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

I would like to point out to the newer members here that you should consider taking a deep breath before posting.

SO and the ATS team have worked very hard to get where we are today. As far as the restriction goes, I suspect, in time, they will find a suitable way to handle this issue. Try not to take shots at the messenger, after all - we are all in his house.

As I stated earlier, this is their ballpark and we will play by their rules or not at all. But you have to have a little faith that this was not some knee jerk reaction over some explosive incident. I trust that it was done because of a growing trend that didn't bode well for our image and our environment.

I won't deny that I resist such a decision, but we have to accept that it was not ours to make; the decision has been made, and ranting about all the potential threads that may be impacted is pointless.

I suspect that the time will come when this restriction is tucked away into the annals of ATS history. Relax. There's is plenty for us to discuss, and inevitably, some conspiracy topics will be dreadfully incomplete if you can't even mention the use of illicit drugs. When this becomes evident, a revision of policy will likely take place. Until then, let's not torture each other about it. We'll be OK..., I'm certain we can endure this hiatus.


[edit on 25-2-2009 by Maxmars]

I can see why this is being done in theory and honestly I never contribute or really read those threads anyways so I have 0 personal interest in this issue.

But as an aside, how is removing/warning/banning offenders for bringing up the topic really any different work-wise for the staff than simply immediately deleting any posts with offensive comments/supporting recreational use/anecdotes/etc?

Why can there not be, say, a discussion on a conspiracy to illegally drug WWII vets as long as some idiots don't come along and say "man that stuff was the s...".

I just fail to see how the site or the staff benefits from having a total block off the topic rather than post-removals. Bad Apple "A" is still gonna try and start threads on the topic, mods are still gonna have to remove them/warn/etc. If it's purely a question of not having enough of a "babysitter time" (mods DO have lives outside of the interwebs), then hire on a couple more mods. Create a forum that's designed for conspiracies around drugs and have a higher standard like there is in the 9-11 forum. Have an automated filter nix certain keywords or phrases.

Just some options, again could really care less at this point personally, just my couple of lincolns.

reply to post by SiONiX


MORE FEAR, MORE PARANOIA it's the same thing CNN, FOX, and the government do, we get so scared we can't fight back.

ATS has people burying guns and ammo and hiding in their wood pile when really they should be faxing congressmen and getting involved in action - we could live in a good world and deal with the corruption of the government but certain forces want us to think that's impossible -i'm starting to agree with the people who say ATS is just another of these agents.

Originally posted by ravenshadow13

Originally posted by darcon
reply to post by ravenshadow13

 

LOL what? Alright then, lets just take half the threads off of ATS then

[edit on 25-2-2009 by darcon]

Most of them really won't get you arrested or fined. They'll think you're crazy but if you're not plotting or anything illegal, then it's not a big deal.

You can go brag about how high you get every night right to the face of the entire police squad and they won't fine or arrest you.

Maybe more censoring would be a good idea, but I know that mods are getting tired of having to warn and delete posts in virtually every drug-related thread.

They would need to appoint a lot more mods and supermods just because of this single issue. If they don't want to, it's up to them.

Guys we could just try it and if everyone stops complaining and follows the rules and people ask really nicely and don't talk about personal use, then it could work. And you would still be able to discuss the "war on drugs" but you would have to do it responsibly.

I think that's fair.

reply to post by Kernel Korn


Well the Kernel can think what he wants, the fact of the matter is, that this sort of ban is a very big issue, both for the posters and Owners.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


And it prohibits the good apples from not posting their informative views at all, why can't you see at all that ATS has completely went against their motto "Deny Ignorance" by banning this subject alltogether just because of a few people.

Their is TONS to learn about the conspiratorial side of drugs, but yet the owners apparently don't think it's too important.

reply to post by Reddupo


Right but if people are talking about how they get it, and if they sell it, or lace it, or whatever... you are taking a risk. Like, you are. Remember that whole pornography thing? If you're underage and were talking about how much you loved porn, then you're taking a risk.

I mean, a more serious risk than on other issues.

If you're going to talk about how much you love getting high every night, you shouldn't even be on here, you should join one of those other sites that have free membership and don't have someone like me who will argue with you. (I mean "you" very generally, not necessarily you personally)

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Guys we could just try it and if everyone stops complaining and follows the rules and people ask really nicely and don't talk about personal use, then it could work. And you would still be able to discuss the "war on drugs" but you would have to do it responsibly.

I think that's fair.

That is extremely fair. I want that more than anything. But according to these new rules, we can't discuss the war on drugs responsibly, because the extremely trustful, virtuous government says it is illegal.

Originally posted by Springer
Shortly after our failed experiment began, we noticed an increase in the number of people who seek only disruption, use insults and immature, snide remarks when interacting their fellow members.

Then why not just deal with these users instead of the topic itself?

Personally i've never spoken about this topic nor do I care to.
But at the same time, I don't feel this is a mature way to deal with the issue.

Alcohol is a mind-altering substance, so we can't speak of that either?
Just asking

reply to post by Uniceft17


I'm not 100% sure that they won't, in good time, allow mature discussion. They really did try and it didn't work, and I know a few very very good members who did post "user stories" and got warned for it. I wouldn't want them to be banned. I think that there is enough other things to talk about. And like, even with this rule in place, I kind of don't think that any new information will be posted on the issue for a long time. There have been so many threads and opinions on it, and it's not going to change in nature until laws are passed, and the opinions probably won't ever change.

"Shortly after our failed experiment began, we noticed an increase in the number of people who seek only disruption, use insults and immature, snide remarks when interacting their fellow members.

It is sadly no coincidence that the number of complaints, and even threads in this forum, about incivility and immaturity rose in number while our failed experiment ran its course. The data shows these topics attract a type of user that is simply not wanted here and detracts from the thousands of interesting and important discussions that happen here everyday. " - Springer

I think that sums it all up. People complained about the religion topics and there was a statement made saying that people who post directly offensive material will be penalized and that entire flaming discussions wouldn't be allowed. If people are uncomfortable or iffy with something being discussed on here, then the topic should be prohibited. You would want the same, perhaps, if you felt very strongly about an issue.

I remember a post about a week ago from a member saying "This reference (not even a discussion, just a reference) to illegal drugs makes me uncomfortable. I feel very uncomfortable, this is against T&C and I am not okay with it." That post really got to me (and no I did not post it). People joined under the conditions that illegal drugs would no be discussed and now some members are upset because that agreement was broken, and it may have been okay if it was all done in a mature manner and all the members posted hypothetically and logically, without personal information.

[edit on 2/25/2009 by ravenshadow13]

reply to post by Maxmars


Not certain if you're speaking of me or not Max, either way I respect your view and appreciate what you say, however just because I'm a new member here does not make me new here, not at all.

I would also offer that if someone has an opinion, seniority should not dictate the validity of said opinion. I've been here for years brother.
I joined again, this time, in part because I realy liked the direction, for the most part, that I saw the discussions turning, now I'm not so sure.

Regardless, your point is taken, mine is made. I haven't decided if I will stay around long this time either, I just hate the censure of legitimate discussion, I thought that's why we were all here, again just my opinion.

Again, not flaming you at all, your point is taken and I take no offense, I hope you don't either.

-peace

PAUSE AND DEEP BREATH





In some regards, the responses in this thread illustrate, in microcosm, the tonality problems we've encountered because of a relaxation of our rules on drug-related topics. However, as has been stated by myself and nearly every other staff member responding in this thread, we fully agree there are important conspiracy and cover-up issues that are part of the universe of drug topics, and it's unfortunate that those discusses devolve into unproductive chaos.

So let's split the difference and figure out, together, if and how we can find a way to reintroduce the topics into discussion on ATS without concern over replies that stray into personal use advocacy.

Long ago, during a similar time of topical turmoil, we initiated the "Deny Ignorance Steering Committee" as a place where concerned members could interact with admin and staff in a candid and productive way. Back in 2004, some interesting initiatives resulted... and many staff members emerged from the early committee members.

Select four or five members who are sincerely concerned about the conspiracy and cover-up stories within drug topics, pharmacology topics, and the "war on drugs." You'd have our commitment that myself and Springer will be involved, as well as at least three other staff members with a similar desire. Within the private DISC form, we'll discuss strategies to get these topics back onto ATS, and if we can agree on a way to do it, we'll do it.

Work together to choose the best member participants, and we'll start immediately.

But it needs to remain clear, that unless and until we collectively agree on a new strategy to discuss these topics on ATS, the no-tolerance rule will remain.





[edit on 25-2-2009 by SkepticOverlord]

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


That's a good idea, but you would need to also include in the committee members who are concerned with such topics being discussed on the website at all (especially regarding insults to people who take mood stabilizing medications, the discussion of personal stories and experiences, and the conflict with the T&Cs when members joined).

I would be happy to be involved in a Drug DISC forum or whatever comes from this. I'm not sure what part I would play, but I am interested in the subject and would like to be involved.

Originally posted by Fiverz
I just fail to see how the site or the staff benefits from having a total block off the topic rather than post-removals. Bad Apple "A" is still gonna try and start threads on the topic, mods are still gonna have to remove them/warn/etc.

I think this is a valid question and here's how I understand it. 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.

Originally posted by chissler
They will no longer be permitted in RATS.

If you peak in the list of topped threads within RATS, there is a recent thread from Bill outlining the stance.

LOL... personally, I am glad to see drug use out of RATS, but I must admit.. the forum will be essentially a ghost town now.

so do we nominate members or do people volenteer or what way do we do this?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord



SO, apologies for the one liner...fair enough, let's give it a try.


[edit on 25-2-2009 by deadbang]

Lets all take a moment to review this thread, we have to nominate someone not biased on both sides of the spectrum.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by Springer
Shortly after our failed experiment began, we noticed an increase in the number of people who seek only disruption, use insults and immature, snide remarks when interacting their fellow members.

Then why not just deal with these users instead of the topic itself?

Personally i've never spoken about this topic nor do I care to.
But at the same time, I don't feel this is a mature way to deal with the issue.

Alcohol is a mind-altering substance, so we can't speak of that either?
Just asking

I tend to hang out in the more "friendly" areas of the site and even there posts get deleted because of bad behavior. Doesnt it happen in all the threads. Is it that much worse in the drug related threads that this policy had to be set?

And as someone pointed out a member pointed out a post that the poster was uncomfortable with the topic. is that not what alert buttons are for. Or perhaps one should stay out of threads that make them uncomfortable.