It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 110
<< 107  108  109    111  112  113 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 07:29 AM

Originally posted by americandingbat
Good morning

I'm not a morning person lol so to me, this is an oxymoron

I would warn you that I for one... had not been foe'd by anyone until yesterday.

Yah, foe-ing over this is IMHO, a little immature... besides, on my list, foe is a position of honor... I have very few people on my foe list

one of the first items on our agenda is trying to figure out how best to keep the membership at large reasonably informed about the process, and how to solicit and process concerns and suggestions from the membership

Ah, the real reason I was responding

Maybe you guys could solicit S.O. to open the forum as "read only" for the general membership (membership ONLY, not anons...).

This would let people see what you're doing... and would alleviate the need for you guys to constantly have to post updates.

Then perhaps a second thread, also in the BB&C for suggestions from the membership... this should avoid u2u flooding for you guys...

I think transparency in the DISC forum will alleviate some of the gripes people have as to the selection process, as long as they can see for themselves that they are being represented properly...

Just a suggestion... As i don't really have a firm desire to see this outcome go a specific direction, you can take it with a grain of salt if you like... As I stated before, I'm just watching as kind of an observer, as I believe this is an exercise in passive control tactics

Just figured I'd post something that might make your guy's life easier

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 07:43 AM

Originally posted by nj2day
I'm not a morning person lol so to me, this is an oxymoron

Nor am I. But it seemed like the right thing to say at this hour, and I haven't finished my coffee yet so I'm pretty much on autopilot

I think transparency in the DISC forum will alleviate some of the gripes people have as to the selection process, as long as they can see for themselves that they are being represented properly...

All the suggestions you made about this have been floated, in addition to some others. If a new thread in BBQ opens, it almost certainly wouldn't be until Monday, because it will probably require strict moderating and there are more mods around on weekdays.

Just a suggestion... As i don't really have a firm desire to see this outcome go a specific direction, you can take it with a grain of salt if you like... As I stated before, I'm just watching as kind of an observer, as I believe this is an exercise in passive control tactics

Excellent. Will you u2u me with the link when you publish the results? I've always wanted to be a case study

Okay, that's enough on this thread from me. At least until I finish my coffee and get some work done on rereading this monster.

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:02 AM
reply to post by americandingbat

LOL well, I don't know if there can be individual case studies when it comes to propaganda and passive controls... its more the effect on a large body of people, the target audience.

I've offered to put my findings on the boards here as I go, but people didn't seem to interested...

The one thing I am finding rather odd though, is how easily these controls effect an audience that goes through great lengths to avoid such controls... Its all rather fascinating.

You would also be amazed at how ordinary people subconsciously use these tactics in day to day conversation... Its really something to behold, and requires one who wants to be aware of these controls, to question absolutely everyone...

anyway... its kinda OT... so i'll leave it at that... but yes, if you would like, when I get around to my results, I can keep ya posted...

This has been a 3 year long project as it is though, so it may be a while... especially with all the observations I made during this last national election cycle...

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:29 AM
When there was a pervasive problem with people being too nasty and argumentative, the solution was to have a banner at the top of every page reminding people about "decorum". That seemed to work.

I suggest that every thread about drugs have a permanent banner at the top of every page reminding (or informing new) people not to discuss personal use if in fact that is the most important issue for the management.

I suggest that there be a select group of mods, who are knowledgeable and interested in drug conspiracies to exclusively moderate those threads. Not everyone has what it takes to deal with the issues coolly. I respectfully suggest that the owners remain "hands off" and let those moderators do their job. The owners cannot IMO handle the issue at all.

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:35 AM
I got a U2U about this that there were sarcastic messages about this topic and I assure the mods and owners that my message wasn't sarcasm but a hidden one.

I 'do' understand the 'point' of this message. The anasthetic drugs will be removed from being the 'word' and the law is and always has been spiritual.

As ABOVE, so BELOW so they say. I totally get it and didn't want you all to think I didn't get the little point of the law handed down from the Overlord.

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 10:12 AM
reply to post by americandingbat

Have had my coffee and am thinking more clearly.

I want to say that while I do think most of the suggestions I quoted earlier this morning are perfectly good (especially the one about pausing before hitting the respond button on this thread to make sure you have a genuine point and aren't just jumping in yesterday's mud), the one about contacting like-minded people should be used with care.

There is a ban on forum gangs and recruitment in the Terms and Conditions of membership at ATS. Please make sure that any such communication is in compliance with those rules

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 10:45 AM
No one liked my ideas?

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 10:48 AM
reply to post by Ciphor

ALL the ideas as expressed in this thread are at the moment being compiled for examination and consideration by the staff.

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 10:51 AM
reply to post by Ciphor

I liked your ideas, Ciphor. Didn't feel the need to make a post specifically saying so, though. I don't know if they're all workable, but I'm glad people are giving on-topic input and brainstorming.

The idea of 'filters' is especially interesting. I believe the ATS software, when it's displaying a thread-view, can tell if a user is logged in or not, since the display is different depending on whether that's the case or not. Also, the "useragent" string that your browser passes to all web-sites could let the forum identify googlebot, etc. The censorship list (that substitutes the '#' symbol for certain words) is something that happens dynamically, each time a page is displayed, rather than when a post is made and stored in the database. You can see that from the fact that you can 'quote' a post with #'s in it, and see the original text in the editor box. Because of all this, I think ATS could make an 'alternate' list of word-substitutions and censorship, for non-members, that would filter out some of the words and phrases that the censor-scanning bots look for. That would help solve the problem of allowing valid on-topic discussion without evoking the wrath of some silly bot and getting ATS censored at people's workplaces.

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 10:53 AM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

I am currently going through this thread for the 3rd time and creating a list of ALL suggestions (in addition to the compromise list). Americandingbat is doing the same.

Believe me, every suggestion that has come up is being listed and no one is being left out.

[edit on 2/28/2009 by skeptic1]

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 11:03 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 11:24 AM
Well from my perspective, to summarize what everyone has asked for:

The new section should and must be shielded like RATS yet accessible to all members that can agree to play within the rules and guidelines established, much like the Bully Pit. There may be a way to have levels of participation such as read-only and fully able to post.

In order to remind those of the key points of the rules (to be determined) a header and footer for this new section with a hotlink to the complete set of rules. While it may seem disorganized to place any and all topics that pertain to drugs: pro, con, medical use, conspiracy, etc. It may be for the best even though slightly inconvenient.

If a thread exists or is later created outside the new section, it should be moved to there provided it falls within the guidelines.

To prevent exclusionary practices a point buy should be required (unless a read only and posting level can be determined, then one time purchase of 500pts should be fine). Nor should there be an age verification statement because not only do minors lie but one of the DISC members is indeed a minor. And drug use is illegal in most areas of the world in the first place.

I will refrain from summarizing a consensus of the desired topics as I believe several posts have them explained them as well as I could.

[edit on 28-2-2009 by Ahabstar]

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 11:38 AM
A separate suggestion, not mentioned, would be for the creation of a new FSME or two for the new section (if created).

I would also ask that this definitely be a staff issue (if only to avoid the problems found in this thread). But to appease the ATS community as a whole, it should not be a serving DISC member, but someone with actual knowledge and experience on the subjects.

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 01:32 PM
Hello folks.

Now I see that somehow, during my absense from the site, I have been nominated for this comittee.

I wish I could have been around to plead my case for consideration, but unfortunetly I was dealing with my son's medical issues, and understandably, did not have time to check things here.

I have not read through the whole thread, as it is very long, I ask that one of my fellow ATS members would be nice enough to U2U me with an update to what has been going on, and where I stand, where everybody stands in this thing.

I think it is very important that we continue discussing these topics and provide fellow ATS members with an avenue to discuss possibly hot button issues in a mature and un-condoning manner.

I would very much appreciate any insights any of you could offer.

Thanks Again


posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Well from my perspective, to summarize what everyone has asked for

I don't agree with the idea of a new section. I think it would be kind of a "drug ghetto", where threads go to disappear - like the RATS experiment. I think the focus should be on ways that relevant topics can be discussed in the regular forums, avoiding the problems that spurred this thread. I'm not sure that will be possible, but I think it's the ideal goal to strive for. Creating a special section will, in my opinion, just give some people the impression that it's a "T&C-free" area where they can be as inane as they want. I think that would lower the quality of the forums, and potentially lead to many otherwise good threads having to be moved to a "new junkyard".

Oh well, I'll let this issue alone for a while - let's see what boils out of "the process".

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 02:37 PM
reply to post by Ian McLean

I agree with you. I do not think a separate forum will help matters. Moreover, they do not really address SO's three enumerated problems: 1) Internet Filtering, 2) Invasion of the Stoner Thread Snatchers & 3) Google Brings Fifty to Seventy New Members Every Day...

Frankly, the only option I see is to announce a rule that permits drug policy or drug conspiracy threads, but STRICTLY prohibits personal use or solicitation posts of any kind.

I think the distinctions are pretty clear.

Two strikes and you are out would also seem fair to me.

[edit on 28-2-2009 by loam]

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 02:49 PM
reply to post by Ian McLean

To be fair, it was only my perspective and I stated as such. It is certainly not the only solution. But may be the most acceptable in order to fall in with the wishes and desires of the staff.

If the Read Only option is available it would make it as open as The Bully Pit, just with a RATS like screen to hedge out guests and bots to protect it. Just to clarify a bit.

And I agree, it is up to the DISC council as a whole to hash out. But the prior post was a summary/suggestion incorporating the better points for the DISC committee to present (or reject) within the council.

[edit on 28-2-2009 by Ahabstar]

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 03:09 PM
With the intent of achieving a measure of transparency and to keep everyone updated:

At the present moment we are exploring avenues which would include ways to address the issue both via the creation of a new forum or through a way of integrating the discussion into ATS across the boards. It is our intention to present staff with several options which have the potential of restoring what has been lost.

[edit on 28 Feb 2009 by schrodingers dog]

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 03:24 PM
Pathetic..... Simply pathetic!

All of this gyration simply because of Sponsorship and the Owners hopes of making this site into something BIG.

What is the site going to do when Marijuana is finally reduced to either being federally legalized, or treated the same as any prescription pain-killer?

At that point it will be the “hottest” topic around. Will ATS just ignore that topic?

I am completely against the censorship of anyone on this, or any other site. I am all for free speech, and all the freedoms that are afforded Americans under the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and any other Amendments that provide us with more freedoms.

Being on this site means that we give up ALL rights at the Front Door, all protections afforded to us in public are gone here. I don't like that one bit.

In essence, we are NOT free here.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 04:02 PM
reply to post by loam

I think that is a good idea. I also think that one of the things the owners were saying to us is that they dont have the staff to moderate that sort of arrangement.

I doubt that use of drug words can be the cause of a filtering problem. After all, every single mainstream media outlet report on drugs, drug cartels, etc.

It seemed to me, and perhaps I mistook it, that it wasnt that the words were causing a filtering problem but that those words when searched on google drew the "wrong kind of member" like a moth to a flame (I think the analogy went) and that the staff was so overburdened with damage control on that one area that it was affecting their ability to tend to other matters.

My suggestion is to make a policy of "no personal drug tales" with only reporting of events and conspiracies allowable, and implement some method of "self policing" by the members. Perhaps something like a "star" but a red flag, and when a member alerts staff via that tag, all other members are prevented from alerting again until the staff reviews and thumbs up or thumbs down that post.

That way members can alert staff without the staff subsequently being flooded with helpful alerts they then have to sort through. The red flag would also act as a temporary visual warning to other posters that that post was on a road that may be dangerous, and it may be wise to refrain from following it.

It may be more programming trouble than it is worth however. I am not a programmer and I have no idea how hard something like that would be to implement. But it seems to me any workable suggestion is going to have to address the issue of not having mods and staff overwhelmed trying to keep this broad subject on the table. Which means we are going to have to take some of the responsibility for helping to keep it clean.

top topics

<< 107  108  109    111  112  113 >>

log in