The SUSPENSION of illicit drugs/mind altering substance topics on ATS (The experiment failed), page 9

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:03 PM

link

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Uniceft17
Does this have to do with sponsors? ADs? Google?

Did we say that? No.

Did we say it didn't? Yes.

Im sorry Skeptic I dont believe that is entirely true. Maybe not consciously but unconsciously, I think you are well aware of the fact that the quailty/attraction of Site content is directly connected to advertising value. Now if I was paying you for advertising on your site, I sure as hell would not want to be seeing some of the stuff that comes up in Drug related threads in anyway connected with my product. This is a simple fact of living in real world.

The way I see it, it is probably hard enough to get advertisers on board ATS as it is without the illicit drugs content. Everyone here gets to benefit from this site been run like a business and professionally layed out. Otherwise, well...... we wouldn't be here would we!!!!!!!!!!

Of all the crazy things that are talked about here and the wealth of knowledge some members have in various topics, I dont think I'm going to miss the illicit drug related ones which inevitably get derailed in to chaos and are utterly pointless.

Er...... so I agree with the site's decision mainly because I have little interest in the illicit drugs topics here. Now the day you go and censor government corruption, Truth etc etc thats the day that I will be organising the angry mob, pitchforks and all!

neformore

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:03 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Some of the responses here are off the scale, really.

You want a conspiracy? I'll give you one.

The ATS Terms and Conditions say - and have done since the very early days of the site - this

By becoming a member of these domains, you agree to the following:

2e.) Illegal Activity: Discussion of illegal activities; specifically mind-altering drugs, computer hacking, criminal hate, sexual relations with minors, and stock scams are strictly forbidden. You will also not link to sites that contains discussion of such material.

The real conspiracy here is the people who have wantonly decided to ignore that, out of purely selfish reasons, without a thought to those people who access the site from public facilities employing net filtering, behind work firewalls that have net filtering, and from countries where discussion of drug related subjects is restricted by government censorship.

People who will turn any thread - even a sensible discussion - into one about useage.

Each and every post on the subject on ATS is one step nearer to restricting access to the site for people who - in all honest - probably couldn't give a monkeys about other peoples habits.

And ATS has nothing, whatsoever, that it can do about the policies implemented by external employers, advisory bodies and governments, apart from enforce the policy that is set out in the site terms and conditions. One that every single poster on the site agreed to when they signed up here

And yet people are complaining about the reaffirmation of the policy. Why?

Now there is your conspiracy.

Plainly and simply. If discussing these issues is a persons number one reason for coming to ATS - when the subject is already prohibited then I personally have to question their motives for doing so.

If its not your number one reason, then again, I have to ask, whats the big deal? Its a big internet. There are, as is continually pointed out, a myriad of places where such issues can be discussed, indeed there are whole sites dedicated to it.

ATS happens not to be one of them.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

[edit on 25/2/09 by neformore]

SaviorComplex

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:04 PM

link

Originally posted by Rollinster
Well it's not illegal to talk about drugs in an intolerant manner.

It's not illegal to ACT in such a manner either.

It is illegal to purchase sex, but not talk about it.

It is illegal to purchase drugs, but not talk about it.

Revolution is an illegal activity so you all better knock off that talk too.

Automatic weapons are illegal so put that up on the list as well.

This can go on for days...

You miss the point. It is not the discussion of illegal drugs that was the problem, or the conspiracy surrounding their illegality, or the crimes that are committed. It was the fact that people were discussing their own illicit activities concerning these drugs.

Can none of you see how that would open ATS up to a whole host of problems?

chissler

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:04 PM

link

Whether you agree or disagree with this decision, all members are deserving to be treated with courtesy. So please, stick to the topic at hand and speak with civility.

Thank you.

tristar

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:05 PM

link

Originally posted by darcon
reply to post by Frankidealist35

There is no doubt about it. A whole Topic, full of conspiracies is ruined.

But the Blame is not on the Owners, so they say. The blame is supposed to go to a couple of immature posters, that is why we the people are never aloud discuss this sort of thing ever again.

Things like, "what if the Government is bringing Cocaine into the Country?"

Which is a big topic.

Or "what if the government is putting substances into the medical marijuana?"

Those are legit(However outlandish they are) Conspiracies. Though we are not aloud to post about it anymore. Were still aloud to talk about alcohol though.

Would like to point out that :

the Gulfstream II jet filled with 3.7 tons of coc aine that crashed in the Yucatan a couple of weeks ago(2008). According to the Austin American Statesman, this plane has previously flown to Guantanamo Bay, which has a highly restricted airspace. The jet, with the tail number N987SA, changed hands twice in recent weeks. But how it ended up in the hands of suspected drug traffickers remains a mystery.

Just to get things straight, would this topic be considered out of policy. Just need to know what is considered a conspiracy and what is considered a theory. Since the mere mention of the word theory suggest a plausible fact.

Frankidealist35

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:06 PM

link

Skepticoverlord, are we still allowed to post drug related topics in RATS?

SaviorComplex

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:06 PM

link

Originally posted by Unit541
Neither is a California assemblyman introducing a piece of legislation.

You are right. And I agree this policy is heavy-handed and obtuse as the people who are railing against it. However I also understand and appreciate why ATS is doing it.

In essence, they are protecting us.

ANOK

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:07 PM

link

Ah, so because it goes into the hands of "ordinary citizens" and not the government, that somehow makes it okay, no matter what they are doing with it?

Why do you think it should go to the government? I didn't say it made it OK.
I was just pointing out that your argument was silly and pointless. Where the money goes is only an issue because it's ILLEGAL. Make it legal and all those problems go away.

What our taxes go towards is not the the issue here.

Again I was making a point you seem to have missed. Why do you fear where the money goes? The issues you point out are not because of drugs, it's because the drugs are illegal. The issue should be the benefits of the use, not what happens because it's illegal.

You, like all anti-drug types, want to focus on, and exaggerate, the negative and ignore the positive.

marg6043

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:07 PM

link

As a long standing member that enjoy freedom of speech I disagree with the decision of the board administration.

Banning all kind of threads on this type of subject can bee seen as the board becoming selective of what is discussed within.

But that is the decision of those that knows better than the rest of us.

Even when I really don't mind the threads on the "problematic topics" any type of topic that is restricted is not good for business.

Just a personal opinion, even when I will not miss the topics or the threads.

Uniceft17

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:08 PM

link

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
As I've mentioned (three previous times now in this thread), we're looking at ways to reintroduce the conspiracy side of these topics in the near future. But for now, no-tolerance.

I call BS.

Did you just make that up off the top of your head?

Because the only way you are going to be able to reintroduce the conspiracy side is to go back to the previous rule, and i'm sure you already know that.

Unless you have a machine that can predict that someone is going to post about a drug related experience before they do. /sarcasm off.

All I have to say ATS is good luck, because you have just turned off alot of memebers, and I only give it a matter of time before you reinstate the previous rule because alot of people aren't going to stand for this.

Cutwolf

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:11 PM

link

Originally posted by neformore

Some of the responses here are off the scale, really.

You want a conspiracy? I'll give you one.

The ATS Terms and Conditions say - and have done since the very early days of the site - this

By becoming a member of these domains, you agree to the following:

2e.) Illegal Activity: Discussion of illegal activities; specifically mind-altering drugs, computer hacking, criminal hate, sexual relations with minors, and stock scams are strictly forbidden. You will also not link to sites that contains discussion of such material.

Discussion of illegal activities. Drugs are not illegal activities. Doing drugs is an illegal activity. Activity implies action.

Based on the part you just quoted, talking about marijuana is fine. Talking about smoking marijuana is not.

The real conspiracy here is the people who have wantonly decided to ignore that, out of purely selfish reasons, without a thought to those people who access the site from public facilities employing net filtering, behind work firewalls that have net filtering, and from countries where discussion of drug related subjects is restricted by government censorship.

No one is forcing people in such places to click the topics.

Or make a separate forum for drug related topics, as I suggested earlier.

People who will turn any thread - even a sensible discussion - into one about useage.

Then one-strike ban them. Don't send the whole class to detention because one kid shot a spitball.

Plainly and simply. If discussing these issues is a persons number one reason for coming to ATS - when the subject is already prohibited then I personally have to question their motives for doing so.

If its not your number one reason, then again, I have to ask, whats the big deal? Its a big internet. There are, as is continually pointed out, a myriad of places where such issues can be discussed, indeed there are whole sites dedicated to it.

I find both of these quotes to be ridiculous. The logic you're using is the same logic used by those who say "if you have nothing to hide, why do you care about warrantless surveillance?"

I have never once partaken in a drug-related discussion on ATS. It is the principle of the matter.

[edit on 2-25-2009 by Cutwolf]

Frankidealist35

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:12 PM

link

I ask again.

What is a mind altering substance?

Why can't we discuss drugs on a conspiracy site?

So what if users act immature? That's where mods step in... that's the job of the moderators... why end the discussion on them?

spliff4020

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:14 PM

link

Again....

The moderators (short singular form: "mod") are users (or employees) of the forum which are granted access to the posts and threads of all members for the purpose of moderating discussion (similar to arbitration) and also keeping the forum clean (neutralising spam and spambots etc). Because they have access to all posts and threads in their area of responsibility, it is common for a knowledgeable and trustworthy member to be promoted to moderator for such a task. Moderators also answer users' concerns about the forum, general questions, as well as responding to specific complaints.

You have a bunch. Use them. When little Billy chimes in with "well, I loaded MY bong with" then the MOD steps in removes post, warns poster and moves on.

This reminds of one time in 5th grade when the teacher left the room, two kids did some bad stuff. We all lost reccess for a week because of it. Really? Everyone in the room told you who the problem was. Why punish all?

tristar

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:15 PM

link

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Unit541
Neither is a California assemblyman introducing a piece of legislation.

You are right. And I agree this policy is heavy-handed and obtuse as the people who are railing against it. However I also understand and appreciate why ATS is doing it.

In essence, they are protecting us.

Thank you very much, but i would rather have the people who are protecting me at the moment than some person who has no bearing on who i am, what i do and for what reasons i do what i do.

chapter29

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:15 PM

link

reply to post by Frankidealist35

What is a mind altering substance?

I posted the schedule on page 4...no one responded.

uaocteaou

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:15 PM

link

It's my opinion that ATS hs just become something that it was created to stand against.
I have never spoken of drug use, not once, but what bothers me I guess is that I like the idea of being able to, especially if it involves the government causing harm to the people, such as this prohibition.

It also seems silly, silly because what you ae saying is that you rather people discuss the rediculous (reptilian overlords, 2012, et cetera), and prohibit the discussion of legitimate conspiracies.

It realy is a shame. A shame to render this site inoccuous and turned it into what the masses believed it to be in the first place, a site to discuss crazy conspiracy theories, but not the legitimate.

Uniceft17

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:16 PM

link

reply to post by SaviorComplex

Hey, wake up! The motto is to DENY IGNORANCE.

You obviously are missing the conspiracy side of the drug topic, you are embracing ignorance by advocating the banning this topic because of a few members.

Wouldn't you like to know what our government is doing with illegal drugs? Probably not, you probably don't even want to know considering what you are saying.

Griff

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:16 PM

link

reply to post by ANOK

I simply have to agree with ANOK here. But, that being said, I will abide by the rules.

I baked a cake the other day. It had nutmeg in it.

My front porch has morning glory's growing near-by.

I could go on to further my examples but this is enough. Both are legal at some point while illegal at another. What's the verdict?

I'll abide by the rules as far as I understand them, but so far the rules are a little hazy (pun intended).

SaviorComplex

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:16 PM

link

Originally posted by spliff4020
You have a bunch. Use them. When little Billy chimes in with "well, I loaded MY bong with" then the MOD steps in removes post, warns poster and moves on.

Which is exactly what should be done.

But the problem was many posts about illegal drugs, no matter the context, degenerated into "I roll every day!"

SkepticOverlord

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:17 PM

link

Originally posted by kcfusion
I think you are well aware of the fact that the quailty/attraction of Site content is directly connected to advertising value.

Please... what value is there in "9/11 Truth" topics to mass-media advertisers? To most people, the idea of a "9/11 Inside Job" is much more unsavory than drug use.

Actually... once could easily argue, with logic, that given the current cultural conditions and Internet meme surround these topics, we'd gain traffic by continuing to support drug-related topics.

I sure as hell would not want to be seeing some of the stuff that comes up in Drug related threads in anyway connected with my product. This is a simple fact of living in real world.

Actually, online advertisers in the social media space have long since come to terms with the fact that they're not sponsoring the content of a page, much like outdoor billboard advertising is not sponsoring weeds or terrible roads. The advertisers are most concerned with the type and amount of people that visit a given site.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by SkepticOverlord]