Speak Your Mind on the OD Rules

[sixpartseven]

^ Alright, then fine. Its not harm reduction. Whatever we have to do to make you understand that were not changing it, we'll do it just for you.

Today is YOUR day.

 

[GenericMind]

Let's call it underwater basketweaving.

 

[sixpartseven]

Sounds good. Underwater basketweaving it is.

 

[Flexistentialist]

It just demonstrates to the world that the mods here don't really know what harm reduction is, because you're not able to see the massive contradiction sitting right underneath the heading "Harm reduction".

 

[sixpartseven]

I am able to see the massive wasting of time you are creating by trying to continue this argument, though, so that should count for something. And you are so right. We dont know anything about Harm Reduction. The admins must have been crazy to let us become mods.

All you have to do is read through the last few pages of responses to see that all the information on the subject is at there. That means that, not only because of our views that its wrong to abuse suboxone maintenance, but also because of the fact that the info is all there, further discussion is not allowed. Everything anyone needs to know on the topic can be found on BL already. Why cant you get that through your head?

Subject Changed. Moving on.

Topic: Getting new users to check BDD first. Any ides on how to make that more clear to them?

So far:

- Cant post in OD till you are a Bluelighter (unlikely)
- Cant create new threads till you hit a certain post count (more likely, but still unlikely)
- Some kind of message demonstrating the difference between BDD, OD, and ADD that would be hard for anyone to miss (highly probable)

Any others?

 

[GenericMind]

It just demonstrates to the world that the mods here don't really know what harm reduction is, because you're not able to see the massive contradiction sitting right underneath the heading "Harm reduction".

You're right, we're complete failures. We don't understand what Harm Reduction is because we disagree with you. We're obviously a bane to Harm Reduction unless we decide to let all people post whatever drug topics they please. If only we had professional backgrounds!

 

[johanneschimpo]

Topic: Getting new users to check BDD first. Any ides on how to make that more clear to them?

So far:

- Cant post in OD till you are a Bluelighter (unlikely)
- Cant create new threads till you hit a certain post count (more likely, but still unlikely)
- Some kind of message demonstrating the difference between BDD, OD, and ADD that would be hard for anyone to miss (highly probable)

Any others?

I am moving mass amounts of basic threads where they belong. Hopefully the people who post them realize they have been moved, and keep their basic questions there for the most part. Not that they can't post here, but BDD is the spot for... well... basic drug discussion.
Not posting in OD until a BLer is hard, because there are people who are fully capable of posting in OD the day they join. Or it could be an old member who forgot their password on a new username. I don't know how we can prevent this (brainstorm session, anyone?) but I know what I can do after something basic is posted, and its what I have been doing, shifting it over to BDD.

 

[firsty]

It just demonstrates to the world that the mods here don't really know what harm reduction is, because you're not able to see the massive contradiction sitting right underneath the heading "Harm reduction".

PLUR levels shot waay up once th subox argument ended. Why would you bring it back?
the PLUR is dead now and its your fault. Stop it.

back on topic
Mods: i think that making it perfectly clear as to what types of threads go where is a great idea, but i honestly dont think there is a way to make sure everybody knows and stops asking very basic questions in OD.
the only things i can think of are gigantic unmissable messages explaining it; or inculding it in the "terms of agreement" when a user registers and hide a password in a random spot that they will later have to type - just to prove they read it.

just throwin' stuff out there.

 

[johanneschimpo]

Its almost like OD needs its own terms of agreement, after the BL terms of agreement.
Most trafficked (lol!) drug forum, and one of the most trafficked in all of BL period (2nd to the lounge possibly, but thats just post-whoring).
Until we figure out what we need, I will just manually move threads to BDD.

 

[tambourine-man]

No, it's not. A line has to be drawn somewhere. We're saying it's going to be drawn at abusing treatment programs meant to help addicts. They're the best thing going as far as addiction treatment goes right now and I'm sick of seeing people abuse the hell out them. People that want to inject Suboxone they get from clinics are the reasons friends of mine, people that really need it and who want to use it as it's intended, have to wait four months just to get in to see a Suboxone Doctor. If someone wants information on abusing one of these medications there are other places to find information, and there's even plenty that can be found here in OD using the Search Engine. There is no satisfactory advice to give these people other than to use these treatment programs as they're intended or quit using up valuable resources that other people need in my opinion. You're entitled to disagree, but this particular topic was one of the main focuses that brought about these policy changes so it's not going to be changing anytime soon.

I'm not sure about this. It doen't sit well with me at all.

"Moral decision" is a phrase that's been used in this thread - inappropriately in my opinion, as it implies that the decision-maker is attempting to take a moral high ground. I don't believe that that is the motivation - even if accusations of moderator pompousness or arrogance are found by some to be accurate.

Rather than it being a moral decision, I think the above quote is more of a political decision. I think there's a conflict between the political imperative to reduce abuse of treatment programmes (I sympathise... I really, really do) and the HR imperative to provide information impartially.

Bluelight (www.bluelight.ru) is an international message board that educates the public about responsible drug use (with a focus on MDMA) by promoting free discussion. We advocate harm reduction and attempt to eliminate misinformation. Bluelight is funded by private donations and maintained by a team of volunteers.

Bluelight does not condone or condemn the use of illegal drugs. Bluelight is a place for people to ask questions and educate themselves about drugs so they can make more informed decisions regarding their personal use. Other programs that advocate complete abstinence have had limited success, so Bluelight anticipates that people will continue to use illegal drugs regardless of the potential health or legal consequences. We want to encourage people to take personal responsibility for the choices they make regarding their drug consumption.

Harm reduction is the practice of taking reasonable measures to minimize the risks from drug use. Common harm reduction activities include encouraging people to exercise moderation in their drug consumption and to understand the purity or dose of the drug they are consuming. There is no such thing as safe drug use, but if someone is educated in the general principles of harm reduction, they increase the odds that their drug use will not lead to short-term disasters or long-term negative consequences.

Beyond harm reduction, Bluelight also seeks to educate the public about drugs by summarizing whatever information is known about a subject. Bluelight aims to deliver accurate information in an easy to understand manner that emphasizes safety. We also try to eliminate misinformation whether it exaggerates or understates the danger. If facts are unavailable, then honest anecdotal stories can provide useful information so people have an idea of what to expect.

Since Bluelight seeks to reach the widest possible audience, we take a balanced approach that allows the discussion of both the positive and negative aspects of drug use. We believe that education and harm reduction are more effective than using scare tactics or exaggerating negative claims. Anyone looking through our site will be able to find examples of irresponsible behavior, but we believe it does not glorify recklessness but instead reinforces the idea that people need to be more cautious. Everyone is encouraged to candidly discuss past experiences and ask any questions they might have.

When I read the above mission statement, I find that every paragraph runs contradictory to the idea of restricting discussion on a particular method of administration for a particular substance.

Kudos on opening this for discussion. OD, I believe, is one of the most important forums on Bluelight and I'm glad that we're prepared to listen to forum regulars opinions.

 

[sixpartseven]

Rather than it being a moral decision, I think the above quote is more of a political decision. I think there's a conflict between the political imperative to reduce abuse of treatment programmes (I sympathise... I really, really do) and the HR imperative to provide information impartially.

So, how do you suggest we find a middle ground? Im not trying to be an asshole asking this, Its a serious question. Do you have any ideas of a way to do it? Can a middle ground be found, even?

I completely agree with GM, in that I dont like the idea of promoting or supporting people who abuse such valuable programs, but I also realize that in a way I do agree with you after reading the BL Mission Statement again.

What would be the best way to go about this?

 

[ccm]

Rather than it being a moral decision, I think the above quote is more of a political decision. I think there's a conflict between the political imperative to reduce abuse of treatment programmes (I sympathise... I really, really do) and the HR imperative to provide information impartially.

So the BL staff has to choose between:
The desire to reduce abuse of tx programs OR
The desire to provide impartial information on how to abuse said tx programs.

Take a stand one way or the other. I believe that the "shoot sub" information is here on this very site, already.

Here is the difference: the tx programs are a matter of life and death for many, myself included (Yes, I am biased).

The "shoot Sub" discussion is about getting high.

 

[sixpartseven]

^ Thats the way I see it too. Im just trying to get others view on it.

 

[pinpoint]

maybe you guys can make posting basic questions in OD instead of BDD a punishable offense. maybe you wouldn't follow through with the punishments [in the form of a warning] all the time, but it would definitely make me think twice about a thread i post.

i was once very very close to becoming a moderator for BDD back when i was using my 'Beans' account [before i went on a psychotic rampage and got banned [but that was in my bad days[i'm better now]]] and the mods there are MUCH more happier to help newer members and deal with the never ending cycle of repeat questions. we probably lose a lot of members because of the UTFSE NOOBLET attitude that OD has lately.


[merged them for you. - 6/7]

 

[I am shpongled]

I understand why we can't discuss synthesis, but I really wish we could. There is a vast amount of untapped knowledge on here regarding that. And it's not like we don't discuss illegal things anyway.

Yeah, it's a harm reduction site, I know.

 

[sixpartseven]

Synthesis has nothing to do with HR. There are many other websites out there that are more willing to risk the liabilities of allowing synth discussion. So far, BL has a pretty good reputation. Allowing synth discussion would only tarnish that and make us look bad.

 

[Nickatina]

Dosage questions, as I have always replied in them, are next to impossible to give a good answer to. But I believe an answer is deserved - who knows how many they decide to take god fobid they go to TOTSE for their information instead. They should still be closed, but with tips on minimum dosage, titration, and how long to wait before redosing. These aren't always easy to find on the search engine, so allowing them to be open for a few helpful responses then closing it would help you mods to have a reference page to send the offending poster when you close a thread in the future.

Really, think about it - it could be dangerous not allowing a user to get info on dosage. I know how stupid it is, everyone should know you have to start low then find the sweet spot - but there are too many kids out there whos lives could be lost because no one told them how much of whatever to take.

 

[sixpartseven]

^ I know I usually try to answer those questions to the best of my ability before I close them, and Im pretty sure my co-mods do too. Usually the best answer to give is "start with X-mg's (which is usually a low number) and titrate dosage. no one can give you an exact number," but hey, thats better than nothing at all.

In the past, I have also let a thread that should be closed stay open for a little bit to get answers (if I didnt have a 100% surefire answer myself) before I closed it.

I agree, this should be standard procedure if its applicable to a certain thread. Of course, we'd have to determine on a case by case basis if this procedure is possible for whatever thread, but it shouldnt be a problem.

 

[Madhatter4]

I love all the OD mods

 

[Nickatina]

I did notice that sixpartseven, that you allowed closable threads to stay open for discussion. I know that it's not always just CLOSED DUMBASS so I'm happy you plan to keep it that way.