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

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

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

Shambles said:
This is exactly the same argument that people have always used to suggest that BL should allow naming of sources. All the arguments against allowing discussion of internet vendors apply to discussion of Tor vendors. Whilst it can be argued that allowing people to discuss sources to pass on info about rip-off artists, scammers, bad quality product and so on are a form of HR, it is not a form of HR that BL has ever allowed. It's way to open to abuse and, frankly, where people get their drugs is irrelevant to this site's HR message. There are plenty of sites that allow discussion of vendors - I browse them myself sometimes - but, as you have no doubt noticed, they are often full of vendors bitching at each other, accusing each other of one thing or another, and are basically a form of marketing tool. That's fine but it is not what BL exists for.
Click to expand...

What you say is true but I've just spent many hours in the staff forums trying to make the point that relevance to the HR message is not a criterion used for determining whether or not to allow discussion. We have all kinds of discussion which are not relevant to the HR message. If we made "relevant to HR" a requirement, then we'd have no social threads.

There are several reasons we don't allow naming of sources. "Not relevant to HR" might well be one of them, but on it's own it's not sufficient to disallow something. So like you suggest, but I think needs spelled out clearly, :D:

- mentioning vendor names can appear as a form of marketing. Even if someone says "xxxx is a shit vendor", it still puts "xxxx is a vendor" in people's heads. If we allowed it, then vendors would come on here and spam us (more than they do already). And their shills would spam us too. It might be possible to develop rules around that which might limit abuse, but moderator time is very limited, and the benefits of allowing vendor talk are minor compared to the difficulty of controlling spam and shilling.
- Bluelight seeks not to draw attention to itself from the police. This is so we can remain active. If we allow the mention of vendors, and police think they're doing marketing here, then they may seek to close us down. Marketing amounts to offering for sale, so it could be seen as part of the drug deal. We do not want anyone to get the impression that drug deals take place here, if we want BL to survive.

I think the second of these especially is crucial. We have to do things which keep the site online, else it will not be online.
 
Shambles said:
This is exactly the same argument that people have always used to suggest that BL should allow naming of sources. All the arguments against allowing discussion of internet vendors apply to discussion of Tor vendors.
Click to expand...
Knock said:
- mentioning vendor names can appear as a form of marketing. Even if someone says "xxxx is a shit vendor", it still puts "xxxx is a vendor" in people's heads. If we allowed it, then vendors would come on here and spam us (more than they do already). And their shills would spam us too.
Click to expand...

woah... woah.... wooooaah!

No-ones suggesting we discuss which particular vendor is best and how good their shit is. That would be plain naughty. We're after important news on prevalent sites which will most likely affect users here, and many-a-lurker who's using our forums for information. For instance, it was very useful when somebody reported the recent arrests on *site of evil* so as to warn us to be careful (HR) and let us discuss the safety of the site.

However, now I have to trundle through BBC news, sky news, facebook because bluelight and eadd has in this respect become useless for "drug related news". Which is pretty bad for a harm reduction drugs forum.

Also, finding the subject somewhat fascinating, it was enjoyable to discuss former sites and theorize over their endings and how that could effect the market as a whole in the future. This was not sourcing whatsoever and broke no guidelines, as the sites were dead. The fact you can't talk about this on a "drugs forum", I feel is being overly stringent.

Would be interested to hear if others felt the same.

[Please don't take this post as a whine at the mods, I understand moderating such a sensitive subject must be a difficult task in itself

Snolly said:
Aye, it's just some of em recently have been auto-loading/playing and admittedly it's probably only me whining about bandwidth at the moment but yeah too many do crash shitter devices; the uni computers and my old netbook died constantly with the embeds.
Click to expand...

Are you sure they would auto-load and play? They are coded in such a way that it's only possible to load them by clicking play. I appreciate the slow down is an issue on threads dedicated to music, but randomly posting elsewhere should not be a problem. Most people are pretty good with it anyway... though... there is one poster who get's a little carried away with it time to time. No naming, but we all know who that pesky little youtube embedding fiend is ;)


Shambles said:
You do realise this is the same Knock who posted an instructional video on PooToob demonstrating the art of plugging, yes? I don't think embarrassment is high on his agenda ;)
Click to expand...


...You're telling me that Knock's made an instructional video for plugging on youtube?

You're shitting me.

I hope this is a wind-up, but knowing you lot so well I expect to be disappointed. Is it like watching Blue Peter?


Marmalade said:
You do realise that that video has formed a staple in Raas's wank bank since he scoured google cache for weeks and managed to find a copy after it got taken down?
Click to expand...


Shambles said:
I suspected as much but was waiting on confirmation. That boy does have a thing for botties. And so does Knock.
Click to expand...

Pfffft, I've got more than enough Knock-arse material saved to my HD, to satisfy and staple my transient, shameful, sacrilegious, limited capacity "wank-bank" as it is.

Mmmmm.. Knock arse... where drugs go when they're sent to hell.



NSFW:


Previously posted from Knock: ~

A1AW58j.jpg



"A rash is one of the early symptoms of HIV that usually occurs within the first two months after infection with the virus. Like other initial symptoms of HIV, it’s easy to mistake this rash for that of another viral infection. It’s therefore important to learn how to identify the rash and know how to treat it."

 
Last edited:
AFAIK it's allowed to talk about defunct sites. It's when people take the opportunity to start dropping massive hints about current vendors that's the problem - and that SR thread was littered with stuff like that. I'm not on staff now but I know how much work it is trying to "police" borderline discussions like that cos it means having to Google every iffy-sounding phrase and chase up every link just in case. As Knock said, it's just a massive pain in the arse to deal with. But it's entirely down to the current modteam really. I don't see any problem with the discussion of arrests and stuff - and it is still discussed if you check DiTM or CE&P. There's no ban on mentioning Silk Road when there is no functional Silk Road. It's the current crop that can't be discussed here same as any other vendors. But I do agree it is odd when vendors are mentioned in mainstream media and we can't mantion them here - there's a similar thing when online articles mention specific vendors by name (and link to them sometimes). Just a quirk of the way things are really. Also bloody irresponsible of mainstream media to be giving them such free publicity.

And yes, he did. But got taken down before I ever got to see it. Pesky obscenity laws :D

(well, pootoob t&c's)
 
I can understand why embedding videos is restricted to certain threads. The thing is, they do use up resources, for both the server and the client. One or two on a page isn't so bad, more than that and everything slows to a crawl.

Now, in an ideal world, nobody would post the third embed before a page throw; but everyone knows the world doesn't work that way, because each of us is so much more important and so much more careful than all the others, that we do actually have a right to break the rules -- which are only there for other people.

For a society to function correctly without rules or anyone wielding sticks, people would still have to behave exactly the same way as they would if there was some system of rules and a corresponding mechanism for enforcement. Which would suggest that people would not mind a benevolent dictator ruling with an iron fist, but that fails to take into account the perversity of human nature. We can actually object to being told to do something we actually would have cheerfully done anyway without being told, valuing the opportunity to choose over the choice.
 
Replying to Raas without quoting because I have images off and can't quote because I can't find the button but yeah there was one in the Gibberings thread recently that would autoplay every time without me clicking a thing, was weird. Some don't do it, but others definitely have.
 
snolly said:
Replying to Raas without quoting because I have images off and can't quote because I can't find the button but yeah there was one in the Gibberings thread recently that would autoplay every time without me clicking a thing, was weird. Some don't do it, but others definitely have.
Click to expand...

I can vouch for this. I can be browsing BL at 4am then all of a sudden, Gangsta rap from the 80's blares out. I have to mute every device I use while on BL to stop it happening. Not all videos do it though, intriguingly.
 
SproutOnSmack said:
I can vouch for this. I can be browsing BL at 4am then all of a sudden, Gangsta rap from the 80's blares out. I have to mute every device I use while on BL to stop it happening. Not all videos do it though, intriguingly.
Click to expand...

snolly said:
Oh thank god it's not just me going insane
Click to expand...

Hmmmm... What browser do you both use? I'm using IE and this has never happened.
 
Never happens to me either, and I'm using Chromium and sometimes Firefox, but I think it's a feature of youtube that the videos wait for you to hit play. It's not specific to flash objects generally. Maybe some youtube videos are set up to play automatically. A link to one of these miscreants would be interesting.
 
knock said:
Never happens to me either, and I'm using Chromium and sometimes Firefox, but I think it's a feature of youtube that the videos wait for you to hit play. It's not specific to flash objects generally. Maybe some youtube videos are set up to play automatically. A link to one of these miscreants would be interesting.
Click to expand...
One of Shammy's links in SHM's bday thread does this for me today. 1st time it's happened

Lies. Just checked to see which one it was and it doesn't do it anymore. Must've hit play by mistake last time
 
knock said:
Yeah actually all the youtube links start automatically for me but the embeds don't.
Click to expand...

Neither links nor embeds do for me in FF. See my amendment above. I use No Script, and AD Blocker, and Cookie Destroyer tho
 
Oh I didn't realise it was actually gone. I heard it was troubled. It might come back though! Then what a mess we'd be in.
 
raas_2012 said:
My Dear Staff,

EADD off topic waste basket

Use it or lose it ;)
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to lose it. Never did see what the point of a thread for pointless posts was. Seems rather pointless to me.

Have been meaning to read through this thread properly as I managed to miss the majority of the discussion when it happened cos drugs. I'll give it a Spring Clean along the way if necessary. Expect these posts to be Spring Cleaned ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top