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: 96
42
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   

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


I didn't "essentially" announce anything. In fact, many people were nominated after that. That was even before I put up the board-wide vote which got closed.

Here is where the nominations were actually closed. Yesterday at 2:30 PM.




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by tyranny22
 


I guess you just had to be lucky enough to be on the board when that post was then made.



Now off to work...


reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


You see that as much better?

Just sayin'

[edit on 27-2-2009 by loam]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
I'm really in support of the staff pick. That's all. Any voting isn't going to make everyone happy and if the staff picks, the validity of the committee won't be questioned as much.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
I just want to clarify when we started discussing the vote and then when we decided to implement it, this is to everyone who is mistaken,

After this post by S O, is when everyone started discussing votes, and nominations, which was posted,

posted on 25-2-2009 @ 03:50 PM


This is when we decided after much due consideration to implement it,


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I will send a U2U to everyone on the list and ask them to reply to me within 24 hours with their 6 picks. I will include the complete list. (Daystar has asked to be taken off as he/she doesn't have the time)

Reddupo
Maxmars
Cutwolf
whatukno
CavemanDD
ToTheTenthPower
DocGonzo
Frankidealist35
Unit541
Ahabstar
Anok
Loam
Jasonjnelson
tyranny22
omega85
ravenshadow13
SaviorComplex
spliff4020
N. Tesla
Schrodingers Dog
Skeptic1
Amaterasu
AllTiedTogether
budski
americandingbat
pieman
darcon
nyk537
Ridhya

Tomorrow, I will count the votes. If a person in the top 6 doesn't want the job, the next person will be chosen.

No more nominations please.

How does this sound?


posted on 26-2-2009 @ 02:33 PM

So, for about 24 hours, many on the forum at that time, discussed ways of doing this.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by darcon]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Darcon I don't know how you do this without taking a break. My elapsed time working on this is approaching 48 hours... as is yours.

Like, people aren't going to stop arguing. I stopped arguing and went with the plan that was decided on because we're all tired of arguing. Skeptic and myself really wish the staff could have decided and they probably will have to anyway, once more people step out after the results are made public and are like "biased, I hate this, this is unfair, it's not valid."



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
You see that as much better?


Well, yes, I do. A 24 hour nominee-gathering period is very reasonable, I think. It's a heck of a lot better than the 3 hours you allege.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


My honest guess is that if there is that large of a negative reaction to a group of members simply forming a committee to analyze the situation that the Amigos will likely decide to do away with the whole thing and make the ban permanent.

At least we have been give a chance now. We didn't have to get that.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
At the end of the day a decision was made - it maybe wasn't ideal, but any decision is going to make some people moan.

I get the idea that some want more time simply so they can run a campaign, and that isn't what this is about.

If a member is in this for personal reasons or for glory, then they are not right for the job.

Simple as that.

If the mods pick, people will moan.

If the nominees pick, people will moan.

If the amigo's pick, people will moan.

Some are doing their best to find a solution - we can either do that or carry on with a blanket ban.

Either way, people will still moan.

How about being positive and helping out a little?

Is that really too much to ask instead of all this negativity?



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


I agree, i had six hours sleep, and here i am again.

Man something is wrong with me


But this is why we are here, to try and find a solution to the BAN on drugs.

People will look back on this thread, and say, what the heck were they thinking, that must have be insane to spend the whole day on ATS. Well my friends, ATS means that much too me, and many other.

personally, i think by staff choosing, is the best way.

But SO has given us the go ahead with the vote, no matter how unfair or controversial it may be. I understand, as you understand, but the process is under way.

I agree, were still bickering back and fourth. People are getting mad, some say we are playing a political game, others think we are doing this so we can just talk about druggies. Me you, and the main group of contributers have already explained our disposition in the past 50 or so posts.

They know our stance, and we know theirs.


I am not going to address them anymore.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by darcon]

[edit on 27-2-2009 by darcon]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Guys I'm totally lost at this point. Last time I checked (yesterday) this thread only had about 50 pages didn't it?

This little election is out of control.

I don't care, as long as we do what it takes to address the drug discussion issue.

I'd love to give my 2 cents, however and wherever its needed.

End of story.

Frankly I can't keep track of whats going on anymore but I'm eager to help.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Hello everyone. Please don't bite my head off if this has been discussed before but this entire situation looks like it is being overly complicated in my very humble opinion. It looks like an unofficial committee to form a committee and an unofficial vote to decide whether or not to vote. Then it seems people are upset for a variety of reasons like the nominee list, voting, etc.

Why not just make a forum that is hidden like RATS and invite-only like the Bully Pulpit and call it a day? Then make the rules that no talk of personal drug use is allowed and the forum may only consist of topics dealing with news stories, drug-related conspiracies, legalization movements in legislation, etc. Then something similar to 1-2 strikes and you're out of the forum.

My sincerest apologies if any of the above has been discussed. This thread is almost 100 pages and looks like it is moving extremely fast. It just seems like it has a simple solution but is being overly complicated.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by darcon
 


You did better than me, I got four hours.

Bullets:

1. Ashley, we did consider that, but the rules and regulations (if we can negotiate at all) are supposed to be discussed in the committee with some of the staff. If you look probably at like page 20, I kept saying that I didn't even think we needed a committee, since we had all agreed pretty much on a separate forum. And I'm sorry that that sounded harsh because I tried to make it sound sweet but there isn't much sweetness left. I need to restock, lol. And SO was the one who proposed a committee, so we said okay, and tried to come up with ways to get one fairly. And apparently we failed.

2. The staff choosing would be the best way because it may not be perfect, but it will be official and valid.

I just want the members who wish to discuss the issue to be fairly represented. I don't want people to have fun with stoner talk and stuff, I probably won't even take part in many of the discussions, but really they deserve a chance and if someone's unhappy with this voting thing because they think they will be unfairly represented, we did the best we could, and now the staff should just choose, if there is to be a committee at all.

[edit on 2/27/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Yeah this is crazy, reminds me of that Canadian parlaiment channel. We're a bunch of old men sitting facing each other on wood stained benches, just bantering back and forth about nothing, and then we all give ourselves a raise.
hahaha.

I haven't been adding much actually. I made maybe 5 posts to state my points but I've been following every post..except i came on today and realized there were like 40 more pages then there was yesterday and so I think its a bit much.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
OK. I'll go back into my hole. lol I just cannot help but get the 'let's have a meeting to see if we need to have a meeting to see if we need to have an official meeting' impression from all of this. Carry on!


I haven't been participating in this so it's unfair for me to tell anyone else how to do things. Just wanted to add my two cents. Enjoy!



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
My honest guess is that if there is that large of a negative reaction to a group of members simply forming a committee to analyze the situation that the Amigos will likely decide to do away with the whole thing and make the ban permanent.


This is my concern as well. If we as members don't demonstrate that we can work together to form a committee, even if not 100% of us "get our way", then why should the staff bother to compromise with us???

Believe me, I didn't "get my way". I wanted to make the nominations and votes board-wide. That was MY preference, too. That was my proposal.

But what do I know? I'm just a bean counter.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
For people just coming back:

Here's links to the summaries of this thread that I wrote this morning. Hopefully they will help get people oriented to what happened over the previous 60 pages of this thread



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
There has been much talk about Bickering. Yes the many that are here are going round in circles, we have tried not too, but for some reason, the same things get brought up. The fact of the matter is, we are all trying to help.

I am sorry if my comments added 10 pages to the reading material
but i am a vocal person, and it shows in my posts.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by darcon]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
We all really just wanted to help and discuss the reasons why many of us thought that this policy was unfair. And it turned into a committee. And it turned into voting. And I seriously don't know anymore but we're working really hard to TRY and make everyone happy.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Yes, we discussed that.

It's not your fault, just trying to help.

Yea the Thread is getting longer by the minute, thanks to people like me



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by budskiI get the idea that some want more time simply so they can run a campaign, and that isn't what this is about.

If a member is in this for personal reasons or for glory, then they are not right for the job.

Simple as that.


well said, the longer this goes on the worse i feel.

in how many hours is 3pm central, i'm using GMT, you know, the real standard



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join