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

reply to post by Odessy


Send your list of six to Benevolent Heretic via U2U.

reply to post by Odessy


Unless you're on the list.... you don't get a vote.

reply to post by Odessy


The way the current voting is working, is that only the nominees vote. Each nominee votes for a total of 6 names from the 30 that were on the last list as posted by Benevolent Heretic. The 6 names with the most votes become our nominees to the DISC, and agree amongst themselves on a leader.

Wow! Monstrous thread! About a monstrous topic. Took me two days to read every post, like a good boy, before posting.

I applaud ATS for re-considering their stance after all the initial negative replies to the announcement of zero-tolerance, and asking for our input regarding a compromise, and suggesting we form a committee.

I'm an advocate of the legalization of marijuana; as it is one of the best medicines for treatment of my PTSD, and am very interested in seeing a forum pertaining to it's discussion.

I have tried very hard to comply with T&C's, about my past use, but may have, somewhere along the line, and I apologize from my heart if I did.

And I understand, Skeptic Overlord, your delicate balance on the topic of drugs, your reasons, and frustrations over whether or not to allow it.

Now for a gut-wrenching admission: I was on chat three or four mornings ago, and during a conversation about cigarrette prices, I mentioned Drum tobbacco, and rolling one's own as a cheaper alternative; another member chimed in about once owning a rolling machine; and then I said something along the lines of rolling something "better". . .or "other". . .but no actual drug-speak, technically; just a 'gray-area' implication..............that's all.

I hope to God I wasn't one of the "stoner idiots" who ruined the privilage of chat for everyone else...

I just needed to confess this openly to my fellow ATS members, and take responsibility for my foolish actions, and of course, take the accompanying heat and or consequences. Again, I'm terribly sorry.

Originally posted by Resinveins
reply to post by Odessy

 

Unless you're on the list.... you don't get a vote.

I think Loam and others are now in agreement that the vote should be opened back up as to who is "on the list" or something to allow others to be considered.

If this is true, where and how will it be implemented?

LOAM? Are you in charge of that?

reply to post by Resinveins


And to clarify, the majority of the people on that list wanted the staff to pick from the very beginning. But it was said that the number was too large and it should be pared down. Guidance was asked and while I was out running errands today, the answer was to quickly narrow down the list to 5-6 people.

The ones that were online debated and concluded the most expedient action was for those nominated to vote to limit popularity contests and to have answer quickly.

The vote had started and those that were online agreed that in fairness there could be a re-vote and anything was subject to staff approval. Yes there are those that nominated themselves (I did way back on page 16) but there is no one on that list that was not seconded at the very least.

In the process, some have asked to be removed and some have been added. While the whole thing has been the epitome of fairness, it has not completely arbitrary either. Some might even say that it is a fairer shake than what most get in life.

I know the feelings here and I share them as well. But think of it this way, those that are selected (by however) are going to have a whole lot of eyes on them to be sure that things are done fairly. And as this thread has shown, that is going to be far from an easy position.

reply to post by FRIGHTENER


Hey there, thanks for the confession, i need something to read

I hope you weren't too, but if you were, i forgive you

reply to post by interestedalways


Benevolent Heretic is in charge

The list of nominations was left open for 9 hours.

Anyone who just happened to stumble through the door could have thrown their hat in the ring if they felt so inclined. I don't think the time extension argument has much of a leg to stand on.

But, whatever the admins decide I'm fine with. I'm dizzy from running in circles.

reply to post by tyranny22


Me, neither.

Let's go with what we have instead of trying to come up with something else.

Nothing is going to be perfect or please everyone.

[edit on 2/26/2009 by skeptic1]

reply to post by interestedalways


As I proposed in this link, to make the process somewhat more fair, I'd recommend the following:

1) A nominee thread will be opened and remain open until February __, at __:00 pm EST. At such time, the thread will be locked and no further nominations will be possible.

2) Once the nominee thread is closed, the voting period will begin. All votes should be U2U'd to ______. On March __, at __:00 pm EST the voting period will end.

3) Upon tally of the votes, the six members with the highest number of votes will be announced as the committee members.

Originally posted by interestedalways
I think Loam and others are now in agreement that the vote should be opened back up as to who is "on the list" or something to allow others to be considered.

If this is true, where and how will it be implemented?

LOAM? Are you in charge of that?

I think we should just let the vote proceed as it has been and deal with the fallout tomorrow.

But, if consensus is to reopen it, I think that:

1) Benevolent Heretic should be in charge of the reopening and moderating the nomination thread (this means waiting until she's awake though)

2) It should be reopened sometime after 3pm ET tomorrow, with a clean slate, and left open for at least 24 hours to allow everyone who might be interested to nominate themselves.

And for the record, I still wouldn't object to staff selecting from an expanded list of nominations, but I'd be fine with a member vote too.


[edit on 26-2-2009 by loam]

The only concern that I have with reopening the nominations is that the list may become WAY too overcrowded,and that it'll slow down the whole process quite a bit.

Not to mention some of us on the list have already voted,and it might be a bit unfair to the new people throwing their hats in the ring at this late stage,when most of us already have our minds made up.

I think that everyone should have a voice int this,but like others have said....we can't please everybody.

reply to post by americandingbat


I have to agree with you. Let the Sh#t hit the fan.

Things are set in motion, and if the people don't like the formed committee, re open the voting, or let the staff pick.

But we have already implemented, and have had the go ahead for this vote.

We cannot keep changing our minds about this.

Or we are going to Die Alone!

- Jack Shepard from LOST



[edit on 27-2-2009 by darcon]

reply to post by darcon


I agree.

Staff should have picked in the first place, but now that we are voting, let it continue. And, what happens happens.

reply to post by DocGonzo


I understand that not everyone can be pleased.

But we have to admit something.

If you just looked at this thread and tallied the opinions already expressed herein, it could hardly be argued that the 'decision-makers' concerning our current approach resoundingly outnumber the voices of dissatisfaction with what we are doing. In fact, the math may even go in the other direction, if really properly assessed.

Couldn't we fix this just a little?

Who cares if the nominees total 100? Only six people will get the most votes. I can live with that outcome and I suspect most of the others could too.





[edit on 27-2-2009 by loam]

reply to post by loam


Well you know my opinion on it.

I just do not want to drag this out any longer.

I even voted for your first plan, but seriously, i think we should just let the pieces fall where they may with this vote, especially now that S O said let the vote happen.

If all else fails, like i said before, we can implement a new vote, or Let staff pick, which is what i wished would happen.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by darcon]

Would it be possible for staff to open a thread for the sole purpose of having a place to put all the names together?

The thread could be one where no talk is shared, just names for nominees.

With all the times zones that we have members living in it really wasn't fair to slam this thing out in a few hours why many were sleeping.

There could be a 24 hour thread opened and then the names could be gathered and we could proceed from there.


Just an idea.

Edit to add:

This thing really isn't being dragged out. We have a large membership here, it takes a minute to develop a consensus. Look at the timeline.


[edit on 27-2-2009 by interestedalways]

reply to post by loam


I think we have a process underway. And it may not be a perfect process, or even anyone's first choice for how this should have happened. But it may very well produce a really good panel of member representatives.

If we reopen nominations, then I foresee arguments kicking up about how it shouldn't just be the nominees voting among themselves, it should be a whole-forum vote; then accusations of partisanship and clique forming. Why not see what we come up with tomorrow?