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: 112
42
<< 109  110  111    113  114  115 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by interestedalways
 


It is not a problem, trust me, there were probably many times on this thread, where i was getting a bit testy with my posts, it happens.


It was, and is an intense subject.


Like i said, i hope the Committee Finds a Solution.




posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno

It's a few bad apples ruining it for the whole bunch


I dont disagree with this. But as a fruit vendor, do I throw out all my apples when a few go bad? Or do I pick out the bad apples before they ruin the bunch?

I could not agree more that this is a business. And, I personally think that people who start, support, and run a business deserve to make some money from their efforts.

However, if you are in the business of selling fruit, I disagree that the way to deal with a couple pieces of rotten fruit are to ban all apples. After all, bananas can go bad too. As can peaches. If you continue banning entire lines of fruit because some individual fruits go bad, you end up with empty baskets.

ATS is in the business of fruits (and the occasional nut) and I think what many of us are opposed to is getting rid of a whole line of fruit, (apples to continue the metaphor,) rather than just weed out the rotten ones.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


i don't agree with any type of censorship,period. there must be a way to create a place for these people to rant their .s off,do what they want,and not be controlled. a special place you have to log into,maybe?
i have no intrest in this topic,unless it is involved with other news,so my opinion is pure, and only about censorship.
but also,please note i have never read or participated in anything about this topic in the 4 years i have been registered here.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 05:28 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift



 



Post removed for advocating personal use of drugs.


 


[edit on 1-3-2009 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 06:28 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



 



Post removed for advocating personal use of drugs.


 


[edit on 1-3-2009 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spectre0o0
i don't agree with any type of censorship,period.

It's not censorship in the "classic" sense.

We are a privately owned online social content community establishing our own standards of conduct that members agree to upon joining. We also make it clear through standards prohibit discussion of computer hacking and sex with minors... why has there never been any faux outrage about that?

A private environment setting topical standards is not censorship in the classic sense.

However, if the government were to impose topical standards, that would be censorship in the classic sense.




there must be a way to create a place for these people to rant their .s off,do what they want,and not be controlled

There are several dozen such websites with reasonably high traffic and participation. ATS chooses not to be one of them. My I suggest General Mayhem?



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I dont disagree with this. But as a fruit vendor, do I throw out all my apples when a few go bad? Or do I pick out the bad apples before they ruin the bunch?

But as a rancher... if you encounter one animal with mad cow, the entire herd must be disposed. Or, a chicken farmer discovering avian flu... the entire flock goes.

The issue here goes back to the porch lamp metaphor... as long as the lamp (drug discussion) stays on, moths (stoners) will arrive and seek to opine on personal use. It's like discovering that you keep getting those rotten apples from a certain tree... the three needs to go.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Again, good morning to interested ATSers


I'm dropping by this thread to give an update on what's going on behind the scenes with the DISC members charged with finding a way to get rid of this blanket ban on drug discussions.

The six of us are working in the private DISC forum on hammering out a viable proposal to bring to the administration. Thus far, staff have been readily available and open when we have specific questions we need answers to, but otherwise pretty hands-off.

Both skeptic1 and myself have been through this thread and made lists of every productive suggestion. We have a special thread going in the DISC forum specifically to collect these suggestions and concerns so that they won't get lost in the chaos here.

In my opinion, we're working very well together and I'm really optimistic that we'll be able to work something out.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Just two or three scrambled thoughts or questions still haunt me even after all of this discussion.

Often times the Google search bots et al come up. Google owns You Tube and you can see people doing and talking about just about anything under the sun on You Tube. Does You Tube get blocked a lot from businesses and schools? My suspicion is probably hardly at all, and even if it is somewhat it obviously isn't a concern to them. They are still very, very big.

Several people have talked about ATS being a private enterprise or business. It is, but its not an ordinary business. The "product" of this business is very public discussion of controversial subjects from very individual perspectives. Why would someone set up a public free discussion forum, brag about it's uniqueness in this regard, and then start imposing limits; especially ones that reflect a personal (speaking of the owners) bias? That makes no sense, unless the original premise was false.

OK, the other point I forgot already, but perhaps enough already. I will say that this has been an interesting and somewhat unexpected process, that in itself has been entertaining and, well, educational.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spectre0o0
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


i don't agree with any type of censorship,period. there must be a way to create a place for these people to rant their .s off,do what they want,and not be controlled. a special place you have to log into,maybe?


That's all well and good, but why should they? Why should the admin and owners feel a need to provide a platform for people to act like this. This is a private site. The owners and admins don't owe anyone here anything.

This part isn't aimed at you, rather the general tone of some the posters here. Whether people disagree with any particular country's drug laws is neither here nor there, the fact is there arethere. I'm not sure why people feel that the admins and owners of the site are obliged to give people a platform so they talk about how they break the law. Objectively, should burglars or shoplifters be able to make the same demands and throw their toys out of the metaphorical pram in the same way?

Bizarre.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

But as a rancher... if you encounter one animal with mad cow, the entire herd must be disposed.


You are right. In the case of mad cow, because there is no way to distinguish an infected animal from a non infected one until the animal is in the end stages of the disease. Asymptomatic animals who are infected cannot be distinguished from disease free animals while alive. Diagnosis of mad cow must be confirmed post mortem. Though this may change in the near future.

www.washingtonpost.com...


Currently, BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) can only be diagnosed by testing brain samples from dead animals. The ability to test live animals could have a huge impact on beef inspection worldwide. This test may also be able to detect Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in elk.




Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Or, a chicken farmer discovering avian flu... the entire flock goes.


In the case of flu because it is both highly virulent, it spreads rapidly throughout the flock, and because it is considered an incredible risk to human life.

In both cases, even ranchers who "depopulate" whole herds or flocks, do not stop raising ALL cows and chickens.


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The issue here goes back to the porch lamp metaphor... as long as the lamp (drug discussion) stays on, moths (stoners) will arrive and seek to opine on personal use. It's like discovering that you keep getting those rotten apples from a certain tree... the three needs to go.


ATS' lamp is the open discussion of conspiracy. And it draws a lot of moths, not only stoners. As I see it, that is the problem, how to weed out only the moths that are undesirable, without dimming the light of ATS so greatly that it no longer attracts the desirable moths. Political discussion draws trolls. Which you managed to deal with without banning political discussion. It isnt that many of us are not sympathetic to your dilemma. Many of us, are.

One of the reasons reaction is so negative to some of the admin policy posts is the tone of said posts, not only the policy itself. And there is often an abrupt move from total chaos to total control. (a complete ban rather than a period of increased warning, selective member banning) Further, there is a mistaken assumption inherent in many of the bans that what is clear to staff as unacceptable should be clear to all members, and little is given in terms of specific example. When specific examples are asked for, the response from staff is often surly,


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Are you honestly that dense, or simply being purposefully obtuse?



Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Yes. Because I honestly (really) cannot understand how anyone with the core intelligence that enables them to use the Internet would ask such a question... unless their goal was to be obtuse or obfuscate the issue. Really.


However, there are natural questions people have regarding specifics when a ban is worded;


Originally posted by Springer
We invite those who seek to discuss illicit drugs or mood altering substances to search these sites out because the topics will no longer be tolerated here, on AboveTopSecret.com or any of The Above Network, LLC properties.


(Emphasis mine) and to insinuate that all the fault for such confusion is stupidity or willful "obtuseness" on the part of the members seems to me to indicate that one is not objectively reading the OP, likely for a very human reason. Staff has had a much more detailed discussion of the matter, and they themselves are very clear. It is a mistake, however, to project this clarity out onto people not party to that detailed discussion. And it does nothing positive to the overall reaction to such a ban to react with hostility, no matter how mild, to the questions one should expect to normally arise after such a statement.

I think too often staff assumes an "us and them" posture towards the members when many of us perceive ATS as a big collective "us." Many of us want to contribute to the overall quality of the board, and many of us do not begrudge the owners the success that should arise from their efforts. While we all know whose site this is, we would like to be allowed the opportunity to help keep ATS a place that quality members want to be, rather than be treated as if we all were in cahoots to destroy ATS. This "us and them" mentality is furthered when members also rush in to criticize other members who have questions and concerns as if they speak for staff.


Originally posted by budski

If you want anarchy, create your own forum.

And don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.



When staff does little to require "civility and decorum" from members who support the position of the owners, this creates the impression that rules are only rules if you oppose a specific policy. Which leads to the belief that the policy is heavy handed. A lot went wrong in this thread. But not all of it is the fault of the dissenting membership.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Quick note to say thanks for the update.

As a member who expects little to come of this, any progress towards a compromise would be a bonus to the current ban situation and most welcome.

Glad you are getting cooperation from staff when needed and although people aren't posting frantically anymore doesn't mean some of us aren't interested and awaiting news of your efforts.

In the "Eye of the needle" right now I'd say.

Good luck, and don't forget to post questions here for general feedback if necessary. (For short, positive and constructive answers only imo)

Cheers..nerb

ps..sorry about my "fee fi foe fum" comment a few pages back, I have no foes as of yet and I'd like to keep it that way.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
In the case of mad cow, because there is no way to distinguish an infected animal from a non infected one until the animal is in the end stages of the disease.


Any analogy can be broken down if you take it so far. That doesn't negate the relevance of the analogy.

In this post earlier in the thread, I said this, which might prove a better analogy, but still one that can be broken down.



A bushel of apples is a closed loop. You can take one apple out and the rest will be good. A discussion board is open. Hundreds of new people join every week. (Not sure about that statistic, but you get the idea). If rotten apples were being thrown into your basket and mixed in with your good apples all the time, you might have to call a halt, dump the whole basket out and start over with a strict policy of no rotting apples at all! That's how I see this "reset".

I HATE blanket policies. But I understand why this has to be implemented at this time.


And on an Internet site, behavior DOES spread like a disease. If one person "gets away with it" then others join the movement and push the line until threads like this one are started out of necessity.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And on an Internet site, behavior DOES spread like a disease. If one person "gets away with it" then others join the movement and push the line until threads like this one are started out of necessity.


I could hardly agree more.

Which is why I commented as I did at the very end of the post. But it seems to call for a "people cannot be allowed to get away with rule violations" solution. Which needs to be implemented in all areas. If people see the T&C being treated cavalierly in one area, under specific circumstances and by people supporting specific views, it undermines the legitimacy of the T&C in many areas.

In business law, (not that anyone here would have a claim, I am not saying that) there is recognition that not only must a company put a policy or rule on the books, but they must enforce it or it loses it power as a legal defense for that company. That is because people do tend to place more emphasis upon what is done than what is said.

It is not going to be an easy situation to negotiate a win/win solution for. I am grateful that the owners backed off their original "no negotiation at all stance."

[edit on 1-3-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

It's not censorship in the "classic" sense.


A private environment setting topical standards is not censorship in the classic sense.



Sure it is.


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
But as a rancher... if you encounter one animal with mad cow, the entire herd must be disposed. Or, a chicken farmer discovering avian flu... the entire flock goes.


This analogy doesn't really apply to topics of discussion. Drug use (or more accurately, discussion of drug use) doesn't spread like a plague, its a matter of personal choice. A person chooses to use drugs. A person chooses to talk about using drugs. To eliminate bad apples you pick them out individually, you don't burn down your entire orchard.


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The issue here goes back to the porch lamp metaphor... as long as the lamp (drug discussion) stays on, moths (stoners) will arrive and seek to opine on personal use.


I guess you have serious personal issues with people who choose to use drugs, and I'm sorry for that. It's your site however and you get to do with it what you want, and I understand that as well as anyone.

I don't know what part of ATS you're so concerned about, as I've been browsing the site for over a year now and can only recall a handful of threads relating to personal use of illicit substances, and usually they fell into the realm of intelligent discussion. If such discussion is to be outright banned, so be it. But you are essentially embracing ignorance, which goes against this site's motto.

I certainly hope I don't get PERMA-BANNED for questioning the almighty, and it would certainly be a shame if my post got deleted. I just hope maybe I can share some oversight with the fine people who run these forums. Banning areas of discussion will only serve to hurt this place in the long run, and I would hate to see that happen as I feel like I just got here. I'm not suggesting ATS be turned into the Meth Lab Discussion Hangout, but it would be nice if we could discuss the potential ramifications of substance legalization in the US without fear of having points taken away or our threads being closed down.


**---Note to the MODs, I am in NO WAY advocating the personal use of illicit substances!---**



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
I have a reply to the Candid overview section of the mass u2u

First of all let me appologize for just jumping in with a suggestion, as I have not read the whole thread. In fact I only read the candid review of the problem post and I had a suggestion.

In the post it is said that due to google search there are 50-70 new members every day, I've been a member for a while and I can't remember the complete joining process, so I may be inserting foot in mouth here, but, Wouldn't it help to weed out potential problem posters, such as those who are not here for mature debates and discussions but rather giddy mischief makers just out for a laugh, by making the registration process more complicated, perhaps an "application" of sorts that would be responded to a day or so later before membership is granted, this sort of "cooling off" period might deter those who got fired up about a page of posts and wanted to jump in to respond to that one thing, but with no real intent to actually be a member. I know there is the anonymous post but that might not satisfy some who want to make their reply more representative of themselves.

Again sorry if I should have read the whole thread, but this subject isn't really why I'm in ATS, just thought I'd throw in my 2 Ameros

AC



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


We are a privately owned online social content community establishing our own standards of conduct that members agree to upon joining. We also make it clear through standards prohibit discussion of computer hacking and sex with minors... why has there never been any faux outrage about that?


--------------------------------------------------------

Wow, deny ignorance? To equate drug use with computer hacking and sex with minors is an extremely offensive and ignorant statement to make.

Considering that the majority of the worlds most influential philosophers/artists/musicians were drug users, linking them with pedophilia is a slight not only to them but also to yourself. I assure you that you have been exposed to drugs indirectly through their transmission to culture, heck it could very well be that you have a painting hanging on your wall that was done while under the influence.

Or maybe you're a christian, in that case the worlds first secular philologist to decode the Dead Sea Scrolls wrote "The Sacred Mushroom and The Holy Cross".

The spiritual/religious experience has its roots in entheogen consumption, by cutting off all drug talk you indirectly sever your connection to your ancestors and thier struggle with consciousness.

This website is supposed to represent the epitome of user generated content and if that is truly the case then how about you let your users decide if "its an apple or a nut", or if "such and such cow has gone bad".

But hey, its your loss if you throw out all the supposed "nuts" and they actually contained the truth. I guess you will never know and I recommend you never try and find out because you will look back on these actions with disgust.

Peace



[edit on 1-3-2009 by TheRealDonPedros]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRealDonPedros
Wow, deny ignorance? To equate drug use with computer hacking and sex with minors is an extremely offensive and ignorant statement to make.

I never did any such thing.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
A pint of Stella Artois to the first moderator to award me an applause for staying the hell out of this thing. It took willpower that I don't even have.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


We also make it clear through standards prohibit discussion of computer hacking and sex with minors... why has there never been any faux outrage about that?

------------------------------------------------
0
0 0
0000
0
0
0

Peace & Disgusted




top topics



 
42
<< 109  110  111    113  114  115 >>

log in

join