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: 75
42
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by darcon
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Bye Heretic,

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


No need to be so dramatic about it. All people are asking for is a way to decide fairly who is chosen. Believe it or not there are more people on this site then just the people on the list. I don't think it's asking for that much.




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


SO's response to BH on the voting for the committee via u2u:




The announcement thread has been up for 24 hours. By this time, anyone not providing a substantive commentary within that thread either doesn't care about discussing drugs on ATS, or isn't on ATS all that often. I think the members have their participants within the people who have already contributed (to the thread).


Is the time issue becoming clearer now? This wasn't just us. This was Admin, as well.

It is done. Any tweaking can be done in the future. I hope....

[edit on 2/26/2009 by skeptic1]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Wethesheeple
 


No drama over here, just stating fact is all.


We tried



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Resinveins
 


We wanted the administration to decide and they said no. They're going to have a final say in the outcome whether yall like it or not.

If we do it your way, and let all the members vote, not only would it take a month and not everyone would be informed on the issue, but there would still be an argument and every member on the site would end up nominated, the voting would never finish because even if there were deadlines people would come in the next day saying "this isn't fair, I didn't log online until now and I deserve a say."

If you can think of a better way to do it quickly so that the actual ISSUE can be taken care of, then go right ahead.

It's not about the voting. It's about the issue at hand, and I can't even think of two nominees who think the same exact way about this topic so it will be diverse because we're not all clones.

I would be more concerned with trying to get members a fair say in the ISSUE through the COMMITTEE than who and why and how to vote. It's not like you won't have a say in the actual -issue- once there's a committee. There will probably be a public suggestion thread, if this one does not already suffice.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I think BH has been amazing and an integral force throughout this entire discussion... i honestly believe that.
I was arguing with BH because i was attacked... and spoken to in a sarcastic and rather insulting manner.

I think some are confusing anger with passion and concern.


Just to let you know..



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Maybe some of us would like some say regarding who is on the committee.

Why is THAT so hard to understand?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Exactly.

If they think it's fair, it's fair. It's their site, their decision, and if they don't want to facilitate a site-wide vote (which they would have to do to send out supermass U2Us, have official threads, and screen the nominees which would be in the hundreds) it's really their call.

Expecting that is asking a lot of them, and a lot of their resources, and whoever is appointed isn't going to just shut their ears off to the rest of what the members outside the committee are saying.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Maybe some of us would like some say regarding who is on the committee.

Why is THAT so hard to understand?


Exactly....the staff are either choosing or they're not?

If they are not, then this is still up for discussion and reshuffling IMO.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I'm sorry. What more can I say to you??

You weren't here. Others were. Admin said do it. We did it. BH set up the voting with input from Admin. I kept track of the member compromise ideas from the hundreds of posts in this thread and posted a summary because the members requested it.

I am really, really sorry that you feel that you did not have your say. We did the best we could with what we had in the time frame we were given.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


The admins have the final say anyway, and we had the nominations open for a long enough time that I think if anyone was going to be given the amount of votes that they would need to be appointed (as the list already has close to 30 people) they would be on there by now. This wasn't our decision, it was the staff's, and you can take it up with them if you have a concern but as the committee hasn't even been selected yet and there is no forseeable outcome right now, I think it's too early to say anything. If the committee comes out in a way against your favor, you have every right to complain to the admin.

Expediency is the key and the administration has expressed that 24 hours was more than enough time to prepare for the vote.

The majority of people on this thread at the time when the decision was made by the administration and when we agreed had agreed that this was the best way to go. Again, there were many, many more members who could have accessed this thread at that time because they were online, and only a small percentage spoke up.

[edit on 2/26/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
I think BH has been amazing and an integral force throughout this entire discussion... i honestly believe that.
I was arguing with BH because i was attacked... and spoken to in a sarcastic and rather insulting manner.

I think some are confusing anger with passion and concern.


Just to let you know..


That's the problem with typed words... they fail to inflect tonality.

Something to keep in mind when typing/emailing/U2Uing and the like...



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I'm sorry. What more can I say to you??

You weren't here. Others were. Admin said do it. We did it. BH set up the voting with input from Admin. I kept track of the member compromise ideas from the hundreds of posts in this thread and posted a summary because the members requested it.

I am really, really sorry that you feel that you did not have your say. We did the best we could with what we had in the time frame we were given.



I agree



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day

That's the problem with typed words... they fail to inflect tonality.

Something to keep in mind when typing/emailing/U2Uing and the like...



totally agree... I've always said the same...
It's difficult to read a post the right way.

Shame people decide to leave though



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
If we do it your way, and let all the members vote,


I wanted to point this out...

The above statement is the worst I have seen in this thread, though it is thematically similar to other posts in this thread (yes I have read the entire thread despite two posts).

There should be no "you an me" division between nominees and the rest of the membership.

It should be we; should always be we.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
So are we back at square one or have we moved on with the vote? I think it is in the best interests of everyone involved if we allow the DISC committee to start to work as soon as possible I am sure that the members who get chosen on DISC will appreciate the input of other members.

Think of it this way, not everyone gets to be a congressman but there are lobbyists that help that congressman make up their minds.

Just trying to say that even if one doesn't get chosen there is still a way to contribute to the discussion even if behind the scenes.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TrustMeIKnow
 


By "you" I meant the people who have a problem now when we had decided on an agreement that people actually agreed with hours ago.

The reasons why the majority opted not to go for a site-wide vote are in this thread, a number of pages back. It was discussed, it's there.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


yes but everyone gets to vote for the congressmen. and how dare you compare us to lobbyist lol



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


The voting began this afternoon and will conclude Friday at 3 eastern.

Nominees will vote for nominees. If you were on the list, you should have gotten a u2u from BH.

And, I know this is not perfect. But, it is what we have to work with.

[edit on 2/26/2009 by skeptic1]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Well we have problems regardless, many are angry(And have a right to be) that the people at the time(the ones who were contributing to the thread the most), went forward with the cote.

The voting is done.

Benevolent Heretic is going to announce the committee tomorrow.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Ive got an idea? How about nothing more. I am soooo glad you have nothing better to do than be on ATS all day every day, and you must be right. Only housewives and househusbands should have a say. Those of us who have other commitments OBVIOUSLY just dont care enough, or we would have been here.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join