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

reply to post by blupblup


LOL, Convince the other twenty eight nominees LOL

Your probably got somebody hostage Don't tell me, saviour complex?

In that case, you can keep him. Just joking, ti was a JOKE!

reply to post by loam


No, but this is how Admin wanted it.

Originally posted by nj2day

But, not everyone who self-nominated is a good choice... some of them just think they are getting some sort of special status here on ATS by doing this...

There are a lot of suck ups and attention fiends on this board... I'm sure you'll agree...

I do agree. But I think that given the list we ended up with, the people who wouldn't be able to be reasonable representatives of everyone probably won't get the most votes. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty optimistic about it.

I'm not having any problem with this whatsoever... I just think its yet another attempt to placate the membership... that will eventually result in naught...

This is possible. But I think that the admin are really motivated to find a way to relax the total ban – which is a new position for ATS to be in. This is the first day that it's been official policy that even clearly conspiratorial illegal drug topics are off-limits, and I think that's gotta be causing some strain backstage and within staffpeople's consciences as well as out here.

I just voiced that because it is what I believe to be the point of view of the members who are having problems... Sometimes stating the argument from a 3rd person perspective helps understanding... sometimes not... but I figured i'd try :p

And for what it's worth, I agree that it went awful fast. Admittedly, I've never used the chat feature so maybe the new policy isn't affecting me as strongly as it is some people. But I think most things are better solved over a couple days than through marathon 26-hour sessions.

reply to post by nj2day


The thing is that people are voicing opinions like that about the nominees and it doesn't make any of us feel good. Especially since, like, I've really been on this thread for hours and hours, over a day now, and there's been debate the entire time and we all thought we were making the best decision that we could at the time. Votes have already been cast, and BH is in charge of that right now. Like I've been "foed" over this, too, and it's really just not making any of us feel okay because this entire time I've been saying like, what the members want, fair representation, compromises. When people didn't agree with my ideas I said "okay, I changed my mind, this idea is a better option, I was wrong."

79 pages of that and we are aware, like I'm aware, of how you all feel but seriously if anyone here doesn't get it, go back into this thread and read every page and please try to understand where we're coming from. Why we HAD a voting thread for ALL THE MEMBERS and decided to CLOSE it. It's all here. So really the accusations (not necessarily just from you) are making me insane and I am also trying to do this intense presentation for tomorrow for a class and the frustration is not helping anyone.

reply to post by skeptic1

Originally posted by skeptic1
No, but this is how Admin wanted it.

Maybe I missed something but I don't think admin set the timing or the specific process.

Moreover, what opinion SO shared seemed to be just that-- an opinion. Not necessarily a directive.

Maybe the train has already left the station and it's too late to change course, but I really regret so many feeling the process was unfair.

If enough of the membership feel that way, what will we have accomplished here?

Again, just askin'

[edit on 26-2-2009 by loam]

reply to post by ravenshadow13


I agree, we were just doing what we thought was best, and it wasn't our intention to make anyone feel left out.

Originally posted by darcon
The members that were there, all agreed it was the best route, so here we are, defending our standpoint.


[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]

Not everyone there agreed. Please stop misrepresenting things. There was indeed dissent. I know this because I represented a good deal of it.

reply to post by Resinveins


I must have mistaken things then, i will rephrase it, a Majority of the members that were on there at the time, Agreed.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]

Anyone else gaining many foes out of this one

Seems every post i do someone adds me as there foe, i must really be hated

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by skeptic1

 

Frankly, I too am not entirely comfortable with the apparent haste of this process.

Classic misdirection and sleight of hand isn't it?

Magicians don't do their tricks slowly, mate... They do them quickly so that the audience can't see what their doing, and how their perspective is being manipulated...

Meanwhile, after all is said and done... we'll hear the magicians tell us that the policy stands... and the membership was unable to provide legit reasons for repealing this rule...

I'll find links I guess, so you guys get a historical perspective...

I like this part

SO quote :
"-1- user finds ATS drug topic
-2- user joins and becomes a member
-3- new member posts about personal use of drugs
-4- staff takes action
-5- new member gets pissed, claims we suppress freedom of speech
-6- staff takes more action
-7- new member gets more pissed
-8- new member is banned
-9- new member creates more accounts to complain and disrupt "

I personally dont recall any such time where I have posted information about drugs other then u.s. gov being involved in the dealing part but you run into that good old brick wall again where do you draw that invisible line.

Not just with drug use but with anything you have too much so called inforcement of the rules you get called a police state too much freedom we need more police. Ban the user especially if that user has a group of people that support him or her you run into a martor or better yet you could have more then just one person jumping ship.

Ats considering how long its been here has been pretty good on restraint when it comes to outright banning people I can only name 2 people that have been banned if I was to list the names and im sure simon or sceptic or others wouldnt have done so without just cause.

Three strikes your out doesnt work either what to do about it? If I had the answers to questions like this I would be a rich man sadly im poor. But regardless of what I think im just one person I will live on the dirt ball called earth for maybe 86 to 700 or more years that's up to god not me.

I dont know what to do about this other then send out a notice possibly once a month and after say 3 or 4 months if a member is still around after that stop the e-mail reminding them of the guidelines and rules. Even if you have 20 or 50 people activly watching the thread or topic there are still 100,000 + people on ats that are members I dont know what the exact number that visits here per day but just on those numbers thats a work load that 50 people watching 1 thread arent going to be able to keep up with.

Thats my 2 cents here.

Falcon

Originally posted by darcon
Anyone else gaining many foes out of this one

I got my first foe out of this. But honestly, I think whoever ends up on the DISC committee can count on pissing off a lot more people. Taking heat is going to be part of the job description. And very likely they'll be taking heat from both sides, cause SO is pretty annoyed about the whole issue right now.

reply to post by darcon


No actually, I am not. Nor have I had friends added...I suspect however I have been put on some ignores, mentally if not physically.

I will probably get one soon so I don't feel left out

I've gotten two foes in the past hour. The funny part is one of them I have never heard of or seen before in my life. But that happened when I posted before in other topics. And I always get the most foes from the threads where I get the most applause. Except the honeybee one, that was just good...

Ridiculous. Really. I do have a cool anthropology thing going on so it's helping me vent through the form of colorful slides.

I'm hoping this will have simmered down by this time tomorrow.

reply to post by americandingbat


I've gotten 2 so far.

I consider them a compliment.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by skeptic1

 

Frankly, I too am not entirely comfortable with the apparent haste of this process.

I feel badly for anyone who feels cut out of the process.

Moreover, there were hints that this role may deal with other issues as well. In that context, that would make the speed of this selection process even more unfair, imo.

Perhaps we should rethink this.

Would the board really melt if this specific policy were left to stand a few additional days?

Just askin'

I agree with Loam on this one. It seems for the last few hours it has been a couple of the nominees pretty much running things. I understand that some have put time into this, but because they happened to be present front and center doesn't mean those who were absent should be pushed out.

We need to be careful because it seems that ego's arise easily out of situations like this.

More time and planning how to enact this would be helpful.

This shouldn't be an emotional issue as it is turning out to be. Makes me wonder how people will/would react if the heat gets turned on within the committee itself.

reply to post by americandingbat


True, it will be part of the job description. They will be no man's land in some cases.

The Corporate Committee and the Committee for the people.

How they act, is how they will be defined.

I sure hope they Act for the people.

Originally posted by Resinveins
reply to post by americandingbat

 

The more I think about this... the more I fear this may all come to naught but some bone thrown the memberships way in order to keep us all busily chewing on unimportant details while distracting us from the issue of ATS censorship.

That thought has been growing in the back of my mind all afternoon : /

I promise that if this is the case (and I so happen to be on the committee), I will let you guys know.

There seems to me to be an inordinate amount of anger right now, which when seen through the eyepiece of civility looks rather repugnant.

Fact 1. We don't own this site. We use it. It is a privilege to be here. (At least for me)

Fact 2. Those who DO own this site have the right to put whatever policies they want into effect. For whatever reason, it really has no bearing at all, they decided to take action on something they felt was ultimately bad for the community which exists within the experiment that they are ultimately responsible for.

Fact 3. When the community was outraged, the Owners of this site decided to allow the community an attempt at policing itself.

Fact 4. The vocal community at that point in time, earlier this morning, after discussing it all night came to a consensus not on what needed to be done, but that something needed to be done and quickly.

Fact 5. The one who most everyone felt was most impartial was not interested in making policy, but was very interested in facilitating discussions between those who own this site and those who use this site.

Fact 6. Many people who were not online during this evolution of the thread at that time feel somehow disenfranchised.

Now, to my opinion.

ATS is not the USA.

I know, we like to think of it as an example of what the USA would be like if it were a full blown democracy, because this site, for the most part is seen as the democratization of thought. But it was never meant to be that. It was meant to be a place for the democratization of conspiracy theory.

We, the account holding users of ATS are simply guests here, participating at our own luxury. If we can't sit back and be happy that those who own this house we are guests in have decided to allow the group to have a say in any fashion, but instead get bent out of shape because we didn't have a say in it, then I would say we were being incredibly rude.

I understand that many of those who feel disenfranchised about this also feel disenfranchised by their own political systems. But ATS is not one of those political systems. The power at ATS is not found in political power, although that kind of power is generated within the community. The power at ATS is found through whatever it is we feel to be truth, and the timing of the communication of that which we feel is truth. But it is all relevant to conspiracy theories.

Yes, it's true that certain illegal substances are part and parcel to many conspiracy theories. And the owners of this site had no problems with people speaking about the use of '___' on agents captured by the CIA during the cold war. But we, the user community of ATS, somehow feel like everything should be a moral war.

This action by the Owners of ATS is nothing different from the actions they have taken in the past when the Middle East forum blew up, or the Decision 2008 forum blew up, or when people got so carried away in general with personal attacks that the owners of ATS had to take action on that as well.

I know, that I have not been perfect throughout my tenure here. Heck, I used to be here under a different name, but was banned myself one time when I got so emotional about something I went off the rails.

At the time I said "Screw them then". But I realized how much I really enjoyed ATS. I came to ATS because I enjoyed the discussions... not because I got angry at the discussions. So I'm back under a completely different persona, and with a completely different attitude, because I want to be. It is completely voluntary.

And this is my point. If ATS makes you so angry you could spit... then you either need to take some time to yourself, or a Mod will eventually do it for you.

I think we should all at the very least recognize that we have no right to make demands. It's one thing to say what you think should happen, and even debate the merits of your point for a page... maybe two. But to go on , with anger, post after post, and page after page... that just makes one a pariah

I know... I've been there... I was a pariah once too. It happens. But you can always change your perspective on things, and begin enjoying the conversation again instead of feeling insulted.

In the end, I've said my peace on what I feel should happen on ATS as it relates to the discussion of drugs, or the enactment of policy around it. I know many of the people who were nominated saw my posts, and I trust them to take them into consideration. If they don't oh well. I enjoy ATS for so many different reasons, nothing anyone does on here is really going to screw that up for me, as long as I don't let it.


[edit on 26-2-2009 by HunkaHunka]

reply to post by ravenshadow13


I doubt it. I hope so too, but i am sure more people will be mad with the decisions made.

I just wonder if the staff will accept whoever got nominated, we might be fighting for nothing, as S O seemed very mad, especially after Chat was disabled.

It is silly though eh, that so many people would go on, and start discussing stoner stories, makes you wonder.