Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Micromegas

why is it inappropriate to ask about the historical/anthropological use of Trichocereus

8 posts in this topic

There was a recent thread asking about when the earliest recorded use of Trichocereus appears in the archaeological record, that does not appear to be edited to remove anything incriminating. This is one of my favourite topics so I was disappointed to see it closed.

 

Full credit to the moderators for their stellar job here, but I am not clear why this is an inappropriate question to ask.

 

Surely we are able to discuss the historical use of plant compounds on this forum and how this shows up in archaeology, art, literature, science?

 

These are widely studied subjects in academia with widely available (but often esoteric) material, presumably will be part of EGA's subject matter, align closely with member's fields of interest, and would seem to have a place on the forum.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I agree one hundred and ten percent Micromegas, very well said mate
If this is a petition, consider my signature at the top of the list!
 

Lets change this Nazi-like dictatorship - freedom of information please!

 

Edited by Skellum
honestly no disrespect intended
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Skellum said:

 

Lets change this Nazi-like dictatorship - freedom of information please!

Dude, please don't be disrespectful to EG. 

 

Perhaps there could be a members only section where historical/academic articles could reside, similar to the plant monographs section?

 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hey guys, so first of all I don´t think I need to be insulted here as a Nazi. This part of my posting isn´t about Micromegas, who is a dear friend of mine. I am talking about Skellum and I gave the member a warning point and he can be very glad that it wasn´t a permanent suspension. I am the LAST to call a Nazi and I won´t have this shit anywhere. So this is why I am already out of patience with this whole thing from the start. I am a super relaxed person if you talk with me like a normal person I am very open for criticism, but there´s a line and if this is crossed again it won´t end well. 

 

@Micromegas , Postings about use of Trichocereus usually derail and end up with stuff that is directly rule breaking and it´s why I chose to remove it.  It´s a fine line between archaeological posts to "which species did they use and in what dosages" and doing these public discussions to find out whether or not a mod made the right decision to remove it is not fair towards the mods. Our mods have to make split second decisions and it´s part of the job. I chose to remove it, because the ingestion related discussions in the past months were getting out of hand and people kept ignoring the rules left and right. In the past months, I removed multiple threads because it was as if everybody had suddenly forgotten that we actually have rules against ingestion discussions. Quite honestly, I needed to make a decision to either stop moderating here because of all the ingestion related postings or to go harder against them. I chose the latter, which is why I am taking a harder stance against these postings now and it only works if people get the message that they have to respect the rules and that there are no ways around them with clever word plays and other things that are just undermining the rules. I love to be part of this community and I enjoy the quality of content that we have here, but I do not want to be a moderator in a forum where there are ongoing discussions about ingestion of cacti. I always said that and it will never change. I am a big Trichocereus fan and everything I do is because I want to protect these plants. I also have great respect of Archaeological content, but compared to scientific papers, forum discussions about something like that usually get to the point really quickly and end up with postings about potency and which species were the most active ones, etc. Not sure if you noticed, but there are cactus soup postings all over the internet these days and they hurt the community more than you can imagine and will lead to some governments outlawing certain cacti sooner or later. Personally, I will not give them any ammo and I stand firmly behind the practice of removing ingestion related content. There´s only one exception, which is scientific papers. In theory, having an archaeological discussion about historical cactus use sounds nice, but we had these a few times already and it cost the mods weeks of work with constant baby sitting of the thread and removal of postings and I am a bit hesitant to do that again, especially since our rules are actually pretty clear about it.  I personally think that archaeological use of cacti is an interesting subject. If there´d be well researched input I´d be delighted to keep a well written paper about this subject that doesn´t derail and everyone interested in that is always welcome to make use of my offer to write one. 
Archaeological use of cacti sounds nice, but if you take a closer look it´s often used as a clever way around the rules and I wasn´t having it yesterday. Personally, I would love to read a scientific paper on this and I would have no objections against articles on that subject either as long they can be presented in a reputable way. I think that´s very fair. With a well researched paper, you can publish high quality content of archaeological significance, while open discussions about use of cacti will pretty much lead to people losing respect of the rules (which have already been more or less ignored in the past months) and I am going against it now. 

 

Also, the original poster chose to ignore that the first posting was removed and reposted it right away, which is another reason why this thread isn´t happening in this form. If he wasn´t happy with a decision that I made, he could´ve message me and we´d have a chat about it. If I remember correctly, he´s a long term member that knows very well about the rules of this place, in particular the cactus rules. When someone talks with me like a normal person, I am more than happy to look for a solution and maybe find a compromise, but simply ignoring the moderator´s decision and posting it again is not really a respectful way to deal with the people moderating on a volunteer basis. 
 

Edited by Evil Genius
10 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And @Micromegas, I have absolutely no problem with you asking questions about why this thread was removed. You know that I respect you very much and I am also more than happy to comment on the reasons for the removal of a certain thread. In this particular case, there were very good reasons for the removal. I have nothing against archaeological content and if it´s done the right way I am more than happy to have it, but there´s been major problems in the last months in regards to low quality ingestion related content and this is me going against it. When it´s about historical ingestion and use of cacti, the content just needs to be presented in an acceptable form and open discussions are like an invitation to rule breaking and undermining of the rules, which have already been ignored WAY too often in the past six months. I had a lot to do lately and I was shocked to find some discussions pretty much taking a dump on the forum rules, which is why we´re now going against it, and it also means getting a grip on gray area stuff that´s used to bend or get around the rules. My offer in regards to archaeological content stands and we´ve always been open for scientific papers. If there´s anyone that wants to add quality content to this topic, feel free to get in touch with me and we´ll find a way. 
Apart from that, there´s just too much room in open discussions for threads to drift off and rules being undermined even further, which is not acceptable to me. Especially not right now when we just got a grip on the wave of rule breaking posts that we just had. 

Edited by Evil Genius
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Queensberry rules Skellum - keep it above the belt old chap.

 

I don't know if the comment was made in jest but it was a low blow.

 

I had a post removed by EG a few years ago and we sorted it out with a simple PM. The next day it was edited in way we could both agree on and back on the forum. I've always found EG to be very reasonable and approachable, If he removes something he' only does it to protect our arses.

 

I'm glad you decided to stay EG

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just a fool, I don't know if jest was the intention, I think I was just bored and trying to stir shit up. This is not the right place for that kind of behavior I'm starting to realise...
Nothing against EG, he does a good job and is the right person for the job. What ever was removed was not anything I posted, I am fascinated by the topic, but thats the extent of it.
I'm not pushing for anything, never really was... 

Sorry EG for offending you mate, I'll pull my head in from now on, I am glad you stayed too, but I doubt that I could of ever honestly been the catalyst for your withdrawal, I'm a fkn ringworm mate...  Don't let me rattle ya'    :P
 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hey EG, thanks mate. I understand, it's a fine line.

 

From my perspective the historical use of trichocereus and its allies is of paramount important to understanding these plants; civilisations rose, flourished, and declined (transformed, rose again, declined again) (partly) under the tutelary influence of trichocereus.

 

'Potency' is almost a misnomer with these plants in their historical use and I suppose discussing records of trichocereus use can bring out this point; in the archaeological record trichocereus shows itself to be far more contextual than this, embedded in a cosmological system of high sophistication.

 

Fun as they once have been I agree the point-to-point rating of potency is not helpful or appropriate here these days.

 

You're doing a good job buddy.

 

 

Edited by Micromegas
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0