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

[parttime crackhead]

No worries good ole wikipedia... had no idea myself till i just read that

I only use TOR for accessing sites to download torrent movies, tv series etc these days... ISP blocks all those sites on my normal brower but can get around it thank fuck

That's a hassle man. Just type the name of whatever site you want plus "proxy" into Google. *snip* proxy for example. Access it through your normal browser rather than mad slow TOR.

 

[Shambles]

And there endeth the TOR lesson. Just to clarify that edit, we can't mention any torrent sites for copywrite reasons.

In more Metathready news, it seems a decision has been reached on the embedded links thing. May as well tell y'all in here now cos it is a change of policy and so the more people that see it the better. It's really very simple - there will be no more posting of embedded music videos allowed anywhere in EADD outside of the designated thread - What music are you youngsters watching v Motherfucking Videos (youtube-embed-hell). Any embedded music videos posted in any other thread will be deleted on sight. Embedded links to other videos will still be allowed but please think before posting and don't go overboard or they will have to go too. Embedding can be the best option for some things but is totally unnecessary for music videos and this seemed to be the best compromise. There'll be a sticky spelling out the change and also some time allowed for people to see the notices and notice the change but after that it will become a disciplinary matter and warnings - ultimately infractions if necessary - will be given out to any persistent offenders who simply don't take the hint. I'm sure it won't come to that. Just lay off the music embeds please, folks. They cause far more irritation than they are worth and actually prevent some people from reasonably being able to access certain threads due to excessive loading times.

 

[masaz]

Bumped actual video thread cos it was long down the listing. Also because I didn't believe it was actually called that.

May change music thread titles to reflect their embed status better. The embed one is pretty cool though.

edit: Yeah done. Shouldn't be any confusion. Probably.

 

[Raasyvibe]

Raas surely you understand why staff won't let you discuss it? Bluelight could be shut down, meaning potentially a lot of lives won't be saved, as they have been and I wouldn't imagine that BL would be looked favourably on if it was seen that members were being told where to access drugs - it would be seen as more harm than good as I said a few posts above. In the name of harm reduction a person who does not know how to obtain drugs is in less risk of harm than a person who has been told where to access them.

Just imagine if a person gets told of a "vendor?" and the person purchases some drugs, takes the wrong dosage and dies. It would be Bluelight - not that member who was frowned upon and blamed for it. So it protects members, and also Bluelight...

Evey xxxx

Basically that last bit ^^

I have never said we should be naming sources on this site. You're misunderstanding what I was saying. Whatever action mods/admins deem appropriate I comply with as the safety of the site is their concern. My point was: moderators should stop changing the rules by themselves and be more clear on the issue, I've unfairly picked up a warning because of the indistinctive approach and this is why I'm creating awareness of the issue here.

You weren't asking for sources but you basically named one outright. And before you accuse me of doing the same here read very carefully what I've actually said cos there is a difference.

I don't recall any discussion of the particular site you referred to. I may well have missed it but I'm assuming it was probably amongst the posts that Josh removed when he cleaned the Bitcoin Thread up from all the incessant vendor talk.

Yes you have missed it. The *site in question* has been named and talked openly about throughout EADD for months, across the Gibbering thread, the News thread and "Silk Road discussion thread" (I accept the latter thread later became closed, but this was because members were abusing it and discussion digressed from news articles, making it difficult to moderate)


http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads...-Sourcing)?p=12066574&viewfull=1#post12066574 - Silk Road's successor site named and talked openly here; allowed by all moderators.

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads...-Our-Fault?p=12128924&viewfull=1#post12128924 - *snip* site named and talked openly here in the NEWS thread.

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads...-Sourcing)?p=12038845&viewfull=1#post12038845 - *snip* site named and talked openly here


http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads...-Sourcing)?p=12040519&viewfull=1#post12040519 - News articles all about *snip* site named and talked about here



There's loads more examples in gibberings but searching is becoming tiresome through the hundreds/thousands of pages.


I have acted CONSISTENTLY with the rules mods laid down and respected and adhered to them, but now have been given a warning because another moderator - months later - has a different idea of what the rules should be, yet hasn't clarified them in anyway.

(BBC, ITV, Sky news, The Independent etc) is keeping us informed and serving our HR interests, so it seems very daft that Bluelight can't.

that's one opinion and it's a perfectly valid one when you take a very narrow view.

simply put, being considered a market for drugs or enabling sourcing and supply is a danger to bluelight's existence. and we likely wouldn't have to lose a legal case to go under - just being involved in one would probably be enough. so we have a very low, if not zero-tolerance, for discussion of sources. and, in enforcing sourcing rules, we tend to err very heavily on the side of caution.

does that mean that some cases, discussed in isolation, seem kind of silly? sure it does. but it's the price we pay for trying to ensure bluelight is here tomorrow.

you might think it's daft and that we're stupid for drawing the line where we've chosen to draw it. again, that's an opinion and certainly one to which you are entitled.

alasdair

It is daft. We can get in trouble/have legal cases against us by talking about a prominent piece of news, yet it can be discussed on BBC news no problem. You have misperceived my post for blaming the peculiarity of the situation on staff admins. Whether it's the staff being oversensitive, or the pressure of having a legal case against the site that is daft or society's fearful attitude of drugs which have put us in this position which is daft... is another question completely. The end result appears wrong, who to blame is another issue and one I was not directly accusing the staff of.

PS: Some off-topic posts removed. Please try to stay on-topic in this thread - I have chastised myself and will be making the effort more myself too.

That was your best chance to appropriately use the wastebasket thread... never gonna work on you is it...

 

[Eveleivibe]

~reads shambles posts and does a dance in appreciation~
Then reads the I words n runs in fear.... noooooo that word gives me nightmares nooooo haha...

Joking aside, thank God! And yes it makes sense as you're well informing us all n stuff!
I dispiiiiised those videos with a passion, just slowed down convos n stuff!
I mean one min I'm having a debate over something, the next I'm singing along to some song reading the lyrics like I'm back in school..... hang on?! WTF?!?! hehe....

Good job ya'll

PEACE!!!!!!

Evey xxxx

 

[Shambles]

I have never said we should be naming sources on this site. You're misunderstanding what I was saying. Whatever action mods/admins deem appropriate I comply with as the safety of the site is their concern. My point was: moderators should stop changing the rules by themselves and be more clear on the issue, I've unfairly picked up a warning because of the indistinctive approach and this is why I'm creating awareness of the issue here.

No, you received a warning for the reasons given to you repeatedly in this thread. Stop playing the innocent victim - it was only a no-points warning and you know damn well that post was right up to the line at best and just so happened it was over it. In fact I can't really see how you could ever think it wasn't over the line. You failed to answer any of my questions about what relevance your post - that post you were warned for not any news posts - had to the Bitcoins Thread and how it could ever lead to anything other than further vendor talk. It was shit-stirring or baiting or taking the piss or possibly - perhaps - genuinely not understanding the no sources rule. That rule has been clarified repeatedly alongside the precise reasons for your warning. If you want to complain about it PM a smod or admin and they will look into it.

Yes you have missed it. The *site in question* has been named and talked openly about throughout EADD for months, across the Gibbering thread, the News thread and "Silk Road discussion thread" (I accept the latter thread later became closed, but this was because members were abusing it and discussion digressed from news articles, making it difficult to moderate)

Thankyou for bringing those examples to my attention. The mention in the news thread has been edited and the SR Discussion Thread was a dog's dinner from shortly after the first post so I've gotten rid of it for now cos it'll be a complete nightmare to clean up and frankly more trouble than it's worth given it's closed anyway. It is no more - no need to worry about finding more examples in there. Feel free to dig up any further instances where that site - or any similar site - has been directly named or explicitly hinted at and I'll happily edit or delete those too.

I have acted CONSISTENTLY with the rules mods laid down and respected and adhered to them, but now have been given a warning because another moderator - months later - has a different idea of what the rules should be, yet hasn't clarified them in anyway.

How many fukkin times, Raas... You know as well as anybody it's bad form bitching about warnings and infractions publicly - it usually earns people an infraction. Given there is some sort of confusion over the discussion of certain aspects of TOR sites it's perfectly reasonable to discuss the general topic but keep bitching about a warning that's been explained to you repeatedly as having been given for very specific reasons which have nothing to do with a confused TOR policy and you will be infracted for it. Enough with the bitching. We get it - you don't agree. I doubt everybody does agree with their warnings but such is life and, again, take it to a smod or admin if you really do feel it's an injustice.

It is daft. We can get in trouble/have legal cases against us by talking about a prominent piece of news, yet it can be discussed on BBC news no problem.

In a very real sense it is daft. The world and its dog knows about these places and the media is littered with details on how to find them. That is the world, its dog and the media though. This is BL and we have a strict no sources policy. What part of that is so very hard to understand? And again, how are TOR vendors any different from any other vendor? Why do they need to be discussed but not other vendors?

That was your best chance to appropriately use the wastebasket thread... never gonna work on you is it...

The what thread? Dunno what you're talking about I'm afraid

 

[Raasyvibe]

How many fukkin times, Raas... You know as well as anybody it's bad form bitching about warnings and infractions publicly - it usually earns people an infraction. Given there is some sort of confusion over the discussion of certain aspects of TOR sites it's perfectly reasonable to discuss the general topic but keep bitching about a warning that's been explained to you repeatedly as having been given for very specific reasons which have nothing to do with a confused TOR policy and you will be infracted for it. Enough with the bitching. We get it - you don't agree. I doubt everybody does agree with their warnings but such is life and, again, take it to a smod or admin if you really do feel it's an injustice.

This is the first time someones mentioned to me not discuss a warning publicly, but I did it to draw attention to an issue that clearly needed clarification and save others from the confusion and getting reprimanded in the future. Thought it was suitable to do so in this thread.

No, you received a warning for the reasons given to you repeatedly in this thread. Stop playing the innocent victim - it was only a no-points warning and you know damn well that post was right up to the line at best and just so happened it was over it. In fact I can't really see how you could ever think it wasn't over the line. You failed to answer any of my questions about what relevance your post - that post you were warned for not any news posts - had to the Bitcoins Thread and how it could ever lead to anything other than further vendor talk. It was shit-stirring or baiting or taking the piss or possibly - perhaps - genuinely not understanding the no sources rule. That rule has been clarified repeatedly alongside the precise reasons for your warning. If you want to complain about it PM a smod or admin and they will look into it.

The reason I gave you all those links, is to exemplify my point: - that the post would have been legitimate a few months ago, so this is where the confusion has started. I'm not "playing a victim" or being a piss-taker as you have perceived. You still don't seem to understand this and by now I don't think you will. My original post was just an observation of the market as a whole, which - as said before - a few months ago would have been completely legitimate and that is why I felt it was ok to discuss now. I'm not the piss-taking, rule breaking monster you keep projecting me as.

I see you have a different stance than previous moderators on references to the darkweb, which is fine, but I bought the issue up as I feel it's unfair if people become reprimanded when the change of stance is not clarified.



Now it's been made light of, perhaps we've helped achieve that?

In a very real sense it is daft. The world and its dog knows about these places and the media is littered with details on how to find them. That is the world, its dog and the media though. This is BL and we have a strict no sources policy. What part of that is so very hard to understand? And again, how are TOR vendors any different from any other vendor? Why do they need to be discussed but not other vendors?

The whole policy is hard to understand when it keeps changing mod-to-mod; that was my point and why I felt it necessary to bring up here. I do accept it must be a difficult matter to moderate, so really just posting to help improve EADD.


...and when did I imply non-TOR vendors should be treated differently? I've referred only to TOR vendors because it was applicable to this case.

 

[THECATINTHEHAT]

raas losing the plot in this thread

...and here's a porn link for you to fulfill your criteria of what constitutes an acceptable post in this thread.

 

[Eveleivibe]

raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaas this ISN'T BBC news this is Bluelight. Alasdair TOLD you earlier in the forum why we can't mention the sites. Maybe they were mentioned by mistake. C'mon mate I don't want to see you infracted it's just annoying people now just agree to differ. Is a warning really the end of the world? I've heaps of the damn things..... I just laugh it off, life's too short, eh!

Evey

 

[Nicklazz]

I luv how u guys go from biggest enemies to be best friends Eve & raas, really I do. Its like when you where in kindergarden

All the best

 

[Eveleivibe]

I luv how u guys go from biggest enemies to be best friends Eve & raas, really I do. Its like when you where in kindergarden

All the best

waaaaaaaaaaaaaa How DARE you!!!
back at ya!

Evey

 

[Raasyvibe]

Evey, I'm not saying we should mention sites! I said this to Alasadair 2 posts ago -

I have never said we should be naming sources on this site. You're misunderstanding what I was saying. Whatever action mods/admins deem appropriate I comply with as the safety of the site is their concern.

It is daft. We can get in trouble/have legal cases against us by talking about a prominent piece of news, yet it can be discussed on BBC news no problem. You have misperceived my post for blaming the peculiarity of the situation on staff admins. Whether it's the staff being oversensitive, or the pressure of having a legal case against the site that is daft or society's fearful attitude of drugs which have put us in this position which is daft... is another question completely. The end result appears wrong, who to blame is another issue and one I was not directly accusing the staff of

And I'm only responding to what Shambles said in the first place in his post appropriately, to get to the bottom of this.

____

Owen - at least you're including porn links into your unconstructive posts now, it's going in the right direction for you. EDIT - looks at porn link. BJ remove it to the wastebasket thread now! EDIT 2: SOMEONES STOLEN THE WASTEBASKET

 

[THECATINTHEHAT]

All this anger over me asking for some information on the bible, get some perspective man. Your delusions of self-importance and hypocrisy are truly something wonderful.

I for one think this forum is being moderated very well on the whole, little to complain about really.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/a354d34930c423d593e96ec32017e2a9/tumblr_mn4ddjJ9ad1s2t2ymo1_500.jpg

 

[Raasyvibe]

All this anger over me asking for some information on the bible, get some perspective man. Your delusions of self-importance and hypocrisy are truly something wonderful.

I for one think this forum is being moderated very well on the whole, little to complain about really.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/a354d34930c423d593e96ec32017e2a9/tumblr_mn4ddjJ9ad1s2t2ymo1_500.jpg

lol, owen you got me all wrong. I was taking the piss with that "leave us important boys to it" comment.

Yes I agree EADD is very well moderated, don't mean to be an aggressor here or disrespectful. But this is pretty much the complain thread and I feel my concern was necessary. If there was a compliment eadd moderators thread I'd post in there also. Why don't u make one?

 

[Shambles]

This is the first time someones mentioned to me not discuss a warning publicly, but I did it to draw attention to an issue that clearly needed clarification and save others from the confusion and getting reprimanded in the future. Thought it was suitable to do so in this thread.

I assumed it was common knowledge that complaining about warnings and infractions publicly was bad form. Apologies if I came over overly harsh but it is pretty commonly known and as you've been around longer than I have I just presumed you'd be aware of it as I - and probably any other longterm member - is. You know now anyway and so does anybody else reading this - complaints or disagreements about warnings or infractions are not for public discussion: PM the mod who gave the wrist-slap or take it up with any of the smods or admin who overlook EADD.

The reason I gave you all those links, is to exemplify my point: - that the post would have been legitimate a few months ago, so this is where the confusion has started. I'm not "playing a victim" or being a piss-taker as you have perceived. You still don't seem to understand this and by now I don't think you will. My original post was just an observation of the market as a whole, which - as said before - a few months ago would have been completely legitimate and that is why I felt it was ok to discuss now. I'm not the piss-taking, rule breaking monster you keep projecting me as.

But none of this bears any relation to what you actually posted. That is what is irritating the hell out of me. It's one thing to raise an issue about discussion of TOR sites in general terms but quite another to suggest the post you were warned for was such a thing. It was not. It was a one line post saying that a particular site was doing better than expected. Whatever that is supposed to mean. Who gives a fuck? What does it have to do with BL and HR? Or Bitcoins for that matter. What possible discussion - that is allowable within BL and EADD rules - could come from that? How does it relate in any way to the fact some TOR sites sell drugs and lots of people know about it. You only spoke in terms of a single specific site - there was no attempt at generalising it or making a point of any description. You could almost have been warned for spamming as well as vendor talk - suggesting a specific site is especially popular borders on sounding like shilling frankly.

Why are you so keen to tell people a site exists and is doing good business? Why not tell us all about *snip*, *snip* or *snip*? Those are all vendor sites doing better than I expected too. Shall we start a thread on it? Should I move this post to the Bitcoins thread where it is apparently of relevance? Do you get the point being made yet?

The rules have not changed at any point. There never were rules specifically relating to TOR sites. They come under sourcery same as any other vendor. If/when a TOR site is busted and shut down and no longer trading that is news and we can discuss it. The general trend towards people using TOR sites could potentially be considered reasonable discussion (although on past history it wouldn't last too long cos people can't help put try and push their luck and start dropping heavy hints about particular sites). General discussion is fine. Specifics is not. I don't know how much simpler or clearer I can make it.

 

[Eveleivibe]

I didn't like the waste basket thread. Full if drama n probably off-putting to newbies. I wouldn't want to read a load of arguing and swearing at one another. It's pointless.

Evey

 

[THECATINTHEHAT]

lol, owen you got me all wrong. I was taking the piss with that "leave us important boys to it" comment.

It was a piss poor attempt at a put down that just made you look like a bit of self-important character when you could have just pointed me in the direction of the information I was seeking in the first place. It's ok to admit our failures you know, we're all friends here.

I don't think we need a complement the mods thread. I think that given there's extensive discussion of their performance instigated primarily by you on this thread and this is the thread for discussing the day to day operations of EADD then any relevant opinions fit just nicely here.

 

[alasdairm]

This is the first time someones mentioned to me not discuss a warning publicly...

it's been in the greenlighter's guide for about, you know, forever

from the the greenlighter's guide:

What if my problem is with the moderators? Who do I contact?

Please make a reasonable attempt to resolve the issue with the moderator(s) in question privately. If that fails, contact the forum senior mod or administrator and explain the situation. When you do so, remember the following:

- Once again, be polite and patient.
- Include any communication you have had with the moderator(s) in question.
- Clearly indicate the problem and include links to illustrate what you are talking about.

If, at any point, you feel unsatisfied with this process or you would simply prefer to air your issue in public, you should start a thread in the Support forum and we'll address the issue there. As with participation in any forum, please ensure your post is civil.

Bluelight gives a lot of power to the moderators to manage the day-to-day operation of the forums. Making a difficult judgment call or committing a simple human error does not mean a moderator was derelict in their duty. Please note that the complaints procedure stops with the site ownership. If you are still unsatisfied, just laugh and remind yourself that Bluelight is only a message board.

alasdair

 

[Raasyvibe]

^ C'mon I haven't read that in 10 years. And I do have a life don't have the time to re-read every sites T&C's. I bought up the warning here, because it was relevant to the topic of TOR and how it should be moderated, rather than a singular complaint. This thread is a discussion on how EADD is moderated, so I felt bringing it up here was suitable.

What possible discussion - that is allowable within BL and EADD rules - could come from that? How does it relate in any way to the fact some TOR sites sell drugs and lots of people know about it. You only spoke in terms of a single specific site - there was no attempt at generalising it or making a point of any description. You could almost have been warned for spamming as well as vendor talk - suggesting a specific site is especially popular borders on sounding like shilling frankly.

Why are you so keen to tell people a site exists and is doing good business? Why not tell us all about *snip*, *snip* or *snip*? Those are all vendor sites doing better than I expected too. Shall we start a thread on it? Should I move this post to the Bitcoins thread where it is apparently of relevance? Do you get the point being made yet?

Actually, since the Silk Road Discussion thread was shut, a lot of the TOR discussion spilled over to the Bitcoin thread (After all, bitcoin and TOR are heavily related). In the links I gave you earlier (which you have now deleted), it was discussed frequently and in depth on both threads, about how dangerous, badly managed and unsuccessful that naughty *snip* site was.

This is why I made the comment I did, it was a response to all of the earlier comments made on the bitcoin and SR discussion threads.

I was shocked to be given a warning, as I was being consistent with the former posts in the thread (In fact, making far more of an effort to be oblique in my reference, honouring RJosh's post).

Please understand I am not complaining about the warning by itself, but creating awareness of how the issue should be moderated and clarified as there has been a heavy change of moderators in the past months and this may lead many (such as myself) into confusion.

 

[alasdairm]

^ C'mon I haven't read that in 10 years.

q.e.d.

alasdair