..its his style, relax....I can also understand his argument very well but I wouldn't want to keep house posts under the premise of this new rule...but because it would really destroy part of the forum.

It's a very unfortunate situation because i care for houses well being as well.

Ya, surely no-one is making retroactive policies, I'm pretty certain this privacy statement is just a statement of what the law already was, yes Trav?

Seeing as you say you only want to speak to Traveler, please PM him instead. You can't have your cake and eat it... i.e. create drama plays in front of everybody, but not expect them to tell you what they think of your actions!

So, Ya can be consistent by PMing Trav from now, and we can get back to talking about entheogens.

It's a t'interwebs forum, Ya, not a fucking life insurance policy.

Basic decorum and netiquette means that it is in the public domain and there are dependencies on posts. On all other forums of which I am a member it is not cool to delete posts and it is in fact disbled. Retro-Editing posts to become unreadible will get you banned.

Now stop being such a prick and go and load your bong with 50mg, ask the spice what you should be more concerned about (my guess is you'll come back rather apologetic).

Ya, WTF, you talk to yourself? Also, you appear to be unable to form paragraphs from individual sentences in your posts?

Anyway, polices are written to make clear things that after some point appear to be unclear. What stands now as a "policy" was a general consensus of the Nexus members when there were a handful of Nexus members and nothing really needed to be spelt out explicitly. As the Nexus grows so does the diversity and thus different consensi and notions appear. The latter requires for some things policies to be spelt out explicitly.

In this respect there is no issue of retrospective or not. The policy has to do with what always the consensus was. As an analogous example, look at the "Attitude" link on top. It did not exist from the beginning; it was added when people with far off different attitudes approached the Nexus and there was a need to make clearer what we stand for. The posting of the "Attitude" does not succumb to a "retrospective or not" false dilemmas. We did not start having the "Attitude" after it was posted. The Attitude was there from the beginning it just got written on stone for people to understand what the Nexus stands and stands not for.

Exactly the same goes for the Policy.

EDIT: this is redundant post, Entropy on page 1 of this thread already said pretty much the same thing...

Isn't Ya the one that asked for the new policy to be posted? Now he's upset with it? Ban this guy so we can all move on.

A very suggestive post you made Ya. I'm not sure what you try to accomplish with this?


I hoped that with my previous post you would have understood that when I denied the request of house that this was done BEFORE the privacy statement was published. This means that the question of forcing this policy retroactive upon all members is mute since it was already in play BEFORE this policy was published, many things we do here is done by a general consensus of the members of the DMT-Nexus. The special cases were I have to make an important decision myself, like the case of house, I try to do what is best for this community as a whole.

You have to understand that when looking at things like this that there is no black or white. If somebody in the future asks me if I can remove all their posts then I will look at that case as a single incident, where I will analyse the effects and check if the request doesn't conflict with the interests of other members. Currently we are a community that is way too flexible for fixed rules. When looking at that attitude page, did you ever wonder why there are so few rules in there and that so many things are left to the peoples own rationale?


Kind regards,

The Traveler

I'm not a big supporter of banning people when there are still other options available.


Regards,

The Traveler

Well it looks like nobody wants to hear that they are wrong

Self-imposed break, because of this? Is that a temporary flounce? Whambulance anyone?

Chiming in in the middle of a significant (perhaps long, perhaps this is it) break. This is very very good to see spelled out.

Read it, understand it, proceed accordingly.

-Pandora