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: 49
42
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot
I object too, hold your horses, people need a chance to read this.


We are holding.
We are waiting for the staff to review the thread and come up with the next move.

For those reading this thread, here is Skeptic Overlord's post on a possible solution:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is another post of Skeptic's that I think is important:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Since then, we have been nominating people to be on a possible Steering Committee, which is simply a group of people who interact closely with staff about issues and ideas on a possible new forum in which to discuss illegal substances.

Below is the current list of nominees, but it's entirely too big, as Skeptic called for 4-5. I think there are some people on this list who clearly should be on the Committee: Those who have been highly involved in discussions of drug legalization, medicinal use and drug conspiracies. From what I have read, I think there are 4-5 people who fit that bill. If we could "weed them out", I think we could have our committee.

I believe the ones I have bolded below are such people, but I'm not sure. Members darcon, pieman and I have removed our names from the list in order to start to shrink it, but there are still far too many.

I don't know if there will be a "vote" or not, but if we could come up with 4-5 people to agree on, then we might be able to do away with a "vote". Has there ever been a "vote" for steering committees? If so, I'm not aware of it.

I would just like to mention that this committee is a job that holds responsibilities. It's a commitment. And I'd like to invite people who haven't been that involved in drug discussions in the past to think about withdrawing their name from the list in order to pare it down to the ones who are most highly involved in this subject. It's JUST a suggestion. But I think the best way to get a good group of people dedicated to the subject is to put forth a group who is already highly involved and interested in it.

Reddupo
Maxmars
Cutwolf
Whatuknow
CavemanDD
ToTheTenthPower
DocGonzo
Frankidealist35
Daystar
Unit541
Ahabstar
Anok
Loam
Jasonjnelson
tyranny22
omega85
ravenshadow13
Saviour Complex
spliff4020
N Tesla
Schrodingers Dog
Skeptic1
Amaterasu
AllTiedTogether
budski
americandingbat

This is a thread that talks about the previous "Deny Ignorance Steering Committee" or DISC. I'm not saying it will be the same this time, IF it happens, but it gives you an idea.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

If anyone wants to have their name taken off the list, please let me know.

Thanks.


[edit on 26-2-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
So, if we find something offensive we can request en-mass that it be banned?

Is that how the "drug ban" came into play?

believe me, I'm the last to post on drugs... and I never read the posts that are about drugs... (there are alot... RATS really stands for "Really About THC and Smoking")

However, if this was just "decided" by the amigos... than ATS is facist... if this was indeed response to many complaints... that makes this a "tyranny of the majority".

Can we complain enough and ban religious and political rhetoric as well? I imagine thats more offensive to people than drugs...



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   
This is the evolution of a once underground website that has gone mainstream. It happens all the time. Just like many great bands in music history. Once you hit the mainstream you are just as good as yesterday's newspaper.

Personally, I didn't join ATS to discuss the ins and outs of drugs and why cannabis should be legalized etc. Therefore, banning the discussion of illicit substances is fine by me. This is a free market, isn't it? The site owners don't want to be a part of that and that is their right.

Maybe we will see fewer bizarre threads that have been created by those on acid trips.

If you don't like it go somewhere else or subscribe to High Times.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


hrm...

"our staff" excludes Simon Gray on both counts...

Guess that just adds to the speculation..



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
you can put me down as someone who'd be willing to help out on a drug realted forum of ATS (if that's what the list up thar is)

I'm an ex addict, and could possibly bring some helpful information to any topic of discussion about addiction and help with getting over an addiction.


Also have several friends who are community drug workers, who are always willing to help me out if there's something that needs a more profesional opinion.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


hi, am not very important but I am all for this, and I am cool with your choices only if americandingbat or another torkysh female completes the 4-5. For Balance



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Below is the current list of nominees, but it's entirely too big, as Skeptic called for 4-5. I think there are some people on this list who clearly should be on the Committee: Those who have been highly involved in discussions of drug legalization, medicinal use and drug conspiracies. From what I have read, I think there are 4-5 people who fit that bill. If we could "weed them out", I think we could have our committee.



Benevolent Heretic:

Thanks for adding my name to the list, and Ahabstar thanks for nominating me



Reading through the thread, I got the sense that this steering committee would not just be to address how drug legalization should be handled, and that it might even end up involved in completely non-drug-related questions about the steering of ATS.

Moreover, as has come up several times in this thread, some of the most concerning issues related to the new drug policy have to do with how to handle drug-related facets of other conspiracies.

And I imagine part of what's at stake is the image of ATS – preserving our willingness to address controversial topics but also preserving our image as a site where such topics get treated seriously and with respect.

I'm hoping that we'll get some more sense of how the staff would like us to proceed today or tomorrow, after they've had a chance to plough through all the feedback and ideas from yesterday and discuss it amongst themselves. I don't think we should be rushing anything though.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Definitely americandingbat at the top of the list - thankyou for your clear overview of the importance of this topic and your willingness to dedicate full interest, and your time for a good cause - I trust your competance.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
This is a thread that talks about the previous "Deny Ignorance Steering Committee" or DISC for ATS as a whole. I'm not saying it will be the same this time, but it gives you an idea.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

I'd be up for helping your committee. I mean I dont want there to be a huge influx of "Was Jesus flipping high lol" threads or anything, but I highly disagree with the zero-tolerance policy. Possibility of banning for a passive mention is ridiculous. Just more censorship. And why single that topic out, why nothing else? The way I see it:

-If its about legality, but a disclaimer at the bottom of the site
-If its about people not being civil in those forums, there are uncivil people everywhere, why discriminate against one topic?
-If some people just find it offensive, well, EVERY topic is offensive to some people
-If its about looking good for the web browsers... well there are a ton of topics I can think of that would turn people away from the site before drugs


[edit on 26-2-2009 by Ridhya]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
It is so very simple
why not just prohibit "recreational" drug oriented threads and posts...Very firmly!!!



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


withdraw my name please.

i hope this all works out and we get a decent section for the subject, because we need one, but this DISC thing is getting way too convoluted for me.

besides, the nominations were all very off hand and secondary to the discussion taking place when they were made, it wasn't really the best way for us to go about it, in retrospect.
disorganized democracy is just a head-ache.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ridhya
I'd be up for helping your committee.

Please understand, this is not MY committee. I'm just keeping track of names.
That's my only involvement.

If you want to be on the committee, please read the three links in my post at the top of page 49 to understand what the committee is and understand that Skeptic is asking for ONLY 4-5 people, so I'm actually trying to make the list smaller.

Then, if you still want to nominate yourself, I'll put you on the list.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
The response from the membership on this issue has been astounding. I suspect SO had no idea what he was getting into when he decided to make the ban.
The inconsistencies in administration's reasoning is equally astounding. The longer this discussion has gone on, the more convinced I am that I/we have absolutely no idea what is really behind this.
Only thing that I am reasonably sure about is that it is not any of the things that we have been told.

The more these guys react, the deeper in doo-doo they seem to get. lol
Now there will be a committee for them to deal with. Good gracious. This is entertainment.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Bad news. While back Reddupo wanted his name taken off, which is a shame, he ws one of the people i truly wanted on the committee.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacecowgirl
Good move. So pleased druggies cannot gloat here about how tough they are and do their "Look at me I am such a bad a**" . It is truly pathetic to still see grown men and women thinking it is cool to take drugs. Boooooring! So very boring and annoying.
Good for ATS to take this action, well done.


Well, think what you may, but there are many here, that are fighting for something. That something isn't about Druggies Gloating. It is a about being able to have a a discussion about Drugs with out getting banned, and being able to discuss the many Conspiracies involving drugs. Yes those types of comments are what got us here in the first place, but many have been able to have intelligent conversations about this sort of topic.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by dean007
 


There is going to be a compromise, read the update.


I just hope they come through. I wonder if they are discussing this issue now.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by bloodcircle...
And it's pure argument for argument sake to muddy the waters even if you're wearing a frustration suit.



What's that they say about walking a mile in someone elses shoes? It's not argument for the sake of argument. What "muddy's the waters" is when excuses are created to close threads, when no violations of the T & C are present, or the T & C are not enforced and applied uniformly across a range of topics.

Maybe the first time you create a thread, taking extra care not to violate any rules, and are left scratching your head wondering why it was immediately closed anyway, you'll get it. Nobody here is arguing for the sake of arguing. The regulations as they pertain to this issue are ambiguous enough to make it impossible to determine whether what you've posted will be allowed to remain or not.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 



...and a FAILED, many month long, experiment to see if these topics could be discussed in a mature, "NO user story" manner...


No experiment can be said to be a failure. What you have learned makes it a success.

I applaud the effort on the management and staff of this site to try wholeheartedly to embrace and allow the content to be discussed. It's unfortunate that some cannot for some reason discuss these issues without resorting to on line confessions of personal use.

It is unfortunate, but understandable that this inevitable consequence had to occur. But I don't see this as a failure by any stretch of the imagination. I see this however as a successful experiment. You have proved that this sort of topic cannot be discussed in a mature and non self incriminating way.

I say a valiant effort, and a successful experiment put to rest.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Not yet my friend. There seems to be a compromise in the works, or so i hope.


They want to form some sort of committee.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join