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: 85
42
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Resinveinsit's blatantly unfair as far as I am concerned. Thus I object.... for the same reason I've been objecting all day.





Thanks for replying.




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
OK, I'd like to propose Schrodingers Dog to head this up - if he's willing.

I have rarely come across a more level headed member - especially one who is willing to give up their time and find a solution to this minefield, without being partisan about it.

[edit on 26/2/2009 by budski]




I second that emotion....SD would be well suited for such a task



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Resinveins
 


New rule. Like, right now. If the staff decides and wants to put someone on the committee who they agree would do a great job and isn't on our silly list, than great for them and it would be valid. SO, don't limit yourself to our list please because people dropped out because of politics and there are good members who didn't see it.

Okay? Is that good? I like that, I think it's fair, just let them choose period. No nominations, no voting, let them pick. They're going to be fair and if you don't think they are, you may also think that they are not going to listen to the committee, or that they're only concerned about money, or whatever. And think whatever you want, you may be right, that's what ATS is all about but I really don't think it's true personally in this case.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


HEAR!!! HEAR!!!!

I wholeheartedly agree!


We have been throwing ideas out there for such a long time now.

Let the mods add them as they see fit.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Wait....so now the vote is off?

C'mon guys....this is getting more confusing by the second,and really is becoming more complicated than it needs to be.

BH went through a lot to get together the voting system and is probably banging her head against the wall right now if she's following these latest developments.

Why not just go with what we had? We can't please everyone.Even if SO and the staff pick the committee that'll just open up a whole new can of worms.

I think we should just wait till 3 P.M> tomorrow and go from there.

But that's just me.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Since my U2U to nominees has now been referenced in several posts by some of the members without a clear explanation of what it was, I will now publish that here:


U2U to all nominees from loam

I am sending this U2U to every nominee.

Other than vote, maybe we have a different job to do now.

It's pretty clear we have members very upset with the current process. We should consider listening to them...

Please hear me out.

I personally feel anyone on the current list would make a fine member to the committee.
But what will that matter if the broader membership questions the legitimacy of the process?

Do any of us really want that?

Isn't the point of this committee to address a policy the membership really found unfair? I, for one, don't like the concept that I would represent a membership that felt my presence was railroaded upon them.

I want to be part of a solution-- not grow a different problem.

Accordingly, I propose the following suggestion. We, the nominees, could control a different outcome. By majority vote, we could announce a different intention as a unified group of the nominees and post an amended process.

Slowing this down a few days isn't going to hurt anything, imo.

Here is an example of what could be posted in the thread:




By a majority vote conducted by the nominees, we have collectively decided to alter the committee selection process in the following manner:

1) A nominee thread will be opened and remain open until February __, at __:00 pm EST. At such time, the thread will be locked and no further nominations will be possible.

2) Once the nominee thread is closed, the voting period will begin. All votes should be U2U'd to ______. On March __, at __:00 pm EST the voting period will end.

3) Upon tally of the votes, the top six with the highest number of votes will be announced in this thread.



What do you think?



In light of Skeptic Overlord's offer to select from the list, I withdrew my suggestion.

Like I said in the U2U, I'd like to be part of a solution-- not grow a different problem.



[edit on 26-2-2009 by loam]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DocGonzo
 


Staff suggested to choose for us, and at this point since BH's amazing voting system was criticized openly by members who think it is unfair, who weren't around when we decided, it really would be unfair to keep going if members disagree with it so much.

So many of us want staff to choose.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


As an addition to that and as something of a new idea.... I would be okay with the staff picking from the membership at large.... regardless of whether they were on your list or not.... or even from amongst themselves. Or a mix of the two.

But if you involve that list I, for one, will have a problem with it.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by DocGonzo
 


If skeptic Overlord is not choosing, then BH has all the nomination votes, and we can call on her.

Do not fret my friend, backup plans are great.

By all means, the people who have not voted yet, vote, it is a just in case skeptic wants us to do it ourselves.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Resinveins
 


I think Ravenshadow also just suggested that the staff pick from the membership at large. I certainly don't have any problem with that if they're willing to do the picking.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
So new proposal:
Staff (can you hear me?) (lol) would you be willing to choose the committee yourselves choosing from members at large, not taking into account the list of nominees that we have compiled?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Fine by me, i just want the committee formed.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
So where do we stand on the list?

In order to kick-start this, should our staff be trusted to select the names from your short-list of nominations?




I'll agree to this.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


Yeah,I understand that.

The thing is,if SO picks then the people who have been posting tirelessly in this thread get a leg up on the rest of us who simply think we are knowledgeable enough on this subject to help guide it.

Just because I didn't make 500 posts in this thread shouldn't disqualify me,or any of the others should it?

The whole point of the voting was to TRY and ensure that this wouldn't be a popularity contest.Which,to me is what will happen if SO picks.

Not because he means to,but because he'll pick those who have lead and guided in this thread,and not those who were nominated for their specific knowledge of the subject matter.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


That's how I read that as well ... common ground at last



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by DocGonzo
 


Well then what the heck do we do.

Were back where we started 50 pages sago


Screw it should we just go back to voting?

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


I personally was more into the idea of the membership working this out to prove that such a contentious topic could be handled with the civility that is aimed for, which would give the commitee more wieght going into DISC, imo.

Just because there was a disagreement earlier today doesn't mean that we have to let go of the process that has started.

I think we should see what happens and then discuss the viability of the process as it turns out prior to submitting to the fact that we are incapable of this responsibility.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by darcon
 


Ok, could anyone give me the updates, or the specific pages to reference as I have no idea where the current state of the situations at and don't know where, in the 85 pages of this thread to even start.

What I know now:
The silly ban on all drug related topics is still banned. Including important things, as mentioned, like US involvement in drug trafficking etc.

I'm hearing you guys talking about nominating people, I dont really care who, but what are these nominations for and what will they do?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by darcon
 


All I'm trying to say is,let's see what happens tomorrow.

Everyone is going around in circles,and a lot of you have been working on this for the past....God know how long.Why don't we just chill,go with the original plan...see how the vote comes out.

Ask for objections for whatever reason,from mods,SO,the members,whoever,and go from there.

this doesn't need to be so difficult,we just gotta calm down and let it play out I think.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Odessy
 




Originally posted by loam
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I recommend a separate thread with these links and a post from each member wishing to participate on the committee explaining their intentions for doing so.

Springer's Post.

Skeptic Overlord's Post.

Latest Nominee List.

Skeptic1's Summary Thread.

DISC Purpose.

An appropriate response date and voting window should then also be announced.




[edit on 26-2-2009 by loam]


[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join