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: 93
42
<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   
My opinion about all this, I really don't give a crap either way. Life is too complicated to give a crap about talking about drugs on an online forum called ATS.

I'm gonna try and enjoy myself, I don't like getting too serious about these things, waste of time really.

If ATS ban's drug talk, then so be it, if ATS doesn't then so be it. It's not like it's the end of the world.

And it does not stop free speech, we can talk about drugs in many other places. I compare this to rules like wearing shoes not trainers to get into a club. Their place, their rules.

You go into someones house, you respect their rules.

So I will respect SkepticOverlord's decision. It's his house, so it's the decent thing to do.




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Hey there,

Thanks for putting it into perspective, i know what you were talking about.

I was indeed there when this stuff happened.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I want the activities of this 'Council' made public.

A big part of the problem that's creating the divisiveness on this issue is the perception (valid or not) that the staff acts as a star chamber in forming their decision, which are then presented to the membership as unquestionable edicts.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Ian McLean
 


I don't think that's ever been the intention of the DISC council, and that's been made public since the start.

Whoever is chosen to serve on this council will be doing so in the name of the members, for the members.

I can gaurantee you based on the names submitted for voting that the 6 that are chosen do have the interests of ATS as a whole in mind, not themselves.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by _Phoenix_
 


It goes deeper than just talking about drugs or alternative site at which to discuss such topics.

It's about the mission of this site. To Deny Ignorance. It's contradictory to claim to deny ignorance, while ignoring any sort of drug related conspiracy or topic related to drug.

Many of us come here to discuss topics that would be too taboo to dicuss on other sites. Topics such as 9/11, UFOs, Politics and yes even the War on Drugs.

Again, ATS has had this problem in the past and it was dealt with in a manner that resolved the issue without resorting to a "ban".

There were many members here that felt another solution could be achieved if we put our heads together. SkepticOverlord agree to review such a process ... to be clear: He has not yet approved or even agree to lift the ban, but has agree to consider it pending the formation of a steering committee. We took what we were being offered at the time and proceeded with it and hopefully soon, whether by the process that was agreed upon, or by another, hopefully we'll once again be able to discuss topics that concern us.

You are absolutely correct in your analysis that there are MANY other sites out there with which to discuss drug related topics or conspiracies, but NONE of them rival the ATS's network of dedicated members - most of which are capable of intelligent and engaging discussion. That's why this ban is so important to find a compromise to.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by tyranny22]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Renewed controversy and frayed tempers

Quite reasonably, members who had not been online throughout this whole process, or who had been online but not following every post to this admittedly monstrous thread, felt disenfranchised by the process that we had come up with.

Now as far as I know, Benevolent Heretic is still in charge of overseeing the committee election, and has not even been online since things stood as I described in my last post. So it'll be interesting to see what she has to say.

Various members who came into the thread just after we had agreed to a voting process and gotten it underway objected strenuously to the speed at which the process had gone, since they had just gotten online and found out about the drug policy and we had already apparently taken matters into our own hands without consulting a good part of the membership of ATS. Accusations were hurled, foes were made, people who had been online trying to work on this process for twenty-four hours were hurt and upset, as were people who would have wanted to be online working on the process but couldn't.

Please note: at this point I'm using the term "we" because I had self-nominated to the "list" (although my nomination was later seconded). This does not mean I see the "list" as being insiders vs. the membership as outsiders, which was one of the accusations brought. It just means that the accusations were mostly being made towards "the list of nominees" as a group.

That's when the crap really hit the fan. Nominees started u2u campaigns to stop the voting process already underway; others felt that we should go ahead with it; still others were willing to do something in between. SkepticOverlord was consulted again and replied that if we had already started a voting process, we should let it go through.

There were a further 40 or so pages of bickering. (Actually, SO was consulted toward the end of this bickering, not the beginning).

I went to bed.

(more to come still: opinion and plea)



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by darcon
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Hey there,

Thanks for putting it into perspective, i know what you were talking about.

I was indeed there when this stuff happened.


I just thought that maybe it would help to have the thread as a whole summarized near the end so people could get some perspective on it without having to wade through the whole thing.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
Freedom of Speech has, is, and will always be limited no matter what country you live in. When you agreed to the T+C of this site, you knew there are rules to abide by. Rules that limit what you can and can't say on this site, so why argue the point of freedom of speech.

I, for one, can abide by the new rule.


i can also go along with the rules...but the person that thinks we have freedom of speech in this country is dreaming. it's a feel-good saying meant to placate the public. there are so many laws and/or severe repercussions against free speech, that it has turned into a moot point.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


No this is about fairness. And whether a group of people who happened to be participating in this thread at the time had the right to exclude anybody, who wasn't already on their short list, from being a part of the process.

They decided to exclude everyone else. Why? What gives them the right? What was the rush?

Beats me. But I'm not going to pretend I'm okay with how it went down, because I'm not. It wasn't fair in the way it was done or how it was decided.

That is the issue.

At least it's my issue with it. And I've seen others who have the same issue with it.

Until or if that changes there is always going to be an issue with it.

Until or if that changes there is no validity for any committee that may come out of this mess.

Not for me... and not for others.



If you're happy with the way things went down and the way they stand? Well then I'm happy for you. I'm not. My comments are going to continue to reflect that. Others aren't happy with it too. and are voicing their opinion on it. But hey... we're all just mischievous nuts who get our kicks "throwing spanners " in the mix.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ian McLean
I want the activities of this 'Council' made public.

A big part of the problem that's creating the divisiveness on this issue is the perception (valid or not) that the staff acts as a star chamber in forming their decision, which are then presented to the membership as unquestionable edicts.


I agree that openness would be preferable. I don't have the sense that it would be agreed to. But we can certainly continue to argue the matter with SkepticOverlord and Springer



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by _Phoenix_
 


Damn right there...and I cant understand how this has spewed over into so many pages when its blatantly plain and simple to understand

This is the amigos' house and if they ask me to leave my shoes at the door, refrain from colourful language, or anything else, then I will respect their wishes during my stay....just as they would if invited to my or your domain

When in Rome and all that...



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


When I was referring to openness I meant that the DISC council would be keeping the members informed of what was going on and gathering opinions and suggestions from them.

I don't think the threaded discussion will be made public, because the DISC forum is a restricted forum.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Resinveins
 


Take it up with SkepticOverlord. This question of the timeliness of voting was posed to him and his response has been posted many, many times in this thread. I know most here have read it several times. BenevolentHeretic even offered to open a new thread announcing the vote nomination and SkepticOverlord didn't feel this was the best way to proceed.

I don't think it's the intention of anyone on the nomination list to excluded any other members, whether you feel that way or not.

Again, I'll point out that this was never a back-room deal. This was all discussed AT LENGTH on these pages and for quite some time.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   
My opinion post

Up to now I've been trying to be factually accurate in telling what went on, and I hope that anyone who disagrees with my summation of events will let me know – preferably by u2u – so that I can amend the summation. I will give credit to whoever brought up the issue with me, I'd just like to handle it by u2u to avoid cluttering this thread.

The following is purely my opinion, and not based on anything staff has said.

Thirty names ended up on the list. Among those thirty are some I consider good friends and some I've never heard of before yesterday. To place my own votes, I used the "thread" feature in this thread to see the contributions of members who I wasn't as familiar with here, and I looked at their profiles to see what kinds of threads they flagged and posted to from what perspectives. I chose myself and five other names who I felt confident would put the interest of the community ahead of their own interest, and who I thought would be able to handle the pressure that this committee will undoubtedly face both from members and from staff.

I understand people's problem with what happened. If you look back in this thread, my second post (on page 48) was a reaction to what I perceived to be the too-fast pace of the process. But it happened, I think we will get a good committee, and I am more than willing to stand up to the heat of disapproval.

I would ask those who don't like how it happened to hold off until you see who ends up on the committee. Then, ask yourselves honestly whether you think a better committee could have been found through a more fair process. Not whether the process was fair, but whether the result is good.

No, ends don't justify means. But sometimes the trade off is worth making.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


I have spoken to BH, and she wants to go ahead and count the votes.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by americandingbat
 


When I was referring to openness I meant that the DISC council would be keeping the members informed of what was going on and gathering opinions and suggestions from them.

I don't think the threaded discussion will be made public, because the DISC forum is a restricted forum.




I agree. But I think Ian raises a valid point, and one that other members will have also. And I see no reason why it can't continue to be a side issue. It doesn't invalidate the DISC committee in any way to argue that the forum should be open but read-only; in fact it's the kind of membership concern that I think representatives should be passing along to administration. But I don't want to kid anyone that I think there's any chance of the administration changing their minds on that topic, no matter how hard or well the committee fights for it.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Hi everybody!



Originally posted by schrodingers dog
I U2Ued SO a little earlier to ask for some guidance as to how we should proceed.
...
He very kindly responded:



if a vote is already started, we should let that finish


And that's what I plan to do.

Just so everyone knows.


- I did try to make the vote board-wide. The thread was closed.
- I wrote a proposal to SO to make the nominations board-wide and last for 2 weeks:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
His response is here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

After this vote is finished and I announce the selections in this thread, if the committee or staff or whomever decides they want to do it again, differently, I have absolutely NO problem and will have no hard feelings whatsoever.

We did all we could to make it as fair and timely as practical, and we knew not everyone would be pleased, but we did our best with what we had.

And as I have said, I'm very sorry that some are not happy with the current path. If someone wants to work with staff to do something differently, I fully support it and wish you good luck.

But for now, I am going ahead with the vote as described here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 27-2-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


That is well put and fair enough.

Even if those opposed to this outnumber those for it by 100/1 then it makes no difference anyway?

The few have been chosen and the few must choose..... that's the way it's always been and that's the way it will always be.
I am disgusted by this entire thing as most are, but there really is no point going on and on and on and on about it.

What's done is done and WE can't change that....even though WE were supposed to be deciding this amongst ourselves.....but hey....

Anyway... good luck with it all and I'm sure there will be more arguments once the 6 are announced.


Peace to all.

(And thanks to those who were fighting on the side of fairness and justice.
You know who you are
)



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Works for me.

I believe that we did all we could to make this fair, while at the same time reaching a decision quickly so that we can get to work.

I'll stand by the result of the vote.

You've done great work here BH.




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
The few have been chosen and the few must choose..... that's the way it's always been and that's the way it will always be.


Oh, I don't think that's the way it will always be. This was a special circumstance to get the committee in place. In the future, I'm sure the DISC vote (if the Committee continues after this one) will be as it has been in the past, with board-wide nominations, "campaigns" and board-wide votes, as it should be. This was a special case.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in

join