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

[ColtDan]

I cant help but refer to raas as a cunt sometimes... for his cunty behavour... if it gets me banned then so be it tbh

 

[Sammy G]

I may not be religious but I'm also not a member of any particular minority group I would also deal with any offensive comments about.

Is that so? Ginger git.

 

[rickolasnice]

Yeah raas you bible basher!

NSFW:

What if you say something potentially offensive directed at another member but they don't take offence? Either because it's a personal thing between the two or they're just not the type?)

 

[Shambles]

Is that so? Ginger git.

Hehe. I'm a stealth ginger so pass for actually having a soul in public

NSFW:

What if you say something potentially offensive directed at another member but they don't take offence? Either because it's a personal thing between the two or they're just not the type?)

Although it is conceivable somebody may receive a warning or infraction for such things it'd likely only be cos whoever reported it and whoever acted on that report were unaware it was a private thing so would probably be reversed. Common sense should really be enough for most of these kinda situations - most of us can spot a comment intended as humorous even if we're not in on the joke itself but can be less than obvious sometimes which could result in a wrist or two being slapped. At least initially. Common sense and context are the main things. As Snolly points out, these decisions are always somewhat arbitrary cos it will depend on what that staff member is aware of. Any warning or infraction can be disputed by contacting senior staff who will look at the decision and potentially reverse it if they agree it was unwarranted. I think many would be surprised at quite how many checks and balances are in place precisely to stop any staff from abusing their modpowers.

 

[Raasyvibe]

You've said stuff about how drug use and intoxication is a sin yourself - .

But it's also a sin NOT to get intoxicated from time to time. You can't win...

 

[Shambles]

That would be in your Christian worldview. I would tend to disagree for obvious reasons.

A glass of wine is not only acceptable but almost encouraged (depending on denomination) afaik. Are there any specific rules on what is in that wine? You can make wine from poppies, cannabis and even mushies dontcha know. Plenty other stuff too actually. Certainly if you include adding stuff to wine to steep. Fella I knew had one of those humoungous bottles of voddy with several thousand mushies left to steep for a few years. Only a shot apiece for his b'day - surely that doesn't count as intoxication? Was pretty damned intoxicating admittedly but short of measuring by the ml that was hard to avoid frankly.

 

[Inflorescence]

Original sin, also called ancestral sin,[1] is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man,[2] stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden.

This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.[3]

hmmm source wiki

 

[Shambles]

I don't think getting fukked comes under Original Sin. Original Sin is the one nobody gets any choice about - if you're born and you're not Jesus you have Original Sin and are damned for all eternity. If you're Catholic and probably a few other denominations anyway. It's all a bit bizarre frankly but each to their own. We should probably not take this discussion too far in here and refrain to the Theo Thread if it starts to snowball (which is easily done with religious stuff). The Metathread is probably one we should try to keep on topic...

*slaps own wrists sharply and thoroughly*

 

[Inflorescence]

hmm yes sorry..yeh you started it Just thought ' or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt' just about summed up BL

 

[Shambles]

I don't believe in the concept of sin. It's silly. But poetically useful so I tend to agree

 

[Raasyvibe]

I was reading a book on sin a while ago by a Christian theologian C.S. Lewis, it's far more tangible and experiential to be considered a "concept" and I cannot see how you determine it as silly. You cannot state your opinion like it's fact. Alas, this is not the time or the place for discussion on good, evil, sin and our eternal souls. There is more important matters to discuss:

---

MODS...

A while ago a darkweb market place was shut down. I know it, you know it, hell we all know it because it's been discussed to death on this very forum. I'd mention it's name, like the rest of you have... but I've just been given a warning for doing so.

Because that site was not in existence, it was agreed upon by all moderators that mentioning it's name and referring to it's past was acceptable. I recall Shambles and Knock using it freely a while ago.

It was even agreed that it's successor site was allowed to be mentioned, for the sake of HR and discussion of news events - as long as no references to vendors or selling occurred. News of arrests and safety of users was openly discussed in many places... the News thread for example springs to mind:~

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads/671955-The-News-Thread-v-Your-Penises-Are-Too-Large-And-It-s-All-Our-Fault?p=12128924&viewfull=1#post12128924


It seems the mod team are split on how to handle the issue, and by doing what's right by one mod has seen me warned by another. Can you make your minds up and state a little more clearly what your stance is on referring to the darkweb? I have only followed the rules previous stated on this forum and referred to sites in a way that other moderators themselves have (even less openly)... yet now I have received an official warning for doing so. Not fair!

(I'd link to my post but it's been deleted. It existed in the bitcoin thread a couple days back, I deliberately didn't use the name of the existing site,(though many have before) in consideration of the no source rule.)

 

[Shambles]

It's a valid question and concern, Raas. There is a bit of confusion about how exactly to handle "those" sites. At the moment there is not really firm consensus at forum level let alone at site level. To be honest I think it needs to be decided at site level cos at the moment - as you point out - you can talk about those kinda places (to an extent) in some threads and be warned for saying pretty much the same thing in a different thread. In your particular case I would suggest your post was removed (by myself) because it is of no relevance to Bitcoins per se and could only conceivably lead to discussion of "those" sites. Whatever is decided, the Bitcoins thread is not the TOR Vendor Site Discussion Thread so removal and warning is fair enough in that specific instance. The warning was specifically because Josh's post directly above yours specifically said not to mention any 'darkweb' sites in that thread any more cos it's only just been cleaned up of them. It's hard to see how doing precisely what everybody has just been asked not to do any more could not receive a warning. It is kinda taking the piss.

That aside, the general points you make are quite valid. It's tricky because there is no consensus whatsoever across the site and is as confusing to staff as it is to everybody else. I think it's an issue that will have to be raised in the staff forums and a decision reached to try to clarify more specifically what is and is not acceptable and where it is and is not acceptable. It is a very odd situation that the same thread will be fine in one forum on one day and removed from another forum the next. And quite possibly treated differently in the same forum depending on which mod happens to see it and what they're approach to TOR sites is. It's a tricky issue and probably not gonna be sorted overnight. I would advise people use common sense - there is a difference between discussion of a legal issue that's all over the media and general chit-chat about what this site or that site happens to be doing at the time. Vendor talk is vendor talk whether on TOR or not. If you're talking about any ongoing enterprise it's probably gonna be unacceptable... but I do realise it's something that is enforced somewhat haphazardly at times which is bound to lead to confusion for all.

 

[Raasyvibe]

. The warning was specifically because Josh's post directly above yours specifically said not to mention any 'darkweb' sites in that thread any more cos it's only just been cleaned up of them. It's hard to see how doing precisely what everybody has just been asked not to do any more could not receive a warning. It is kinda taking the piss.

In the past, the no source rule meant no mentioning of site names or addresses. It made sense that Josh was re-enforcing these rules, and that is how I interpreted his post.

I deliberately referred to the site as it's "successor" and left out the name of the source, to collaborate with Josh's post and the set rules. I didn't realise Josh had re-invented a new set of his own rules. I appreciate that he's just trying to mod appropriately - but I feel there is some confusion amongst staff on what is considered acceptable and I have fallen victim to this grey area. I also think the issue should be discussed with site admins. The darkweb possesses a progressively larger share of the drug market these days and some clarity is needed if Bluelight is to identify itself as a prominent site for drug harm reduction.

 

[Raasyvibe]

If my post is gone can a mod quote it, as u can view deleted msgs. I tried to edit it but think I deleted it by mistake. Stupid phone grrr

 

[BecomingJulie]

There you go -- I've just undeleted it for you.

 

[THECATINTHEHAT]

Is there any bit in the bible that says intoxication is a sin? I'm not Christian but I went to a very Christian happy clappy middle school and I don't remember any mention of intoxication being a sin.

I do however remember Jesus turning water in to wine....

 

[Raasyvibe]

There you go -- I've just undeleted it for you.

Nice work, BJ.

And can a mod also delete owens post, its a pretty rubbish unrelevent post

 

[THECATINTHEHAT]

No it isn't, it's a genuine question.

 

[Shambles]

In the past, the no source rule meant no mentioning of site names or addresses. It made sense that Josh was re-enforcing these rules, and that is how I interpreted his post.

I deliberately referred to the site as it's "successor" and left out the name of the source, to collaborate with Josh's post and the set rules. I didn't realise Josh had re-invented a new set of his own rules. I appreciate that he's just trying to mod appropriately - but I feel there is some confusion amongst staff on what is considered acceptable and I have fallen victim to this grey area. I also think the issue should be discussed with site admins. The darkweb possesses a progressively larger share of the drug market these days and some clarity is needed if Bluelight is to identify itself as a prominent site for drug harm reduction.

The no sourcing rule also covered hinting at sources and the language you used gave me the name of the site even though I was unaware of its existence. Clearly it was over the line in terms of dropping hints.

You are correct that there is confusion and grey area in regards to this issue. I'm thinking it is something that will have to be discussed by staff across all forums if we're ever to have any real consistency. It's not simply an EADD issue and although each forum is given some leeway to interpret rules in ways that suit that forum in this case there are no rules specifically relating to these sites so ultimately is more or less arbitrary in some cases. In your case it was not arbitrary cos you broke the no source rule by any definition of it I can ever recall it having.

Whilst it is true that TOR sites are becoming very popular how is that any different from when UK vendors sold meph and MXE and MDPV and any other popular RC? People tried to argue that those should be discussed so people could know which were reliable and so on. They were never allowed to be discussed, named, or even hinted at for the very same reason no other vendor sites are allowed to be no matter how popular. How would discussing TOR vendors relate to BL's HR aims?

If my post is gone can a mod quote it, as u can view deleted msgs. I tried to edit it but think I deleted it by mistake. Stupid phone grrr

It is u/a and staying u/a for the reasons given. Why do you think it is appropriate to post one sentence saying that such and such a site is doing well in the Bitcoins thread? What possible relevance could such a comment have to Bitcoins? How would such a comment not lead to - or at least invite - further discussion of specific vendor sites?

PS: I'm not quite sure what Julie meant by her post as the Bitcoins Thread post was never deleted and remains in the same state it's been since I u/a it at the time. I suspect it may have been intended literally as it never actually was deleted so technically Julie could have undeleted it and nothing would change anyway (you can undelete posts that are not deleted but nothing actually happens) .

 

[THECATINTHEHAT]

Nice work, BJ.

And can a mod also delete owens post, its a pretty rubbish unrelevent post

Also...irrelevant ffs8)

Seriously though, are there any passages in the bible that claim intoxication is a sin?