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

page: 50
42
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
The problem is just as it has always been.Anytime you try to have mature topical intercourse.There are those that can't resist being childish and vindictive.

I have interest in hemp,the possible uses for energy and material manufacturing.However it can't be discussed without devolving into a smoking drug rant.

I find myself astonishedly in favor of this move.Until people can treat the subject as adults,it is best left alone.




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Listen people, were trying to make the list smaller.

Skeptic Overlord has given us, we the people, a responsibility in choosing 5 nominees.

I'm fine with new nominations, but the people on the nominee list, have to be on ATS regularly, should know little bit about this subject(illegal substances), and has to be willing to make an effort. Yes this committee might be dealing with other subjects too, but remember why we are forming this committee in the first place to make a compromise about this whole BAN on drugs situation.

I look at the current list, and i know there are some people who do not fit the bill. I am not going to name names, you know who you are.

I have stepped down, because I honestly think there are better people for the job. People who know a bit more about the subject. Sure i am on ATS everyday, and i am not Biased on the subject either(you can check my posts if you do not believe me), but the fact of the matter is, the list is getting too big, and there are better people for the job.

It is sad that we have to see people like Reddupo or Benevolent heretic Stepping down, both of those people would have been perfect on the committee.

As this list gets bigger, it will only get more complicated and confusing.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Here is the opening post I put into the D.I.S.C. forum.
This will help prospective member participants to better understand the problem before we begin examining possible solutions.

 



The problem we face with suffering drug-related topics in the forums is multifaceted, and has been ongoing for years. The same issues apply to hacking and sexual topics, however, the recent influx in vocal proponents of drug topics has made the topic difficult to avoid, and support at the same time.

The core issues are three-fold...


Internet Filtering:

Our first, and still important, reason for refusing drug-related topics has been concern over the automatic categorization of the ATS domain by Internet filtering software. In some respects, our now massive scale (nearly 7 million posts, 2+ million distinct pages, and 3 million monthly visits) has mitigated some of the potential problems this might pose for ATS accessibility. However, it is still a concern -- and we need to be mindful that this was a significant factor in our ability to grow to our current size.

Those who enjoy casting aspersions will assume the policies were to line our pockets as traffic and ad revenue grew. However, a minor amount of research will show that the policy was put in place long before any advertising appeared on the forums. The original goal was to ensure that as many people as possible would have access to the topics discussed by our members.

Today, it's unlikely that our entire domain would receive an "automatic score" that would harm access to the entire site -- but still possible, and needs to remain a concern. However, it's much more likely that individual pages or entire threads will be filtered. And, the possibility exists that exuberant system admins at schools, libraries, and businesses may opt to restrict our entire domain based on data from filtered pages.


Invasion of the Stoner Thread Snatchers:

This is the cause of our recent decision of no-tolerance. Our staff has the luxury of a bird's-eye-view of the forums that few members are able to notice. Over the past several months, we've noticed a disconcerting rise in the number of drug-related threads that are nothing more than thinly-vieled attempts to inject druggie culture into ATS discussion. Additionally, on more than one occasion, our staff has spotted online discussions by disruptive detractors, organizing to do just that -- screw with ATS by spamming drug topics. Over the past 10 days, a startling rise in gratuitous drug chatter occurred, prompting our behind-the-scenes discussion, which resulted in: A) a unanimous decision that drastic change was needed, and B) a very-close-to-unanimous decision to enforce a no-tolerance policy, even knowing the drama it will cause (and now, has caused).

We've seen first hand, in many more cases than members would normally be aware, an impossible-to-manage number of immature stoner comments in threads on drug related topics. We've seen both public and private complaints from thread-starters that the stoner replies are ruining what should be a good thread. The analogy I used previously in this thread is apt: Drug-related topics, of any kind, are like a bright porch light that attracts the wrong kind of moths to fly about and irritate us... they're impossible to kill as more will come... they fly about and pester everyone... it's impossible to enjoy the porch... they ruin the fun everyone is having on the porch... and the only sure solution is to turn off the light.

Four years ago we killed the "Political Mud Pit" which was a no-holds-barred forum for wide-open political debate and mud slinging. At first, it was an engaging concept, but eventually the rancor grew horrible, and it spilled over into other threads and forums. Even though we tried to contain the mud-slinging in one forum, it ended up setting an intolerable tone across all forums. We cut out the cancer by killing the forum and strictly enforcing a political trolling rule. We didn't kill political discussion, but we severely penalized partisan sniping... and things quickly improved... and the more intense political trolls moved to other sites. The drug-related topics are somewhat different, but this illustrates how one forum or one type of topic can cause spill-over into the board at large.

I'd prefer to be able to discuss conspiracies, cover-ups, and ill-conceived government policies as it relates to drugs. I'd also prefer to be able to discuss how some currently illicit bit inexpensive drugs are being vilified by big pharma with government support. But it has become impossible to do so without our staff being overwhelmed with whacking stoner moles at the detriment of being able to devote appropriate time to other topics.


Google Brings Fifty to Seventy New Members Every Day:

Here is our ultimate problem. No matter how hard we work right now to solve topical or tonality problems in the forums, we encounter a relatively high pace of new members every day. The majority of new members discover ATS via search, become enthralled with one or more topics, and choose to join in the hope of participating. If we discover a solution to supporting discussion of drug-related topics in the coming weeks or months, we also need to ensure that solution applies to new members as they encounter those topics on ATS. The cycle is vicious and well-known to our staff, and here is a relevant sequence of events as an example...
-1- user finds ATS drug topic
-2- user joins and becomes a member
-3- new member posts about personal use of drugs
-4- staff takes action
-5- new member gets pissed, claims we suppress freedom of speech
-6- staff takes more action
-7- new member gets more pissed
-8- new member is banned
-9- new member creates more accounts to complain and disrupt

Any solution that re-introduces drug-related topics to ATS must also address this problem, or we're right back to where we are now -- one topic resulting in issues that occupy an inordinate percentage of our staff's time.



So there you have it... a more detailed and candid look at our problem.

We (ATS) solved how to have a very large discussion venue with a relatively small amount of the flaming and gratuitous sniping seen nearly everywhere else. As difficult as that was to make happen, I believe this -- supporting serious discussion of drug-related issues while discouraging the stoner moths -- will be much, much harder.


I now leave this in the hands of our members who are concerned about finding a way to support these topics. Select someone to organize the effort of picking no more than six total members (five plus the leader) to participate in the D.I.S.C. brainstorming.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I recommend a separate thread with these links and a post from each member wishing to participate on the committee explaining their intentions for doing so.

Springer's Post.

Skeptic Overlord's Post.

Latest Nominee List.

Skeptic1's Summary Thread.

DISC Purpose.

An appropriate response date and voting window should then also be announced.




[edit on 26-2-2009 by loam]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
OK, I'd like to propose Schrodingers Dog to head this up - if he's willing.

I have rarely come across a more level headed member - especially one who is willing to give up their time and find a solution to this minefield, without being partisan about it.

[edit on 26/2/2009 by budski]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Well, someone has to organize it, who's it gonna be?

I do not know Schrodingers Dog, so i can't realy vouch for him.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 





I say Skeptic1 myself.....

[edit on 26/2/09 by blupblup]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Im still wondering who nominated me to be on that list. Im thinking...

1) Someone who thought it would be funny.

2) Someone who thought I would be able to help.

I would love to be able to help this new DISC initiative if possible. It will be a challenging subject and I wonder if there is a possible solution that would allow such topics to be discussed without the need for people to put their own personal use stories into the mix.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
#####WHY IS THE CHAT CLOSED????#######

sorry, but i am confused about it




Nia the Panda



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Is NyQuil mind altering? Are we allowed to discuss that? Did I just discuss it? Is discussing and discussion legal?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Well, one person who has been helping from the beginning, had been Benevolent Heretic.

Either Benevolent Heretic or Skeptic1

The problem with this is, were going to be sitting here for another two days, just trying to figure out who is going to organize this thing.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by NightVision
 


NyQuil is about 50 proof
Mind altering yes, but in a more alcoholic way. Plus NyQuil is legal.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by darcon
Well, one person who has been helping from the beginning, had been Benevolent Heretic.

Either Benevolent Heretic or Skeptic1



Totally agree...

And as has been mentioned about butt-kissers/brown-nosers... we don't need them involved.
Those two you listed are perfect IMO.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


Yes those are the two i think would be best for organizing this thing.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I personally can vouch for Schrodinger's Dog - and for Skeptic1...

...if either of them are wanting to do it



- Carrot
(Any updates on the voting and such yet?)



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Benevolent Heretic

No better person than the above IMHO.... I know that for a fact, She was very helpful to me and has shown in her posts an example of how we should all strive to participate here.

I haven't read through the whole thread, but I am wondering can a forum like RATS? be set up for the discussion of "drug conspiracies" that would require payment in points and a minimum of posts or contributions to ATS?

3,000 points and a minimum of 300 posts?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Hey, sorry to but my nose in on this but, why dont you super or who ever is even in charge create an active poll with the names that you all are mentioning, then you just tally the votes and bobs your uncle. Or should i just phone bush up to manage this, since he does come on this from time time.


[edit on 26-2-2009 by tristar]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by darcon
 


I think both Benevolent Heretic and Reddupo (sp?) had removed themselves from consideration, but those are the two I would have recommended to head it.

schrodinger's dog would be good too, though I'm not 100% sure he would want it.

 


edit:

also, I agree with loam about having a new thread with statements by members who are interested in being on the committee.

And, just a thought: How about putting Benevolent Heretic in charge of the picking the committee process, but not actually on the committee, if she would be up for that?

[edit on 2/26/09 by americandingbat]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by CA_Orot
 


Not many updates either than S O's new post. Voting is what i think were going to do, once we decide on who is going to organize it.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
reply to post by darcon
 


I think both Benevolent Heretic and Reddupo (sp?) had removed themselves from consideration, but those are the two I would have recommended to head it.

schrodinger's dog would be good too, though I'm not 100% sure he would want it.


Correct me if i am wrong, but i believe we are choosing someone to organize the vote?

Benevelont and Reddupo removed themselves from nomination.





new topics
top topics
 
42
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join