What makes you think this isn't already the case? Even though it is an integral part of "our" culture, voting isn't the only way to express interest.

But who in turn votes for that council?


Kind regards,

The Traveler

No one, its put in place by the RIAA because they know whats best for musicians and their fans!

Look, imo, CT threads just plain suck. There's nothing worse than taking the time to lay out a logical, rational, well reasoned point of view, only to have someone come along and completely disregard it because they want to engage in some flight of fantasy. While prohibiting CT threads may limit some legitimate areas of discussion, it mainly prevents the absurd and annoying spirals of jibberish that such threads tend to elucidate. Furthermore, this site is rather unique in its attitude and presentation of information/ideas. I would posit that this is in large part, due to the power structure in place. With the influx of new users (not to bash any of you, just my opinion), creating a voting system for any aspect of this site runs the risk of causing it to deviate greatly from what it once was and what it is.

I mean no disrespect to anyone...Trav does an outstanding job of running this site and listening to the general sentiment. To my mind there's absolutely no legitimate reason to change the way things are, and this thread hasn't coaxed any compelling reasons out of the shadows.

I should have mentioned this in my previous post. I will mention it here.

IMO As a member of the nexus I have had a say and do have a say on what goes on around here.

A quick note to the Moderators- If this is not the case please dont bust my bubble by correcting me, let me keep on thinking it is the way I think it is. My feelings on this matter is a source of happiness for me.

I can exercise that say or vote any time I like, of course nothing I say is going to be taken seriously If unless it fits into the parameters or framework of what is the nexus.

I must admit over the past couple of years I have seen an evolution of this site that has been because of the ideas and the Say or Votes of the membership.

I feel the Mods and the Traveler take all serious ideas and suggestions seriously.

I vote for no voting.

Sorry to burst your bubble but...

Nah joking, I feel same way as you Ice House I think trav and mods consider any reasonable idea proposed by members, old or not, and also, there is no personal profit to be gained and all we want is the good of this community, so I think it has been working pretty well, the community is always evolving thanks to all members

I think this very subforum is a great tool for you guys to help us out. The point with simple voting is that its not about consensus, its about majority. Even if its a totally unreasonable request, as long as majority votes, its law. This is what I meant with dictatorship of 50% + 1. When you make threads about it and everybody argues, counter argues, and try to reach a consensus, the proposals are sharpened by all the comments and much better solutions that take in account all members can be reached.

Oh btw trav I agree that at least the voting for new members to be promoted could be a good tool. It would have to be a number big enough that its not just have a couple accounts/friends and be promoted, but not so big that it takes an unrealistic amount of people to get someone promoted. How many votes you think would be reasonable for promotion of new member?

Oops, disregard one of those yes votes. I thought I clicked the "Trav is awesome" option, but I guess it didn't register properly.

I'm with Ice House and Endlessness, I think all ideas presented in this forum are given fair consideration, and the discussion on the subject is usually fruitful whether the idea is implemented or not. It seems to be a good system.

As far as the conspiracy theory issue goes, I think Snozz hit the nail on the head. Conspiracy theory talk is rarely productive, and usually brings out a lot of frustration and hostility. I think the forum is probably a happier place without them.

I voted no. A vehement NO. No lowest common denominator politics here please . let's concentrate on doing what's right and make this great place greater instead of miring ourselves down with petty debates and non sequitor votes.

And about voting for new members to be promoted... openly? by other members? to be seen by the very members who pass/fail? as an ongoing poularity contest? ahhh, hazing, anyone? This just stinks to me of collegiate frat competitions for acceptance and group approval. I think it works quite well the way it is now. Hell, it took me longer and more posts than most I know, but I remained undeterred. had I seen an evolving vote, with some for and some against, not only would I have marked out those in disagreement with my promotion as unfriendly, but I likely would not be here anymore.

Sorry, but this is the worst idea I have heard in a long time, and a guaranteed way to piss off and push off a lot of serious people who would surely, without the voting in place, become valuable contributing members instead of buggering off to some other forum.

Thassa ma rant.

JBArk

Well this is Travelers site and he's a pretty reasonable dude so I like the place. If he was a douche I'd be gone.
I know he listens to the users here so I don't worry.
I usually disagree with the majority of people so I don't think a voting system would be in my favor

No jbark I was thinking more like a hidden vote, you couldnt see what others voted and neither if votes were increasing or who got more or whatever else.. Just as a plain tool to help mods because we might not see good people that should be promoted

I don't think we need votes regarding promotion. I trust the judgment of the moderators in that regard, and generally, reading one good post by someone, that shows some true good intention, should be enough to give someone membership.

It's not a life or death decision. Anyone can ultimately be booted at any time.

Members who think a promotion should occur can always PM a mod and give an opinion--which can then serve to help the mod make the decision.

I'm confused. Does this mean we're not changing to a Lady Gaga discussion forum?

I dunno...let's put it up for a vote?

Sorry - that wasn't made clear, and the idea was fielded a few times in the thread (i wasn't refering to you specifically, endlessness and i apologize if it appeared that way). I assumed talking about a vote in the public forum meant people were lobbying for a public vote. My mistake, and I will wait no more than several hours to remove my tail from its place between my two lower appendages.

Btw, I heard from a good source that Trav is vying for the managing position at the IMF so that he can meet chambermaids AND control ailing eastern block countries' economies in a move that will take him one step closer to world domination and , eventually, a shot at the US presidency, once his dutch connections finish fudging his birth certificate.

I vote YES for allowing a conspiracy theory discussion thread so that we can explore this further, and prevent the dastardly Traveler-man from his uber-world control strategy - and keep him here serving us, where we can keep a closer eye on him.

(I read also, from a very reliable web source, that Trav IS Lady Gaga, so we may be closer to Art's wish than we realize )

JBArk the con-spear-icey theo-wrist

The "ownership" of a website carries with it both responsibilities and liabilities, legal and otherwise and even unique to the UK in this case, and that reflects in the way the site appears and functions to both guests and "members". Personally, I don't think that a voting democracy is a good way to deal with that stuff...many things need to be decided on the spot and coordinated, and that would in many cases overwhelm the abilities of a democratic group. It's clear that the Traveler finds the benefits of running this site are well worth it and outweigh the time and energy he invests in dealing with. Enlisting the help of the moderators leverages his time, but even those efforts probably go by his rules. So thanks again to all those people for making a great website.

That said, it would probably be possible to have a democratic/voting section of a forum to deal with particular matters...but I for one would still want the current leadership to retain a veto.

I should mention why I started this poll. Its in response to the no more conspiracy theories thread .

What constitutes a conspiracy theory? Its defined as something that can't be proven with evidence. what constitutes evidence ? scientific evidence obviously.

I find it upsetting that things that can't be proven with evidence shouldn't be talked about because they might start a fight. regardless of the fact that lots of members might want to talk about them here.

There are lots of arguments on lots of threads, usually someone that that worships science as god against someone that doesn't.

Lots of people in this community are into mystical and esoteric topics and we have a section for that despite the fact that theres lots of disagreements in them.

The reason we have the mystical /esoteric section is because there is an interest in it by the community so we already have a system for voting I just thought we could make that system easier by putting an issue to a poll or something ...

For me the line between conspiracy theory and mystical/ esoteric is very blurry because they are somewhat the same.

I think Traveler is doing a great job with this site I just don't like the notion that anyone that believes in 'conspiracy theories' is a tinfoil hat wearing nut and isn't welcome to talk about it here because my path to being unplugged from the matrix started with alex jones and it ended with DMT.



I think one of the things that makes this community great is that we can respectfully agree to disagree and this poll is a great example of what my original idea is instead of just making a thread ' no more conspiracy theories' why not make a thread that says ' Should conspiracy theories be banned from the nexus ? make it a poll. It will stir up a discussion about it and see how other members feel about it.


thats all I'm sayin I love you all

A conspiracy theory is just like porn: Hard to explicitly define perfectly--but easy to know when you see it. The Traveler said he will erase such threads, and gives some examples of some conspiracy-type topics. That works for me.

Let's not forget that the MAIN topic of the DMT-Nexus is DMT. Do we really need endless debate ON ancillary topics, OR on WHETHER and WHICH ancillary topics we should include in the forum? I don't think so; because we need to remind ourselves what the MAIN topic is.

I think the question regarding what constitutes a conspiracy theory is a significant one. I know in the original thread created by The Traveler, he mentioned some topics which cover the realm of conspiracy theory, but he didn't really go into detail on what truly constitutes a conspiracy theory. Let's just say, for example, entheogens are illegal because international governments want to prohibit their citizens from expanding their consciousness and disintegrating the system. Would one consider that a conspiracy theory?

I searched high and low, and found no such definition anywhere. Do you have a source? Most sources define it RADICALLY differently than you. I won't start cutting and pasting, 'cause this post will be interminable. In fact, most conspiracy theories RELY on proof AND evidence - their versions of them, often unsubstantiated and tenuous, but it is actually their definitions of "proof" and "evidence" that they employ to convert people to their ideas.

The problem with conspiracy theories is that they are designed to polarize, and by polarizing create conflict, and the conflicts evoked are utterly unresolveable, so- they are wastes of time, which isn't such a bad thing, except that they are volatile wastes of time, dividing the otherwise harmonious and cleaving the like-minded. Debates are great - they are certainly one of the great tools of learning, but debates that rest on a foundation of hearsay and dogma are ill fated, and serve only to infuriate and divide, regardless of their truthfulness or falsehood.

So, why muddy the waters here? Why introduce unnecessary conflict and acrimony? Especially when there are loads of places to indulge in this type of thing.

Let's not forget we are here to discuss mind-alteration, and as a community, discuss other interests that are not counterproductive to our primary concern. Conspiracy theory discussion to me has many downsides, and i have yet to witness or imagine an upside.

Cheers,

JBArk

PS - if lots of members want to discuss opiates, or meth, or kiddy porn on the DMT nexus, should this be grounds for allowing it?

If a conspiracy could be proven it wouldn't be a theory , it would be conspiracy fact, I think the proof they try to give you is for some reason not accepted by main stream people.

sept 11 is a good example , you've got building 7 that wasn't hit by a plane collapsing, you've got news reports saying the buildings went down before they went down , you've got a 6 foot wide whole in the pentagon with no plane wreckage.. and I'm a nut for not believing it was exactly what the government tells me it is .

as far as I'm concerned thats a conspiracy fact. I'm sure you would disagree with me because the case lacks some kind of proof that you need in order to believe it ... what the proof is I guess I'll never know .


People can agree to disagree on things. I don't think conspiracy theory will stir up any more disagreements than spirituality/religion and we haven't banned that .