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

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Quite frankly my point was your guarantee of diversity and how ridiculous it was.

You could very easily end up with 6 people who are for the most part anti-drug... I don't call that diversity.

You could easily end up with 6 people who think personal testimonials of any sort are worthless and should be banned. I don't call that diversity either.


This does not represent me. Your guarantee is ridiculous.

Yes no two people think exactly the same because no two people are exactly the same. But... people do have similar view points at times.... and people of similar view points tend to cluster together.... who knows maybe they even vote for each other?... especially when they consider themselves friends.... so much for guarantees of diversity.

And if we waited... yes, even then not everyone would be informed on the topic... but it would be a hell of a lot fairer than it is now. And no ... as has been pointed out previously..... I still haven't seen anyplace anywhere where SO placed a time limit on when we should have this sorted out by. I certainly do think think taking more than a day would be prudent.

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...

Browse my post history. I have called the staff out and vehemently disagreed with the staff quite a few times - most recently on the issue of blogs and this thread.

Yet I'm still here and going strong.

It's about keeping it civil.

reply to post by skeptic1


I am not foe-ing you over the time limit. I am foe-ing you in protest of your self serving and insulting attitude towards those of us who are here now and clearly want a say in the election process. I tend to have a fairly short memory and I want to remember your contribution to this lock out.

And if you dont like it, sorry for you. Anyone who thinks they have the right to just lock out a huge portion of the members here from having a vote in the committee is someone I am opposed to. And if all I have is a little tag to display that displeasure, then I will take it.

There is no reason to lock those of us that werent on this morning out of the voting. None. Except that you are happy with your nominees and the people you are allowing to vote.

reply to post by Ahabstar


I have been reading what you have been saying, and taking it into consideration. Most of the time you are addressing the people who appose what i and some have did(Put the vote in effect). I know your opinion, and you are not necessarily siding with anyone.

You are right, it seems we are all fighting, for the sake of fighting, oh well.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]

Originally posted by Cutwolf
Browse my post history. I have called the staff out and vehemently disagreed with the staff quite a few times - most recently on the issue of blogs and this thread.

Yet I'm still here and going strong.

It's about keeping it civil.

Sometimes... but you also must admit... there are banned members you're not allowed to mention... there are topics you don't dare go near...

If you like... I can U2U you some topics that would result in banning... if past trends still hold true.

Originally posted by Cutwolf


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.

And all that while I was still typing...not a bad suggestion at all.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
And all that while I was still typing...not a bad suggestion at all.

We've almost turned ATS into a beaurocracy...

fun fun...

next we get to see "i'm so-and-so, and I approve this message" on ATS media...

reply to post by Resinveins

Yes no two people think exactly the same because no two people are exactly the same. But... people do have similar view points at times.... and people of similar view points tend to cluster together.... who knows maybe they even vote for each other?... especially when they consider themselves friends.... so much for guarantees of diversity.

Are you accusing us of something?

Just go out and say it if you are.

I based my votes on who would would be best to represent ATS as a whole, regardless of ones own opinions.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]

Originally posted by Resinveins

And if we waited... yes, even then not everyone would be informed on the topic... but it would be a hell of a lot fairer than it is now. And no ... as has been pointed out previously..... I still haven't seen anyplace anywhere where SO placed a time limit on when we should have this sorted out by. I certainly do think think taking more than a day would be prudent.

But he did express the opinion that 24 hours from the u2u going out was adequate time to make sure that everyone who was on ATS regularly enough to be a member and interested enough in the issue would have contributed to this thread by now.

As far as personal opinions go – they should be pretty unimportant. The members of the committee should be representing the membership of the site, not their own position on drugs.

No matter what, the committee will have its hands tied by what the administration of the site needs. Within those limits though, I think they will be working to maximize the freedom of expression we have.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


SO's words:

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).

I didn't lock anyone out. By the time I got on this afternoon, AFTER WORK, the way to vote was already decided. I didn't have a say, either. But, I trust the person who is heading up the voting process and I agree with what SO said.

And, after that, if you still see me as self-serving, well then there's nothing I can do about that.

Originally posted by darcon
reply to post by Resinveins

 

Are you accusing us of something?

Please can we stop saying "us" and "you"

Do you know how patronizing and condescending you sound.

I was here from the start too.

As i said to Raven....i just didn't blow my own trumpet as loudly as some....
Please...try and have a little respect ok..?

reply to post by blupblup


I refer to us, as the nominations. The people who are getting attacked as of now, the ones who decided to put fourth the vote.

I recognize you were here, and you put fourth good suggestions, why am i even fighting with you, were going round in circles.

I do not mean to sound discriminating.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]

Originally posted by americandingbat
As far as personal opinions go – they should be pretty unimportant. The members of the committee should be representing the membership of the site, not their own position on drugs.

Hehe, not to be pessimistic... but isn't that the premise of our government?

And isn't that the reason most of us don't trust the government?

I'm not choosing sides... as I've said, this will have no bearing on anything, just warm fuzzies for the membership... but I do have to add something...

People who could self nominate themselves are now entitled to a vote? just because they were here early enough, and self rightous enough to self nominate?

This is how the communist party works... People join the party.. and a small inner circle of loyalists inside that party get to chose the leadership of their government...

Meanwhile, while some people were asleep, their "government" has been elected for them...

I could care less either way, but I think this is why people are having problems...

reply to post by darcon


I am not fighting with anyone.
I am discussing this.

I know you mean well, but others may not see it the same way.


I'm pretty much done, it's late 130am..

I'm sure I'll check back tomorrow and some other BS thing will have been decided without anyone outside "your" groups say so.......


Whatever..

Good luck with it anyway

Originally posted by Ahabstar

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?

My problem is that I would like to be able to cast a vote so that someone who has some intelligence and argumentative skill could be on the committee. If we are going to have a committee, I would like to see some members who had the ability to argue for us that actually had some skill in the matter. Not just the people who had the time to be here at a certain time of day.

You dont just want "A" lawyer when you go to court. You want a good lawyer. You dont just want "A" committee, you want a committee with members who stand a chance of having an impact. We have a lot of members on this site capable of constructing good argument. I would like to see some of them up for vote, and have the right to vote for them.

Maybe the people are right who said it really doesnt matter. That this is just a "feel good" exercise that will allow the staff to pretend that they care about our concerns and they will just do what they want to do anyway. But we will never know if we dont get to construct a decent team of people to press our case.

reply to post by blupblup


You and others will probably see it that way no doubt.

reply to post by darcon


No just stating the possibilities and pointing out why a guarantee of diverse opinion on this ill-fated committee is naive.

But if you feel the need to unburden yourself with a confession of some sort.... by all means... the floor is yours.

Originally posted by darcon
reply to post by blupblup

 

You and others will probably see it that way no doubt.

I know....heaven forbid any other members have a say in this eh??

It's the being lied to i find so annoying....ya know?
I woulda "selflessly" volunteered myself had i have known that only those on the special list could vote...

Anyway....whatever....

You're clearly right and I'm just arguing for the sake of it....

reply to post by Resinveins


I have already stated who i based my votes on.

Well, I take a drive, and I miss yet what appears to be another epic chapter in this unusually active thread.

Well I sum up my comments as a collective ramble...

[ramble]

I suppose all said and done, we must accept that the opportunity to engage the administrators on behalf of the group of willing participants was an opportunity not to be missed. This, for many, is a community. That means stuff like this matters to us. Several members, who will always remain in my estimation as outstanding 'netizens,' very deftly conspired to do the right thing.

In my opinion, the right thing is to aggressively seize this moment, and find a way to satisfy the demand for reasonable editorial control, while ensuring that this does not crush a significant percentage of topics, and our general predilection for unrestricted self-expression.

Everyone can clearly see how this 'debate' has evolved and devolved, as these things often do. It's a big collection of heartfelt pleas punctuated by rants both with, and without ill-informed angst.

We could never approach this opportunity in such a chaotic manner. The opportunity to sway the opinion of the staff and management, after such a stern and absolute ban had already been imposed, should be appreciated for several reasons.

For some of us it is the 'principle of the thing', for others its the element of exclusion to many conspiracy theories that troubles them. The middle ground might turn out to be a restricted form of communication with oversight and consequences for failure to comply with what will be an 'explicit' social contract to limit subject matter. The final discretion will, of course, be ATS policy enforcers, not users.

This is really about social respect. Certain members and visitors to this community, seem to be inclined to express their personal freedom in a manner that diminishes intended content. Most agree, this is undesirable. Until the day comes that the users of ridicule and disrespect are shunned, we can expect it will persist. And since "baiting" can be a well-honed art, it's likely that those who enjoy it will persist as well.

If you consider our collective musings as a singular literary 'product' what ATS needs to do is exercise 'editorial control'. But we face the real issue, in the face of any control, any conceptual freedom is, by definition, squelched.

Hence our objective is to come to a point where we can be 'free' to express ourselves adequately to the subject at hand - without creating a lot of extra work for the staff or violating the T&C.

Everyone has probably witnessed a poster who is not of a mature and sincere mindset. There is no real benefit to their exchanges, or they are purposeful and of ill-intent. Meanwhile the exchange of ideas, whatever their worth, becomes a circus of quick 'snap' replies and terms violation banners. What is the value of that?

I'm certain there may be some who may take no issue at all - those among us who don't care either way. Their silence is appreciated.

[/ramble]

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Maxmars]