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

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Yeah that would have been cool to do like 8 hours ago... haha...
I don't even know. All I know is that having members up against members is somehow worse than members against staff. I am deeply sorry about that, but clearly we cannot make a decision. I don't know how BH is coming along with the votes, I'm pretty sure she got frustrated and signed offline, and clearly voting among the nominees only is not okay because the rest of the members want to be involved.

Originally posted by darcon
There have been many people, misinformed, posting on here, without knowing the update.

I agree, they should see the update. And make note of the "druggie culture" remark as well to see the admins obvious personal dislike for "druggies", many of whom have contributed hugely to this board. I get pretty annoyed by all the "religious culture" and such, but I've never called for their posts or topics to be banned.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


We are voting on the nominee list now.

Nominees voting for nominees.

BH is heading up the vote process.

Started this afternoon, ends tomorrow at 3 eastern.

Most of us would have preferred Admin pick from the list, though.

[edit on 2/26/2009 by skeptic1]

reply to post by skeptic1


Other members are going to want to overturn it. Loam already wants to. If we continue the vote we started, people aren't going to be okay with the results no matter what.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


That was many peoples first thoughts. Was to let the Staff choose out of the nominations.

Since then, we have decided to do a vote among the nominees. All the nominees are too have a voting period until tomorrow, where they cast 6 votes, by U2U, to Benevolent Heretic(Not on the nominee list). Once the votes are in, she said she would tally them, and Announce the Committee Tomorrow.

Nominees are the only ones voting.

There has been much scrutiny against the people who decided to do it this way.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Exactly. The method may be clunky but there is some merit to it working. If there is a problem (major or otherwise) some alternatives have been suggested.

Keep in mind, the staff can accept or reject the results or the vetting process of how it came to be.

To clarify, I'm not against revising the way of deriving the committee, but we gotta decide something!

20 something pages of arguing one way or another is enough already. Any qualifications for being on the committee are quickly deteriorating as this thread grows.

Revise the process already, if that's what it's going to take to further matters.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


I know and I have responded to Loam.

If SO wants to take over and pick from the list now, take over the choosing of the committee, I am all for it.

I thought this thread was about "The END of illicit drugs...." not this bizarre voting thing. You should probably start another thread about the voting, or not. Whatever, guess the T & C are selective.

reply to post by skeptic1


I am all for that

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Staff picking sounds good to me.

SO, if you are still reading this, it would be best if Admin took the list and picked.

It would solve a lot of problems.

JMO....and that of several others.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

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]

As am I

Is there any argument from the opposing side about the staff picking the committee members?

I'm all for staff pick if we can't proceed with what's already been decided.

reply to post by tyranny22


Loams tally will fail, too many people want to go ahead with things, and rightly so.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Actually, it may be interesting for you to make a list and compare how the nominee votes turn out if the results of all votes are posted. I think all the nominees expected you (or others) to have a veto power or input to the process in some fashion anyway.

I vote for staff picking!!!
Haha, voting jokes, not so funny anymore.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Isn't that the truth. 24 hours on ATS, and constantly posting in this thread, yeeeshh voting jokes are dead indeed.

I think Maxmars, Americandingbat, and two staff members should get together and pick.

I would feel comfortable with that.

Just a lil bit of irony. I wont post this as an article on breaking news, but it's relevant in this thread.


Holder said some things yesterday which was an implicit nod that the raids on state legal marijuana operations would stop.

The abstract irony to what we are experiencing here now is how the spokesman from NORML interpreted this...

After Eric Holder's comments Wednesday, blogger Radical Russ on NORML, the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws, wrote that people should mark down 2/25/09 as "the beginning of the end of adult marijuana prohibition."

I thought that was hilarious after the last 80 pages of this thread.