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: 36
42
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Indeed it is a serious endeavour - this is core ATS people wanting to be involved, so we ( royal "we"
) had better be on the ball in every sense of the word.

Everyone who has kicked up has the chance to show how serious they are - let's not let ourselves down with needless bickering.



[edit on 25/2/2009 by budski]




posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


That's my concern. They may base it off of popularity and not having read this thread, and based on members participation in other threads. I just don't have a good solution, the admins would have to face a lot of controversy for whoever they choose. Maybe we can just narrow it down ourselves one by one?



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I just got home from work, what's going on anyway? Have I missed anything?



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
If the staff shouldn't, we should, and we should do it now.


Rushing the process will not result in fair results.

As it has been said (I can't remember now because my brain is scattered) this can't be decided in an afternoon.

I disagree BH - I think all the membership should be involved. I'm sure there are memebrs who would have LIKED to be involved in this discussion but weren't because they weren't online.

Time people. Time and Patience will yield the most favorable and fair results.

- Carrot

*apparently I failed University English and can't spell

[edit on 2/25/2009 by CA_Orot]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Will the staff pick? I actually think that would be best. Then the "friend" and "popularity" issue would be off the table.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


Yeah...i agree.....I'd like to sift through the names... not rush or pick because they are a kiss-ass or "popular".



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


The more members involved, the less valid this will be. Like see, whaaa just came in here totally confused and asking to read 30 pages before voting is intense.

Really maybe we should just narrow it down one by one. People shouldn't have a say if they don't know what's going on.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Got to say, if nothing else I think quite a few people just got a good education in what the Philly was like in 1776.



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

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Will the staff pick? I actually think that would be best. Then the "friend" and "popularity" issue would be off the table.


No idea. I wish I did. I hate leaving questions unanswered.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I think the staff should, but the concern is that they too will pick their "friends" or the "brownnosers"

It's a no win situation.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


My idea for letting Admin choose is still what I see as the best possible solution.

They won't just be picking people.....they will be picking from the people WE chose. Plus, I would hope they would be less biased than we are (as far as popularity goes), have actual knowledge on the subject, and have a firmer grasp on the kind of people they are choosing (based on reading what we have had to say about this and other topics over time).

In my mind, that is the best way to choose. It's fair. And, they are more likely, in my mind, to listen to the people they pick than the ones we might pick.

[edit on 2/25/2009 by skeptic1]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


ahh it would be the same issue. Just now the burden would be on the mods.

Regardless, Skeptic Overlord said we had to vote.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Here's an idea, just like every election.

Those nominated can decline or accept the offer.

If they accept, they provide reasons why they would be best suited for the positions.

Everyone is eligible to vote, and read those reasons.

Thus creating, a fair election process.


- Carrot



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
If we do vote....Then i will be voting based on the informative and logical post's that i see in this thread.

I dont know anyone well enough to vote any other way.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


I know. I don't thin CA_rot agrees though...
like.. I'm waiting for SO or Springer to step in. He may change his mind, or clarify what he wants. But let's for now try to narrow down the list. Was anyone on the nomination list who does not want to be anymore? Like, let's say you have to be on ATS at least once a day until there is a decision reached. Do you want to put any other restrictions on it?

[edit on 2/25/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
re-open the vote.

there will be NO organization....as is the nature of the internet. the only way to get this done is to

DO IT NOW.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


Ok, so our task is now to decide who are the 5 most qualified participants of this thread to hash this issue out with the administration. Who are the 5 most qualified to guide us to the most neutral compromise possible. Who are the 5 that can actually identify our valid concerns, and do all this on behalf of the rest of us.

Who are the final five?



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


That is the issue though. Everyone deserves a chance ot vote, this effects everyone. Problem is, it is intense reading 30 pages before voting, so we might get people just voting, and don't even know what they are voting for. Or voting for their friends, instead of who is applicable. These are all issues we need to deal with.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by darcon]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 





Benev, if we're going to wait, can you please make it clear that there will be no more nominations and that the nominations were based off of the first however many pages of this thread?


This is a joke in itself... so because someone showed up late to the thread, which may be because of their time zone, they are going to be prevented from having a voice on a committee that decides on something this significant. This thinking prevents me from thinking that your a good choice. Even with you coming up with one of the original ideas.

Think like a democratic system people..... You are using the voting thoughts of the US government now people....

Are you going to decline votes from people with below a certain amount of points too? what about the people that create accounts within the day or two of this vote?

You guys are a joke to this committee already...



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
People shouldn't have a say if they don't know what's going on.


More time. Some people don't know whats going on, because they aren't here or haven't been here yet. What about the international users? The ones who are SLEEPING right now? Is it fair to withold their right to vote?

No, it isn't.

Sorry, but I think the membership needs more time with this.

- Carrot



new topics




 
42
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join