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