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: 87
42
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I think this quote puts it right,


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.


Remember, i voted yes to loem, so i know what your saying. And i am sincerely sorry to those that feel left out of the process.

But you know what, live and let die.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


Admin has spoken.

It is how we are doing it.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by darcon
 


I think a u2u to BH is a good idea
Why don't you do the honors?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Sure thing.


I U2U'd her about what basically went on in her absence.

Thy Vote is going Forward.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Which is going to be fine until a bunch of people threaten to leave and complain to the admins. But really I did agree on it back when we all agreed on it and I cast my votes and everything. I think it's an okay solution, I don't think it's going to be a final solution, but we will wait and see.

With that, I'm going to sleep. Goodnight all. I shall be keeping updated.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


Goodnight, i know what you mean.

We will see the reaction, if it is that bad, i fear the staff will scrap the whole idea.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


My feelings on the matter are this:

The owners/staff have the right to be arbitrary in this process.


The handful of members who compiled this list, and decided when the list would start.... when it would end... or how many would be on it... have no right to decide things for the rest of us arbitrarily. So how can the list they decided to compile and limit as they saw fit.... be in any way considered fair? Hence I have a problem in any process that uses this list.

But if the staff chooses arbitrarily? Well as far as I'm concerned that's their right.





[edit on 26-2-2009 by Resinveins]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Ok, well, I feel fully caught up on the topic. Thank you all again.
Obviously I would volunteer to be on the list if we're still updating it, its a subject that should be talked about, involving very relative and important controversies that may be effecting us every day, but if the list is set in stone, then thats fine too, I would just like to see a resolution. This zero-tolerance ban could be very destructive for ATS.

I also read SO's core issues on why the ban was put into affect, and I agree with him.
That being said, I still think that creating a new forum that is closed to the outside public and kept from the main page site should be made. Members who have subscribed to said forum can see the most popular topics in the "My ATS" function as we do now, without the danger of those threads lurking onto google or the main page. Thats one idea for whoever gets nominated. I'll keep thinking and posting ideas as they come...

I can say now, after the updates, that I am a lot more understanding, but this is still a big problem.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Odessy]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Resinveins
 


I know. That's what I think should happen. Originally I thought no one would have a problem with the nominee voting but people did, and yes it was a little late but it still matters a lot. So I don't think this is fair. I think that the staff should have agreed to vote themselves a long time ago, before we had initiated a vote, and in between our discussions of the vote when we were calling for staff to choose. Now yes, we did get this started, it seems fair to finish it, but it's also very unfair to finish it at the same time.

If they want us to finish the vote, we'll finish the vote. If they want to decide themselves at whatever point in time, they have a right to do so and I would support it.

And see, people still want to volunteer, and people still want to vote, and I just... I mean, whatever, majority rules in my opinion.

Again, goodnight.

[edit on 2/26/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
With all due respect to my fellow nominees, if SO has punted the issue back in our court, what is the harm in opening the process to additional nominees for a period of time and extend the period of voting by a day or two?

This entire thing could be resolved in a few days and through a process far less objectionable than the course we have struck upon here.

If I were being really honest, the urgency of this process feels manufactured to me. Why the frenetic pace? Do we really LOSE anything by doing this more slowly and in a manner more fair to other members?

Link.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by loam]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


He said if a vote was already on-going, then it shouldn't be stopped.

I agree. Let's not make this more confusing than it already is.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Resinveins
 


Ugh.

The list was left open for quite some time and in plain site for anyone - member or not to see and volunteer or be nominated for. It's not like it's the backroom deal everyone is making it out to be.

If the admins feel this process isn't the best way to proceed, it'll be overturned.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by interestedalways
There is a strong member base here and I would expect that some of the less vocal yet very competent members are getting lost in the smoke.


No drug references!


Should have changed that to *smoke and mirrors*


Anyway, PLEASE PLEASE just freaking pick somebody. One of you are going to end up in the ER from stress and sleep deprivation.


This thread needed a laugh after all this "brainstorming"

Thanks!

Edit to add:

Please LISTEN TO LOAM!!!



[edit on 26-2-2009 by interestedalways]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


You know what, i seriously think the vote should just go through.

S O has given the go ahead, many have already voted, the process is in the works, but you know what, let the majority of the nominees decide.

If they decide on going through with it, then so be it.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
See this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

SO's deal on the on-going vote....

[edit on 2/26/2009 by skeptic1]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


I completely agree loam.Why shouldn't everyone who wants to be up for this committee have time to sign up?

For some reason though,it seems that the staff (and some members) are intent on getting this done right away.

I for one see no harm in waiting a couple days to make sure that the member's concerns are met,and this is done as fair as it can be.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Who said "stop"?

I'm suggesting a simple "delay".

Eliminate the claims of unfairness by reopening the nominations for a period of time and then provide for an appropriate voting period.

Why object to that approach?

[edit on 26-2-2009 by loam]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


I was one of the members who thought this was an issue that needed to be resolved now, but your absolutely right, and after an argument/discussion with a very good mod, agree that this is a decision that can be dealt with cool heads and time. Not too much time obviously, but if we're talking about a couple of days, I dont see the hurt in that. We dont NEED to open the nominations up to more people, and I think those of you that have been active in this thread should have a step up, but like I said before, a resolution does need to be made, and its already comforting that we've come this far after Springer stated they would not budge. This is power that we should continue to use online and in real life.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by interestedalways
There is a strong member base here and I would expect that some of the less vocal yet very competent members are getting lost in the smoke.


No drug references!


Anyway, PLEASE PLEASE just freaking pick somebody. One of you are going to end up in the ER from stress and sleep deprivation.


LOL not yet, soon though.

but i cant miss a thing on this thread, i was going to go to bed, but then Loem introduced his plan of action.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Question:
Where do we go to vote?



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join