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: 57
42
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by darcon
 


I realize it's late into the thread and I haven't participated since the first few pages, but I'd like to offer my name into consideration for participation in the management of this new forum. Some of you may not know me, but many of you do.

I think I could help.


I think you'd be great, but you do know it's not management of the rumored new drug forum but participation in the Deny Ignorance Steering Committee to try and come up with a solution to the drug problem, right?

and @Darcon: I scanned the pages after I came in and the only other name I found who wanted to be considered was Ridhya

I could have missed someone though.




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by darcon
 


So why don't we do this, if everyone is amiable.

Everyone who is on the updated list, U2U six names to BH by midnight tonight.


Would that give all of us enough time to sort it out?

If not, we can leave nominations open until midnight tonight and vote by tomorrow night.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Which is what I meant.




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Nominations!

Maxmars
Cutwolf
Whatukno
CavemanDD
ToTheTenthPower
DocGonzo
Frankidealist35
Daystar
Ahabstar
Anok
Loam
Jasonjnelson
tyranny22
omega85
ravenshadow13
Saviour Complex
spliff4020
N Tesla
Schrodingers Dog
Skeptic1
Amaterasu
Budski
Americandingbat
Ridhya



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
SO, why in the world do you need to involve any members in that decision when:

1) The mods are technically members first

2) It is the mods who have to police the resulting threads

3) The mods themselves have been chosen for their ability to act impartially across a whole range of issues, not just the drug issue

4) And the fact that there are plenty of them

5) The mods are a very smart group of people who will no doubt come up with a solution that can work on their own

???

And won't a separate forum for the issue just add to the already numerous topics already on the board about it, as well as increase the amount of posts the mods have to police?

No comprendo. As a private discussion board I feel that:

1) You have the right to stop discussions of this issue with no other explanation given. The board still provides so many other forums for so many other topics, I just assume let the "moths" go somewhere else anyway.

2) If you really must involve the members to hash this out in DISC, then you guys (staff/mods) pick them. Why wouldn't you pick them? You pick the mods without member input, right? So why would this be any different? Invite the best 5 or 6 you see fit. Or at least set up some kind of voting system, because as it stands, the free-for-all nomination system is going to drag on for days without resolve....

Lol, ok I am done. If I never see another drug topic in my life I could care less.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by darcon
 


Am I no longer a viable choice?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 




What if we make a 24 or 28-hour voting window? Say, now to 4PM Eastern on Friday?

Oh, and I still think it might be a good idea to have BH post the votes after the voting is over so members can see who the nominees voted for



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Well, someone should start a new thread or something, or at least contact B H, that would be funny, all of a sudden she comes online, with like 50 U2U's



Perhaps someone should contact S O, and tel him the vote is on or someting, i don't know, i am just throwing ideas out there before we vote.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I think that we should narrow down the list as best we can and then vote somehow in the next 3 days if admin isn't going to decide. I really do agree that those who aren't actively involved in this thread maybe shouldn't be considered, because it has been 24 hours, and with the chat closing... I think that this is an issue that needs to be taken care of sooner rather than later. So I suggest first removing the nominees who are on the fence or who have not shown any interest or more discussion or suggestions in this thread than either self-nominating or complaining. So I think perhaps we should rank by contribution and reasoning right now. (So that means taking out the people who have said this is a stupid policy and unfair and I have no real other reason to be on a committee besides to yell at the staff.)

I think we could cut it down ourselves. Like, I will back down if people want me to, but I don't really want to. It just doesn't make sense, I mean a lot of us are really just supporting the same thing.

Even though I still think the staff should decide. It would be so much easier/faster and I know they would pick a fair representation.

[edit on 2/26/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
This is stupid, making a big deal out of nothing, why cant the offending people just be banned rather than banning the entire subject and any thing got to do with it?

Censorship of any kind is wrong and this is the last site on the internet i expected to see it



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
What no riggorous vetting process? What about a staff confirmation hearing? Where potential comitee members are grilled for an extended period of time on the subject by the staff.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by darcon
 


Something must be done differently I think. With the amount of people on that list, and the amount of people still active in this thread, it's very possible we could end up with a lot more than 6 people getting the same amount of votes.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


wait, which kind of voting are we doing, are we doing the "Nominees Voting each other" Or "Everyone voting for the Nominees"



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Sometimes while trying to have everybody happy, things just gets more complicated.

Creating a new assortment of options to members to chose from and have come out with creative ideas sometimes is like giving to much choice to children from the children's menu, they are never going to make up their mind.

The board needs to make its own decision and stick to it.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Well, this has grown since last night.


Catching up, it looke like BH is heading up the voting process and the nomination list has been thinned out a bit.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


I agree the list needs to be shorter. I just don't know how this is going to work. One thing is for sure, we can not sit here bickering for 5 days about how this is going to be done. We need to do it soon.

Is everyone in agreement that we must chisel down the nominee list?

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by darcon
 


Perhaps we should pick one person to choose five others themselves from the list.

We decide now who the "team leader" will be, and leave it up to them to pick the other 5. No voting.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by darcon
 


nominees voting for each other I think.

But giving it a deadline would mean that we could also weed out any nominee who hasn't voted by then.

Couple questions: would we be able to include ourselves in our votes, and how do people feel about having the votes made public afterward?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by darcon
 


I really, really just wish the administration should do it or we narrow it down to only the nominees who have participated in this thread more than once. It might be over 6 but it may cut it in half.

Like, it's harsh, but ... if you know the thread is here and you're on the list and you're not trying, then...



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Game set match... the stoners win.

Is there some kind of covert agenda to bring down ATS by repeatedly pushing the drug issues here?

I say you revert back to the original opening post and stand by it.

Unless..

Is there a way to possibly have a thread flagged as a drug discussion where the staff can closely monitor that discussion and once flagged all posts added to that discussion are withheld from public view pending staff approval of the post? Like what I believe you do now with anonymous posts??

If a submitted post is not within the rules, or terms and conditions no one ever sees it.

You do that, and after enough failed attempts to derail a legitimate drug discussion the stoners will give up and go away.

Just a thought.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join