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: 74
42
<< 71  72  73    75  76  77 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup

Originally posted by interestedalways

I very much appreciate the intent behind what these members are trying to do. And many have posted well thought out intelligent responses.

But this is like Electoral Votes, and I for one don't feel to happy about that aspect of the political system.
I dunno, either.



Me too, perhaps that came off a little strong.
I apologize guys


It's just frustrating that this is being made up as we go along.... who actually knew we could only vote if we were on the list??

Nobody.... that's just silly.
We all use the site...we ALL deserve a say...


Quoted whole post due to importance!

There is a matter of unfairness. I agree very strongly and I stated it. That initial list was passed to SO in this thread. Apparently he wanted us to hash it out among the members so not to be seen as "staff favoritism". Which was also mentioned.

There was discussion of making a site-wide poll with candidates stating their position. This was also rejected. Ultimately it boils down to which is worse, the trust issue or the whole becoming so clouded by "popularity".

I am not happy by only those selected being able to vote. So what if the top 10 or 15 are re-voted on or selected by the staff? Maybe a top ten, with some of their statements? Would that be better? Or maybe just say "since we can not make everything peachy the ban stays and members that disagree can leave?"

Faced with that, I did vote under protest and offered an option of a re-vote if needed. To me, that seemed to be the most fair without devolution into a popularity contest with upwards of 10000 votes over a month's time.




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
I just hope this matter gets resolved,i think a serious topic such as this shouldn't be rushed,i want good nominees put forward who will do their best for the community,all this back and forth rambling is leading us nowhere.Lizard salvia is soon to be illegal..youtube videos,go figure.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


I agree, from now on, i will just link what O S said, and Link what benevolent said, then finally link was Reddupo said.

All valid points.

Plus i have explained our motives, they are pure, and we just want to find some sort of compromise with this drug Issue.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by blupblup
 


Look, I tried to make it so everyone could vote. The thread was CLOSED.
I proposed what you want to Skeptic Overlord. And I have shown you his response. Your argument is not with me.


I never said it was....but YOU started with me.
Your "what are you complaining about" was a little annoying i must say.
And as i said, if you read my posts, you wouldn't have needed to ask....sorry mock.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by darcon
Evey one take a deep breath, were all fighting here. I thought we were doing a good thing when we decided to go fourth with the vote.


You are doing a good thing here.

And thanks for the time and effort you have put into this.

My understanding is that you were given a short deadline and that is why things went or are going so fast. If it is a chance that will be passed without swift decisions then you had to move fast.

I trust that the membership will be represented. Obviously those of you working hard on this are trying to preserve our freedom to express in a way that works for both staff and members.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I think that's the purpose of the committee – to listen to the desires of the membership and the needs of the administration and try to brainstorm ways to get the members what they want and the admin what they need.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by nj2day
 


But right now the administration is giving a committee a chance. Why not be optimistic and have everyone try their hardest to make it work?

It's really, really not about money.


hehe, you can believe what you want... I was just speaking from a perspective of thread histories...

I'm not saying don't try to make it work... you can do whatever floats your boat. I'm not going to impede that in the least...

I might go through and link prior threads to ya though, just so you can see what I mean...

"warm fuzzies" are the best! right?

Be cautious about getting your hopes up.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 





You have to discuss. You have to know both the motives (as fully as possible and with as much clarity as possible) and limitations before you can come to a conclusion. You dont just come up with a popular solution among committee members that may or may not meet the needs of the owners.


And, that is the point of the committee. To hear from the members and represent them to the owners. And, try to come to a compromise that suits everyone.

Why is that so hard to grasp?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Yeah I really think that more is being made of this voting issue than has to be. Because, like, no decisions are being made. We're just nominating representatives and I 100% promise that whoever is nominated, there will be great variation in personal beliefs. The nominations reach across the spectrum, I really think there are more than enough people on the list, and no matter who is selected by the vote, the top 6 will not be all the same person. There will be pro-legalization, anti-legalization, pro-discussion, anti-discussion, personal stories, and personal disgust with the issue. And if for some reason one group is misrepresented, the administration can decide to change the results to make it fair. It might not be a fair vote, but it can happen anyway. And also, many of us are good debaters and concerned about the quality and freedoms and rights and concerns of EVERYONE on ATS. Whoever is nominated, hopefully, WILL be able to see and argue for the opposite side as well as their own.

If you didn't read every sentence that I just wrote above, I really really suggest that you do.

Again, there are a lot of members who are nominated already. Some do drugs, some don't. Many of us wants to see a separate board made for the illegal drug conversations (not including medicinal or hemp). Some of us don't want it to be discussed at all. And some of us want to be able to talk about it all over the site freely. Everyone is getting at least some votes, and since we all have differing opinions on some things, it's not like it's going to be one sided. I promise you of that. It's going to be a decent mix.


[edit on 2/26/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 

So I've been saying... nobody seems to care.... at least I'm glad I'm not the only one.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by interestedalways
 


Thanks, and i believe we really are trying to represent everyones opinion here. Against and for the drug Topic. Which is why compromising is going to be a very big thing if the committee is formed. If the committee fails and is not made, the we are going to suffer. All drug related topics will be off the table.

I understand why everyone is mad, because a group of members, just like them decided to forward with the voting, while they were off line or doing something else.

I apologize to everyone for that.

But we had to get the ball moving, we tried many different ways of doing this, and we discussed many options. Ultimately once we saw that S O wanted us to move forward, we acted.

I am glad you see our side, but note, i do see everyones side, and why some people are angry.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


oh right on bro! I haven't checked this thread for a couple hours. Totally agree with you everyone should have a say on who is chosen.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


Not only that, but many, probably half on the list are unbiased to the subject.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Let me just make it clear.

I am not attacking any single person here... or what "you" (which should in fact be WE) are trying to do.
I feel strongly about this and feel by just rushing this through and only allowing those on the list to vote....you are missing a trick... and not being fair at all.
THIS is my concern.....

All this "well we tried to do this" and "I've been here form the start of the convo" rubbish??? Whoop di bleeping doo!!!!

So have i and many others who just didn't participate in written form, doesn't mean they don't deserve a say??



[edit on 26/2/09 by blupblup]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by darcon
i dont think i have actually seen benevolent put an exclamation mark in her sentence,


I'm going to withdraw from the discussion for now, too.


I'm really sorry everyone is not pleased, but we really did try to do this in the fairest way possible with the input we had from the Top. It's not perfect, but it's better than a ban.

I agree everyone should have had the opportunity to vote, but in the end, we were told to get a committee together and we did what we could do to make that happen.

IF this committee succeeds, there will be plenty of time to figure out ways to replace members who drop out or there will be term limits and votes for the whole board down the line, But to get it started, this is what we came up with.

Have a good evening, everyone.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Resinveins
reply to post by blupblup
 

So I've been saying... nobody seems to care.... at least I'm glad I'm not the only one.


No you're not mate... and i think this needs sorting out..

Not just ignoring our concerns.....



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


lol night BH...

I don't get why people are so upset either... Its more like "jury duty" than anything special from what I can gather...

being elected to a kangaroo court doesn't carry any sort of "clout" to it that I can foresee...

Ya dun good BH. I wouldn't listen to the angry 1%...



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


If you think you can 100% guarantee the results of any random vote.... you either have some kind of magical precognitive abilities.... know the outcome before hand.... or are sadly mistaken.

Which is it? My money is on the latter.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


The way I figure it, people who are interested in the subject and have read and/or participated in related threads on ATS probably have an idea of who they would trust in the DISC positions.

Now, this vote might be thrown out the window by staff, but at least we (the people who care and are on often) gave it our best shot to gather a group of people as fairly as we could to meet Skeptic Overlord's request in this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Select four or five members who are sincerely concerned about the conspiracy and cover-up stories within drug topics, pharmacology topics, and the "war on drugs." You'd have our commitment that myself and Springer will be involved, as well as at least three other staff members with a similar desire. Within the private DISC form, we'll discuss strategies to get these topics back onto ATS, and if we can agree on a way to do it, we'll do it.




You actually did say that. And nothing in SO's response that you have quoted above seems to indicate "within the hour" or even "within the day" was a necessary time frame.

I am not criticizing anyone for trying to get some concession on this from the owners. And I am glad that you were here, and able to be on in the timeframe that allowed a quick response. But I disagree that there in not now time to make sure that more members get to vote on committee members. Or nominate. Or perhaps come up with a system that has prospective committee members make a statement of their position, so that we know who we are selecting to represent us. Or so that more than the 30 members who happened to be on in the last 24 hours has a chance to have a say in who gets elected?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Bye Heretic,

I agree with what your saying, in the end we tried,




top topics



 
42
<< 71  72  73    75  76  77 >>

log in

join