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

reply to post by Reddupo


these are great rules to follow... are they going to be used for people who talk about the abuse of the government? this is called sedition and is illegal as far as I know. Lot's of things are illegal that are talked about on ATS.

Is it illegal to assault your children, child abuse? Is it illegal to for police to abuse those that are being taken into custody? Is it illegal to question the government? Is it illegal to speak against the government lies? YES to all......

Try following the T&C and then if it doesn't work do something to the abuser of the system. Don't penalize all for the reactions of a few.

Deaf ears on ATS.

reply to post by jasonjnelson


See my post on Page 17 for your answer.

hope this helps

Understood. No problem. Gotta be careful about breaking the law.

Originally posted by outatime
If a crappy little web site...

If it's so crappy then why are you still here?

i nominate docgonzo, daystar, ahabstar, and omega85.

we gotta get people we know and trust into it

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not sure, but I think it would be more demanding on the mods. People are waiting for their posts to show up and that means mods are under pressure to read them all and get them posted. I'm not sure though.

OKay, then scrap that. Making more work for the mods is not the way to go about making this work. As IF they don't have other stuff to deal with.

My original opinion still stands. A Public Oath, strict forum, Bully-Puplit Style... that way the responsibility falls on the members.


- Carrot

reply to post by SvenTheBerserK


I think that if our plan works, they would just be moved to the new forum.

They would need to place more mods in that specific forum, and would replace the mods from other boards with new mods. Again, they did this for 9/11, and they did this when the elections came around. It's not a super huge big deal, and the work would be evenly distributed with more mods in the picture. More members + more issues = more mods.

Um, no one nominated me, so I nominate myself just because I came up with the whole "War on Drugs Board" idea. So I can support that. I'm also on ATS everyday.

[edit on 2/25/2009 by ravenshadow13]

reply to post by pieman


That's the exact reason I disagree with it.

Sure, I have 10,000 points, but there are many who do not. That doesn't mean that I don't want to hear what they have to say.

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Unit541

 

i've been here since i was knee high to a space hopper and i still don't have 10,000 points (cause i'm lazy and uninspiring,) so i don't think a minimum points thing is a good idea at all.

You raise a valid point that I did not consider, and based solely on your responses in this thread, believe you would more than "qualify" for participation, thereby invalidating the minimum points proposal in my mind. Thanks!

Just one more question, if and when you start a drug based forum; How

are you to have a complete debate without both sides? You cannot just

simply go on "facts" without anyone with experience weighing in, not

saying you have to describe completely your type of use but having a

drug based forum where people can't discuss pro's and con's of use with

actual users; the thread would become extremely redundant.

Originally posted by Unit541
I think a 10,000 point minimum (or similar) is a fantastic way to weed out the trash. It also solves the problem of banned users obtaining a new IP and username and returning to trash our boards more. No reason anyone even needs to be aware of such a forums existence until they have gained some credibility in the community.

As Raven said earlier, there are many newer members who will have the maturity and intelligence to make great contributions to the proposed forum and on the prohibited topic. We shouldn't restrict their access based simply on their length or frequency of activity. We would just be robbing of people who could make great contributions to discussions.

However, that does not mean we cannot find a middle-ground. If a newer member does violate the T&C, they could be restricted from posting to the forum or commenting on related topics until they reach 10,000 points (or however).

If there is a dedicated forum and/or area for this discussion, with access granted rather than automatic, then I would be all for it.

For too long, this discussion has been subject to trollish behaviour - and if there is a way to overcome that and have reasonable, informed debate, with penalties for transgressors then I think that could be a good thing.

As long as everyone remembers that they asked for heavy moderation

reply to post by ravenshadow13

I nominate you, if its any consolation

[edit on 25-2-2009 by darcon]

reply to post by tyranny22


I agree.... i don't think points is the way to go at all.
There must be an alternative criteria?

...dedicated forum
...strict moderation from a large group of Mods
...strict oath/rules to agree to before being allowed to participate
...2 strikes and you are out of dedicated forum
...certain drug topics allowed but nothing about illegal personal use or personal "pothead" stories
...maybe a review of posts before they appear in the dedicated forum??
...forum threads not to appear on front page of ATS (meaning flags are disabled in that forum)
...maybe a points "buy" to gain access to the forum to go along with the oath (similar to RATS)

Reading through everything, is this the compromise that most of the members would like to see? Maybe is on some of them due to the fact that those are still being disagreed upon by some.

reply to post by skeptic1

so kind of like the bully pulpit thingy that came in during the elections in the US?

Yep, I'd go with something along those lines

reply to post by TNT13


1. The granted access would be agreeing with the rules of the forum, and if any rules are broken even once, then you need to reapply directly.

2. For TNT, I think it would be acceptable to find and post descriptions of the positive effects of being high for meditation, as long as you don't talk about yourself doing it. Like, kind of like posting side effects for a medication, only posting the effects of the substance. If you're mature about it, and do the research, you shouldn't have a problem.

Originally posted by TNT13
Just one more question, if and when you start a drug based forum; How

are you to have a complete debate without both sides? You cannot just

simply go on "facts" without anyone with experience weighing in, not

saying you have to describe completely your type of use but having a

drug based forum where people can't discuss pro's and con's of use with

actual users; the thread would become extremely redundant.

This is exactly the issue I raised on page 20. I just hope the administration takes this under serious consideration.

I demand DocGonzo and N.Tesla for the comittee! Do it Nao!
2nd line

reply to post by skeptic1

...dedicated forum
...strict moderation from a large group of Mods
...strict oath/rules to agree to before being allowed to participate
...2 strikes and you are out of dedicated forum
...certain drug topics allowed but nothing about illegal personal use or personal "pothead" stories
...maybe a review of posts before they appear in the dedicated forum??
...forum threads not to appear on front page of ATS (meaning flags are disabled in that forum)
...maybe a points "buy" to gain access to the forum to go along with the oath (similar to RATS)

Sounds good, with Benevolent Heretics List of nominees,

Reddupo
Benevolent Heretic
Maxmars
Cutwolf
Whatuknow
CavemanDD
ToTheTenthPower
DocGonzo
Frankidealist35
Daystar
Unit541
Ahabstar
Pieman
Darcon
Anok
Loam
jasonjnelson
tyranny22
Ravenshadow

Originally posted by Reddupo
We understand. You believe this entire policy change is ghastly.[/quotes]

Depends on which policy change you are talking about. If it's the proposed policy-change, I love it. I love it so much I want to take it out to Make Out Point.

Originally posted by Reddupo
But we have to compromise here.

Oh, I understand that. I'm just throwing out ideas for consideration.