My bad, my bad. Dunno what I was thinking - sorry all. That was an extremly lame thread that shouldnt be posted here. I deserved all the flaming and i promise wont happen again.
Alright, sorry about that,
Rife
You see, rife, heres the deal........
To me, it doesn't matter which forum you post shit like this in. It is a hook-up thread for an illegal substance. Fuck your pathetic attempt to cover your pathetic tracks.
This is no different than if this place allowed folks to come in and ask for mj, imo. Ending a hook-up request by calling it a fictional account is just plain lame.
Threads like this may draw unwanted attention from LEO. I wish you would stop with your search for illegal drugs on this fooking site, newbie-dickhead.
lw
I have to agree, such a request is over the top.
This site really needs some guidelines that people can access and be informed of when they join.
I am gonna have to agree with LW and Winder on this.
:shock: wow people agreeing with LW this site is becoming better. Of course nothing illegal should ever be attempted on this or any other entheo site, but look around, some are more lax than others. :twisted:
I'd of thought after that hassle in that thread reguarding peyote in the trade forum, Rifeheretic, you'd of got the picture.
andy: heres' the deal as I see it.......
Rife is prolly a little confused right about now, as this request is basically the same as in the first thread, imo. What happened to the "benefit of doubt?" He says its just a joke and that's why its in the cave. I see little difference between this attempt and his excuse of having a friend and cabin up nort'.
Here's one for you...... What if a foaf owns an island where he makes the law. What if this guy whips up a big batch of ls-gee and wants to use the boards to peddel his wares, "where legal," of course.
That's the same as the fella in Canada making public offers for selling substances scheduled in the U$, like peyote, imo. After all, the lsd is legal on the island just as the peyote is in canada. At least with the benefit of doubt taken into consideration.
I'm willing to bet that the DEA views entheogenic sites such as spr as hook-up places for illegal drugs. Period. Subject matter is enough to cast suspicion. But a site allowing the practice of publically announcing activities which may serve to confirm suspicions of LEO enough to give the site a second look is when the real danger begins, imo.
Remember the daze of Glider? No self-incrimination was allowed and that place was jumping.
lw
LOL Now that I think about it......
There must be those among us who thought the same thing toward me that andy said to rife in his post above.......
lw
Quote from: "laughingwillow"That's the same as the fella in Canada making public offers for selling substances scheduled in the U$, like peyote, imo.
lw
Hey now, if your reffering to Roach, he has been around here along time. I'd preffer you not cast aspertions of that nature toward him. He's straight up and thats the truth.
I may even venture that an apology is in order.
Even roach was questioning the thread before he made it. And that's beside the point, imo. You backed rife in his attempt to use the site to score peyote in the first thread. Remember "benefit of doubt?" What is different in the second thread?
I'm really interested to see you you address the issues above that I've taken the time to lay out.
lw
Btw, this isn't about "vouchability," andy. (As you seem to contend with roach.) That factor need never enter the equation, imo. It could be any fella in canada; Seasoned poster or newbie. Rank shouldn't play a part in any way, shape or form, imo.
This is about a desire on my part to stay above suspicion of LEO by flying a little below the radar.
Could somebody please help me understand how the general topic and spirit of the first post in this thread is any different from the post made by the same guy in the thread started by roach in the tradewinds?
lw
Roach did nothing wrong in that last thread. If you go back and read it you will see that not only do 'I' think he did nothing wrong in that thread, that several other moderators piped in and agreed with me too. You can't police the whole world through red, white and blue glasses LW.
And I saw nothing wrong with Rife's request in that last thread because it seemed genuine. Reguardless what this one shows. It was the right decision for that time and thread. I can't go around hindsighting all of my own decisions.
Well, apparently you and other mods at this place are working on a sliding scale, then, andy.
Why do you keep bringing up roach in this thread, btw?
But if you insist. Logic dictates that if roach did nothing wrong, than rife did nothing wrong.
I'm still really interested in hearing how rife's actions were proper in one thread and improper in another. (Relax, this doesn't pertain to you, andy.)
lw
Oh sorry, I take no offense LW. Nor am I taking this personally. I respect you well enough. And I feal comfortable with debating this with you. Is no big deal to me, I just fail to see your side of the discussion clearly...... though I try.
I only bring Roach up because you brought him up and implied he was doing something wrong. When you know well that he asked Cassie if it was alwright to post before hand and me in the same thread and we both saw no problem with it. Granted he should have perhaps brought up in the beginning of the thread that he would only trade to countries where it was legal..... but in a way, that was implied as he did mention he was from canada and had conscience enough to ask two different mods and the general public if it was o.k.........and it was cleared up later in that same thread that he would only trade with canadians and the like. I mean, good enough for me, why not you? And please don't give me the whole, but thats not the way way used to do it argument again. :D
With respect to Rife, what can I say, I consede the guy is clearly out looking to score some droogs or something and isn't bright enough to go doing a few internet searches on his own.
But that does not mean any lines have been crossed here. He's been addressed and corrected in every case, if his behaviour goes further south, then we deal with it when it comes up...... as we have pretty much always strived to do.
Well what with being the moderator on this forum I guess I should have something to say....lol ( ....silence ) ermmm,,,,,,,
Indeed, if you didn't know the rules of the SPF board then you do now. No incriminating oneself or others in illegal activities.
Simple
No discussion needed...NEXT!
Booosh
Why not "good enough for me?" Good question.
Its not good enough for me because it makes different rules for different posters. Hell, it even makes different rules for the same poster.
Rife has posted a desire to score peyote in both threads. Why is one OK and the other not?
I'll tell you why....... because decisions are being made at the top allowing for such discrepancy.
Something should either be allowed by the community or not, imo. How simple can that be? Interestingly, that's how spf WAS run in all past incarnations.
Why did the thread get shut down the other day when the guy was looking on tips for freshly extracted pedro? He could have been in a country where that activity was allowed by law. Why assume otherwise?
Rife said he wasn't serious in the second thread. Imo, we may owe him an apology for not believing his stated motives. You got something against peeps who's names start with "r," or something?
Rife has been the only one acting consistantly on the issue, imo. I mean, you let a puppy pee on the rug once, why punish him for the second time? Poor puppy has to be confused....
Let me give you an another take...
The wife and I like to travel. We make it to Amsterdam whenever possible. I'd like to line up some x, lsd, peyote, shrooms and mj before I arrive. What is wrong with me starting a thread entitled, "Seeking x, lsd, shrooms, peyote and mj where legal?" I'd explain in a post how I only plan on procuring these substances where legal and be having them sent to an addy in a country where said activity is also legal?
Or what's to stop me from planning a vacation based solely on a thread searching for legal sources of scheduled substances?
lw
May I ask you LW why do you choose to enforce one rule (which is not clearly stated anywhere that I'm aware of) and not another?
Rife clearly (if you are familiar with the 'old' SPF rules) broke at least two rules. We never allowed ANY hotlinks in the forums to vendors.... remember that one?
Why do you folks continue to discuss this at the end or middle of someones thread? It is obviously important to some of you and yet there isn't one thread dealing with ' THE RULES'.
I'll ask again, can a new thread be started regaurding what sould NOT be posted and possibly be agreed to before someone posts?
kemp: Awhile back I was told by avery that hot links ARE now allowed by this site. But I didn't fight that one as I see no real harm in the practice, one way or the other.
But I do agree. I'd just soon see that rule back in place as well.
lw
Yeah, what Bushpig said ... it *is* pretty simple, isn't it?
I think each moderator can make the call for him/herself based on the understanding of 'no incrimination' but it is a nonsense just to go by american laws for this.
For example, at the old site when someone posted pics of his peyote, i questioned his location and discerned he was acting legally and ... all good!!
C'mon people, we are intelligent enuf to not need a nanny! and, ffs ... if something slips past a moderator's attention, just drop them a message in pm ... no drama, no big deal ...
but maybe we do need some clarification, like kemp suggests .. so i'm starting a thread about it in the 'site'.
As for a list of rules, I'd have hoped to see that from the powers-who-be long before now. But that's going ot have ot come from the top.
Maybe the chat community could whip something up for us. :roll:
Meanwhile, this thread remains open.
lw
Quote from: "laughingwillow"Something should either be allowed by the community or not, imo. How simple can that be? Interestingly, that's how spf WAS run in all past incarnations.
And still is. Although the exact line has always been fuzzy. It's never been straight up black and white.... always continually subject to interpretation and circumstance. I can only claim to attempt fairness, not that I achieve it or anything.
Again, the difference between rife's 2 posts in consideration is that the first thread comments could have been a simple slip that was attempted to be corrected with little fanfare, lesson learned, move on kinda thing.
With this thread being clearly swim style approach, (the lesson obviously not being learned in the last one) so communications are more forward.
This is all a fuzzy logic LW, not an exact science. You know this. I can't even recall the number of times you've been accused of symiliar flaws in judgement.
Yah just do your best. Even though thats never good enough for everybody.
Wow, really started a fire here, eh? I agree with both Andy and LW. The first post could have been covered as it was between two canadian residents. This second post was a lame attempt of checking out a site selling peyote while still in the US.
As for the hotlink, I have seen many members posting hotlinks to websites with little penelties.
I've editted the post so no google searches or anything will lead to this website.
Rife
as far as i recall, yes there was a protocol followed by members at the old spf, but never in my time there can i remember a official set of rules anywhere, maybe i jus missed it, it had an element of 'the done thing round here' to it, which only comes with age, as a community grows, it developes its own social structure, spr is still getting its feet, this will take time, but spr isnt spf, its its own entity and thus needs to find its own balance accordingly, this process requires some allowance for slip ups or set backs but also the creation of new presidents(sp?) if so appropriate.
personally, i support the call by avery that there was no 'alarm bells' as such, the action being proposed legal, however, there is also large level of trust in these matters that a poster offering trade is responsible enough not to break the law, and in other cases this may not be enough.
i do think an established code of conduct for trade should be discussed, so a concensus can be reached..
jus my 2cents, take it or leave it...