The SUSPENSION of illicit drugs/mind altering substance topics on ATS (The experiment failed)

reply to post by pieman


Nevermind, that's eastern time. I lied.

Nevermind, it doesn't matter if it's eastern time. I'm dumb.

[edit on 2/27/2009 by ravenshadow13]

[edit on 2/27/2009 by ravenshadow13]

reply to post by pieman




I put EST as well.

Oy.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by nyk537]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I'm just a bean counter.

Rofl, you caught my post

Okay, going back to school to debate the electoral college. (It shouldn't exist, obviously).

I will see you cool cats later.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Good Luck!

Will you be back before 3?

Voting will hopefully be done.

I wonder though, this committee is going to have much work to do. I sure hope some of the the nominees are up to it.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by darcon]

BH, is it inappropriate to ask how many peoples votes you're still waiting for? just curious.

has there been any indication from staff as to how they would feel about a public discussion of how this should work, i think it's a really important element to this but i wonder if staff might feel it's counter productive.

reply to post by pieman


I believe she said somewhere in this thread that she would be counting votes at 3pm Eastern time and not before then, even if all the votes were in before then.

edit to add the link even though she came herself

[edit on 2/27/09 by americandingbat]

Originally posted by pieman
BH, is it inappropriate to ask how many peoples votes you're still waiting for? just curious.

I have received 24 people's votes (out of 30 possible). Remember, it was an option not to vote, so it's possible not everyone will.

has there been any indication from staff as to how they would feel about a public discussion of how this should work, i think it's a really important element to this but i wonder if staff might feel it's counter productive.

All interaction I've had with staff on this matter has been posted in this thread. So, no. I haven't had any indication from them beyond what I've posted here, which is basically, some minimal, "You guys work it out." Hence all the brouhaha.

I don't suppose those who feel left out will be moved by any argument to the contrary; but I would like to at least identify why I was among those who encouraged aggressive action (which necessarily involves NOT waiting for days while we slam each other about).

What struck me as urgent was the initial post by Springer.

(excerpt)

.... Effective immediately we are implementing a ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY on the discussion of illicit/illegal drugs, or the improper use of anything to achieve a mind altering state. This includes any and all "conspiracies", "laws", efforts to legalize, etc...

In short if a topic has anything to do with illegal drugs, or the misuse of any substance to achieve a mind altering state, it is not welcome on ATS.

The Zero Tolerance Policy is as follows:

first offense = post deletion and red tag warning/points deduction.

second offense = instant Post Ban and Account Review for possible permanent ban.

third offense = permanent ban of account

Please don't waste your time or ours trying to "negotiate" with us on this.

.....

The line "Please don't waste your time or ours trying to "negotiate" with us on this. " was the key to my push for haste.

In my estimation it meant that the entire staff and/or ownership had already exhausted their patience and willingness to consider this any longer.

When the hint of a possible 'reconsideration' popped in, I wanted to grab it before they changed their minds.

Was that 'evil' or 'elitist'? I think not.

I am most assuredly not going to cry if I am not part of the proposed committee to assemble the litany of member-offered solutions. I didn't even vote for myself, because, in my opinion, those for whom I voted have demonstrated their capability for rational and fair judgment, and personally I trust their good-intent.

The aftermath is a clear example of why Democracy fails.

But I ask you:

Does a "a ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY on the discussion of illicit/illegal drugs, or the improper use of anything to achieve a mind altering state. This includes any and all "conspiracies", "laws", efforts to legalize, etc... reflect any sort of consistency with the axiomatic "Deny Ignorance"?

For me it's the principle of the thing, yes. But I can not refute the fact that such a limitation reduces any realistic attempt to cooperatively examine any number of conspiracy theories, or alternative news items, as a sham. And anyone who actively pursues such subjects knows it.

This propensity to attribute bad-intent or monumental flaws in the selection process serves merely to distract any body from it's goal: GET THE BAN LIFTED AMICABLY.

When dealing with a stance such as "don't waste your time or ours trying to "negotiate" with us" immediate reaction is certainly called for.

Policies grow roots, and this could grow and virtually decimate our membership as it does. That serves no one.

I have endured reading this thread multiple times (ugh!) and each time I see objections I find myself wondering "objecting to what?" and it mostly seems to be a matter of ego. It appears that in some posters opinions, those who felt compelled to engage the new policy declaration immediately should be 'ashamed' ?

I am not. Sorry to disappoint.

Conspiracy theory discussions can not be 'restricted' without openly acknowledging that they can never be fully explored. My focus is on the legal, legislatorial, and social process by which such prohibitions are formed, implemented, and repealed. That whole venue IS NOW DEAD.

Yeah, I'm in a hurry to fix that. It's part of my interest (and at least some others).

For those of you posting about where are the nominees and how come they haven't been posting I'll tell you what. This is not a political process. This process was born of necessity to deal with an immediate and absolute policy change. And for those of you you have posted about not caring at all - either way - I'll repeat myself, your silence is appreciated.

But if you feel the need to post here, I would say you evidently DO care. Which is a good thing in my book.

Let's try to keep this thread full of 'good things' not 'vitriol and angst.'

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Maxmars]

okay, wonderful stuff. thanks BH.

i wouldn't suggest, even a tincy, tiny suggestion, that the results be announced prematurely dingbat, the thought fills me with horror.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Forgive my potential ignorance, as I've only read about half this ridiculously long thread, since every page seems to be the same few people posting the same things over and over again, but why do only 30 people out of however many thousands of active members get a say in any of this?

I have no real interest in discussing drugs on the site, but what makes these 30 members so special, other than the fact that they happened to be in this thread during the few hour window of opportunity?

None of this makes any sense to me

Another 2¢ from me:

Many people have asked, "What's the big deal ... why the hurry?"

This thread was posted as a notice. Not as a discussion or debate. Through the instant and overwhelming reaction to this thread we've made a move for reconsideration (even if it is slim that there may be a lift to the ban).

I think it was many member's opinion to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. If we let a two week discussion of how we should vote happen and the whole while the ban has remained in place and everything has ran smoothly - why would the Admins consider lifting it?

Who knows, maybe the Admins will come back and tell us we need to hold elections. Maybe they'll hand pick members (which I think EVERYONE on the nominee's list is in favor of) or maybe they'll decline our committee altogether.

But, as a few here stated many, many pages ago, "We tried."

reply to post by pstiffy


Where were you 80 pages ago?

Point made.

reply to post by Maxmars


I totally agree, and it has only gotten worse.

People have been banned because of this new rule.

Even some of the Nominees have been Banned as of late.

The sooner we get this Committee up and running, the quicker we can discuss a fair Compromise, where the BAN on drugs is not in effect.

But as it stands, BAN on drugs is in effect.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by darcon]

Originally posted by americandingbat
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

reposting every couple pages or so in case people want summaries

edit to add another link:

Skeptic1's summary of the suggestions made yesterday

[edit on 2/27/09 by americandingbat]

reply to post by pstiffy


Now that's a good question.

My bad that was brief. All apologies.

As for where he was? I'd imagine he was doing the things off line that people do... you know... life and such.



[edit on 27-2-2009 by Resinveins]

Folks... this is a massive thread that has grown more rapidly than any other in the history of ATS -- perhaps also a mega-thread with the fewest participants -- please refrain from minimal posts as indicated in the text at the top of every page in this thread. Single-thought "you're right," or "good point" style posts will not contribute to productivity.

Please... me mindful of potential new readers who already have a near-impossible task to get caught up on the current state of affairs in this thread.

Future minimal posts will me met with a removal and warning.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Originally posted by pstiffy
why do only 30 people out of however many thousands of active members get a say in any of this?

They were nominated by other people on this thread who have a vested interest in the subject.

There were various attempts to make a board-wide nomination and voting process, but those were discouraged by Skeptic Overlord, in favor of the people in this thread working it out in here. So, the members of this thread decided to have a vote among themselves. I withdrew my name from the nominee list and offered to manage and count the vote.

Originally posted by pstiffy
I have no real interest in discussing drugs on the site

well then, why is it important to you how we go about trying to facilitate these discussions?

why is there so many people so much more interested in how the committee is chosen that the work the committee would have to do?

reply to post by pieman


I'm afraid many are simply interested in whatever sense of "power" being on this DISC would entail.

Those of us who submitted our names are interested in helping the cause and ATS only, not in gaining attention.

I believe those who are upset at the way things are going do not have their hearts in the right place here.

The people we need in this DISC require a certain sense of selflessness that many here have not shown.