• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: axe battler | Pissed_and_messed

The EADD Metathread - Let's talk about how we can improve EADD

One Thousand Words said:
I agree shambles but I'm sure knock would be the first to warn anyone here the folly of irresponsible poly drug use if he had the means.
Click to expand...

I get you have concerns for people here and sometimes, a bit like myself, we communicate that not in the best way...

No idea why I'm sticking up for you Busty, you're an eadd cunt, maybe that's why. But your heart and intention's in the right place.

That's why its important we keep on topic in the drug threads especially and report anything we think shouldn't be there. As ex mods we know what the process if behind that. As crew we have responsibility to the forum ethos still x.
 
But if you don't say "I'm not even going to dignify that with a response", how is anybody -- especially the person you are not responding to -- supposed to know you have even read, let alone been pissed off by, the original off-colour remark?
 
Shambles said:
Historical note: It was Knock who felt a "Trifle Annoyed Thread" was required as "Angry" is too strong an emotion for most whinges whereas "A Trifle Annoyed" seems far more fitting. It seems most all did - and do - agree this is a good division and, just to reiterate Felix' excellent points, we're keeping them as that for the reasons he outlined. I am open to persuasion as far as that very specific form of angry annoyance (which often ends up as wound-licking whinge) that covers such topics as stubbed toes, fingers burnt plucking overly hot toast from the toaster, and sundry emotional equivalents. Grrr, etc.
Click to expand...

Was too tired to properly respond to this at the time n so planned on responding this evening. Thank you for reminding me of why Knock created that. I remember reading Knock's posts not long after he passed n thinking it made sense. I can't believe I had forgotten that, so thanks for reminding me. I suppose, at the time, I didn't want to have a casual whinge about say the house being messy, n people assuming that I'm annoyed or angry when actually I'm not, n being Brit, most of the time I'm laughing when having a casual whinge but this being a 2-dimensional world, it's difficult to see laughter.

OTW---knock was more than someone who ended up in the Shrine. He cared. He treated people equally, he was intelligent n has ideas, he cared for this place, he had ambitions like wanting to train as a nurse n care for people. If you read Knock's post in the EADD Introductions thread its obvious his genuine compassion for the members of EADD, the way he wanted to include everyome, unite people. He had a great senae of humour n was an all round great person.

Kate come to think on it, I agree with you---it does sound very British n was an ace social thread. As for you post to OTW where you say about not always communicating in the best way. I hear you there because I often say stuff that lacks tact or ribs someone up the wrong way when I'm actually trying to do the oppositte n show I care, help, give advice or whatever. The point is your INTENT is to help n that's what counts. Misunderstandings can always be cleared up. I've lost count of the amount of misunderstabdings I've had here since I've joined Bluelight.

You mentioned drug threads - Felix says I've derailed lots of drug threads n if I have I apologise cause this was never my intention n yes, having thought on it, I agree that we should report derailing drug-threads if they help save someone's life. Good god I've gone on a bit when I was only meant to say my piecr aboit Knock but was hoping it'd be busy tonight just my luck lol :)

Evey
 
Meh, sometimes posts of few words can get straight to the point and make a difference. Sometimes things need expanding upon. Don't worry about long posts. People are either going to read them or not be them short or long. Such is the nature of humanity. The ebb and flow of it all.

Personally, I thought that to be a great and insightful post Evey. Nice one.
 
Thanks. I can't help but write long posts on 3fpm. I set out to write a short one n it just goes on n on n on; it's like a weird compulsion.

I saw a few posts relating to Knock n I needed to reply to them but was incredibly tired n it was a major effort to post owt on here last five days I didn't thimk it'd do Knock n his work, justice, a few simple words.

Thar reminds me I need to remember those lost; on the "We Will Never Forget You, EADDers" thread. I've waited two whole yeaes to do that after seeing maxalfie (fair play) raise a glass every year I was on three-month ban last year n was truly fucking gutted, though it was nice to see maxalfie do it. He never forgets - I REALLY want to raise a glass to Knock that's very important that I do that, veru imprtamt.

Maxalfie - you truly are a bloody treasure for creating that thread n for never forgetting those lost here, every year that passes. I'm sorry I never got the honour to have talked to mostly of them apart from Knock butmit's importsnt we don't forget them <_3

Good lord I don't half bang on.......

Evey
 
Considering the issues recently with alt accounts and trolls and the fact that a couple of members have received disturbing PMs, wouldn't it make sense to not allow new members to send any PMs (except to moderators) until they reach at least Bluelighter status? I can't see the point in allowing them to send one every 3 hours as at present. Im sure that anyone serious about joining this community wouldn't find that too much of a problem. This restriction could be coupled with infraction points for blatant post count upping.
 
Details are private but I can say protocols have been initiated in a similar vein to your suggestion and will remain active for a while.
 
If I have made a thread hoping it to be serious n to help others n other members are plain taking the piss how do I go about addressing this? You say you take drug threads seriously. I have made one hoping to help people going through stim comedowns.

If I PM one of you your inboxes are either full or you don't read PMs. Reporting the thread will likely result in an infraction. I feel that I am never listened to or taken seriously. Had any other member tried making a thread with the view of helping other members n lurkers (this is a harm reduction site after all) they would have been taken seriously.

I found a gap where people could look for help in one place. Any talk of comedowns is scattered everywhere n for some people who are extremely busy, I feel that a thread with info in one place would be beneficial n helpful.

Please would it be possible for off topic posts to be removed from that thread as I am genuinely TRYING to contribute something worthwhile here in order to help EADD n people going with comedown n to show people who have never taken stimulants that it is not always "fun."

Thank you for your time
Evey

PS: if I put off topic nonsense on a drug-thread in which someone has made, hoping to be beneficial n helpful, people waste no time in letting me know about it so I feel it's unfair when others do it to threads I have made for similar purposes.
 
Last edited:
F.U.B.A.R. said:
Considering the issues recently with alt accounts and trolls and the fact that a couple of members have received disturbing PMs, wouldn't it make sense to not allow new members to send any PMs (except to moderators) until they reach at least Bluelighter status? I can't see the point in allowing them to send one every 3 hours as at present. Im sure that anyone serious about joining this community wouldn't find that too much of a problem. This restriction could be coupled with infraction points for blatant post count upping.
Click to expand...
thanks for the comments.

the greenlighter pm limitation was introduced primarily to dissuade members who join purely to source or supply drugs. any measures like this have to balance their effectiveness against troublemakers with inconvenience to genuine members of the community joining to benefit from, and contribute to, the hr mission. i'm not sure that removing the pm feature completely from greenlighters respects that balance.

alasdair
 
Desr moderators,

I didn't know who best to E-mail with request. Can I create an antidepressant medication thread? I see talk of it scattered over EADD; individual threads made but no thread which I feel woul be of value to the public n BL when trying to search
Information. Personally I feel that it's frustrating when researching for someone n the information is scattered ecerywhere ratger than in one place. This, I felt was the case for information on stim comedown

What are your thoughts on this, please?

Evey
 
Would like a discussion with moderators about a possible amendment to the rules as baiting often happens and goes unpunished when it's obvious that the intention is to 'wind up' certain members in order to get them banned by using personal information etc. I am aware that the rules have been changed in order to limit drama but it's not working. People who have been seen as "troublesome" or whatever you class posters with multiple infractions, are vulnerable because to further bans, they're baited and then get would up (as intended by the perpetrators) yet it is them penalised / infracted. The members are simply told to put up with it. How long before enough is enough?

I hope that staff will be aware that I have been trying my best to keep the peace, help other members and joke as well as try to contribute and create material in the effort to try and be helpful - however, this gets increasingly difficult when I am constantly baited by other members. Yet I cannot report them because I will get infracted as it's not against the rules to bait other members. So am I meant to take this constant abuse? For instance comment digging at me about my child are clearly trying to get me wound up. to lose my temper and get an infraction.

I would please like a proper discussion about the EADD rules and a possible change to them so I am not constantly treated in this manner. If I was still deliberately being disruptive etc I would understand but several times this week I have been baited and said nothing but it continues on and on.

Regards,
Evey
 
Last edited:
Right, you are genuinely asking the staff who work tirelessly to keep this ship sailing to change the rules just for you?

Engage in frank but cordial debate, use the ignore feature, report posts that violate our guidelines, don't respond to provocation, log out, perform yoga on a cruise ship deck....

Rules apply to everyone, context-discretion is applied, procedure is followed - that's how it works.
Reading something you might just not like and having the author of such be clubbed with a Modstick on demand? Nah, that ain't happening.
 
No sprout I am not asking for the rules to be changed "just for me" at all. And I was told by Shambles that if I felt that something needed addressing I was to bring it up here for discussion. I am out the door taking my child somewhere at moment so cannot gave an appropriate reply and will do so later but want it known that I would never expect or demand rules to be changed simply for my benefits ir is a bit more complex than that (hint pm) I feel that there is a difference between simply saying something someone doesn't like/want to hear n deliberately provoking / baiting a person into being wound up to get them infracted (I use the ignore function but it doesn't work). Also others have noted this not just me. I fully appreciate the work you all do to keep this forum running n I sincerely apologise if my post came across as demanding or expecting rules to be changed simply for me. I'm not like that n this isn't the case. Will write proper later just wanting to explain this <3

Evey
 
Last edited:
"baiting" is just "commenting" unless you take the bait.

in what way does the ignore function not work? i just tested it and it is working fine.

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
"baiting" is just "commenting" unless you take the bait.

in what way does the ignore function not work? i just tested it and it is working fine.

alasdair
Click to expand...

That's weird you posted that just as I was edit old spelling. The ignore function works on a technological basis but not on a socially basis (please see below explain - I did say I'd try explaining this all later, sorry I've been sleeping).

Because it's like a spider web - Member B will provoke member A. Member A ignore this. then others respond to member B's baiting. Member B continues to do this and incite reaction from other members. Member A cannot ignore them can they? There has been several incidences where member B has comments trying to provoke Member A n has had these comments removed so it's not like I'm making this up.

If it was a case of "member A" hearing what they did not like then fair enough but let's be honest here it's not the case. Other day their were incidents of baiting in which a moderator dealt with it so it's like this is not nothing happening.

I once was infracted (I'm sure you can see this in certain records) for a post to another member saying something like "You annoy me" yet I reported another member for similar post and nothing is done. I feel that staff choose and manipulate the way they see posts in order to have members penalised because I feel that I am penalised over the slightest action whereas other members are allowed to get away with it due to being apart of clique and known friendships for years. Is that fair? Yet anything good I do is overlooked. Why was it wrong for me to tell another member they annoyed me to the point I faced a two-week infraction yet perfectly fine for members to call me annoying and tell me so, as bluntly as possible?

All I want is to come to this section without this endless nit-picking and baiting. To get, to have a laugh, form discussions without being baited is it so much to ask for? To ignore feature works on a technical basis and socially it does not because when one person baits it drives another.

Example

A good example is look at the thread I created asking if the royal family should be thrown out. One person tried his usual which drove others to continue it. Had Shambles not stepped in n deleted the posts, then a decent thread would have been ruined, simply because "I" was the OP - is that fair? Had I protested I'd have been told "just ignore it." If you look at the thread, after baited posts were deleted, it has generated a lot of interesting discussion. I could possibly produce other threads that may be of benefit to EADD which may get ruined to this petulance.

Also I feel that these new rules are only being adapted when it suits staff (I really hope I'm being paranoid here but it's how it feels and how it comes across). Isn't it obvious that when various members say "I'm leaving because of Evey!" after ANY disagreement that the intention is to have moderators infract me????? Yet nothing is done to them. Other forms of manipulation / stirring is "she's not getting infracted because she gave donations to BL" or if a moderator so much as defends anything I do or say members will try and manipulate the situation by accusing the moderator of always defending me when they are just defending the situation and would do the same for any other member. I genuinely feel that the new EADD guidelines were only intended to punish me as I've noticed various manipulations from other members targeted at getting members they dislike into trouble (preferably banned) yet never seem to face consequences themselves for this.

Shambles told me it's been noted that I've not reacted to certain incidents of baiting and this is because I don't want drama, because I've tried getting on here, tried adding material which will help others in the name of Harm Reduction, support etc (see Depression thread). All I'm asking for is some fairness and to be listened to because I am that I'm being ignored

sigh - I honestly don't know why I've wrote this because nothing will ever change and I will just continue to get baited no matter how much effort I put into to get along here. Is it a lot to ask for that I'm allowed to get along?

Evey
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top