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: 17
42
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


I agree that I think stricter moderation would really help.

I mean what.. they want to avoid comments like "yeahhh man I burn one every day, i'm blazin' right now man!"....

If they want to avoid that, they could just implement some policy, with flexibility I hope.. that you post something constructive, or you post nothing.

I mean this is why they introduced the one line rule which people work around. The idea was that you don't fill the board with like back and forth statements like simple agreeances without any reason etc.

I would kind of rather see it all lumped into one forum for the reason that many drugs cover many categories.

In an example of what I was saying:

Some tribal drugs - spirituality + medical + psychadelic

So its kind of like 3 in one you know?

And you know how damn useful hemp is.

You can talk about healing aspects of marijuana as some would claim.

And not even drugs specifically. I see some topics on this board that could be lumped together, like a forum for "New World Order" and "General Conspiracy".. they can almost be the same you know?

I'd like people to get all the information on a certain topic, without having it scattered into categories.

If it covers many areas that it should be posted as such, and I believe this to be the case with many drugs.

Like as much as there could be a pile of threads about why people think its ok to do this drug etc.. I think there could be a fair amount relating to the dangers and benefits of staying clean on medical, spiritual..and plain general level.


Its diverse.. which is why I'm just saddened that its difficult to talk about.

But I think with stricter moderation it shouldnt be much of a challenge. I mean if you need more staff, you probably got people jumping with their arms raised for a position.

Forum cops.




posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I personally find the oath to be redundant.

Put a sticky at the top of the forum clarifying the pertinent aspects of the TOS and perhaps laying some ground rules for what is and isn't tolerated.

If you act like a jerk, you're gone for awhile. Not just from the Drugs forum, but from ATS.

[edit on 2-25-2009 by Cutwolf]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by darcon
 


In the Bully Pulpit, we had to agree to/sign a specific public oath and list of rules and regulations. It was a serious forum with strict rules.



[edit on 2/25/2009 by skeptic1]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


I think many agree, but it is not up to us, we can give our opinions, and suggestions. It is essentially up to the staff.

With that being said, I agree with the suggestion, that a War on Drugs Topic should be made. Also with the bully pulpit style oath.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22

I don't see what the big problem is. Lay down the T&C and if anyone violates it by mentioning their own experiences, delete the post.

. . . and draw a courtesy arrow.

---------> www.bluelight.ru...



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
OK, I finished 12 pages, and every time I click for a new page, I'm still the same amount of time between now and the post times.... so here goes:

I disagree completely with this decision, because it further reduces the amount of topics that can be discussed.

I understand the liability issues that could stem from discussions of illegal drug use (I do not understand the mentality of someone who wants to 'brag' about such activities).

I do not normally participate in threads concerning personal drug use, as they simply do not interest me. I also don't care what you had for breakfast.

What I do care about, and my immediate concern, is where the line is to be drawn. The phrase used is 'no tolerance'. So is that no tolerance to any mention of drug use by anyone? So far, it would appear so to me. That then removes the topic of the border with Mexico, because we all know there is a major ***censored*** going on there. Suppose a drug that is legal becomes illegal? Now do we have to immediately stop referring to it at all? What about someone who didn't realize it had been declared illegal? What if an old thread gets bumped up again with one of those AnonymousATS posts? Will/could the original author get a warn or docked for posting the thread in the first place? Speaking of AnonymousATS, if someone from that account tries to twist an otherwise acceptable thread into a drug thread, would that get the thread deleted?

Terrorist activity financing is also off topic, because they regularly get their financing from ***censored***. I'm sure you get my point here. The idea of absolutely no reference to illegal drugs is going to make it a lot harder to post the whole truth of an issue. Now, look, it's your site, your servers, your scripts, your deal. But this does worry me, and if the opinions of your posters means anything at all, I would like to go down as opposing this (just as I had severe concerns over the political rules that were in effect last year).

Please, I'm not trying to be obtuse, but can we get some clarification on the 'no tolerance' thing? I mean, I would hate to get banned because I posted a link that showed ties between finances of an organization and illegal drug trading... but then again I would hate to have that information and not be able to share it. Isn't that sharing of info a large part of what ATS does/is?

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
Maybe a special forum with dedicated Mods is the answer. But, I am not sure how to keep the immature posters out of that forum.


I have an idea; why not have every post submitted for approval before it is posted in to the thread? That way, the descriptions of personal drug use could be weeded out before they are were inserted into a thread.

Or employ the same strict standards on comments in the Media Portal. Each violation your account is suspended with 24 hours and you are put on a three month probation. If there are any more violations (1, 2, 3...pick a number) your account is canceled.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


i think that is good. Especially with this topic. No Silly posts and bull.
I just dont want to see a BAN on Drugs in this Site, like many Admins and Owners, Posters and onlookers.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by darcon]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by tyranny22
 


I'm not pieman, but this is what I had in mind. If a person wants entry, they send a U2U to somebody. That somebody them replies with something like,



Discussion of illegal activities; specifically the personal use of illegal substances, is strictly forbidden in this forum. The first time you discuss personal use of illegal drugs, your membership in the forum will be revoked. You will also not link to sites that contains discussion of such material.

Please indicate that you have read and agree to these rules and entry will be granted.


Something like that.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by ANOK
 



The difference being, in most other threads, people aren't going on about how much fun it was to get "so totally blasted, man" on whatever their drug of choice is.

These people are, or rather were, in the minority. That much is true. But it doesn't take many to ruin it for everyone else.


I could have picked any of a number of posts to reply, so this is not personal Seagull.

I really don't get it, sorry.

Mods are there to delete and edit posts that contravene T&C and do so wonderfully throughout ATS. How come they are so incapable of managing threads that discuss drugs?

What's the difference between a personal insult and a drug story? Both contravene T&C, both are frequent and persistent, both can be moderated.

This rule does not make sense, based on the stated reasoning, IMHO.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by CavemanDD
 


When I argue the drug thing with my boyfriend, he gives the same exact evidence and debate that you do. So I totally, totally understand. And people should be allowed to talk about it.

A sticky reminder above the top of the thread is an awesome idea. And my proposal, revised:

First offense- post removed, red tag warning, and point reduction.
Second offense- Ban from the board
Third offense or any other violation of the T&C with or without the mention of drugs- Post ban and is sent to be considered for permanent ban.

Everyone still agree with the strictly moderated board for illicit drug use and more moderation for the medical board for things like prescribed marijuana (does it work, how hard should it be to get prescribed... not "if they get it, why don't I?") and Prozac (without insults to the people who take it legally for a psychological disorder)



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by skeptic1
Maybe a special forum with dedicated Mods is the answer. But, I am not sure how to keep the immature posters out of that forum.


I have an idea; why not have every post submitted for approval before it is posted in to the thread? That way, the descriptions of personal drug use could be weeded out before they are were inserted into a thread.


Good idea. That keeps things flowing from the get-go. And, it would keep the member sniping at an almost non-existant level. Kind of along the same lines as the Anonymous posts....if they are not proper, they never get allowed at all.


[edit on 2/25/2009 by skeptic1]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1


Maybe a special forum with dedicated Mods is the answer. But, I am not sure how to keep the immature posters out of that forum.





A preemptive restriction of posters is not the way to go.

Implement a one-strike policy: You violate the rules, you are banned from ATS.

And then on top of that, you can add levels...1st offense a week, 2nd offense a month, 3rd offense lifetime.

[edit on 2-25-2009 by Cutwolf]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


Well, right. And more moderators (10, I think is good to start) would be able to delete any post automatically as soon as they see it, and if something is alerted it should be considered for deletion. It would have a really long lag to preapprove all posts, but that's for the staff to decide because it would mean there would basically need to be at least 2 or 3 mods on at any given time.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CavemanDD
 

I agree that there is valid discussion in personal use for spiritual reasons, but I am not sure how to effectively implement a standard that differentiates between constructive and just talking about getting high. That is such a fine line and hard to moderate.

I am fine with the War on Drugs forum being devoted to legality, related news coverage, debates on health effects of use, .etc. No personal anecdotes.

The more liberty the better, but there has to be a compromise with whatever the admins say.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by Reddupo]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by kcfusion
I think you are well aware of the fact that the quailty/attraction of Site content is directly connected to advertising value.

Please... what value is there in "9/11 Truth" topics to mass-media advertisers? To most people, the idea of a "9/11 Inside Job" is much more unsavory than drug use.

Actually... once could easily argue, with logic, that given the current cultural conditions and Internet meme surround these topics, we'd gain traffic by continuing to support drug-related topics.



I sure as hell would not want to be seeing some of the stuff that comes up in Drug related threads in anyway connected with my product. This is a simple fact of living in real world.

Actually, online advertisers in the social media space have long since come to terms with the fact that they're not sponsoring the content of a page, much like outdoor billboard advertising is not sponsoring weeds or terrible roads. The advertisers are most concerned with the type and amount of people that visit a given site.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by SkepticOverlord]



Your post is a bit confusing! I think you and I both know, that 911 and other site content is not a concern for Advertisers. Why?? this is why

-----All Of 2008 25,171,095 total visits----- ( I think your under-valueing your site and what its worth in potential advertising revenue )

However we both know that because its a user generated content site that it restricts the type of advertisers that you can sell your slots to. A user generated content site can send alarm bells ringing for advertisers especially if the good old taboo subjects of Drugs and Sex are potential topics been discussed. For this reason we both know that selling the site to advertisers such as - YOU HAVE WON CLICK HERE! will not be concerned with these subjects but someone like NIKE would have a big problem with them!
On the basis of selling advertising you if can basically tell advertisers that site content is heavily monitored and subjects concerning all illicit activities including drug content will be removed immediately! This could sweeten the pie for some of the big more profitable advertisers.
Guess what! I get it! You have turned your hobby into a successful business. One part of you has interests similar to all ATS members, the exploring of theories, known and unknown truths, conspiraces etc ( why else would you have setup this site in the 1st place ) but the other part of you lives in the real world and a business at the end of a day needs to be run like a business!
Denying this is just plain silly but I get the reasons why you would. Its a catch 22. We all know what ATS is about but Im afraid yes in the background it is also about business.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Thats a great idea.


I am sure the staff will review the things we have posted. I am glad were gonna talk this out.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Drugs first and whats next? what other subject matter will be for the chop?
Does this mean I have to change my user name?



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Off the top of my . here is a list of topics that entail some discussion of illicit/mind altering drugs:

1. Crime in America.

2. Political corruption in America.

3. Youth in America.

4. The underground economy.

5. Popular music in America and elsewhere.

6. Sigmund Freud.

7. Exotic religions.

8. Large chunks of American foreign policy.

9. A significant portion of legal and legislative issues.

10. Last but not least, the CIA.

I'll take rudeness over censorship any day.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I think that people should, first, be able to get banned from that forum and not the entire site if the drug issue is the only place where there seems to be a problem. All bans are already brought up among staff and considered, so it would be a personal thing.

Also, who would the U2U be sent to? In the forum I think it would be okay to discuss illegal drug controversies, but personal stories and insults calling others "pot.s" or saying "you don't understand because you're a drug-phobe" would be prohibited. A sticky phrase ontop of the board and it's topics could work just as well as a U2U and would take some pressures off of the staff.




top topics



 
42
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join