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: 90
42
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
AHHHHH

I AM gonig to BED!


Goodnight! and Good Luck! I leave you with this!

Live and Let Die!



[edit on 27-2-2009 by darcon]




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
I really think we're forgetting why this whole 'voting' thing started. This isn't about proving we can all have a say and we can all make a difference. This isn't about creating a system where we can all voice our opinions... these aren't bad things, but they're besides the point.

We came here to achieve a goal. That goal was to come to a compromise with the ATS owners, so that we could have a forum where drug related topics can be discussed. We were given a chance to achieve this efficiently and effectively -- and that should be the main focus.

At this point, whether or not he/she gets a say won't make a difference in achieving our goal -- it'll simply make achieving our goal an even more distant dream.

Believe me -- More people will be happy if we could just stay focused on the objective.

[edit on 27/2/09 by Navieko]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Odessy
 


I like loams idea as well. Regardless of what anyone else may say it is one of the few outcomes i could support.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Navieko
 


I'm confused how you arrived at that solution in advance of the committee? What is the point of the committee then?

Now I'm really confused. Seriously.

When was that decided?


[edit on 27-2-2009 by loam]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Navieko
 


I'm confused how you arrived at that solution in advance of the committee? What is the point of the committee then?

Now, I'm really confused. Seriously.

When was that decided?



I'm not sure I understand your question... I simply said our goal is to come to a compromise with the ATS staff -- is that not what we're trying to achieve?


Now you've made me confused!


[edit on 27/2/09 by Navieko]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Navieko
 


Maybe I misunderstood this part:


Originally posted by Navieko
...so that we could have a forum where drug related topics can be discussed.


Did you mean create a new forum?



[edit on 27-2-2009 by loam]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
So how are we ending the day?
no decision?

From what I've read, it looked like Loam was going to be voted to the committee, so perhaps he should decide. It would be fair.

If everyone is ok with that, then loam, maybe you could contact a mod and get that thread started?

this is the last I'll say on the matter, but if you guys put it to a vote, please include mine to do what Loam suggested. I really, honestly think it would be fair, and fast. We would have a deadline and an official list, rather than whats going on right now.

Thanks
-Odessy



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


My apologies. A new (restricted) forum/section specifically for drug related topics seemed to be the consensus among the nominees in earlier discussions, so I thought of that as the most likely reality... but of course, nothing is decided upon until the long awaited discussion between the committee and the ATS staff takes place.


[edit on 27/2/09 by Navieko]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Schrodinger's Dog, Benevolent Heretic and Ian Maclean would be my three votes off the top of my head. I will think up other suggestions.

I guess I should add my 2c into this conversation. I fully believe that the PROPER conversation about the topic of drugs should remain on ATS and that a system be devised to warn, police and delete all posts that are made by the 'stoner idiot' type that discuss personal use. If the forum has clear rules set to it, the issue of 'censorship' should no longer be an issue.

Anyhoo, just my 2c.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Navieko
 


Somehow, I never realized that became the consensus.

No worries.

I now understand what you mean. It just surprised me.




[edit on 27-2-2009 by loam]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Navieko
 


Somehow, I never realized that became the consensus.

No worries.

I now understand what you mean. It just surprised me.



I believe the idea was that by having it's own section, it would make enforcing/filtering a lot easier. Certain restrictions could then be easily put in place, in order to post/enter within that section of the forum. It would also be possible to then have multiple sub-categories within that section. The more specific the parent category (drugs) is divided, the easier it would be to find and filter out unwanted content.

This is just the (basic) scenario I imagined most likely -- although ultimately it will end up being however you and the other nominees decide it should be, so long as an agreement is met with the ATS staff, which I hope is not too far away!


[edit on 27/2/09 by Navieko]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by darcon

That is my greatest fear realized.

Them getting frustrated(As skeptic is already), and trashing the whole committee.



Then why fight the idea of opening up the vote so stubbornly? It is not an unreasonable request by the other members. Several hours and nearly half the thread are arguments with the people who have self nominated refusing to alter the voting to include others.


Originally posted by darcon
All about Compromising though.



Which is exactly what the self nominated committee is refusing to do. Compromise.

And rather than having people nominate themselves, to keep the list shorter we could propose NO one nominate themself. And have a list of members nominated by others. That should cut the list down considerably in the first round. Those nominated who declined would then shorten the list further and the vote should be simple from there.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Not having read every single page in this topic,...

and having being a former member of DISC,..

I will state unequivacably, my stance on this subject, if I still were DISC, or otherwise,...



It cannot be tolerated, on many levels, none of which I will entertain discussion on.

Primarily because the facts are very much multi-faceted, as well as very sincerely an issue that MUST be addressed on any website that aspires to higher levels.

It isnt about freedom of speech, it isnt about the need to be able to express opinions,..

It is very much about how much one webmaster wishes to inhibit ones ability to be available to the 'common' public and viewership, without that person's regard to the limiting of anothers ability to have equally fair access.


A library is a place of public accessability and learning,.,.. and if one feels they need to shout and express their opinions, against general public and social opinion, then one ends up no longer appreciated in such an environment. So my analogy is applied, ATS isnt a library per se', but ATS the 'social machine' wishes to be at minimum, available, to say the least, to the most people as possible for the expression of the subject matter at hand, that itself does not wish to inhibit it's own ability by the mere subject matter that expresses it's desire to be heard, that does not lend to the core focus of the site's 'natural' focus.

MTC's





[edit on 27-2-2009 by smirkley]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by smirkley
 

So your position is that the complete ban stays in place?

Thats an opinion. And, you may well get your wish. I would not nominate you for this committee, or vote for you if you were on the list, however, as the point of this committee is to try to find a way to prevent a blanket ban on ALL topics that contain mention of illegal substances, and you are clearly stating that you would not do that.

What the heck is the point of a committee to agree with the ban that is causing the ruckus in the first place? There are already sycophants aplenty. What most people here are trying to find are people willing to present a view that opposes the proposed ban. Which does not mean that the owners, admins, et al will accept it, but to at least make the attempt.

I personally think that a ban of this magnitude would be the site owners shooting themselves in the foot, but thats just an opinion. Companies often make the mistake of gaining market share one way, then trying to increase it by going against their initial strategy. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesnt. I am thinking that a conspiracy site is likely to be one place that strategy is less likely than average to work to the best interests of the owners. "Come to ATS and discuss conspiracies, but not this one, or this one, or this one, or this one, or this one......." just doesnt quite have the same ring to it.

If they had completely revamped it into a social networking site, perhaps. But the whole point of conspiracy theorizing is "being on the fringe." Not well in the mainstream. And there are a lot of legitimate conspiracies, and tales of government abuses of power, etc., that contain some mention of illegal substances.

They have every right (and I think it is a good idea) to try to seriously curtail the stoner posts where people are just talking about personal use and other grand adventures. But not at the expense of the core stated mission of the site, to deny ignorance. There has to be a way we can eliminate the one without destroying the other.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   
:w:
...does this mean the smiley's will be deleted? LOL...Oh, I am playing



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Once again, here is the summary of all that transpired yesterday that led up to now.

This is for those that missed it or those that do not wish to wade through the entire thread.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by smirkley
 

So your position is that the complete ban stays in place?

Thats an opinion.


Yes, and yes that's just my opinion.



But If 'I' allowed certain individuals to gather in my arena, on a soapbox, for their purposes, against my topical focus,..

...It would mearly end up driving away the focus group I was hoping to address and patronize in the first place.




And that I would not tolerate.

So,...yes.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   
I'm still a bit weary though as to what we, as a whole, define as "stoner posts". Plenty have stated that it means something a long the lines of (as an example), "I got so high last night!" or "it was so cool" etc.

But what about those making a case study on how contrary to common belief, this or that is actually very beneficial for such and such reasons.

Would you just take my word for it? Or would you ask me to back my statement up with evidence? And given the nature of the subject, there is a good chance the only evidence I'll have to back my theory up -- is my own experience/studies. Am I able to present this experience, obviously in a mature and professional manner, so that my case can be made?

Or as another example, what if I wish to discuss the spiritual side (NOT recreational) of taking certain illicit substances? As long as I present serious thought provoking material with no silly or immature content, will this still remain strictly out of bounds?

Or is it simply the idiotic posts such as the example I gave at the beginning of the post? If so I have no problem -- But I feel these questions need to be represented within the committee.

To me it's just as important as the general conspiracy side of the topic - if not more important.

[edit on 27/2/09 by Navieko]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:35 AM
link   
One final comment before I'm done for the evening...

To help explain why so many think this took place too quickly, maybe these details will place those concerns into perspective:

Skeptic Overlord first announced his desire to have the membership select candidates for a committee on the issue on 25-2-2009 @ 15:50.

In less than THREE hours, on 25-2-2009 @ 18:46, Benevolent Heretic essentially announced the closing of the nomination list.

Roughly 15 minutes later, Benevolent Heretic produced a voting thread.

Shortly thereafter, it looked like we were back on hold, pending further guidance.

The next morning at the beginning of the workday, on 26-2-2009 @ 08:45, the holding pattern appeared to remain true.

But roughly 3 1/2 hours later, things were suddenly back on and by 26-2-2009 @ 14:33, (again in the middle of the workday), Benevolent Heretic announced resumption of the "plan" and executed accordingly.

So at best, less than four hours in the aggregate were used to decide upon the selection process, the nominees and the manner of execution.

(Let's be real honest. It was closer to three.)

Let's also not forget that this thread is now 90 pages long and contains nearly 1,800 individual posts!

Can anyone look at that time-line, and the context, and really say they are comfortable with that approach?

I'm not so sure.

Why the urgency? What is the downside of offering a fairer process over the course of a couple of days?

Several members are clearly upset by what we have done here. Why are we excluding them merely because they had the misfortune not to be here during the three hour window?


This would have seemed a more reasonable approach, imo.

Again, just my $0.02.

I just hope you guys who are committed to this course really know what you are doing.



[edit on 27-2-2009 by loam]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:55 AM
link   

...dedicated forum akin to the Bully Pulpit
...strict moderation from a large group of Mods
...strict oath/rules to agree to before being allowed to participate
...2 strikes and you are out of dedicated forum
...certain drug topics allowed but nothing about illegal personal use or personal "pothead" stories
...no testimonials as that is basically equivalent to admitting to illegal activity in a lot of places and is already against established ATS T&C (might need to be evaluated with medical MJ only)
...forum threads not to appear on front page of ATS (meaning flags are disabled in that forum)
...Point entry fee required based on ATS posting history, not points gained from joining Twitter, contributing to tinWiki, etc.


That's what Skeptic1 posted in one of the other summary threads.

Honest to goodness folks, why does there need to be some committee in the first place now? Those rules look downright perfect to me. Feel free to write 35 more pages of squabbling about who should be a nominee and who should be on what committee in which forum if that's what you really want, but when did bureaucracy ever simplify something?

Frankly, I don't recall ever seeing many of those nominees participate in the "drug debate" threads so I don't even get how they're supposed to be any more fair or effective than just letting the ATS staff handle it from here.

The last 24 hours of breakneck posting the same things over and over again could have been spent bringing us a day closer to having the new forum up.

But hey, what do I know, I haven't skipped sleeping or going to work to maintain a constant vigilance over the 90 page, 2 day old thread of sheer insanity.




top topics



 
42
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join