• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    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

Apparently so. It's been discussed fairly frequently in the Theology Thread if you wish to continue discussing religious matters. I know I kinda added to it so is largely my fault but perhaps time to take the religious talk to its designated area as it is a topic that has been specifically discussed there so of considerably more relevance than in here. I will spank myself thoroughly for throwaway comments previously but the Metathread is one of the handful of EADD threads that really does need to stay as on topic as possible.
 
I've not read any of the 2nd incarnation of the Theo Thread so no idea what's being discussed in there. Been a while since I read the first incarnation but that's what the search function is for (getting it to work properly is perhaps another matter admittedly but presumably search for 'intoxication' and 'sin').
 
Nice work, BJ.
Please, just call me Julie.

The post I undeleted was this one, which -- I have no reason to doubt -- was deleted accidentally by Raas (do you mind if I call you that?) while editing on a small mobile phone touchscreen.

And can a mod also delete owens post, its a pretty rubbish unrelevent post
Such a blatant breach of the Moderators' Code of Honour (to say nothing of the BLUA) would require a bribe that, with all due respect, I am not sure you could afford.[/icequeen]
 
Also...irrelevant ffs8)

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

You could have googled that up in minutes the first time round, so why should I waste my time explaining it to you... in the damn metathread!?

This thread is for serious issues regarding the functioning of EADD and the occasional foolsgold porn link, so please, get back to where you belong in the crap joke thread or gibbering threads... why us important boys - and perverts - get on wit our ting.

Please, just call me Julie.

The post I undeleted was this one, which -- I have no reason to doubt -- was deleted accidentally by Raas (do you mind if I call you that?) while editing on a small mobile phone touchscreen.

This. Shambles I was not referring to the bitcoin thread, I deleted my post in HERE by mistake on my touchscreen phone.

BecomingJulie said:
Such a blatant breach of the Moderators' Code of Honour (to say nothing of the BLUA) would require a bribe that, with all due respect, I am not sure you could afford.[/icequeen]

See. THIS is why we need the offtopic wastebasket thread, a perfect place for owen's shite. PM me your bitcoin address, then you can sort it out for me personally Julie ;)


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.

Well it didn't before. Hence the fact we've been discussing that certain site (oops, hinted at it again, see how easy it is?) for the past year or so (since it came into fruition). I was only acting consistently and was not aware Josh had changed the entire rules of the forum.
Shamballs said:
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?

No-one has ever discussed tor vendors here. Moreso: news of arrests, sites being busted, security leaks etc the rest of the Internet (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.
 
Last edited:
This thread is for serious issues regarding the functioning of EADD and the occasional foolsgold porn link, so please, get back to where you belong in the crap joke thread or gibbering threads... why us important boys get on wit our ting.

You have anger issues dude. The issue had already been raised, I asked for more information. Did I touch a nerve? Ever consider the fact I didn't know there was a theology thread?

edit: important boys...lol.....only someone with real issues could form the identity of being an 'important boy' via the medium of an internet forum=D
 
Last edited:
No-one has ever discussed tor vendors here. Moreso: news of arrests, sites being busted, security leaks etc the rest of the Internet (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
 
Alasdair, in the past (in EADD) we never mentioned sources (IE using site names, giving out URLS) but (to my memory) significant news events which were printed around the 'net were referred to. Thus dodging the no source rule.

I'm not suggesting we give out names and addresses of sites, I can see that being problematic for the forum.
 
Sorry to bring up a subject that was a few days ago, as I was not here I will put some input. Having not been a mod myself I cannot say for sure, but haven't seen from other mods and the work they do, I imagine that there is a LOT more to moderating than just "keeping the rules," there's talking to people in PM; trying to solve disputes, talk to people who do not truly understand a situation; issue infractions or warnings and I'm sure that, that isn't always as things are not always as straight forward as they may seem. Example, the one that raas gave above with the sites. They're also not allowed to give out information, keep the line between friendship and disciplinary. For instance, if they have to infract someone who is a "friend," then they have the issue of it coming between their friendship etc.

So I wouldn't image it is as "easy" as it seems. I think saying that is an insult to the moderators here - and all the work that they do in order to keep the site running, keep members satisfied, keep out trolls, drug dealers, keep members safe from harassment and / stalkish behaviour. Also they have to put up with abuse from members, which isn't fair when at the end of the day they're volunteers, they're not being paid for the job that they do here. And last but not least, give quite a bit of commitment towards Bluelight, read through the reads even the boring ones, read reports; decide on the appropriate actions, discuss us troublesome members (hehe had to get a joke in there)

I think all of the staff here; moderators, senior moderators and administrators, do an ACE job and that we should be thanking them and showing them our appreciation not insulting them. Constructive criticism is good but really we can't say their job is easy, can we. Anyone that implies that I suggest you apply to be a moderator and see if you can do a better job :)

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

That makes perfect sense, Alasdair.
I think mentioning sites is very silly because it could give someone access to a site that they would not have before thus causing more harm than good.

Oh, it's ace to be back at Bluelight :)
Missed you all so damn much,
Evey xxxx
 
Well it didn't before. Hence the fact we've been discussing that certain site (oops, hinted at it again, see how easy it is?) for the past year or so (since it came into fruition). I was only acting consistently and was not aware Josh had changed the entire rules of the forum.

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. Either way, you now know that what you said counts as sourcing so there is no grey area on that specific issue any more. The site that has been allowed to be mentioned since it no longer exists is Silk Road. Anybody can say Silk Road just as long as no actual site exists called Silk Road which sells drugs. Any sites which have a name similar in any way to Silk Road are not allowed to be discussed whilst they are trading. Any other sites which sell drugs that don't have names like Silk Road also cannot be mentioned or hinted at.

Whilst I do understand there is perhaps need to make some type of specific rule around the whole TOR site issue as so many people seem to be confused about what is and isn't allowed, ultimately they are vendor sites and they simply come under the no sources rule same as any other. The problem as I see it comes from media regularly naming such sites and those stories are sometimes reposted or linked to here. Technically that is not allowed (aside from Silk Road as that no longer exists) and it is in that area that I see there is confusion. Bog standard vendor talk - which is all your Bitcoins post was - is sourcery plain and simple. 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.

No-one has ever discussed tor vendors here. Moreso: news of arrests, sites being busted, security leaks etc the rest of the Internet (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.

Many people have discussed TOR vendors here. The very post you made starting this whole thing did precisely that and had no other content whatsoever. Sites being busted is another matter but also on shaky ground. There were similar issues when UK vendors would get busted (they often sold drugs after they had been banned so is really not any difference whether it's a TOR site selling smack or a WWW site selling mephedrone a month after the ban - illegal drugs, lists of customers, payment details on record etc). What generally happened there was there was a period where no specific naming of the site was made until it was absolutely confirmed that it no longer existed as a trading entity. After that point it can be mentioned in relation to whatever people want to talk about.

As you say, the rest of the internet and world media frequently discuss these things. They don't have no sourcing rules though - we do. I'd suggest they're actually being incredibly irresponsible naming such places so casually - often giving instructions on how to find them in some internet "news" articles supposedly outraged that such things exist. BL is not here to help anybody find drugs nor to help anybody avoid being arrested for buying drugs. You use such sites at your own risk - it has no bearing on HR cos you are simply choosing to break the law. HR is about trying to mitigate the effects of the drugs themselves along with the various side-issues which stem from drug use. There is a difference between telling somebody which site has the best quality drugs and most reliable service and telling people how best to approach using those things once they already got hold of them. There is conceivably an argument to be made that the former could in some sense be regarded as HR but there are major issues with it in practice - just look at any of the sites that do allow vendor discussion and they are littered with adverts and shills. There's no way of verifying any of it. That's why it's not allowed alongside the various legal issues which would have BL shut down in a flash if we ever did try to go that route.


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.
 
Oh you all don't need to thank me for my kind words.
I'll just take the brides.
Send your cheque to my address on the side £1million each, thank you:) just kidding haha.

Seriously what does TOR mean? If it's against the rules to tell me then feel free to delete my post, I just hear the term often and wonder what it means.

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 ^^

Also I dunno what TOR means in an etymological sense (cba to look it up) but its essentially how people access these sites we can't mention. Used it once to have a look, then felt shifty and gave up. I suppose it's just a supposedly very secure browser that accesses sites normal ones can't?

That sounded simplistic as fuck, anyone feel free to clarify.
 
"Tor (previously an acronym for The Onion Router) is free software for enabling online anonymity and censorship resistance. Tor directs Internet traffic through a free, worldwide, volunteer network consisting of more than five thousand relays to conceal a user's location or usage from anyone conducting network surveillance or traffic analysis. Using Tor makes it more difficult to trace Internet activity, including visits to Web sites, online posts, instant messages, and other communication forms, back to the user and is intended to protect the personal privacy of users, as well as their freedom and ability to conduct confidential business by keeping their internet activities from being monitored. An extract of a Top Secret appraisal by the NSA characterized Tor as "the King of high secure, low latency Internet anonymity" with no contenders for the throne in waiting"
 
Cheers Dan!

That acronym should have been obvious really but...slow today
 
The Onion Router should have been obvious? Maybe your brain works in a different way from mine but I can't see how anyone would figure that out without being told or looking it up.

On the topic of Bitcoins, which is off topic but fuck it I can't see the proper thread, a shop in the city centre here has got a Bitcoin atm on the go. You can't get cash from it but you can change cash into bitcoins. I might get TOR downloaded again :sus:
 
No worries <3 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
 
The Onion Router should have been obvious? Maybe your brain works in a different way from mine but I can't see how anyone would figure that out without being told or looking it up.

I think it's the latter, tho to be fair I knew the urls were .onion or whatever so I'm not that mad
 
Top