Peyote

[laughingwillow]

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

[kemp]

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?

[laughingwillow]

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

[Cassie]

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'.

[laughingwillow]

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

[Avery L. Breath]

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.

[RifeHeretic]

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

[visionarybear]

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...