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: 95
42
<< 92  93  94    96  97  98 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


i kind of figured the same thing yesterday and it looks like i've missed quite a number of mini dramas.

wow, this has got to be the biggest can of worms i ever had the pleasure to have known. roll on 3 o clock.




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by darcon
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Hey,

You know what you did with your one post right now, do it for the 3 or 4 summary posts you just did. I think many need to read them.


Okay. Here goes:

These are my perspective on the events of yesterday, as objectively as possible. Any disagreements, please let me know by u2u so that I can make corrections:

1) DISC according to americandingbat

2) The nomination process as it stood as of 9AM Friday February 27, Eastern Time

3) Renewed controversy and frayed tempers

4) What I think

The only significant addition I would make at this point is that Benevolent Heretic has come online and said we will continue as planned – she will count the votes and release the names at 3PM Eastern Time today.

I will continue to monitor this thread, but as nyk said, I don't think there's much productive work I can contribute until the names are released, so I probably won't post again (unless a specific question comes up that I think I can answer of course; but no more opinion posts from me
)



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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...


Did you happen to mention to SO that a HANDFUL of members within the thread decided in under three hours who, what, and when?

Three hours.

You comfortable with that?

What about a greater or equal number of members within this thread who have since objected to what we have done here?

I interpreted the closing of your voting thread for its premature timing NOT for its presentation to a broader audience. Moreover, why two weeks when a couple of days for people in THIS THREAD would have been reasonable?

Why were the choices three hours or two weeks in your book? Who decided that?

Like I have now repeatedly said, what we have done here has not been fair to those in THIS THREAD who I am now concerned outnumber the 'decision makers' within that three hour window.

All of this could be easily changed with NO downside.

I'm not sure why anyone would resist that?

My opinion, but I for one feel badly how this has all materialized.

Very disappointing.


Now, since I actually have to work for a living
, I guess I will learn this evening after-the-fact what ultimately transpires.

(For the many of you who have expressed displeasure with this process, I did my best to help you out.)

My apologies.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by loam]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


I agree (again)... the way this was rushed through was most unseemly. And the arbitrary way in which it was done makes the whole process laughable from the beginning to the end.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
I could also debate that your post is the most pointless I've ever seen on ATS...


You certainly could.

As doing so would be in the spirit of the origins of this site.
It also wouldn't contravene any T&C's (unless it led to a series of personal attacks.)

I could also debate that it had EVERYTHING to do with discussing outside 'PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED ILLEGAL' activities.Which I agreed not to do when I signed up a few years ago.

Common sense for your own safety really.

(No Animals were harmed in this example BTW).



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Unfortunately there is no solution that is going to be perfect for everyone, however hopefully something that works for the most people possible will come to be.

While there has been a lot of drama in this thread there has also been quite a few members who have really stepped up and shown that they want what's best for the community.

Whatever ends up being worked out, that is the important part (for me anyways) because when you have people who care about something - even if they differ to the extreme - a positive will be reached.

Thank you to everyone who has stepped up and offered to help.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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.


For the record, and without the presumption of inclusion to the committee, this would be my recommendation in this regard.

After the DISC committee has been chosen after 3pm today and they themselves chose a leader I would hope for the following to happen.

- The committee goes through this thread (again), as Skeptic1 has already done, to harvest all the existing suggestions.

- These suggestions are compiled as part of an OP of a new thread as a starting point for review by the membership at large, to comment on and to suggest further ideas or changes.

- A final draft of a proposal reflecting the concerns and ideas of the membership at large gets drafted and is once more presented for peer review.

- Final proposal presented to staff for review.

- Proposal will either be accepted/accepted with changes/rejected.

To me this is where the mandate of the current DISC committee would expire.

Should the upper echelons of ATS wish to continue with the DISC concept as an ongoing project to represent the community at large and to address ATS issues across the board, then ALL the current/temporary DISC members should resign and open the nomination and voting process to the WHOLE community.

This is my humble opinion, whomever is on the current committee should get on with the pressing matter at hand which has precipitated the "quickening" of the process. Once this issue is put to bed one way or the other, and if the ptb wishes to keep DISC in place, it is only fair that its committee members should have the wider mandate of the entire community.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


This first list was compiled by BenevolentHeretic @ 03:57 PM, 25-2-2009.

This final list was sent out by U2U @ at 08:04 PM, 26-2-2009.

The entire membership of ATS had a chance to volunteer to be on the list anywhere between those two times.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Agreed.

My only other point would concern the "negotiations" that take place.

The committee will need feedback from any and all who have an interest in this.

I suggest a thread, highlighting the main points (as you said) and then left open for SENSIBLE ideas about how to proceed/action any points or suggestions.

I certainly intend to make my ideas known, whether I am on the committee or not - given the chance that is



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Djarums
 


I agree completely, and it's something I've seen stressed here by many members as well. I think no matter how we decided to select the 6 members for this particular situation, we'd come out with basically the same group.

I say this because there are those who have participated here who show beyond doubt that they are more interested in supporting ATS and the rest of the members than they are themselves.

That kind of selflessness always shines through the clutter.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by tyranny22
 


That is NOT correct.

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.

When the U2U was sent out is immaterial to the ACTUAL WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY provided to participants within THIS THREAD.

Can you show me otherwise? Maybe I missed something. It's possible.


[edit on 27-2-2009 by loam]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by tyranny22
 


Was it really that long, wow.

I know a whole day still seems unfair, but i honestly thought it was shorter than that. Thanks for checking that out.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


Sure can. Please see BenevolentHeretic's post at 08:55 AM, 26-2-2009 in which she says:




Then, if you still want to nominate yourself, I'll put you on the list.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by darcon
 


It was shorter than that... much shorter.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


You are mistaken my friend.

That is around the time BH tried setting up a thread, where everyone could vote on the nominees(Before we came up with nominees vote Nominees). Which the thread got closed.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Get your facts straight



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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...


Did you happen to mention to SO that a HANDFUL of members within the thread decided in under three hours who, what, and when?

Three hours.

You comfortable with that?

What about a greater or equal number of members within this thread who have since objected to what we have done here?




Why not? ATS is NOT the USA.

ATS is not a democracy. Where is this sense of disenfranchisement coming from?

Read the post in my sig if you need clarification on that.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Hi all, hope you had a good night.
I don't really see anything different going on than at last night, I assume we're still waiting for 3pm and not everyone is in agreement still. So again, to restate, I think we should just see if anyone ends up strongly disagreeing with whoever ends up on the committee, and if that happens, we should be willing to reevaluate the situation, possibly with the staff's help.

Lunch is delicious.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
And I have to point out, relative to my above post that many of the people here that are arguing against the vote were already part of the thread discussion when BH posted that comment.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by tyranny22]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


As far as I'm concerned , whoever this vote spits out is irrelevant.

If the process used to pick your pool of candidates is unfair and arbitrary, the results it produces are meaningless.

Lunch you say?



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 92  93  94    96  97  98 >>

log in

join