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

reply to post by nerbot


It's a good idea, we discussed some similar, but without the hidden forum. I am also for Strict Mod intervention, but either one is good.

I am glad there are members discussing ideas, it will be good to put this in your suggestion box idea.

It was discussed earlier, the suggestion thread, where the committee would speak too the members, and pass the messages on to the staff.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]

Originally posted by twitchy
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...

Good luck getting an answer to that, you'll also find that posting personal drug experiences is perfectly acceptable as long as it's a bad experience and promotes the anti-drug agenda. The newer search engines are able to drill all the way down to context now.

I actually like having a forum where this isnt discussed because it is almost never discussed like mature adults. You can never have a normal legit conversation about it, it always turns into how much someone smokes and it gets annoying.

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
You can never have a normal legit conversation about it, it always turns into how much someone smokes and it gets annoying.

That's what moderators are for, and if the thread isn't about how much someone smokes, which it most likely isn't, then you just hit the alert button and the mod sees the off topic and disruptive nonsense and removes it. This subject should be no different, but it is and there is a reason, I believe it is outside advertising influence making this demand and the admin is tyring to blame "stoners" and "druggies". Aren't the mods able to do their jobs?

[edit on 26-2-2009 by 27jd]

Originally posted by twitchy
Just out of morbid rhetorical curiosity, what are we NOT going to be allowed to discuss here next?

Next?

First of all, as indicated in my posts and the opening post of this thread, we've always had restrictions on drug-related topics. We recently relaxed those restrictions, but are now going back to how it was.

And... what other topics are you referring to? You seem to imply this is another in a surprisingly growing list.

Can we still talk about, for example, the Bush sr. era CIA running Cocaine out of South America through Mena Ak here?

I wish we could.

If so, how do you guys justify the search engine reasons we keep hearing about?

Did you not read my update linked in the opening post and today's mass-U2U?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


There have been many people unaware of the updates. Posting silly comments, and uncalled for comments too. It seems many just deleted the U2U...

For the record:

I am against the general idea of quitting the process that is underway.

The issue of the committees creation was rushed, but not recklessly so. I disagree that any intent to disenfranchise anyone was there.

Since the matter is so important, I suggest that determining its legitimacy should constitute the committee's first order of business.

reply to post by Maxmars


I agree. It is not a popular stance, but I do agree.

Originally posted by darcon
Posting silly comments, and uncalled for comments too. It seems many just deleted the U2U...

Are you telling him because he can't read for himself?? As for the U2U, it was insulting and didn't really clear up the concerns we as members have, only ridiculed them. We ARE this site, they make money off of OUR thoughts and ideas. Without us, they would have nothing.

[edit on 26/2/2009 by nerbot]

reply to post by skeptic1


I agreed,

But i said i would only participate if the majority agreed.

reply to post by Maxmars


I agree and I just messaged Loam so. If there is a problem with the outcome tomorrow, then another method should be considered, but I think this was the majority's consensus and personally I think it should just be over soon and I don't care who is on the committee because really it will be discussed fine either way and hopefully at least one person on the committee will listen to the general public. I think that the administration should have appointed a group, and since they didn't, and since time seems to be short, and since it was discussed over 30 pages or so, I really think that a decision had to be made and no one is going to be happy with anything that happens, anyhow.

And I'm tired, and my zoology project is being annoying and I have no idea if this quicktime format will work on windows, and I need to print these slides and I wish tomorrow was the weekend already. I just don't want to argue any more tonight, I don't want to change anything right now, I want to sit tight and see if anyone gets eaten tomorrow or whether people calm down.

[edit on 2/26/2009 by ravenshadow13]

reply to post by 27jd


I was telling him, because he is not going to read the last 35 pages of this thread, especially with all the bickering that just occurred in 3 hours.

There have been many people, misinformed, posting on here, without knowing the update.

Originally posted by Maxmars
For the record:

I am against the general idea of quitting the process that is underway.

So am I.

I don't want to change anything else tonight. I don't want to come up with an alternative idea. I don't want to start any more voting. I really want to wait until tomorrow afternoon to see if an alternate method will be necessary.

I think he will not tally the voted in time, and if he does, it will be against.

So where do we stand on the list?

In order to kick-start this, should our staff be trusted to select the names from your short-list of nominations?

OMG. This is getting ridiculous and extremely trivial.

Are we seriously going to allow this effort to be derailed?! Quagmire comes to mind.

I respectfully withdraw my name from consideration. If Loam wants to take my spot, that's fine by me - if it'll quell the bickering and further process of resolutions.

Seriously people?

Just to be sure I'm not misrepresenting my opinion.

I want the results of the voting to stand.

I would like the resulting committee to make its number one priority to assess how realistic their consensus will be taken by the members. If they all agree that another round of voting/selection is in order, then so be it. But I stand by the fact that the committee should have the opportunity to make the decision. ---- assuming ATS management doesn't get directly involved and decide for them.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
In order to kick-start this, should our staff be trusted to select the names from your short-list of nominations?

I would be all for that!

If not, I'm with Maxmars on this.




[edit on 26 Feb 2009 by schrodingers dog]