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

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by matth
after everyone has been invited to participate is more fair than 5 or 6 people arguing in public and ignoring all else (including the actual topic at hand) and everyone else.

how are you going to invite everyone? how long are you going to wait so that you can be sure everyone has been made aware of your invite?

maybe you should at least read the summary posts, it's clear from your proposal that you haven't.

I actually have read them. My issue is not with what you propose to do; my issue is that none of you have the right to appoint yourself to anything and that you are all making this way more complicated than it should be. So I'm inviting people to discuss this idea in private via U2U away from all this mindless bickering so that we have a place to hear ourselves think.

This will be the final time I will provide a rebuttal to my words, as I have no interest whatsoever to join this debate in any way, shape or form. I will leave you now to put words in my mouth.

reply to post by pieman


well if ego's are getting involved, that doesn't make good "buisness sense" sort of speak...

Lets do this different than... execute this in a more sound business manner...

Draft a proposal on how the discussions could be policed without taxing the mods...

get everyone's input... draft how it could be accomplished... and instead of a committee, submit the proposal to the admins. This proposal could than be shot down, accepted, or modified by the admins and mods.

No egos involved, no inflated sense of self importance...

instead of discussing solutions, this thread has done nothing but bicker about representation... Perhaps we should look at a different solution...

A proposal of this type would not only make sure everyone's ideas get equal time, but also would minimize the amount of time the staff has to dedicate to coming up with a solution...

I know SO said he's willing to hear a committee, but he will probably read a drafted proposal as well.

Stop and think about this... how many pages are we on? and how much closer to resolving the problem are we?

reply to post by FRIGHTENER


All good subjects.

This thread is going to be reviewed for sure, by whoever is on the committee. There are many things that have been discussed like the points you put up.

All of it s going to be put into consideration i am sure.

Thanks for sharing the info.

Originally posted by americandingbat
For people just coming back:

Here's links to the summaries of this thread that I wrote this morning. Hopefully they will help get people oriented to what happened over the previous 60 pages of this thread

reposting every couple pages or so in case people want summaries

edit to add another link:

Skeptic1's summary of the suggestions made yesterday

[edit on 2/27/09 by americandingbat]

reply to post by tyranny22


I don't disagree with anything you said. And I really don't care what anyone thinks is fair or unfair.

And I certainly don't care if I'm ignored by anyone who was "offended" by that post. It's likely that if you were, you'd be offended if I didn't like the same kind of breakfast cereal. Someone pass a message to darcon for me: The decision to ignore me because of that post exposes a childishness I didn't see in you before, or anyone for that matter, since the 7th grade. If you were truly an open minded person, capable of taking in a view from multiple perspectives, you would not have been offended by anything I said. Tunnel vision like yours is precisely what will cause this "quest for freedom of discussion" to fail.

My issue is not with the perceived fairness of the committee selection. That point is irrelevant to the issue at hand. My issue is the futility of this endeavor. This thread now consists mainly of bickering about the committee selection process, and with each page, less and less mention of the original topic. Just as I would want, if I didn't want the topic discussed.

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by nj2day

 

that's not what matth is suggesting, he's suggesting the whole thing co-ordinated via u2u behind closed doors with him heading up the initiative, i assume.

ego's are a fact of life. we all have one. he felt insulted and hit ignore, it happens and everyone's human.

Actually what NJ2Day said is exactly what I'd want. You just made the assumption that I wanted this effort to be done through U2U. I want people to get organized/mobilized through U2U, but once we have an organized forum for discussion, I want to move it into the public.

And just because we all have ego's doesn't mean that we can just accept it as fact and not change. If you realize that your ego is impeding this process, then no, it's not something to blow off as human nature. A true leader would realize this fact and drop the ego...not just accept it as the means to take control over something you never had a right to control anyway.

Wow, I'm a big fat liar eh, considering I said I would stop responding. Now I shall stop rebutting, I just had to add that point.

Being popped to loam's post on page 90ish, and then arriving here and seeing not much happiness, I am unsure what is going on exactly, but it seems to me that the goal is to have a place where the matter of manipulation of the populace via drug laws, as well as valid information about medical and medicinal use can be shared, I suspect that where we are at is not with something that everyone is moving forward with.

I was nominated but I stepped down, because of access issues, and the timing of my stepping down failed to be optimal, as I was listed in the initial list of "candidates."

Frankly, I don't care who is on the Committee. I want a way to offer what I know on this subject that the public at large can at least read. It's that important.

So I say, let's all - as we did in the beginning with skeptic1 keeping record of the brainstorm - open a thread for suggestions (starting with skeptic1's list, and then offer a culled and cleaned list (as we discuss each offering), and then present that to the Site.

To the deeps with this committee formation creppola.

[edit on 2/27/2009 by Amaterasu]

I think some are misunderstanding the process, which is to be expected due to the size of this thread.

Allow me to repost my understanding and hopes for how this may unfold:

For the record, and without the presumption of inclusion to the committee, this would be my recommendation in this regard.

After the DISC committee has been chosen after 3pm today and they themselves chose a leader I would hope for the following to happen.

- The committee goes through this thread (again), as Skeptic1 has already done, to harvest all the existing suggestions.

- These suggestions are compiled as part of an OP of a new thread as a starting point for review by the membership at large, to comment on and to suggest further ideas or changes.

- A final draft of a proposal reflecting the concerns and ideas of the membership at large gets drafted and is once more presented for peer review.

- Final proposal presented to staff for review.

- Proposal will either be accepted/accepted with changes/rejected.

To me this is where the mandate of the current DISC committee would expire.

Should the upper echelons of ATS wish to continue with the DISC concept as an ongoing project to represent the community at large and to address ATS issues across the board, then ALL the current/temporary DISC members should resign and open the nomination and voting process to the WHOLE community.

This is my humble opinion, whomever is on the current committee should get on with the pressing matter at hand which has precipitated the "quickening" of the process. Once this issue is put to bed one way or the other, and if the ptb wishes to keep DISC in place, it is only fair that its committee members should have the wider mandate of the entire community.

Originally posted by Unit541

My issue is not with the perceived fairness of the committee selection. That point is irrelevant to the issue at hand. My issue is the futility of this endeavor. This thread now consists mainly of bickering about the committee selection process, and with each page, less and less mention of the original topic. Just as I would want, if I didn't want the topic discussed.

It is absolutely true that this thread has become absurd. However, once SO said that he wanted us to choose five or six representatives to the DISC committee (which as I understand it will also include himself, Springer, and other staff members), that became the first order of business.

I sincerely hope that if you were voted onto the committee, you will reconsider your position.

To others, I would ask that you wait eighty more minutes to find out who actually got voted in before protesting it. Then go for it.

reply to post by matth


who decides on the format matth?
i have an ego and am aware of it but i wasn't talking about my ego.

you can ignore difficult questions if you like, my point is only that the difference between what you are suggesting and what is taking place is that you are involved and it's done behind closed doors.

like i said, good luck with it, i hope it works out well.

reply to post by Unit541


I have already explained my self good friend.

You can call me a child, i simply do not care.

Seriously though, i am all for you Going to S O or Springer. If they say they want the vote to stop, then good. This whole thing is getting blown out of proportions anyways.

And you know what, i agre, this whole thing is absurd.

I am not the only one who made the decisions, it was a group effort. I realize it wasn't the whole of ATS, and for that i am Sorry.

I think i will unblock you.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by darcon]

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Locking out the majority from any participation in decision making IS a power grab.

No one was locked out. I have missed things that I wish I could have participated in on this board. Games, contests, other fun in-thread activities, even votes. But I have never considered myself to have been "locked out" of a thread that wasn't locked.

That's a serious victim mindset. This thread went up Wednesday morning and the vote was Thursday afternoon. You missed the window. No one locked you out.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by HunkaHunka]

reply to post by schrodingers dog


With this process, why do we need a committee?

Just take the ideas, draft a proposal... submit...

Egos are getting in the way of progress now from what i've noticed...

we just have to discuss/agree on a method of achieving a self policing forum that doesn't overtax the mods...

All we need is 1 person to write the thing after we decide the content...

This person could volunteer... and I would think those with "writer" under their name are the most qualified to draft it up.

This committee is causing problems... not resolving problems...

over 24 hours now, and 99 pages... and we have not gone 1 step forward in trying to solve this problem...

Originally posted by darcon
reply to post by nj2day

 

I read his post, and read his other posts on this board too. I see much of what he says, but some of it is just plain wrong. He is assuming we just want power, which i can say in my defense, is not true. I openly insults the people who have been working very hard on this subject.

If i am on the committee, than yea, i have to represent him. Thats the point of being on the committee. You represent the ATS members.

As of right now, i do not have to represent him.

I hardly think i will be nominated, but if i do, all ignores are off, which their are few indeed.

I may be wrong in ignoring, him, i do not know.

Judge me as you see fit.

I'm not replying for darcon, since darcon has ignored me, but must address this. I never once even implied, either directly or indirectly that any nominee wanted "power". To read that from my post is simply absurd, and that is just wrong.

I never once aimed any derogatory remark towards any committee nominee. I simply voiced my displeasure in the fact that there is more discussion about selecting committee members, and how it's "fair" or "unfair", than the original topic at hand. If a member were to begin reading this thread at page 60, they'd have a hard time figuring out what this committee is for at all.

So darcon, I'm sorry if you were offended, but if so, I beg you to adjust your perspective, or risk a very difficult existence in this world.

reply to post by Unit541


he was refering to matth, i believe.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by skeptic1

 

Where in that did SO say that the vote had to end this afternoon? Because I am just missing that part, apparently. He said the thread had been up 24 hours, yes, but I dont see where he said the whole process had to come to an end before this afternoon was over.

if something is worth doing - it's worth doing right

even if that means undoing

if there are people who care enough to want to fight for the opportunity to participate - it demonstrates (at least to me) that there's something more important going on here than meeting arbitrary time constraints

I'm one of those people who dropped out of this thread earlier on - thinking that - like similar threads - there would be arguing - but, it's a done deal.

and - a done deal - well within the rights of management to determine as they see fit

I would have voted for a continuation of the drug discussions - along side a scorched earth policy - meaning - no discussion - nothing - you're just gone

post, membership - disappeared into the night

after enough flies had dropped it might resolve itself

but, - I didn't realize there would be a vote :-)

isn't this interesting?

since SO is interested in working this out as best as can be - with the interested members of ATS - what's the rush?

if it's worth doing - it's worth doing right

edit to add: I wasn't actually in the thread - but, I was following it

[edit on 2/27/2009 by Spiramirabilis]

reply to post by matth


Perhaps you should go back through the thread and read Sdogs post about his u2u to SO.

Like others have said, good luck with your underground proposal - I hope you have lots of time, because you WILL need it.

Originally posted by nj2day
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

With this process, why do we need a committee?

We don't, it is however what SO requested.

Just take the ideas, draft a proposal... submit...

Agreed, this process should take very little time.

Egos are getting in the way of progress now from what i've noticed...

That is true in all aspect of life. For my part I have voted for members who to the best of my knowledge are both qualified and selfless individuals who just want to restore what we have all lost.

we just have to discuss/agree on a method of achieving a self policing forum that doesn't overtax the mods...

Agreed!

All we need is 1 person to write the thing after we decide the content...

Agreed, but that is not what SO asked for.

This committee is causing problems... not resolving problems...

Perhaps it would be fair to give them a chance before such a declaration is warranted.

over 24 hours now, and 99 pages... and we have not gone 1 step forward in trying to solve this problem...

Imagine the quagmire if this were to be protracted even longer as some have suggested.

This is my simple proposal that I know will solve this problem quickly and efficiently. If you want to discuss this or think it can be improved/built onto, then I bet we can have this problem solved before this "committee" has their members chosen. Here's my proposal in a nutshell:

-A RATS-type forum that is open to everyone (so no points-membership), but cannot be accessed on the main page and has to be manually joined to gain access to (with a strong disclaimer). This would keep the forum off Google's radar.

Edit: NJ2Day made a good suggestion to add to this point: age verification upon joining the new forum. That way nobody has to worry about having this type of information around for just anyone to see (both Google and children).

-A zero-tolerance policy of "stoner" and flame posts. This point would be made perfectly clear upon joining the forum. Once you make a "stoner" and/or flame post, you are immediately removed from the forum and any attempt at publicly causing a scene for being booted would result in an account ban from ATS. That way everybody would understand the seriousness of the topic right off the bat.

-Topic of discussion would be limited to a set of topics that would be agreed upon by the ENTIRE community via one set of voting over the course of several days, with the mods and site admins having veto power over ANY topic of conversation.

-No "committee" or leader. Just some mods doing their job overseeing the website, with the assistance of some regular members. If certain members are given mod responsibilities for that particular forum, then so be it; but no committee and no leader, it's more complicated than it has to be.

Thoughts? U2U me or post them here...but I promise you that if it's posted here it's just going to get lost in the arguing.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by matth]