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: 76
42
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Maybe some of us would like some say regarding who is on the committee.

Why is THAT so hard to understand?


I think it is important that access to the commitee be possible and consistent during the process to insure a form of transparency.

Beyond that, I almost don't care who is in the commitee because their back and forth communications with the board at large should be a given while they discuss with Staff.




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I've read the updates and some of the more pertinent data even though I am unable to read the entire thread at this time. Personally my original reaction was that of irritation for two reasons. One being that it is pretty ridiculous that people feel compelled to attempt to discuss their personal drug use, but at the same time the complete and total restriction of said topic(s) seems pretty silly as well. Now excuse my ignorance but I didn't notice if this includes discussions about conspiracies involving legal pharm. products as well. It seems to me that there has to be some middle ground free from sophomoronic comments. I don't know perhaps everything has already been said before, but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

However I would say that Schrodingers Dog is an excellent nomination for the committee and I would love to see him involved.

Good luck one and all.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
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.



I have been here from the start and NEVER agreed that only those on the list could vote... NEVER.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I actually went to school yesterday and today, have completed all my work, took two exams today, and am working on a Keynote project right now. I also tutored, brought my mom home from the train, went to the store, and made dinner.

So really, I think that was quite rude.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
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.


I'm not getting into a conversation with you on this.

I was merely pointing out that the use of pronouns should be a conscious effort to avoid unnecessary dichotomy.



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


BH has sent out the u2u's to people who were on the nomination list and has started collecting votes. I don't think that process has to stop while others discuss it here.

If we're lucky, she'll be able to announce a panel tomorrow that is acceptable to more or less everyone, and we can move on.

Or, someone will come up with a better alternative in this thread in the meantime and we can go with that.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Whatever. If you are going to "foe" me over this, then that shows your overall maturity level and I, for one, am glad you weren't here.

Get a grip. I have a life, a job, a family. I also happen to care about this site. Like I said, if that makes me a bad person to people like you and your ilk, that's a label I will carry proudly.

And, once more, SO said do this:



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).


If you have a beef, take it up with the proper person, not the rest of us.

[edit on 2/26/2009 by skeptic1]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
Meanwhile the world is melting down in an epic global economic crisis with little or no improvement.

It's disappointing to watch so many great minds get caught up in this seemingly trivial and rather insignificant subject of drug discussions when there is so much going on around the world right now that is far more worthy of your time, intelligence and efforts.

Maybe we could petition the white house for a new cabinet position, a chief of internet drug discussions?



I might agree with you. Too much time on our hands? What about spending some time helping a friend who cant find a job or something. Or donate time helping drug re-habs.

ZG



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Wethesheeple
 



...and how dare you compare us to lobbyist


Sorry, no insult intended. Fact of the matter is that lobbyists are an important part of a democracy. Like em or not they are there talking to congressmen.

I think that it is critical to move forward and not be bogged down by debate in this aspect, as there is going to be plenty to debate once the committee members are chosen. I am sure that the people chosen are going to have to spend a lot of time hashing and rehashing details and fine points in order to come up with a compromise that everyone can live with if not be happy with.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


The majority of people who posted when we were discussing it did.

You're right, it's not fair, it's never going to be fair because even if everyone voted it wouldn't be fair because the admin could switch around the list at the last minute, and this was the fastest thing we could think of.

We're really sorry. All of us, myself, Skeptic, BH, we're very sorry that it turned out this way but we did the best we could with what we were given and if many people HAD voiced such a strong opinion before we started voting (in the 18 hours when the thread open before that) the outcome may have been different. We did have a site-wide voting thread open for a long time. King Lizard closed it for a good reason, they thought it was moving too fast. Then SO said that 24 hours had been more than enough and we should get it rolling.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Osiris1953 Now excuse my ignorance but I didn't notice if this includes discussions about conspiracies involving legal pharm. products as well.


The policy as it currently stands is no tolerance of illegal mind-altering substances. And I think we can assume that the administration meant "illegal in the USA" at least for the moment.

So, pharmaceuticals are fine to talk about, as long as you're not talking about their illegal use for recreational purposes.

Medical marijuana is currently off-limits however, as I understood it. This is one of the gray areas that a committee would need to address.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


If you think that is rude, you should be glad there is a T&C in place here. Because I could give you several examples of rude that would get me banned.

I think it is rude that those who were not here this morning get no vote, AND have to listen to self serving rubbish about how those who werent here dont "care." But that makes up a lot of the argument from several of you. THAT is rude in my opinion. Locking people out who just so happened to have other things going in the last 24 hours just so a little clique of "those who care" can decide who does and who does not get a vote.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by blupblup
 

We're really sorry. All of us, myself, Skeptic, BH, we're very sorry that it turned out this way but we did the best we could with what we were given and if many people HAD voiced such a strong opinion before we started voting (in the 18 hours when the thread open before that) the outcome may have been different. We did have a site-wide voting thread open for a long time. King Lizard closed it for a good reason, they thought it was moving too fast. Then SO said that 24 hours had been more than enough and we should get it rolling.


I don't think you get my point??
I voted for my candidates....that is NOT the issue.
The issue is only those candidates (those on the list) can vote amongst themselves....

THAT is BS.... pure and simple.
I'm all for those on the list, great....fantastic.... but we should ALL have a say which ones on that list make it...

I don't see how you saying "we're sorry" is helping....as has been said ....it's not an us-and-you thing.... we ALL tried to be involved and we ALL tried to help... just some of us didn't promote ourselves or blow our own trumpets quite as loudly... something I've come to regret now....

Such is life eh?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Thank you, and in that case, the new policy, as it stands is relatively acceptable in my eyes and requires very little debate IMO. Again, I don't like having less that I am allowed to discuss on ATS, but that's just me. In the end I don't see it as a big deal, if that's what they need to do than that's fine.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptic Overlord
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).



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Resinveins
 


It's a fact that no matter what we decided to do, someone wouldn't be happy about it.
I suspect I haven't heard the last of the criticisms for my part in this. We even went over the downsides of the different methods.

I DID put up a vote to the board, but staff closed the thread. We have discussed for many pages how to best make this happen and Skeptic Overlord has been involved.

I'm sorry you're unhappy with the decision and it may not stand. Staff may not approve of it, either, but the majority of us participating in this thread did something we agreed on would probably work.



Originally posted by Reddupo

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by skeptic1

Wouldn't you prefer people who actually gave a flying rats behind about this topic than people who voted just for the sake of voting??



I give a rats ass, and I have already been eliminated from this "just" process because I wasnt on in the last 24 hours. So yes, I do think that people who care should have input. I just dont think that "people who care" in necessarily limited to those who were on in the first 24 hours after that U2U and post.

The committee is being formed to figure out to have intelligent and mature drug-conspiracy discussion on ATS.

If you support the idea of having intelligent and mature drug-conspiracy discussion on ATS, then have no fear, every potential committee member on the list is on your (our) side.

If you do not support the idea of having intelligent and mature drug-conspiracy discussion ATS, then you shouldn't be worried about being on the committee at all, as it's counterproductive to your cause.


I think we have defended our side of things to the best of our efforts, regardless of how many people disagree with us.

We got the go ahead, so we took it, the votes are are done, and the committee will be announced tomorrow be BH. Of course ,hats if the staff doesn't throw this whole thing in the trash, and stick with the BAN

I think your fight is with the staff now, take it up with them.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
I really think we're blowing this up bigger than it is. The committee will have a relatively minor say in the grand scheme of things.

It is going to be a think tank. If good ideas are presented by someone in the community at large, it will certainly find its way into the more structured discussion by the "committee."

That being said, if people still feel that the entire community should get a say, a potential solution:

Each person on the nomination lists votes should count double.

The rest of the board should be able to get single votes after the tally of the committee nominee votes is released.

So a vote for X from a committee nominee would count as two votes for X while a vote from the community at large counts as 1 vote.

This way, if there is an overwhelming consensus that someone who should be on the committee didn't get votes, the community can overturn it by voting en masse for the person they felt should be on it.

But I stand by my original contention. Simplicity is best. None of us are evil people. We all want to come to a resolution best for ATS.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I think you should look through prior threads regarding this topic actually... its not the first time it has come up on ATS...

Each time however, member opinions didn't matter much... Its all about PPC/ad revenue...

Anything that might block ATS on a 'net nanny" type program... is going to get banned... This place isn't just a board... its a business.

Those who think that they actually care about the membership, needs to look no further than the bans that have taken place in the past because the member disagreed with the staff...

Being nominated, or voting nominees to a kangaroo court doesn't change that...

Why do you think they keep drug topics in RATS? Could it be because its away from search engine spiders?

Follow the money, and you'll find the motive.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

If you do not support the idea of having intelligent and mature drug-conspiracy discussion ATS, then you shouldn't be worried about being on the committee at all, as it's counterproductive to your cause.


This is very true.

I think it should be taken into consideration when voting in the committee.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Cutwolf
 


I agree, thats what i thought, isn''t the committee basically a glorified think tank? The staff will not take the Committee as seriously as some people think. In the end the staff will do what it wants.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Hmm I have addressed points directly and no one seems to arguing directly at me or even saying thanks or anything...

For the past few pages I have seen what looks like argument for argument's sake.

So I will ask very clearly: Is the problem a fear of not being represented and having your voice heard by those that would serve or is the problem that your since vote was not counted that you feel that your opinion can not be represented?

The vote, as is, will select 6 out of 30. That means as many as 6 people will have 30 votes for them. I would say that maybe only 1-3 people will have 30 votes. Some of those people may not vote at all, so there may be only 27-29 total votes.

But I tell you what, if you can figure out how to get the 10464 people that have been logged in over the past 30 days to have a vote of any meaning in a timely fashion, I am all ears. And I am willing to bet most of the 30 on the list will agree to your idea if it is fair.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join