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

EDIT:
Double post. See bottom of previous page. Mods feel free to delete this post.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by tyranny22]

Originally posted by skeptic1

Wouldn't you prefer people who actually gave a flying rats behind about this topic than people who voted just for the sake of voting??

I give a rats ass, and I have already been eliminated from this "just" process because I wasnt on in the last 24 hours. So yes, I do think that people who care should have input. I just dont think that "people who care" in necessarily limited to those who were on in the first 24 hours after that U2U and post.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I will quote Benevolent here,

It's a fact that no matter what we decided to do, someone wouldn't be happy about it.

I suspect I haven't heard the last of the criticisms for my part in this. We even went over the downsides of the different methods.

I DID put up a vote to the board, but staff closed the thread. We have discussed for many pages how to best make this happen and Skeptic Overlord has been involved.

I'm sorry you're unhappy with the decision and it may not stand. Staff may not approve of it, either, but the majority of us participating in this thread did something we agreed on would probably work.

Again, i am sorry you disagree. We made a decision, we felt the longer this went on, the more complicated and worse things would get. I respect your Opinion, but what done is done.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Well, like I have said numerous times, not everyone can be pleased by everything all the time.

This moved quickly due to this thread and Admin's decisions regarding the DISC nominations and voting.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by skeptic1

Wouldn't you prefer people who actually gave a flying rats behind about this topic than people who voted just for the sake of voting??

I give a rats ass, and I have already been eliminated from this "just" process because I wasnt on in the last 24 hours. So yes, I do think that people who care should have input. I just dont think that "people who care" in necessarily limited to those who were on in the first 24 hours after that U2U and post.

The committee is being formed to figure out to have intelligent and mature drug-conspiracy discussion on ATS.

If you support the idea of having intelligent and mature drug-conspiracy discussion on ATS, then have no fear, every potential committee member on the list is on your (our) side.

If you do not support the idea of having intelligent and mature drug-conspiracy discussion ATS, then you shouldn't be worried about being on the committee at all, as it's counterproductive to your cause.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Would it be fair to say that ATS experiences or experienced a similar a organised gang or gangs of stoners in the same way Neo Nazis came to ATS some years back ?

For the first three or four years or so that I was member the standard was that you could discuss the legalization of illegal drugs just don't post any personal experiences . Then the No tolerance rule came into effect along with the bogus claim that it had been the case all a long . In the end I made my peace with the issues I had at the time for the sake of me posting as a member .

So why go thou all of this again ?

reply to post by skeptic1


Also, i think the biggest push is when Skeptic Overlord put in his last post, basically telling us to move forward. I think we were waiting for the staff to give us a sign of some sort. But like BH said, we can't please everyone.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I disagree that you "dont care" or "arent on often" if you miss any given 24 hour period of time on ATS.

I didn't say that, so I don't know what you're disagreeing with.

I am reminded of a recent article in time magazine that says;

As I said earlier, I suspect I haven't heard the end of criticism for my part in this. But the fact is, this was a joint effort and we based our decisions on what SO and the other participating members of this thread were saying.

reply to post by darcon


And, that's what we did.

We moved forward. Not everyone will be happy, but that is the case with everything.

I would think that people would prefer to have the blanket ban removed as soon as possible instead of dragging this out. If that it possible, that is.

[edit on 2/26/2009 by skeptic1]

Originally posted by skeptic1


Not everyone is going to be happy with the outcome no matter what it is. But working towards a happy medium is best all-around in my mind.

Can that same complaint not be applied to democracy in any form? "Not everyone is going to be happy regardless of the outcome," is a true statement, but does that mean we should just throw up our hands and have a facist state? No. It doesnt.

And logic like that is exactly WHY I dont want the first 6 people who raise their hands speaking for all of us.

An intelligent solution that meets the needs of the owners and allows some discussion of topic involving illicit substances can be had. But it isnt going to be had if we lock out all members who might have jobs, or school, or other things that might have prevented them from seeing this in the first 24 hours.

I am very pleased that the people who were on in that time frame have been proactive. But I am not pleased that they are characterizing themselves as the only ones who care and visit ATS often. Thats self serving.

reply to post by skeptic1


I know we are going to get criticism, but from what illusion wrote, he was a bit ticked that he missed the opportunity to be on the nominee list. Which is understandable.

We moved forward like you said, it was a joint effort, between the main contributers thus far on this thread. Most agreed to BH's plan, and we acted on it.

We needed to do something, it is of my opinion, things were only getting more complicated and fuzzy as time went on.

Reddupo said it perfectly.

The committee is being formed to figure out to have intelligent and mature drug-conspiracy discussion on ATS.

If you support the idea of having intelligent and mature drug-conspiracy discussion on ATS, then have no fear, every potential committee member on the list is on your (our) side.

If you do not support the idea of having intelligent and mature drug-conspiracy discussion ATS, then you shouldn't be worried about being on the committee at all, as it's counterproductive to your cause.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I don't know who is doing that, but it is certainly not most of the people who were nominated.

True, some people nominated themselves, and I think some people on that list shouldn't be on it at all.

But, the committee, when selected, will be working for the members. And, they will be working with Admin for the members.

Hopefully, they won't be working for themselves or to push their own agendas regarding other things.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Again, I made a few points about this as well and suggested that re-votes are optional as well. There are a few on "the list" that are late comers to the thread.

There have been suggestions of each person stating clearly why they are able or even qualified to represent not just the issue but the concerns and opinions of others.

There have been speculations that some are using this a fast-track to becoming a mod. And speculations of many other concerns.

As for me personally, I have had conversations in U2U's and in this thread with a few of these points. I also have some opinions that I have not shared that are not directly related to the topic at hand, but don't read that as particularly ominous.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I do agree with you man.

I feel a little let down by this myself.
But hey, can't please everyone....

I think this should be done properly and not rushed through as I've stated before.
I think every single member of ATS should have a say in who runs/decides this committee...i thought that was the point.

We were gonna take time and do this properly... why rush something and do it half-ass??

Take your time and select the best people for this from ALL the members here...not the most eager or popular!!

And allow EVERYONE to vote... not just those on the list...



[edit on 26/2/09 by blupblup]

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

I am very pleased that the people who were on in that time frame have been proactive. But I am not pleased that they are characterizing themselves as the only ones who care and visit ATS often. Thats self serving.

I don't think that anyone really means to imply this, although I think SkepticOverlord came perilously close to doing so in his post.

I basically agree with what you're saying, and my first reaction when I logged onto ATS sixteen hours ago and found a 47-page thread with discussion of a new policy affecting us all and people more or less making a decision within a few hours of the u2u going out was indignant to say the least.

I know very serious and valuable ATS members who only are here on weekdays; I know others who only are here on weekends. There may even have been one or two 24-hour periods in the past 6 months that I wasn't on ATS. This process has been far from ideal. But it is what happened; it seems to fit with SO's request for a panel of member participants and also with his implication that he'd like for this to get off the ground ASAP. And for what it's worth, I think the thirty names we ended up with include a lot of really good responsible members from a lot of different perspectives.

I think, due to the telling response, they will have to allow some discussion, but have more moderators and mod discretion and maybe co-moderator decisions.

Such intellectual filters however are minefields. You would have to have a degree in therapy and psychology as well as a few other behavioral sciences to really make authoritative judgments on the writing of hundreds of people daily.

They might need stress pills (drugs) too.

Also the mods will have to be VERY objective if at all beholding to a personal political, religious or ideological philosophy. Power corrupts.

As I said before, I don't envy the position one iota.

ZG

reply to post by americandingbat


I think many are mad at the decision we made. They by all means have a right too. I can see both sides. Though i think what we did was ultimately for the best.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]

reply to post by blupblup


You raise a good point and I don't disagree.

However, I don't think that most people still hanging on to this discussion are doing so as a "fast-track" to becoming a moderator. I know that I have no interest in being a mod.

However, if I can help in any, way, shape, form or fashion (including monitoring specific threads to keep discussion pertinent and on track - even at a "member" level) so that no subjects are 'banned' on ATS, I'll do whatever I can.

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but how would everyone feel if, rather than re-focus the monitoring of the boards, the owners decided to ban 9/11 discussions?

I care not how it's resolved ... whether members are elected to a committee or if the owners decide to appoint old school mods ... there's a bigger issue at hand.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by tyranny22]

Originally posted by blupblup
I think every single member of ATS should have a say in who runs/decides this committee...i thought that was the point.

And allow EVERYONE to vote... not just those on the list...

I wrote a proposal to Skeptic Overlord and suggested just that .

Here it is:

On picking a DISC for a drug discussion forum, member americandingbat came up with this idea and the following is my proposal based on her idea. I would like staff’s opinion and backing on moving forward with this idea, if it’s approved.

I would like to start a thread for self-nominations where any ATS member who wanted to be on the committee would state their reasons and qualifications. This thread would stay open for a period of time. Say 2 weeks.

After that time, I would conduct a vote, among those members only, for whomever they think would best fit the committee. In other words, only members who are interested enough in the subject and to want to volunteer a significant amount of time over an open-ended period, would be voting for their peers. This method would be less open to "popularity contest" skewing than an open forum vote. I think if each nominee voted for 3 members, it would be a fair selection process.

They can send their vote to me via U2U for privacy.

The top 6 would form the committee and could vote among themselves for the DISC leader.

I'll be happy to conduct this thread and count the votes and display the results.

Please let me know if I have the “go-ahead” from staff and I’ll get started on this ASAP.

His response:

The announcement thread has been up for 24 hours. By this time, anyone not providing a substantive commentary within that thread either doesn't care about discussing drugs on ATS, or isn't on ATS all that often. I think the members have their participants within the people who have already contributed (to the thread).

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by mr-lizard

 

So well spoke that I made it my sig line for the forseeable future...

I'll second that!

Is this not a true reflection of the world we live in? I personally can't stand most alcoholics because of the negative effect they have on the world around them, but the opposite is true of the pot smokers. They talk sense instead of crap, to you instead of at you, are fun to be around instead of nice to get away from, are creative and not destructive and are generally very nice, peaceful people.

I do feel that the problems this ban is addressing has hit a large number of those everyday, regular people who don't treat the issues as a "stoner" but from a much more mature perspective with a wish to discuss the related topics with friends they know here. It's all very well saying "there are plenty of sites for that kind of topic".....but I'm sure they'd prefer discussing them with friends they already have here. Seems like anyone who wishes to address any issues regarding a subject involving illegal drugs has been unfairly labelled a "stoner".

I'd love to know what Simon Grey (Founder & Chief Properies Officer), Stephen Melzer (Chief Financial Officer) and Jeff Lombardy (Director of Sales) have to say on this matter too. Do they ever show their opinions here? And why such little imput from moderators, have they been told not to post? Understandable I suppose, but 1400+ replies in a 1 day kinda says "important" to me.