• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    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

I sha'n't (that contraction is awful to write correctly) get involved in prior disputes, but I will say my piece.
I do believe there is a need to clarify some rules across the forum and enforce them equally. That or specify forum specific rules clearly in a sticky/pop-up, in their most simple form to avoid people playing the 'didn't know/ didn't understand' card. I'm mainly referring to the sourcing rule - vendor sites are inappropriate, all sites with links to vendors, too. However, there does seem to be a grey area around sites that sell HR accessories, if the site itself has no links and doesn't trade in actual drugs itself, is a link to it banned if someone in the comment section of the site names a vendor? Another example; many pharmacies carry codeine/DHC preparations, are we allowed to name a pharmacy, or is it thus classed as a 'source'? The same applies to supermarket chains selling poppy seeds/morning glory seeds etc., are they too sources?
In addition: general dickishness doesn't seem clearly defined. 'Banter' clearly relies on common sense, past experience and interpretation and so is a grey area itself, but I have read, both as an outsider and 'victim', for want of a better word, many posts that either instigate a heated, unrelated and personal debate or outright attack a poster.

I truly do adore this forum, and hold strong feelings, both positive and negative, for its members, but clearly defined rules, consistent throughout, are needed, lest we lose posters and visitors.
 
Last edited:
raas_2012 said:
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.
Click to expand...

And you made that comment directly after Josh's post saying he'd just spent ages clearing up the Bitcoin thread and asking people to stop discussing TOR sites in it.

I do accept there is some grey area when it comes to TOR sites - mostly that grey area comes from news stories that openly discuss and name specific sites and sometimes those stories do get posted in various parts of BL. That is a strange situation to be in and I can see how that can be confusing - it really doesn't make much sense. But you were not discussing a current big media story you were making a somewhat random comment relating to deleted posts right below where a mod has specifically asked everybody to stop doing that. There is no confusion here outside of yourself that I can see - not when it comes to the post that started this whole discussion anyway.

The wider issue I've acknowledged is an anomaly and perhaps something that needs to be discussed at site-wide level cos it does directly clash with the no sources rule when media stories which name existing and ongoing TOR vendor sites - or any other vendor site for that matter (that's not happened for quite some time but did around the meph boom - I dimly recall we snipped links to news sites that actually named vendors or had pix where the URLs were visible). If we're serious about the no sources rule perhaps a similar thing will have to happen in regards to TOR sites. It is somewhat bizarre and kinda silly almost but BL and the wider media exist for different reasons and have different intentions. It may be odd but it would at least be consistent and clear. At the moment you could probably link to a news site saying much the same as you said as long as there was more flesh on the bones (which presumably there would be given there was none in your post) and that isn't a great situation. That point has been made and acknowledged repeatedly. Posting all the links on BL that demonstrate this point doesn't make the particular instance of that one post of yours in the Bitcoin thread valid though - that post was sourcing plain and simple cos it was a blatant reference to a specific site with no reason for it to be there - or anywhere else on BL - whatsoever. Thankyou for raising the matter cos there is a valid point in there somewhere but all this squirming about your warning does nothing but obfuscate the very point you claim to be wanting to make.
 
SproutOnSmack said:
I do believe there is a need to clarify some rules across the forum and enforce them equally. That or specify forum specific rules clearly in a sticky/pop-up, in their most simple form to avoid people playing the 'didn't know/ didn't understand' card. I'm mainly referring to the sourcing rule - vendor sites are inappropriate, all sites with links to vendors, too. However, there does seem to be a grey area around sites that sell HR accessories, if the site itself has no links and doesn't trade in actual drugs itself, is a link to it banned if someone in the comment section of the site names a vendor? Another example; many pharmacies carry codeine/DHC preparations, are we allowed to name a pharmacy, or is it thus classed as a 'source'? The same applies to supermarket chains selling poppy seeds/morning glory seeds etc., are they too sources.
Click to expand...

Every example you give counts as sourcing and always has done. I don't think there is any confusion over any of those cases as it has always been abundantly clear that any site which sells drugs of any type is a no-no. Codeine is a drug. It's legal and sold in every pharmacy in the land but to say a specific pharmacy sells it counts as sourcing. Yes it is weird but that's the way it is and really not so very hard to understand. Same goes for poppy seeds, MGS and similarly legal entheogenic substances. Often perfectly legal and widely sold in supermarkets and garden centres and the like but once again saying that *such and such* supermarket has poppy seeds for 30p less that *such and such* supermarket is sourcing. Even saying a specific supermarket - or any other shop cos there are plenty - sells any of those type of things or any other drug counts as soucing.

The first example is slightly different as links to sites which sell certain drug-related items but sell no actual drugs whatsoever have generally been allowed - sites which sell only bongs or vaporisers or scales or whatever but don't have a section selling "herbal highs" or any such malarkey have always been allowed - certainly in EADD but I think not in some other forums (I think there are legal issues in some countries - some American states and the like). If there are comments on that site and somebody names or leaves a link to an actual vendor you could no longer link to that site. Obviously if it wasn't there when you posted the link initially you could not be blamed and would have done nothing wrong, but if came to the attention of staff at a later date for any reason that link would be removed.

As for 'banter', I have no idea how you would define that and we try to rely on a mixture of common sense, generally knowing each other at least a bit so hopefully have some idea of whether or not a person will take a comment in the way intended, and on people - either the person the remark is aimed at or anybody else reading it who feels it crosses the line - reporting such posts. It's basically a judgement call but for the most part things are left alone unless they specifically break the BLUA or Forum Guidelines (racism, sexism and the like) or a post is reported by somebody where there will often be a discussion amongst mods and a decision is made. Perhaps not always the right one but we try our best and all mod decisions are always up for debate and indeed reversal if you argue your case as described in Ali's quote above.

Personal attacks and abuse is something we are specifically trying to keep a lid on because it was getting out of hand. As such a slightly firmer approach is being taken with posts which perhaps would have gone unremarked and unnoticed a few months or years back. It's a long way from getting Draconian and never will go that way but it's being taken more seriously than it previously has been and I would encourage anybody who sees any post they feel goes too far to report it and bring it to staff attention so any action can be taken or not as seems necessary. We want EADD to be a welcoming place as well as being as free as possible. I certainly do anyway and hopefully we'll be striking a better balance than has perhaps been the case at times previously where the nastiness could get out of hand and go too far.
 
I very much appreciate the reply, Shambles. I have never known whether the examples listed were acceptable or not - I have always avoided them simply on my definition of 'source discussion' but I have read a good few posts naming specific pharmacies and supermarkets, and posts regarding the 'best' formulation of codeine/DHC and its relative price, not forgetting the 'best brand(s)' of codeine linctuses (not 'lincti/i as some state).

On the 'banter' front - I have noticed a reduction, but with the editing and deleted posts it is hard to see the work that the mods put in until someone makes an open reference to it. I appreciate the grey area that exists (and I sure as Hell wouldn't want to attempt to decipher it while distributing infractions for it!) but there are some members that struggle to refrain from backhanded comments and sly digs. The overt 'you're a cunt' comments are dealt with efficiently, but some of the subtler comments either sneak through or are left. There are a handful of posts I've wanted to reply to obtusely, but not retaliated for fear of receiving a ban myself.
 
Comparing brands is fine (as long as they aren't shop or pharmacy own brands obviously) but generic brands sold widely and brandname brands (as it were) are fine to discuss and compare should anybody feel a great need to do so. There should not be any mention of shops or pharmacies by name anywhere in EADD (when related to acquisition of any drug) though so if you - or anybody else - does happen to see a mention reporting that post would be most welcome so it can be edited. Such mistakes are rarely malicious or mischievous (as posting actual vendors as most think of them can be) as it is kinda weird that we can say such and such a place sells aspririn but not co-codamol. There is good reason for this if you think about it but it is quite odd to actually put into practice and remember to do so when it comes to completely legal and widely-used products.

Usually when a mod edits a post they will highlight it in some way or another but *often somewhat similar to this* and will leave a comment in the editing reason box at the bottom of the post. Sometimes they will also post in response to what they've just edited to clarify what has been done and why or for a number of other reasons - maybe they just fancy replying cos underneath the abuse there's a valid point a-lurking. It should be reasonably clear that something has been edited whatever the reason for editing - it's rare anybody would edit and leave no mention or sign they had done so.

Sometimes you will see a "last edited by...(a mod)" at the bottom of a post with no obvious edit in the body of the post but these are often cases where no actual editing - no changing or removing of text anyway - has been done. Sometimes myself or another mod will fix a broken link just to make the post look a bit nicer (it's easy to chop off one of the '['s or ']'s and equally as easy for mods to replace them to make posts easier to read). Similarly sometimes a mod will add paragraphs when presented with a massive wall of text. It's not all that common but is sometimes done cos it is as unreadable to us as it is to everybody else. Other times it could just be down to clicking on the Edit button instead of the Quote button and not realising in time to avoid being listed as the last person to edit a post even if you haven't done anything to it. There are a number of reasons but if actual editing has taken place - aside from perhaps a bit of formatting for clarity and prettiness now and then - there should always be fairly well signposted reference to that edit and usually some indication of specifically why it has been edited.

Subtle insults and abusive posts can be hard to spot cos we don't - and can't - know every single one of all the various ins and outs of every member and their inter-relationships. Sometimes posts look completely innocent but the person on the receiving end and the person who wrote it know damn well it isn't. Those are difficult but if they are reported with an explanation of why that post is perhaps not as innocent as it seems it will be looked into and if necessary similar posts will be kept tabs on to see if there is a pattern of personal attack of one form or another trying to sneak below the radar. A post doesn't have to be abusive in the "you're a cunt" way to be infractable - context matters but obviously staff need to be aware there is a context before anything can be done.

As for banning, nobody gets banned for any comments unless they have history of racking up points. Various things are taken into account when deciding whether to warn, infract or take some other approach to dealing with any situation. Part of the job is reading (almost) every thread regularly so generally mods will have a pretty good idea of when somebody is acting out of character and when somebody is just a dick, whether there is history of bad blood, whether somebody is being baited and so on. Obviously by no means a complete knowledge of these things but usually a pretty good idea and you actually have to work pretty hard to get infracted in EADD. It's generally when there's a pattern of behaviour that infractions (the ones that rapidly add up to tempbans) become first choice - mostly a warning (not good but can't trigger a ban) would be the more likely outcome and often not even that when it's clearly an out of character and unusual situation. Often a PM or public comment made in the thread will be used instead. Despite what some may think, warning and infracting is the last thing any of us want to do. It's a last resort unless somebody really is taking the piss or goes that bit too far where nothing less would be suitable.
 
I can't believe you've even asked that, sprout. Someone BL died of an overdose from purchasing off an online pharmacy. Of course we're not allowed to cite them - and I wouldn't want to. I'm in £5,000 worth of debt due of online pharmacies. And of course it's sourcing. Drugs are drugs whether prescription or otherwise.

Evey
 
Eveleivibe said:
I can't believe you've even asked that, sprout. Someone BL died of an overdose from purchasing off an online pharmacy. Of course we're not allowed to cite them - and I wouldn't want to. I'm in £5,000 worth of debt due of online pharmacies. And of course it's sourcing. Drugs are drugs whether prescription or otherwise.

Evey
Click to expand...
I asked because I've seen it either ignored, or missed, in some threads and removed in others. I hold the view that sourcing is to be avoided at all costs, lest BL turns into a vendor discussion forum for "da best drugz" as opposed to the HR focused entity it was and is. I merely asked for clarity's sake, my view on what considers "sourcing" may have been completely different to others, it does seem we hold the same view, thankfully. :)

@Shambles, I did write a full reply to your latter post but God knows what happened to it. A summation: thank you, I asked for clarity and that is what you gave. I always avoided even alluding to any source of, or comparing brands of, the various OTC pharms/plant products that can be abused so as to avoid "sourcing", but never knew the official stance of the site on the matter. Again, cheers. :)
 
Actually there is when it comes to the BLUA and the EADD Forum Guidelines which is where the issue lays. We all agreed to abide by both upon membership. Whether or not we agree and abide by all the rules we agreed to abide by - and whether or not all those rules are enforced - is besides the point cos we agreed to abide by them which implies we abide by any disciplinary action brought about by not abiding by said rules and guidelines. Context is taken into account, taking the piss is noted and doesn't cut it. Given your fondness for certain political ideals I presumed you'd be happy to follow orders, no?
 
2rng60o.jpg
 
Aye, it used to consistently vie with The Lounge for the top spot. Which, when you consider the fact that 'The Lounge' has both a definite article in its name (suggesting to noobs, rightly or wrongly, that it's BL's main / only social forum) and the specific regional focus that's apparent in EADD's very name, is no mean feat at all. Even if the posts were mostly bickering and shite, which is hardly different from The Lounge.

Haven't seen any stats (apart from the ones in the link which Chatative kindly provided) since late 2012, when that was still very much the case. I've a feeling it dropped off significantly since then, but I imagine it's still up there in the top five.
 
Been in the lounge a few times, seems full of trolling bellends posting bollocks. fuck that
 
Y'know, I'm certain many Lounge regulars would say the same about EADD. =D

I agree with you though. The Lounge just doesn't appeal to me in the slightest, though maybe I'm missing the point. I tend to get extremely turned off at people talking in 2005-era internet-speak, hilariously pluralising words here and there in order to sound like a comedy foreigner or whatever, appending 'icles' on the to the end of other words (yes, both of these things still happen), posting tired memes and / or pictures of their creepy naked bodies and, well, I just don't get it. So I avoid it.

I'm sure it's me who's missing out, but for the time being I'll be okay, thanks. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top