are doing something wrong lol.

Bill likes to think, if actions on the ATS Board are anything to go on, that he is Smarter Than The Average Bear, though reality paints a far different picture. Likes to try and play mind games. My crime was pointing out his little games. Naughteh. Though I can see why he was vexed. It's never nice to get called out in front of your own fanbois, is it Billiam?

Now on Amkon, I can call said spade a spade. The stench of freedom of speech is......... 'inhale'.... beautiful...

That's the thing though, when it got heated with thei particular mod, I confronted her directly in U2U and took it off the forum pages, out of respect to ATS. And I still got executed for it. But I think it was really deeper than that anyway. She was a brand new mod fresh out of the gate, and I think they used her to get rid of me. That way he could blame it on the inexperience of the new mod, and give the old "He's welcome to come back at any time as long as he agrees to play nice" bullshit.

[Cogburn]

"competes with the original in its own market" - If there's no economic gain to either party, there's no competition.
"and may do the original author economic harm" - ATS is not the original author, anyway.

[skunk]

Now on Amkon, I can call said spade a spade. The stench of freedom of speech is......... 'inhale'.... beautiful...

Thems fightin words. Be careful or you'll be taking a dirt nap courtesy of the Jasn Administration.

:smokin:

[Snow Crash]

Now on Amkon, I can call said spade a spade. The stench of freedom of speech is......... 'inhale'.... beautiful...

Thems fightin words. Be careful or you'll be taking a dirt nap courtesy of the Jasn Administration.

:smokin:

Nah.... if anything, I need to be careful Springer doesn't send a blow-up hitman doll after me.

[Jackinthebox]

[offsite=http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_plagiarism_faq.html#fair_use:15g9yqum]What is "fair use," anyway?

The United States government has established rough guidelines for determining the nature and amount of work that may be "borrowed" without explicit written consent. These are called "fair use" laws, because they try to establish whether certain uses of original material are reasonable. The laws themselves are vague and complicated. Below we have condensed them into some rubrics you can apply to help determine the fairness of any given usage.

The nature of your use.
If you have merely copied something, it is unlikely to be considered fair use. But if the material has been transformed in an original way through interpretation, analysis, etc., it is more likely to be considered "fair use."

The amount you've used.
The more you've "borrowed," the less likely it is to be considered fair use. What percentage of your work is "borrowed" material? What percentage of the original did you use? The lower the better.

The effect of your use on the original
If you are creating a work that competes with the original in its own market, and may do the original author economic harm, any substantial borrowing is unlikely to be considered fair use. The more the content of your work or its target audience differs from that of the original, the better.[/offsite:15g9yqum]

The Definitive Site for Fair Use Interpretations (http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/ccmcguid.htm)

Well, as you know, the piece in question did fall under this criteria...

"But if the material has been transformed in an original way through interpretation, analysis, etc., it is more likely to be considered "fair use.""

Now I agree that tha majority of the piece was left intact, but for the purpose of of the interpretation that I was making no further changes were necessary. I simply wanted to update the key elements of that piece to reflect the modern day. Both in statistical figures, as well as the orientation of the prejudice.

Furthermore, the "effect of use on original" can hardly be considered an issue. In no way was I compteting with the original considering that the primary premise was left intact intentionally. It was never my intent to use it as an original piece, as I declared right from the start stating that it was in fact an adaptation of the original. Furthermore, the original piece is so well circulated, that calling plagiarism against me in the way that you did was about as moronic as suing a restaurant for singing the "Happy Birthday" song because they dont hold the copyright.

I was not using the piece for profit or fame, but merely as a tool for discussion. And not a discussion on plagiariasm I might add, which successfully derailed the intended discussion. And then of course you turned around and used that same accusation to derail the discussion in another thread once you got spanked in debate. So are you a paid shill, or just an amateur disinformationalist?

[Jackinthebox]

Nah, bill tries to squash "fair use".

When we "research" its fair use...

Define "fair use."
[offsite=http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html:3bkhcec4]“quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”[/offsite:3bkhcec4]

So then, it would indeed be a violation to quote an OP from ATS, add a comment or two, and start a new thread with it in another forum, even for the purposes of discussion.

[Jackinthebox]

"competes with the original in its own market" - If there's no economic gain to either party, there's no competition.
"and may do the original author economic harm" - ATS is not the original author, anyway.

So where is my economic gain from the piece you jumped all over me about? Hmmmm?

[Cogburn]

The devil's in the details, not on this end of the keyboard.

Obviously you don't understand the difference in the discussions, so let me help you.

This thread is in regard to Bill Irvine's unlawful attempt at asserting authority over material he does not own for the purposes of his personal economic gain.

Your thread was the wholesale slaughter of a great work for no other reason than your limited intellect is unable to adequately express your own opinions.

See the difference?

[pack3tg0st]

This thread is critical of ATS...

Therefore, falls under fair use.

We're looking at a policy that was just released, and poking fun and being critical to the point of assholery...

BUT, we're not making derivatives... which is what a generic discussion would do... We're criticizing the new policy... which is covered...

edit: cog explained it better

[Cogburn]

Bill should just give everyone that posts on ATS a cut of the ad revenue and there's no more problem with his interpretation of copyright.

[Jackinthebox]

The devil's in the details, not on this end of the keyboard.

Obviously you don't understand the difference in the discussions, so let me help you.

This thread is in regard to Bill Irvine's unlawful attempt at asserting authority over material he does not own for the purposes of his personal economic gain.

Your thread was the wholesale slaughter of a great work for no other reason than your limited intellect is unable to adequately express your own opinions.

See the difference?

You didn't seem to see the difference when you derailed the government thread. At least here plagiarism is in fact the general topic of discussion.

Besides, the piece in question was not about expressing my own opinions anyway. As I already stated, it was simply about creating a more contemporary adaptation.

Was "Scrooged" plagiarism? Or any number of movie remakes?

[Snow Crash]

Bill should just give everyone that posts on ATS a cut of the ad revenue and there's no more problem with his interpretation of copyright.

But, but, but.... ATS doesn't make any money! Server costs! And... omg... they do it out of the kindness of their hearts!

Lol...

[Cogburn]

You didn't seem to see the difference when you derailed the government thread. At least here plagiarism is in fact the general topic of discussion.

Besides, the piece in question was not about expressing my own opinions anyway. As I already stated, it was simply about creating a more contemporary adaptation.

Was "Scrooged" plagiarism? Or any number of movie remakes?
Let's not cross-pollinate threads, shall we?

Regardless, I'd be willing to bet that the producer's of "Scrooged" paid a licensing fee and/or royalties.

EDIT: Same with "Roxanne" from the 80's... the retelling of "Cyrano de Bergerac".

[hp]

'But it free so they are doing us a great service'. The member posts are the entry fee and what makes Ms Billi's place. If everyone just lurked from this point forward, it would disappear. SO and boing boing couldn't type fast enough to make lurkable content.

[Jackinthebox]

You didn't seem to see the difference when you derailed the government thread. At least here plagiarism is in fact the general topic of discussion.

Besides, the piece in question was not about expressing my own opinions anyway. As I already stated, it was simply about creating a more contemporary adaptation.

Was "Scrooged" plagiarism? Or any number of movie remakes?
Let's not cross-pollinate threads, shall we?

Regardless, I'd be willing to bet that the producer's of "Scrooged" paid a licensing fee and/or royalties.

EDIT: Same with "Roxanne" from the 80's... the retelling of "Cyrano de Bergerac".

Well, if I had intended to make any money off of that piece I would have contacted the copyright holder, if there even is one. Might even be public domain by now anyway. But anyway, it was not like I was publishing it for anything more than a firendly chat on a forum. And I wonder how many times you have posted, say, a trademarked image in a post. Maybe I'll go do some digging and find out how squeaky clean you really are, or if you have the stink of hypocrisy.

And as far as cross-pollinating goes, I already adressed that. What's good for the goose is good for the gander pops. Copyright and plagiarism is at least the theme of this discussion here, whereas you're derailing my governement thread was so far off topic that it is clear to anyone who reads it that you're not much more than a classic disinformationalist and a very sore loser.

EDIT to add: But I will leave it at that, so long as there is no further reply, so that we can stay strictly focused on how much ATS sucks.

[Snow Crash]

so that we can stay strictly focused on how much ATS sucks.

Fuck that... lets evolve this mother on to how bad Cog's aftershave blows goats ;)

[Alessandra]

Cog's aftershave smells soooo bad.... Not even the sheeps will let him hang 'round

[GhostOfCaptSpaulding]

[offsite:dkl1cyvd]http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee162/21b45o13x25c54o34d45e/gif%20animations/purse_fight_.gif[/offsite:dkl1cyvd]

[Alessandra]

what is that a fuckin' granny fight??? :lol:

[Snow Crash]

Cog's aftershave smells soooo bad.... Not even the sheeps will let him hang 'round

Ahhhhhhh! So THAT'S why he hates Brits.... the Welsh blood in him demanded sheep action, but his scent chased away the four legged cotton puffs of love.... so now he rejects his genetic makeup by trying to WUM...

Nice detective work, Aless

[Jackinthebox]

so that we can stay strictly focused on how much ATS sucks.

Fuck that... lets evolve this mother on to how bad Cog's aftershave blows goats ;)

Lol, cheers!

[Alessandra]

Cog's aftershave smells soooo bad.... Not even the sheeps will let him hang 'round
but his scent chased away the four legged cotton puffs of love....

Nice detective work, Aless


Smited.

[mojo]

The easiest way to solve the "attribution" argument is to NOT post ANYTHING from ATS.

To be honest i dont think there is anything worth discussing from there anyway except their occasional excursions into the realms of the absurd.
Commentary or discussion about something on ATS is perfectly acceptable, particularly if it pokes fun at them or can be considered research (like the WITD stuff). :)
But the best way to annoy the fuck out of them is to completely ignore their content and continue to post better content here thereby increasing our membership base, letting other likeminded CT forums know about their attempts at CT Forum world domination, form alliances, share the truth. All without giving them the slightest bit of help by spreading their content or supplying links to their domain.

Seriously what content could there possibly be on ATS that any one of the members here could not do better? Nothing.
Lets say you happen to be browsing ATS and you see a thread that interests you, instead of posting the content of that thread and a link with a short comment or opinion, research the topic yourself and create your own original work of art and then post it here or at GLP or RU or whereever the hell you want.

This is how to play the game, create, write, research and produce better content than any one at ATS can and then make it freely available to as many other CT forums as you possibly can except ATS.

[GhostOfCaptSpaulding]

[offsite:pxjovpdx][center:pxjovpdx]http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee162/21b45o13x25c54o34d45e/gif%20animations/piercingstare.gif
But... ATS is stupid![/center:pxjovpdx][/offsite:pxjovpdx]

[pack3tg0st]

Found a flaw in your logic mojo:


This is how to play the game, create, write, research and produce better content than any one at ATS

No one at ATS creates original content.

meh

[Jackinthebox]

The easiest way to solve the "attribution" argument is to NOT post ANYTHING from ATS.

To be honest i dont think there is anything worth discussing from there anyway except their occasional excursions into the realms of the absurd.
Commentary or discussion about something on ATS is perfectly acceptable, particularly if it pokes fun at them or can be considered research (like the WITD stuff). :)
But the best way to annoy the fuck out of them is to completely ignore their content and continue to post better content here thereby increasing our membership base, letting other likeminded CT forums know about their attempts at CT Forum world domination, form alliances, share the truth. All without giving them the slightest bit of help by spreading their content or supplying links to their domain.

Seriously what content could there possibly be on ATS that any one of the members here could not do better? Nothing.
Lets say you happen to be browsing ATS and you see a thread that interests you, instead of posting the content of that thread and a link with a short comment or opinion, research the topic yourself and create your own original work of art and then post it here or at GLP or RU or whereever the hell you want.

This is how to play the game, create, write, research and produce better content than any one at ATS can and then make it freely available to as many other CT forums as you possibly can except ATS.

Agreed. I spent a lot of time over there posting original content that I spent a lot of hours researching, all to wind up getting the boot without even so much as an explanation, or even a response whatsoever. I would have at least maintained some level of respect of Bill had written me back and said, "Sorry, but we just don't think you fit in with what we are trying to do here."

In fact. I have a strong suspiscion that one of my pieces was actually too subversive for them to handle, and that they felt the need to get rid of me as quietly as possible because of it.

But end all be all, I haven't gone back over there since then more than a handful of times in over a year, and only then to find some obscure nugget of information that I happened to remember the location of there.