ballzac Posted January 4, 2012 I have mentioned this recently in another thread, but I think it's worth having a thread specifically about this. A recent rule-breaking thread made me think of it again. Too often I see a thread that breaks the rules, by a member who has only one or two posts under their belt. While it is still a new member's responsibility to read the rules before posting, it is understandable that some people might not see them or might not realise how seriously they are taken here (particularly in the cacti forum). What I have a serious problem with is members with hundreds of posts behind them, who know the rules well enough to not start a thread like that themselves, responding to the original question without directing the OP to the rules. In the recent thread, a member with three posts stated that he had broken the law, was still breaking the law, and was planning to break the law in the future, and asked for advice on this. It was a topic that has been covered in the past and is easily found on other websites. The response should have beens simply a link to the rules and a request for the post to be edited. Instead, two members (you know who you are) answered the question. While the actual answer was very general and probably not rule-breaking, my point is that responding rather than directing the OP to the rules gives newcomers the wrong impression. I mention this because one time recently when I complained that someone was helping the OP incriminate himself in a poppy cultivation thread, the certain someone was very nonchalant about it because their advice was vague and could apply to any species of poppy. My point here is that it's not anything incriminating about the responses themselves that bothers me, it's the fact that so many members are not willing to step up and let the OP know off the bat that breaking the rules is not on. Then when a mod comes in and sorts the situation out, I think it can make the OP wonder why, if self-incrimination is okay with everyone else, why this 'fuddy duddy' mod has a problem with it. I think it sets up an 'us and them' mentality between regular members and mods. We all know that some rules are more bendable than others. You're unlikely to have your post edited because you admit to having smoked a joint in 1986, but discussion about cultivation of illegal plants, cactus potency, importation of salvia... every regular member knows this stuff is not on. Why are so many of you willing to engage with new members about stuff like that when you should just be telling them to read the rules? 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Foo Posted January 4, 2012 Still about the poppies . Anyway your right, the OP's cacti question could have easily been worded to comply with the rules. OR they could have used the search function Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ballzac Posted January 4, 2012 Still about the poppies . It seems maybe you don't completely understand what the problem I have is if you think this is fundamentally about the poppy thread. It is purely about the reluctance of a large segment of this community to take the rules seriously, and the willingness of those same people to engage in rule-breaking discussions with new members who don't know better. The poppy thread is one such example. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ErraneousHerbalist Posted January 4, 2012 Fair enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tipz Posted January 4, 2012 Just a quick question for ya Ballzac. Often whilst using the search engine i come across old threads which i find very valuable. However they were obviously made some time ago, when the legalities of the info posted were not as strictly monitored. And the content within would be touch and go as to wether it would be tolerated in todays current climate. Quite often i have felt that a bump would have been beneficial for varying reasons but have held back due to borderline illegal content in the post i wish to resurrect. Would it be frowned upon to bump such a post ? I am imagining so ? And can those archived threads participated in by seasoned SAB'ers be used against them after all this time ? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ballzac Posted January 4, 2012 tipz, my personal opinion on that would be that it depends on how important it is to bump, and also whether the new information breaks the rules in itself. My main issue engaging a new member in rule-breaking conversation is that it sends the wrong message to the new member. That's not really an issue in the scenario you are talking about. So if you bump a good thread that would now be considered against the rules, with information or a question that is pertinent yet conforms to the current rules, I think that's okay. I don't know how the other mods feel about that. The cactus mods might be stricter about that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ballzac Posted January 4, 2012 And can those archived threads participated in by seasoned SAB'ers be used against them after all this time ? I'm not sure what you mean. No one's going to get banned for a post they made 5 years ago if that's what you're asking. If you're asking if it can be used against you in a court of law, I'd consult your solicitor. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tipz Posted January 4, 2012 I was more questioning wether i would be putting someone at risk, perhaps with the law ( not with SAB and the mods ) by resurrecting a post in which they may have incriminated themself. I suppose i will just err on the side of caution and if i feel it may become an issue by bumping any particular archived thread to just to run it by the mods first. Its not a regular occurance but still something that has stopped me from bumping invaluable threads in the past. All good ! no biggy really, but cheers for clarification Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ballzac Posted January 4, 2012 If, say, it's a post about Salvia that was made before Salvia was banned, then the person hasn't incriminated themselves. If it was made a long time ago but was self-incriminating when they posted it, then I feel it is their responsibility to go back and edit it if they feel they do not want incriminating information on a public forum. There are reasons that I would avoid bumping such a thread unless I really had to, but protecting someone who has incriminated themselves is not one of them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quarterflesh Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) i still have not worked out how to edit my posts NM i found the edit button Edited January 4, 2012 by quarterflesh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Evil Genius Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) I fully agree with Ballzac about this issue. I can understand that new members sometimes are enthusiastic about certain aspects of ethnobotany and all this but i still get the shits when i log in here to find such a post in a forum i moderate. You know, the rules we have are very important. Not only to keep the plants that we love legal but also to keep the asses of countless cactus growers with their extensive cactus collections out of jail. Back in the days when salvia or kratom suddenly became illegal, there were people who had to terminate thousands of perfectly healthy plants simply because it wasnt worth the risk to go into the brick for em. Same might happen with cacti if people in the scene dont change their behaviour as soon as possible. You know, the experienced memers might not be around forever so i hope i dont need to come back from the dead one day just to say "i told you so!" Oh and btw, we will treat every bumped post like a new one. Old posts are still there and thats how i wanna keep it so please dont give us reasons to moderate a seven year old post. Thanks for understanding guys. This issue is simply way too important to be slack about it. I dont wanna pinpoint this on the OP of the Thread and i already discussed this with him and he is understanding the situation and was sorry for it. I wont punish someone who is really feeling sorry and showing remorse for something but i feel the need to make one thing very clear: We wont allow anyone undermining our rules because all of them are here for a reason. In regard to cactus potency, we will only warn once and thats it. In the past years, SAB became one of the main forums about Trichocereus worldwide. And we worked hard for that. Shot pics, collected, crossed this with that, even dealt with the pain in the ass called knize. We showed genuine interest for plants only because of botanical reasons! Maybe alkaloids were the reason some originally got into the cactus growing but meanwhile, it went WAY beyond that. Because anyone who nurses a cactus from seed till its 10-20 years old wouldnt think a second about eating a huge ownrooted Cactus for example. I constantly hear from people that they googled a particularly Trichocereus and got here because it was the only place worldwide that had pictures online. Meanwhile, cacti became a very important part of this forum and i wont let a few people who just cant stop discussing certain illegal actions take away this crucial aspect from our site. Or from our scene. But i am not only adressing the newbies and lurking soon-to-be-members with this appeal! Its the oldschool members that need to understand that this is the only way to keep plants legal. It takes plenty of noise to make something appear in worldwide news but as soon as an avalanche is started, there is no way stopping it. Choose your words wisely. You guys ARE an important part of the ethnobotanical scene and you might be the last line of defense that keeps some certain plants from ending on a list with crack and heroin. Think about it, what if you can really make a diffrence this time? Thats it. Im done preaching. bye Eg Edited January 4, 2012 by Evil Genius 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
watertrade Posted January 4, 2012 Its the oldschool members that need to understand that this is the only way to keep plants legal. It takes plenty of noise to make something appear in worldwide news but as soon as an avalanche is started, there is no way stopping it. Choose your words wisely. You guys ARE an important part of the ethnobotanical scene and you might be the last line of defense that keeps some certain plants from ending on a list with crack and heroin. Think about it, what if you can really make a diffrence this time? 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ballzac Posted January 5, 2012 I dont wanna pinpoint this on the OP of the Thread and i already discussed this with him and he is understanding the situation and was sorry for it. I wont punish someone who is really feeling sorry and showing remorse for something but i feel the need to make one thing very clear: We wont allow anyone undermining our rules because all of them are here for a reason. In regard to cactus potency, we will only warn once and thats it. Yes. It was never my intention to make this about the person who posted, nor even about that particular thread. It was just a trigger for me wanting to post about it because it seems to happen from time to time and I don't think this specific aspect is discussed enough. That's also why I posted in chill space. The new member posting something that breaks the rules is almost always sorry about it when they are informed. That is exactly why I think it is more about the responses from regular members than the OP themselves. There will always be members who sign up, post without reading the rules, and then get told off. That's not going to change. Where the damage control can come in is if our regular members choose to make the new member aware of the rules rather than answering their questions. Answering their questions causes the thread to go from one bad post into a whole bad thread. It gives the impression to an outsider reading the thread that it is acceptable to post about stuff like that here, which in turn causes more people to post like that in the future. I actually think maybe there should be repercussions for regular members who engage in such discussion, simply because they should know better. I don't think members who respond can wash their hands of it just because they weren't the ones who started the thread. It's common sense. If you wouldn't start a thread like that yourself, then don't encourage the newer members by getting involved in the discussion. I should also add that I think a lot of members here do a great job at supporting the rules. Quite often people will suggest a disclaimer when someone is offering spore prints. Once informed about this, the member will immediately add the disclaimer. This is perfect evidence of member-initiated damage control in action But, I think it's a critical mass kind of situation. Once the percentage of people taking the rules seriously gets high enough, it will encourage others to do the same. At the moment, there tend to be two or three different members replying to a thread before someone steps in and points out that the discussion shouldn't be happening. This suggests to me that the percentage at the moment is 25-30% of people sticking up for the rules rather than engaging in the discussion. I don't think that is high enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dolos Posted January 9, 2012 Do you think though you are kidding yourselves if you think the authorities really believe that it was an elf, a gnome or AFOAF...I mean seriously! I agree people must be careful not to incriminate themselves and you are right to point that out but are you not being paranoid to some degree? I can find hundreds, if not a thousand incriminating posts on this site but they claim it was the elf or some other unreal entity or a friend that obviously can't be trusted. Do you really think the cops are out there looking for those gnomes? I understand the need for rules and I adhere to them but the cops are not dickheads and just because you claim it was a gnome doesn't mean they won't one day come looking for you...when they have the time to wade through half the shit.... Just sayin.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ballzac Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) Some posts aren't as frowned upon as others even though technically they are breaking the same rules. This is exactly why I think the members who have been here longer need to be the guiding influence - because they understand these subtleties better, and this is exactly why I started this thread, in the hope that more longer term members would realise how important they in the prevention of detrimental threads. Using Gnomes, FOAFs and SWIM as a cover doesn't sit that well around here. Sure there are posts that get away with breaking the rules a little, but it's probably due to another subtle aspect rather than because the person said it was a FOAF. No one could post a description of their gnome's meth lab or discuss the potency of SWIM's cacti and get away with it. Having said that, using the third person or speaking hypothetically helps to maintain a more 'becoming' tone here, and allows a small amount of discussion about illegal topics without descending into a free-for-all about who's the biggest druggie badass. I really think the rules are more about protecting the respectability of the forums and in some cases preventing too much exposure for certain plants. If it was just about legal ramifications for individuals, then we could probably do away with the rules and just have guidelines that we suggest people adhere to for their own protection. Edited January 9, 2012 by ballzac 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
