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

Originally posted by darcon
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.

Anonymity + immaturity + publication of what makes TPTB angry = exacerbated problem.

Originally posted by interestedalways

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.

To be honest, this was one of the major factors in how I cast my votes. They went to people who I was comfortable with the prospect of having knock-down drag-out arguments with if necessary, and who I believe could handle that in a civil and respectful manner.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Very Valid Points, i do see the merit in your posts, and past posts

I need to lighten up LOL

reply to post by Cutwolf


It sure seems like it doesn't it.

I liked your earlier idea though, i just don't know how organized it will be.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]

To me,this thread and the Chat is Closed thread,are evidence of why this committee needs to be put in place.

What all this boils down to is that the majority of people on ATS are not being represented due to the T&Cs,and other such restrictions placed on us all.

We need a go between.We need people who can tell it like is and not shy away from a subject for fear of being banned,or shunned,simply for speaking their mind.

Again,this thread represents the petty bickering that is really diminishing ATS,and has been for some time.

I only hope that when this is all said and done the moderators,Owners,users,and all of us who enjoy this site will be able to agree on certain compromises and make ATs a better,more enjoyable site for everyone.

On page 62 - I finally realized how this voting was set up...

Don't get me wrong - I'm happy that those opposing the ban
now have *those selected* - to represent them.

BUT - this voting was messed up. You know it. All those voting knew.

And please stop polluting the thread by meaningless messages to each other,
this thread is extremely long to find any sand of rationality in it.

And now that Congress-style "democratic" voting process is done, I can
safely bet that suggested ban will materialize pretty damn soon...
Mart it.

reply to post by darcon


Nope. Not a one. I don't know whether to be shocked.... or pleasantly surprised.

reply to post by Resinveins


Bath in your Glory my friend

The foes that added me, i just added them to my friends list

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]

The whole recent argument about the "fairness" and "legitimacy" of the vote is just silly. On the list there are more than enough who are very capable of putting forth a good case on the subject and it's only natural to assume that those people will be selected. This isn't left vs right, everyone on the list is on the same team - working towards the same cause -- OUR cause.

It's not a problem of whether he/she gets picked instead of him/her. The problem was whether or not we'd even get this opportunity in the first place... and guess what? We did. We should be happy, and there really is no need to argue -- it's just ridiculously silly!

I can GUARANTEE everyone on that list is there because they're willing to represent those of us not on the list -- therefore I'm quite certain they will be more than willing to listen to our additional input on the matter. If needed, another thread can be opened for those of us not on the list to pass on our own ideas for those on the committee to consider.

Everything will be alright, just stop the pointless back and forth arguing.

[edit on 26/2/09 by Navieko]

reply to post by DocGonzo


I agree with much of what you said

It is sad that there is much bickering going on(As i am a part of it)

not shy away from a subject for fear of being banned,or shunned,simply for speaking their mind.

Which in turn is why there is so much bickering, back and fourth. It came to a point where i believe were just going in circles.

Many of us were doing just that, speaking our mind.

reply to post by darcon


Ahhh I was replying to your question about the foes... and no I haven't received any.... which I'm going to interpret as a good thing for me.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by HunkaHunka]

I think I need to comment on the (understandable) frustration of the people who feel that this whole process didn't include them.

I'm really in the same boat as you guys.I had no idea I was even nominated until I went to chat and people were telling me I was up for some committee,and even then I had to wade through like 20 or so pages just to figure out what that meant.

Also,yes,there have been people who have been involved in this thread way more than some of us,but hey...the way I see it is they got the ball rolling on something that NEEDS to be done to keep ATS from imploding.

I think they should be congratulated for that.Not ridiculed.

I've been talking about this subject and fighting for it since I came to ATS in 06,and I'm flattered that some of the people I talked to took notice and nominated me for it.

However,bottom line is,whether I am on the committee or not....this is a crucial step towards finally getting something done about this stuff,and putting an end to the pointless bickering.

I think we can all support that.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by HunkaHunka]

This is very fascinating I must admit. There are many many things we are allowed to discuss here on this site that unfortunately encourage people to disagree, argue, fight, and yell at each other over the internet. There are so many forums here discussing illegal activities on a daily basis. I do not see them being banned or removed.

I am trying to understand the true purpose of this, because I do not see it. This is honestly the last place I thought something like this would occur, this is why I enjoy coming here.

The problem isn't the topics being discussed, its the members, and how many of them lack civility and responsibility. The fact that we can still have open discussion about Pharma drugs, alcohol and other such substances is very indicitive of a much greater scheme here. There is no sense in that, and people being disrespectful and uncivil has nothing to do with it. This seems to show a lack of responsibility and honor of the statement that made this site "Deny Ignorance".

I including many others will be watching you a little more closely ATS.

reply to post by DocGonzo


I will indeed try to heed your advice.

reply to post by Navieko


A rational voice. And a legitimate answer to the question as if the nominees could vote amongst themselves in a reasonable manner.

Regardless of a vote having been called for and taken, I think that there is always a possible ability for a re-vote if the community as a whole do not approve of the representatives. Or those that "won" as the case may be.

Some may even call for a re-vote because they want to change how they voted or the staff may not approve of the the selection for what ever reason.

Just because something has been "done" does not make it "final". Best evidence of that is US law vs. CA law on the subject, both current and proposed.

reply to post by Ahabstar


Yea, i dont see why we cant call for a re-vote if the members in the Committee are not what the Members of ats want.

Just out of morbid rhetorical curiosity, what are we NOT going to be allowed to discuss here next? Posting has become a Politically Correct Minefield, this is allowed, this isn't allowed in this or that context... If cramming anything that remotely suggested mind altering substances into RATS was what you guys called an experiment, then yeah, it was a failure from it's inception IMO.
Can we still talk about, for example, the Bush sr. era CIA running Cocaine out of South America through Mena Ak here? If so, how do you guys justify the search engine reasons we keep hearing about? Google hits the word coc aine in a CIA related thread just as well as it hits it in an illicit context thread...
Why not just stick to the T&C you had already established and enforced that worked for years and years previously without some sweeping new policy? What's changed? Too many people figuring out what a Pineal Gland is or something?

Edit:
There was a Vote?

[edit on 26-2-2009 by twitchy]

[edit on 26/2/2009 by nerbot]