Open Discussion Is Bluelight an OPEN DISCUSSION FORUM? What has the site turned into......

[lostNfound]

For some time now I've personally listened to complaints directly and indirectly from members / staffers and senior staffers. I have not gone seeking for this in any way, however the same themes recur each time.

I remember hearing a number of times while I was on staff that our current site owners did want BL to turn into a dictatorship. Unfortunately, it is beginning to feel like nothing short of this.
I aim not to create any discontent but rather to shuffle the deck and a deal a new hand, an open hand. Play it as you wish.
With crew status I am no longer privy to site stats etc, however this is not such a big deal as it may have been when the echo in my ears is rings on from the same complaints.
Yes, we know being on staff is voluntary and volunteers help run BL. The problem is that when the staff are unhappy, joke or not; the sites credibility is questioned.
If BL aims to be seen as a legitimate HR msg board / forum then the place needs a real shake up.

It needs to be redefined why BL exists, what the sites mission is and what direction it is heading in. These things need to be shared with members if members and potential members are to view the site as a serious HR forum rather a social drug forum which is what has spiralled into.

There is far too much obvious discontent amongst staff publicly broadcasted throughout the site. Quit taking weeks and or months to make decisions and act o what needs doing or otherwise the site will lose more and more of the members it should be attracting.

Again, I think it needs to publicly broadcasted as to why BL is here and a what BL is doing and where it is going.
This information is not easily found and is vague at the best of times. Sure the inflexxion survey was a good thing, I had a go at it and it will raise funds to keep us going for another year....... but beyond raising funds for another year our underlying purposes as a community are falling into obscurity.

I'm interested to hear peoples thoughts on the current perception of how they view BL as a whole and why they continue visit the place.
What would make being a member more enjoyable?

If any Support mods or senior staff see anyway fit way to turn this into a poll, that would be swell.

 

[debaser]

Is Bluelight an OPEN... GALLERY? More of an OPEN BAR if you ask me

So if it's free, somebody's gotta pay for it at the end of the day.

And if they pay, they can play.

Peace out FAR OUT RASTAFARI

 

[GenericMind]

The problem is that the direction of the site and how it's run changes with each new batch of Senior Staff. I've written volumes about alterations to the site's management I perceive as negative.

 

[Keaton]

The problem is that the direction of the site and how it's run changes with each new batch of Senior Staff.

Yup.
It's a shame that sr staff members tend to try to push their own agenda with the site rather than stay objective and do what we all came here to do, which is provide useful information to people that come seeking it.

I've written volumes about alterations to the site's management I perceive as negative.

Not hard to do...

 

[tambourine-man]

Hi LnF,

Couple of points, all made in good spirit.

For some time now I've personally listened to complaints directly and indirectly from members / staffers and senior staffers. I have not gone seeking for this in any way, however the same themes recur each time.

I remember hearing a number of times while I was on staff that our current site owners did want BL to turn into a dictatorship. Unfortunately, it is beginning to feel like nothing short of this.
I aim not to create any discontent but rather to shuffle the deck and a deal a new hand, an open hand. Play it as you wish.
With crew status I am no longer privy to site stats etc, however this is not such a big deal as it may have been when the echo in my ears is rings on from the same complaints.
Yes, we know being on staff is voluntary and volunteers help run BL. The problem is that when the staff are unhappy, joke or not; the sites credibility is questioned.

Without wanting to dismiss the nature of your post, threads like this are a bi-annual (or tri-annual) occurrence. They tend to be created when somebody feels that they're not being listened to or have been overruled; that their memory of what the site used to be like no longer reflects their perception of the site's current state; or that they (or somebody they know) has been on the receiving end of of an injustice.

Invariably, when the issue is raised, some agree, others don't - as one might expect - and the thread dies a death. If you want this thread to be regarded as any different than those, you might have to be more elaborate on the nature of your complaint?

If BL aims to be seen as a legitimate HR msg board / forum then the place needs a real shake up.

It needs to be redefined why BL exists, what the sites mission is and what direction it is heading in. These things need to be shared with members if members and potential members are to view the site as a serious HR forum rather a social drug forum which is what has spiralled into.

Not sure about this. Firstly, there is more overt HR work and projects on the board than I've seen since... well, since the original FAQs got built via the Harm Reduction Forum (remember that?) :D

Secondly, I'm fairly clear about why the site exists. It hasn't changed. I think that's a personal perception and would need substantiating either way. As for where we're heading, there are semi-regular announcements made to that effect.

Related Reading: State of BL 2011 (Ownership, Finances, Direction)

I think the direction might require some elaboration, but I don't see why that should be decided by a single owner, an admin group or any other interested party. It's a joint venture. What do you see as the direction?

Thirdly, if I had a penny for every thread that claimed that the social aspects of the site were overtaking the serious HR work of the site, I'd have... some pennies. :D There's always been a balance, and I don't see that much difference to how it was five years ago. Perhaps different to how it was eight or nine years ago, but nothing stays the same.

There is far too much obvious discontent amongst staff publicly broadcasted throughout the site.

I agree. It's distasteful. But I am not yet decided if that public discontent is symptomatic of something structurally wrong with the operation of the site; indicative of their unfamiliarity with how BL has run for the last six years; or simply suggestive of a lack of discretion.

Quit taking weeks and or months to make decisions and act o what needs doing or otherwise the site will lose more and more of the members it should be attracting.

This is incongruous to me when considered alongside your earlier points. I'll point this out (as others will surely do) that one of the reasons decisions take so long, is due to the care to avoid accusations of dictatorship - especially given the events circa 2005. Simple movements of direction have required debating to death, often to the detriment of enthusiasm, before a decision is made. It's frustrating, irritating and the graveyard of many a staff member. But, it is for a reason.

Alas, that does not invalidate your point, however.

If any Support mods or senior staff see anyway fit way to turn this into a poll, that would be swell.

You post contains mostly open questions. I'm not sure how a poll would operate.

 

[_a_A_C_c_]

first point about staff discontent: as tambo said, this seems to pop up at least once a year. all it takes is one or two complaints and people come out of the woodwork to complain about the site. i am rather certain that no one wants this to turn into a dictatorship. those in charge remember the catch-22 era and i doubt they want to repeat any of that.

i think a lot of discontent comes from the owners not being very visible on the board. those of us who have been around a long time recall TLB being active; i can't recall SG every posting much but i know he did a lot of behind the scenes stuff with MAPS. contrary to what newer members might think, the owners are not some random BLers who decided to take charge. they are the cornerstones of this community and i don't think there would be a BL without them.

second point about the mission of this site: i think it is pretty clear that the site is focused on harm reduction. there is a lot of work going on with the BL wiki. most of the focus forums seem to strike a good balance between social banter and harm reduction. questions are getting answered and some members are even sticking around.

the social aspect is part of what makes this site a community. there are people who have been posting here for over a decade. i doubt anyone would stick around that long if there was no social aspect to the site. even when the site was founded, there was a social aspect. i realize i am biased in this matter and will end my thoughts now

third point about raising fund and obscurity: i am not sure how the inflexxion survey shos that BL is losing its focus? i think it is a great partnership (and paying the bills helps). tronica has recently been appointed director of research. as i said, i like that the BL community can be of use to researchers. it means we play a much more active and visible role in the academic side of harm reduction.

i also think the thread tambo linked to is a good read about the direction the site is going in.

fourth point about why i am here: this site has become a massive part of my life. i applied for a senior moderator position because i wanted to be able to take a more active role in the community. i've never really used drugs, nor do i know much about harm reduction, so i've never been active in the focus forums. but i believe strongly in the community aspect of the site. the way BLers will band together and help out one another is pretty awesome.

senior staff has experienced a great deal of turnovers lately and i hope to remain here for awhile. i think having a solid senior staff in place helps with moderators feeling confident. and the more confident the moderators are, the more confident the members will feel. and the more confident people are in the site, the less time they will spend about the politics of the site. while discussions like this have some merit, they do detract energy from the other parts of the site.

 

[MazDan]

These two points are my greatest concern.

Even to someone who pops in here once a month or so, it is obvious that things are going downhill very quickly.


Lost and Found wrote.............. Quit taking weeks and or months to make decisions and act o what needs doing or otherwise the site will lose more and more of the members it should be attracting.

Animal cookie wrote..............i think a lot of discontent comes from the owners not being very visible on the board. those of us who have been around a long time recall TLB being active

 

[_a_A_C_c_]

^i don't understand your issue with my comment that the owners are not visible. in order for the site to exist, the server costs need to be paid. i think it is completely reasonable that S_G and TLB are focusing their efforts behind the scenes. they even said so much here.

i am also confused about the complaints that the staff takes their decisions seriously and deliberate amongst themselves before acting. if various members of senior staff acted quickly without consulting the rest of the senior staff, wouldn't that be more indicative of a dictatorship? i don't think you can have both swift action and extensive discussion/debate about board issues.

 

[MazDan]

I wasnt taking issue with you. in fact I was agreeing with you that much discontent arises because people are not visibly active or active in areas that need attention. Its not only important to be doing the right thing but also to be seen to be doing the right thing.

Healthy discussion is great but should have a cap placed on it. 9 times out of 10, discussion ends up being forgotten and the issues never reaching a logical conclusion other than being forgotten which in bluelight terms is I suppose a to be expected logical conclusion based on the fact it happens over and over again.

 

[_a_A_C_c_]

^i understand the desire to have people visible, and that is where the admins come in. TLB and S_G have deferred most decisions to them so they could focus on the behind the scenes stuff. i think it was a very logical move but i can see how people who don't know the history of the site would be confused.

 

[Kenickie]

lnf, i agree with you, i guess. bluelight either needs to furiously refocus or drop the "harm reduction" tag from it's label all together. i left staff after feeling that there wasn't any point -- staff were there to maintain, or push their own agendas, but not change anything, or to contribute to the harm reduction mission. and then people started dropping like flies. we had 6 people die in 6 months. throw whatever number out that you want -- we've got 9thousands members! (but only 3K active, if that?) etc etc, a harm reduction site shouldn't have 6 (including 3 staff???) people dying that rapid fire. that's failure, and glaring. they overdosed on drugs. the very thing we're "trying" to keep people from doing. dying in a stupid way because of drugs. a wasted death. bluelight should be considered an open discussion forum with drug information and help if you want it. message boards as a form of communication are kind of dying off anyway. people don't need to join bluelight to get info about xtc anymore. my little sisters know more about drugs than i did at their age, and i thought i was kind of a junkie. i would completely trust them to take xtc or coke or whatever safely and not die, without looking at bluelight once. i don't know. now i only come to bluelight for sports and gaming, i don't even go into the forums i used to mod, or even enjoy.

/0.02$

 

[chuchu]

Kenickie i do not get your argument. True bl is a harm reduction proponent but it merely carries the message what you do with that info is purely on you. Trying to link the sites effectiveness to how many of its members die as a result of "failed" harm reduction is extremely outrageous.

 

[felix]

lnf, i agree with you, i guess. bluelight either needs to furiously refocus or drop the "harm reduction" tag from it's label all together.

well, that's a radical approach. some Bluelighters died, therefore we "failed" and should just give up?

If any Support mods or senior staff see anyway fit way to turn this into a poll, that would be swell.

I love polls. what should the options be? yes/no/male/female/trans/maybe?

i'm not sure where this idea of BL losing it's HR focus is coming from. it does a disservice to the mods of the drug forums, not to mention all the hard work that's going into the awesome & sexy wiki project.

 

[xstayfadedx]

To be honest, I haven't been a member for long but I read a lot of old posts from awhile ago to now and you see how much the board has gone down the drain. I mean I believe the staff does try hard to do the best harm reduction they can but then again it doesn't seem as effective anymore. Why? Because someone may say oh don't do this or take this much but then after that you get so many people going dude!! You should do it or I did it and didn't die... I wish I wouldn't see that all the time and sometimes I think some mods let the power get to their head and forget why they even decided to be a moderator in the first place (when they fill out there apps and say how much they want to get harm reduction across and help people...and not just have the label moderator under your name).

It seems like its become an I'm cooler than you contest and like a mini-high school with the kids who think everyone cares that they're so "popular" but in the end we don't. YET, don't get me wrong there are some great staff!! Some who do care and do what they stated they would do and help us... I've even pm'd some and got so much help from people who are complete strangers but take the time to help someone just because they feel its the right thing to do. The bad this is the negativity on the site/some staff who don't follow guidelines or don't care about the actual goal of the site and what its about brings down the site tremendously. So the light is always shone onto the bad rather than the good. If we do not fix the bad parts about bluelight then this site is going to go to shit. We're soon going to wonder why we even went on this site and something that once was so great will mean nothing to you anymore.. In my opinion this is just the breeding ground for people to get connects and do things they shouldn't. It makes it easier for people to get knee deep into shit and its scary cause this is a forum.

So many people are dying...and there will be more deaths sadly. I mean shit!!! I see people so sad about someone else who dies but then they continue to do the same shit, no one believes it will be them. Yet, the same bluelighter who just died thought the same stupid line "it won't be ME...that can't happen to ME.". Then that same person dies and what disgusts me the most is that everyone can get drunk or high as a tribute to their friend who died of DRUGS!! That's not paying your respect and if you believe that then maybe you're too far gone to care. What's the point of harm reduction when people choose not to take it into consideration. Bluelight has become a place where people scheme, competitions on who can get the highest 8) and more bullshit. Yeah, I enjoy communicating on here and I met some awesome people but other than that harm reduction never pops into my mind when I hear bluelight. All that comes to mind is oh another drug forum...let's see who's getting shit faced right now.

I see the good there is in bluelight still and the amazing staff such as ones in the dark side...or even in basic drug discussion ect. But I'm just pointing out its hard to notice all the good when all the bad is being brought into the open and members see all the shitty parts of the site going on.... I mean do your best to make it seem like everything is magically okay and keep it professional. Make change now, don't take forever. If you do you're going to lose many more people each and everyday whether it is just due to someone not visiting the site or even the worse...death.

 

[Ayrios]

I've been a member of BL for nearly a decade, but I often go without posting, or even viewing, for months at a time, sometimes years, after which I'll hang around for a couple weeks and take another break (one not at all influenced by frustration towards the forum, but based on how busy I am or my current interests). Because of this, the increased turnover rate really stands out to me. I'll come back and check out some of the sub-forums I most enjoy, primarily the Focus sub-forums, and not recognize a single moderator. After reading this thread, I see discontent is a greater part of the problem than rapid promotions or poor selection of moderators who quickly lose their privileges. The years from 2002-2006 were much more stable, and because of this, there was greater uniformity of vision resulting in more consistent enforcement of the rules and more similar interpretations of what Harm Reduction really means. One person's interpretation of Harm Reduction versus that of another's usually comes down to where one draws the line on a particular issue and instead advocates for Harm Nullification--abstinence. I feel that threshold has fallen over the years such that the site is now a little less realistic in responding to users' questions concerning inevitably unsafe drug use that they will likely still engage in. I can't claim to know if this has been an intentional shift, or if it was of a more organic nature: a slow, imperceptible shift reshaping the collective philosophy of the board over the course of many years driven by the influence of experienced, knowledgeable users and staff in an entirely unwitting fashion. I'm sure others posting in this thread, people more attentive to the site over the years who have been more privy to its politics, could probably say which of the two possibilities I've just mentioned is the more significant factor, but I'm only noting the shift and not requesting inside information

Responding to the title of this thread in a mostly out of context manner, I have to say this has become a more "closed" forum in another sense. HR-related threads are more often closed mid-discussion currently than at any other point in which I've been on the site. I don't know if this is a directive from the owners: close as many threads as you can once you've responded if you think nothing useful can be added beyond your own advice; or if it's an organic trend like the general, unknowing shift of the Harm Reduction vs Harm Nullification threshold. Many threads are closed properly once a user's simple question with an objective answer has been addressed. However, there are now far too many threads closed at the discretion of moderators when an active discussion is taking place regarding a complex question or complicated issue with subjective answers and a lack of overwhelming consensus. Other threads are closed with a bare minimum amount of detail or insight provided to the thread starter. I've seen too many threads closed following the "final word" of a moderator in which I would have liked to add additional information or even express a different point of view. Bluelight deals with a great volume of new threads every day, but I'd rather a forum appear "messy" with many active discussions, some of which go into depth beyond the thread starter's immediate question, than see so many discussions stifled following answers containing a bare minimum of HR-relevant information. I'd like to see BL become a more open discussion, the way it used to be, in that sense.

 

[soundsystem00]

Just keep your hopes high and remember that BL is constantly changing. Things can and will improve.

 

[tambourine-man]

Ayrios, thanks for your post. Some interesting points in there.

The years from 2002-2006 were much more stable...

Interesting. The public-facing aspects of the site may well have been more co-ordinated, but I'm not sure every staff member from that time will agree that the internal politics were anything near stable in the latter part of that period.

and because of this, there was greater uniformity of vision resulting in more consistent enforcement of the rules and more similar interpretations of what Harm Reduction really means.

I think that's a legitimate point. A smaller core of long-term staff is more likely to foster a clearer vision. Organisational memory becomes damaged by a high turnover of staff.

One person's interpretation of Harm Reduction versus that of another's usually comes down to where one draws the line on a particular issue and instead advocates for Harm Nullification--abstinence. I feel that threshold has fallen over the years such that the site is now a little less realistic in responding to users' questions concerning inevitably unsafe drug use that they will likely still engage in. I can't claim to know if this has been an intentional shift, or if it was of a more organic nature: a slow, imperceptible shift reshaping the collective philosophy of the board over the course of many years driven by the influence of experienced, knowledgeable users and staff in an entirely unwitting fashion.

Another good point. Remember that crappy saying: "if your not a Socialist before 30 you have no heart, if your still a Socialist after 30 you have no head"?

My interpretation of that saying has always been that the passion and optimism in most people is gradually extinguished as they get older and beaten down with the drudgery of the world. They become convinced that nothing changes; that they have little power to effect things; and, I suppose, that people can only learn from their own stupid mistakes. I think it's probably quite valid to suggest at least some of that cynicism/experience/reality-check has crept in over the years.

Responding to the title of this thread in a mostly out of context manner, I have to say this has become a more "closed" forum in another sense. HR-related threads are more often closed mid-discussion currently than at any other point in which I've been on the site. I don't know if this is a directive from the owners: close as many threads as you can once you've responded if you think nothing useful can be added beyond your own advice; or if it's an organic trend like the general, unknowing shift of the Harm Reduction vs Harm Nullification threshold. Many threads are closed properly once a user's simple question with an objective answer has been addressed. However, there are now far too many threads closed at the discretion of moderators when an active discussion is taking place regarding a complex question or complicated issue with subjective answers and a lack of overwhelming consensus. Other threads are closed with a bare minimum amount of detail or insight provided to the thread starter. I've seen too many threads closed following the "final word" of a moderator in which I would have liked to add additional information or even express a different point of view. Bluelight deals with a great volume of new threads every day, but I'd rather a forum appear "messy" with many active discussions, some of which go into depth beyond the thread starter's immediate question, than see so many discussions stifled following answers containing a bare minimum of HR-relevant information. I'd like to see BL become a more open discussion, the way it used to be, in that sense.

I dunno. PD was ruled with an iron fist in the periods you mentioned earlier. I think it depends on the moderator's style. It's done under the premise that it helps to keep a forum tidy and focused - particularly when a thread has been repeatedly made (how many ways can one adequately ask how to perform a CWE?). Under certain circumstances, I can see why one might choose to close the thread, refer to a FAQ, or merge it into a larger mega-thread.

For me, closing threads that request a subjective answer should really be the exception, rather than the rule. Otherwise, it has the appearance of a moderator simply doing something for the sake of doing something, and assuming that there's absolutely nothing that anyone else could constructively add. But this is probably slightly off-topic.

 

[Pegasus]

Ayrios, I agree with a lot of your post and just want to say I appreciate your contributions in OD. Sometimes mods do close down threads too soon, I agree. I think it happens more when a mod is feeling stressed. I do agree that it is more important to not have conversations cut short than to preserve neatness though, and I think that's a great way of describing the issue.

Regarding the advice given... If you see advice that you think is too conservative to be helpful, point it out! It is certainly a fine line and sometimes you're absolutely right-- the advice is too conservative to be useful. We don't want to encourage especially dangerous doses or practices of course, but we should still give advice that is consistent with the questions that are being asked. Like I said, if you think the advice is overly conservative, mention it, but just be sure that your advice is still safe.

Again, thanks for the feedback.

 

[swilow]

we've got 9thousands members! (but only 3K active, if that?)

I don't know if this means anything, but the way I read it is Members: 174,260, with 9002 active members.

etc etc, a harm reduction site shouldn't have 6 (including 3 staff???) people dying that rapid fire. that's failure, and glaring. they overdosed on drug

As a percentage, I'd say that is less then general society. Their deaths are still very sad, but the unfortunate main factor is in your final statement there. Everyone knows that using drugs is playing with fire, no matter how safely you try and do it.

 

[alasdairm]

i think that tambo has made a lot of great points in the thread and i don't have much to add.

There is far too much obvious discontent amongst staff publicly broadcasted throughout the site.

i sent the op two private messages asking him to elaborate on this point but did not receive the courtesy of a reply either time. maybe i'm on his ignore list...

i don't see far too much obvious discontent amongst staff publicly broadcasted throughout the site. i know that doesn't mean it's not there - it means i can't see it.

can anybody elaborate on this point or point to a handful of examples?

alasdair