It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The SUSPENSION of illicit drugs/mind altering substance topics on ATS (The experiment failed)

page: 101
42
<< 98  99  100    102  103  104 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day
The committee process is the reason we've made zero progress on this matter in the last two days...


Everyone, and I mean everyone should read this again, and again and again. This is a fact that cannot be argued away. And look, those that imposed the policy that gave birth to this monstrosity didn't have to lift a finger to stop the 'movement' dead in it's tracks. Where do you suppose we'll be in another two days?




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 


that was the way it was working, we were told to do otherwise. i dunno what else to say. skeptic1 was compiling the list of suggestions as we went along and BH was looking after the committee details.


[edit on 27/2/09 by pieman]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


While I understand there are others attempting to do the exact same thing I am doing, I respectfully assure you that I plan on following through with what I am saying on this thread.

I understand your opinion of not believing my posts are worth responding to because of this, but on the flip-side I hope you can understand a large (albeit silent) majority reading this thread (or trying to) who think this thing is an illegitimate process and are mature enough to not want to partake in pointless arguments that are going nowhere.

For those people, I'm offering another way to handle the situation; because nobody of importance has put these people in any position of power or authority.

Rightfully so, too, because if they can't even get past acknowledging the fact they were wrong to do such a hasty "nomination" process, then how are they going to accomplish anything?



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by darcon
 


I don't know about a "calm before the storm", but I've learned a lot about some members here at ATS through this process.

Honestly I don't care if I'm part of any council or not at this point (I will work hard if I am chosen though). People have taken this way too seriously and blown the whole thing way out of proportion.

I just want to do what's best for ATS and the rest of the members here.

There's no reason to make enemies because of that...



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Unit541
 


Probably nowhere.

The committee will be formed, then it will be dismantled again, because many appose it, then SO might step in and cancel the whole proposal.

IF SO doesn't cancel the proposal, a whole new committee or vote, or some sort of process will be brainstormed again.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by darcon]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day

I'm not saying a committee can't happen... I'm suggesting a proposal submission... meanwhile let all the committee mess sort itself out, and do a proper electoral process if S.O. wants a permanant committee.

I'm actually amazed at the one track minded approach to everything in this thread.

Seriously, we could have a proposal up and running, drafted and sent off within hours... quite literally...


I think it's a great idea. Even if SO doesn't read it, it could be submitted to a committee once it's formed and used as a jumping-off place.

I think this thread might not be the best place to put together such a proposal, at least in the next couple hours. Perhaps if one of you starts a new thread it would be allowed to stay open for suggestions. I just don't know.

I don't think SO wants a member-submitted proposal. I think he wants member reps to a larger committee. I don't think he's going to compromise on that. But I don't know anything about the man beyond his public actions here at ATS, so I could very well be misjudging.



Originally posted by matth
reply to post by americandingbat
 


While I understand there are others attempting to do the exact same thing I am doing, I respectfully assure you that I plan on following through with what I am saying on this thread.

I understand your opinion of not believing my posts are worth responding to because of this, but on the flip-side I hope you can understand a large (albeit silent) majority reading this thread (or trying to) who think this thing is an illegitimate process and are mature enough to not want to partake in pointless arguments that are going nowhere.


I want to clarify. I did not say your posts were not worth responding to; I said I hadn't acknowledged them because I didn't think that my responding to them would be productive at this point.

[edit on 2/27/09 by americandingbat]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by darcon
reply to post by Unit541
 


Probably nowhere.

The committee will be formed, then it will be dismantled again, because many appose it, then SO might step in and cancel the whole proposal.


Exactly. and in the meantime, the majority goes off on their merry way, remembering this is not the only topic on ATS, and the whole thing just quietly goes away, nothing accomplished. The fact is, because of the very premise this site was built upon, the administration cannot simply come out and say "you have no say". We've been gifted the illusion of some amount of member control over the content, while we're likely just a bunch of batteries in our own little matrix.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 




...People have taken this way too seriously and blown the whole thing way out of proportion.


I think it could have been handled better - or maybe just differently :-)

but I'm not really sure we could take it too seriously

I'm actually amazed - and kinda impressed - by the whole thing

OK - by most of it

:-)


[edit on 2/27/2009 by Spiramirabilis]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by nj2day
 


that was the way it was working, we were told to do otherwise. i dunno what else to say. skeptic1 was compiling the list of suggestions as we went along and BH was looking after the committee details.


If S.O. is adamant that this is the only discourse he is willing to take... than you know we've already lost right?

He would have set this up, knowing it would be explosive and set people against each other and get nowhere in particular.

If he's honestly trying to work with the membership here, I doubt he'd mind a quick yes or no on an initial proposal. The man's not just an avatar... he does have a life as well...

I wonder how often he's sat back and rolled his eyes at the insanity in this thread...

Either that, or chuckled, depending on his intents.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

reply to post by americandingbat
I want to clarify. I did not say your posts were not worth responding to; I said I hadn't acknowledged them because I didn't think that my responding to them would be productive at this point.
[edit on 2/27/09 by americandingbat]


No worries at all my friend, I knew that was what you meant...peace!



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Please, please, read this post of mine:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Whether SO suggested a committee or not, if forming a committee is being counter to the goal of making something work, then let's find another way.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Well, in anticipation of the results, I'm going out for a smoke (a cigarette - naturally) and will return to see what becomes of the "committee that never was."

I'm starting to find some humor in this. Sadly, it's at the expense of the members who have made an extraordinary effort to nullify the attempt, to the detriment of getting the ban lifted sooner than later. Pity.

You'd think we had all tried to overthrow the internet!


I will sadly concede; there can be no consensus without the good will of the members and administration. The administration appears to have chosen to remain generally silent. That speaks volumes about their 'potential' intent with this ban.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
I don't think SO wants a member-submitted proposal. I think he wants member reps to a larger committee. I don't think he's going to compromise on that. But I don't know anything about the man beyond his public actions here at ATS, so I could very well be misjudging.


If this is true, than you've all been manipulated. He set up this kangaroo court with the intent of turning members against members, and knowing full well that it would deflect from the true nature of the argument at hand...

If someone really wanted a solution to a problem, would they insist on it being done a specific way?

Do you really think he'd want to take the most dramatic, lengthy, drawn out approach to finding a mutual agreement on this if he REALLY wanted to find a solution?



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Interesting challenge and solution. I think that conspiracy discussions rely on anecdotal evidence. Look at the UFO threads for instance, and if those were limited to facts only, there wouldn't be much to discuss. And certainly those threads are joined and even started by some of the fringe and the argumentative. But there aren't the risks and possible penalties to pay by discussing UFO's either.
My vote is to continue the ban on the discussions of illegal drugs. I think it will be a difficult ban to continue but I support management on this one.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
You'd think we had all tried to overthrow the internet!



If you want to put everything in perspective, imagine explaining this to a person not familiar with ATS...

You'd sound like a raving lunatic



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
1. SO did want a committee, and although we basically already had a solution (see Skeptic1's notes), we tried to find a way to get one together. We thought it was fair, there are voices on all sides of the spectrum and we did the best we could. I think still that the staff should decide, but they didn't want to, and they didn't want to really get involved which is fine but we would have needed them to help facilitate a site-wide vote.

2. Brouhaha is an amazing word that is not used enough and describes this whole thing.

3. If the staff wants a permanent committee aside from this issue they will organize it themselves.

4. We're letting the votes come in and see what happens. If you want to say "this is invalid" but the staff told us to continue the voting as is.

You're all talking about age verification but we had this whole thing drafted and it turned out that a committee was wanted anyway. We talked about requiring post-points, having a separate forum, being able to be banned from just that forum, increasing moderators. It's in here, it really is. But a committee was called for because deciding in the thread was, for some reason, not working out.

I was also foed by someone who I admire and I really just want everyone to have a voice, and the people who are nominated want everyone to have a voice, and I think that the events of the past few days have been ridiculous and I don't even see why we couldn't just agree in the thread or have staff put together a committee, but this is what we settled on, and we did that awhile ago. And it was a decent amount of people who agreed, a pure majority, so like... whatever.

If the committee is carried out, I think that staff will assign one. That's all.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
You know if we just came to an agreement open to all members, all the members who missed out on making the agreement would be just as angry as those who missed the chance to nominate.

It's a no win situation unless the staff decides, but maybe the committee voting thing ending in 15 minutes will turn out alright.

Probably not, but I do hope so, because I'm tired of this.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I won't mention the name of the plant lest I get booted out


However, Arnold Schwarzenegger says, "it's not a drug, it's a leaf".

Try banning the Governator.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 




You're all talking about age verification but we had this whole thing drafted and it turned out that a committee was wanted anyway. We talked about requiring post-points, having a separate forum, being able to be banned from just that forum, increasing moderators. It's in here, it really is. But a committee was called for because deciding in the thread was, for some reason, not working out.


Thats what i was thinking. Everyone was bringing up all these points, and i kind of looked at them, and realized, hey wait a sec, didn't we discuss those things already? Yea, we did, for about a whole day straight(Literally for some of us).

The committee will be presented in 15 minutes.

We will see who gets to deal with the mob indeed.



[edit on 27-2-2009 by darcon]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


Than like I've said... This is an exorcise in futility, and quite a waste of time...

Like I've said before, this is not the first time they've asked for committees and such...

however... each time... it has failed...

and each time... the original policy stands as it was first introduced.

But now, they have managed to distract you for 2 or 3 days... and you're initial knee jerk reaction of "screw this site" is gone...

You have the warm fuzzies I discussed 50 pages ago... and you'll be content enough to continue to rack up page views to line the pockets of the admins.

Congrats on being manipulated so easily...



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 98  99  100    102  103  104 >>

log in

join