The Vespiary

Site => Rules => Topic started by: Vesp on August 15, 2009, 03:58:49 AM

Title: RULES
Post by: Vesp on August 15, 2009, 03:58:49 AM
Failure to abide by these rules will result in consequences including, but not limited to, revocation of posting privileges and temporary or permanent banishment. Please report any posts or PMs that violate these rules.



If you have any comments, questions, or concerns, please contact a member of the staff.
Title: Re: Rules.
Post by: Sedit on August 28, 2009, 01:44:45 AM
     Multiple accounts will not be tolerated and are subjected to deletion without prior notice. If the problem persist you will be permantly baned from access to The Vespiary under any and all usernames present.

Thats after we beat your ass and feed you to the wasp!
Title: Re: Rules.
Post by: Vesp on November 04, 2009, 01:32:56 AM

Rules were added in fear that post quality has dropped and that they are now necessary.

# Posts should be timeless and impersonal
# Don't post about selling drugs.
# Don't use SWIM or any variation of it - I find it annoying and I think it lowers the quality of posts - and thus the forum.

Title: Re: Rules.
Post by: no1uno on December 06, 2009, 10:44:19 AM
Dunno... I personally, am shocked and horrified that somebody that may one day in the future visit this site could even contemplate using or even worse, synthesizing various drugs... These are mind altering substances people, the Gov't has (quite rightly IMHO) decreed that they are verboten, thus they are not in the public interest.

That said, I am, despite the feelings alluded to above, quite certain that it is in the best interest of your/my Country(s) current and/or future good, that there be a free and honest discussion about whatever needs to be discussed and that freedom of speech is sacrosanct (except where there is actual incitement to commit a crime and/or where that freedom is misused by someone knowingly assisting someone who they believe, or could be otherwise presumed to believe, to be breaking the law, otherwise known as collusion and/or conspiracy).

In such circumstances, or where there is any doubt as to the legality of what a person is doing (or perhaps more importantly, what they SAY they are doing) I, and I would suggest others, should hesitate to assist where a person states that THEY personally are currently, or intend to, act contrary to laws made for the morality and good governance of their local area, State or Country... For fear that "free speech" may be rather more one side of the line than it should be, or more plainly, that it could be made to "look" like a criminal conspiracy ( Which given the current status of "publication" and the Worldwide Web, means that what I write here could, theoretically at least, be prosecuted wherever it is read and the same for everyone else...

I personally will not make any response to any topic where it appears that a person is engaging in an illegal activity themselves, thus I disagree with the ban on SWIM'ing...
Title: Re: RULES
Post by: jboogie on June 17, 2010, 04:04:13 AM
this may bee a stupid question, but i have never understood the 'Posts should be timeless and impersonal' rule or suggestion...

for shits and giggles, could you put an example of a post that would be considered 'timed and personal'?

is the personal part saying things like 'i distilled X, then i aminated Y' or what?

and the timeless part... wouldnt that bee kinda a disservice when concerning matters of legality? i mean, laws change, and if a post speaks of say, mdp2p, like it was still unscheduled, then maybe one would assume it was cool to order a 55 gallon drum of 'tone to their doorstep. imo, if you dont know mdp2p isnt scheduled and your dumb enough to order it then you deserve to bee locked up, so maybee thats a bad example, but show what 'timeless' means too, if your not busy and have an example handy.

its the only rule i just dont get really... and ive been around these boards for more than 10 years. maybee i shoulda asked a long ass time ago, but i guess i never had a problem with it cause rhod never locked any of my threads for beeing 'Rated as: timed and personal!' :)
Title: Re: RULES
Post by: Vesp on June 17, 2010, 06:15:13 AM
'i distilled X, then i aminated Y' or what?

Yes, that is what I was thinking -- A lot of times when talking about such things as substances illegal in some places it is probably just better to write it more like a science journal, and not a diary.

I.e: The Ergot Fungus was added to a petri dish and allowed to culture for 20 days at 27*C
instead of... I took some ergot fungis, added it to a petri dish I recently bought, and.. blah blah blah

It seems to me that the first one would be safer in the sense that you may or may not have done it, but that is how it was done -- whoever did it. I also think that sort of writing is better in general. But in all honesty , not all of these rules are going to be enforced 100% of the time and you can break them with probably little to no action being taken (well, depends on the rule!) -- Its just something to hopefully act as a good guideline for the members, and get the newer members off to a good start and try to increase the signal to noise ratio of the site to make it better  -- plus, rules make it clearer for the moderators on what they should and should not enforce.
Title: Re: RULES
Post by: Vesp on July 01, 2010, 08:29:46 PM
The Reference section is off limits to anyone with less than 10 posts, once one has posted ten posts, they will automatically see the reference section.
Posts in The Den of Inequity do not count, as they are off the topic and do not always add to the forum.
Title: Re: RULES
Post by: The Lone Stranger on June 22, 2011, 11:23:05 PM
"this includes correct grammar, spelling, punctuation, and nomenclature"

Thats bolloks ...... = juzt kos eye kant spell an meye grrammer is shyt eym a outcast ? In the science discusions corect nomen watsit an no chat is important but in other discusions WHY ? Plus i cant say i used to smoke ? Or deal ? Or grow ? <-------- not that i have ..... I`m just useing me as a timeless , nameless , strange example ........ because ....... where i live talking about wot one has done isnt illegal ........ i could go to the powleece station and tell them and show them it all on film and they would say congratulations please dont waste our time ............ same if i went and told them i smoke .........  <------ i dont i`m just the example remember  ........ I mean where the fuck do some of those rules get one ? some of them are as stupid as swim ........ i mean how can anyone talk about a lot of the science that gets talked here if one is pretending its all theory ......... i just theoreticaly did so and so and noew i theoreticla have this problem  ........ ?????....... i spose we could have a game of mental quantum chess with no board , no figures and we all theoreticaly win ?

Keeping a tight ship in some directions is OK ...... BUT ....... WHY ? ........ more of the remember the hive and lets blame its problems on people not keeping these rules ? What may i ask is the point ? What imaginary dragons are we frightened of ?

Remember ........... loughs favorite thingy ? About what yoo wanna put in ...... in this case ......rules ...... and what one wants to get out ? ....... ducks eggs ? Chocolate ? A unifyed tesla field theory ?

 ........JFC the only word i can think of is ...... CRASS ....... When are the old posts and threads going to be ethnicaly cleansed and will anything be left over afterwards ? Bye bye hive and rhodium and ? archives .....bye bye most posts ....... or have i miss under stood ?

So ........ Please tell me / us what is trying to be achieved ? What are we trying to avoid ?
Title: Re: RULES
Post by: Vesp on June 23, 2011, 12:05:44 AM
So ........ Please tell me / us what is trying to be achieved ?
Understandable posts that are helpful and not misleading. Also spelling does wonders for the search engine. We all speak English, and have a spell-checker.

What are we trying to avoid ?
Posts that are analogues to the above post. I hardly even had the will to read it, let alone begin to care what it said - Naturally we're going to enforce this law arbitrarily for obvious reasons.

The swim rule walks hand in hand with the spelling & grammar rule, and it has been discussed many times how to explain a reaction without using names, I, me, myself, us, etc in it. Write them like a science journal.
The sand was placed into the beaker and heated evenly with minimal stirring
Is better than:
So man, I placed some sand into the beaker, and I sat and watch it, as it heated while I didn't stir it, or i did very little but I didn't do it that much"

Trying to understand chemistry and other aspects of this forum is hard enough without the added difficulty in trying to decrypt what the poster meant, what word he tried to spell, or reading the unneeded wordiness and off topic rambling of his post.
Title: Re: RULES
Post by: The Lone Stranger on June 23, 2011, 09:40:23 AM
vesp . "Naturally we're going to enforce this law arbitrarily for obvious reasons." . Thanks for the explenation . Thats what i was talking about . IF those rules were aplyed as writen this site wouldnt be possible .  This site is about underground  / amateur chemistry and what aplys to swim aplys to how the site is constructed and its theme . Anyone who thinks that they can talk about chemistry in the way its done here ....... and have hive and rhodium archives on it ....... and if the powers of evil decide to make a case against it go into court and say what we are doing is in no way an atempt to educate people about illegal drug chemistry needs urgently to look at what conspiracy is and then think about how courts interpretate those laws . Trying to do a casey and defend oneself in a court with common law bullshit from thousand year old unwriten and over ruled laws doesnt work . Personal opinions of laws are just that . <-------- again thats not a shot at anyone its an atempt to say exactly what lough keeps saying about what one wants , what one does to try to achieve it and what comes out the other end . Do some of the things that have been made rules make any real sense . If so to who ? To just some of us ? Or to the police and courts . Anyone who thinks ...... just like useing the word SWIM ....... that some of those rules protect anyone from any possible prosecution would do better to think about it again ....... from the point of view of the police and courts .
Title: Re: RULES
Post by: Vesp on March 30, 2012, 10:36:39 AM
That is all I could do is ban them from this site -- and honestly, I cannot even ban people effectively - I can just delete an account... which is easily made. IP addresses cannot be blocked effectively since everyone here knows and prefers to use Tor so anyone could always continue to join the site, post, etc.

Title: Re: RULES
Post by: PrimoPyro on December 16, 2013, 04:30:07 AM
Another forum I used to frequent had a similar problem. Their solution was to vet all new applicants for membership prior to being granted posting privileges. They went a little overboard, but I guess since they ran the site, not me, then they got exactly what they were after.

They used a combination interview form (10 questions) and PMs to feel out new registrants. Perhaps something like that would be of use to you.
Title: Re: RULES
Post by: Winston on December 04, 2014, 03:46:57 PM
A comment with respect to what was stated, not who stated it, but any post that suggests large scale manufacturing, and/or pill press talk. Should in Franks view, and little 2b also, feel should be wiped. Its just adding fuel to fire, and shouldnt be tolerated. Now of course Im a single member voicing an opinion. I have been here from the start, with a few breaks, and glad to of been a part of this forum, but stand by what Frank and 2b emailed me about. No disrespect to those who have talked that talk, so just expressing a view. Also, they dont like talk such as, can some older bee help a new bee do the deed for the first time. Its annoying and I feel the chemistry of such reactions could be mentioned, not the other stuff that I also feel, reduces chemistry and this forum to recipe swopping. THERE SAID THERE PEACE and Winstons agreement on these matters. Peace to all.
Title: Re: RULES
Post by: poisoninthestain on July 28, 2015, 09:23:14 AM
I think "no thread splitting" should be enforced. There are multiple threads that contain the same or similar titles with none or very little relevant information that already has been stated in the original thread.
Title: Re: RULES
Post by: Vesp on July 28, 2015, 10:01:37 PM
I think "no thread splitting" should be enforced. There are multiple threads that contain the same or similar titles with none or very little relevant information that already has been stated in the original thread.
I agree, but it kind of has weird enforcement/execution problems.
Title: Re: RULES
Post by: SubliminallyOveranalyzed on July 29, 2015, 10:39:30 AM
I'll admit, I'm probably guilty of doing that from time to time..... but at the same time, I completely agree that it would be beneficial to enforce the uselessness of thread splitting.......

i suppose a little discretion in my numerous years of brain cell slaughtering would have allowed me to help in this endeavor a little more than i am able, or at least not be a conscious contributor to the problem(while advocating to implement policies against it no less!! now that's irony!!)

but simultaneously, i'm scratching my fucking head to try and arrive at even a remotely effective way to approach some (seemingly) futile enforcement such as that (but i honestly do agree with the need for elimination of useless things such as thread splitting)

I also do not believe anyone that does it, (myself included) is consciously and/or intentionally doing so ( i know for a fact that i do not do it intentionally).... but i also realize that intentional or not, does not change the fact that the only purpose it serves is confusion, disarray, and disorganization

And by that same token, mindfullness to one's actions before hand is not an unreasonable expectation, BUT there are degrees of that same reason, when you break it down to expecting people to be SO mindful of their actions before hand, that you begin to approach the complete elimination of spontaneity in the universal transaction of cause, effect, and causality....

Me weighing in on this more than likely only served to unnecessarily complicate the matter, and for that I do apologize, but such was not my intentions in the least, I assure you. I only seek to assist in coming to an effective resolution sooner, actually, but it seems my doing so actually only contributed to the confusing of the matter, so upon that realization, i'll gracefully bow my over-analytic ass out of this esteemed discussion!   :-X

Title: Re: RULES
Post by: poisoninthestain on July 29, 2015, 01:08:43 PM
Just one example...


..these both could either

a) be merged with the original thread on the subject
b) be sent to vacuos
Title: Re: RULES
Post by: SubliminallyOveranalyzed on July 31, 2015, 01:51:02 PM
suggestion---- possibly incorporate an additional function button above, next to or among the regular quote button, but it will be an  .............."off topic" quote button.......   swim has seen this technique employed at other, non- related boards, and they seem to progress just fine with such things...... just a thought
Title: Re: RULES
Post by: Tsathoggua on July 04, 2017, 11:10:12 AM
Not a bad idea having an off topic quote thing for smaller snippets that are never the less relevant and important, such as say, that time someone could have done with safety info on mercury in another thread. Where like bluelight's 'NSFW' tag it collapses the contents unless clicked on, by a reader, so if they are wanted there they are displayed, if not so then they are not.
Title: Re: RULES
Post by: embezzler on February 26, 2021, 03:53:18 PM
Reminder: keep posts timeless! Don't post and work it is really poor behavior.
Title: Re: RULES
Post by: skektek on March 19, 2021, 09:09:29 AM
read what embezzler said !!!!
Title: Re: RULES
Post by: carl on July 31, 2021, 10:12:32 PM
Yo guys,

after the recent quite disturbing occurence with JF and his multiple accounts, I feel compelled to clarify a certain bit.

Technically, multiple accounts are against the rules, and for a good reason as the JF incident has shown.

However, if its for the purpose of maintaining privacy, if you want to post a neat writeup or experimental or such that you did, and you don't want it to be connected to your account:
in that case, it is not even frowned upon, but we actively encourage that.
Solely for the purpose of keeping your privacy.

I know that a good portion of you guys has double accounts, and thats alright, because you do not use them to disturb the community, to sow distrust and confuse our members.

I just wanted to clarify this, that this is a case by case decision.
And keep in mind... Joe and I can recognize multiple accounts very quickly ;)
That we allow it to run for a while doesn't mean we don't know.
For privacy= yes, good. For fun and simply annoying our people= no way.

In the latter case, expect your primary account to be also restricted, of course, case by case, most likely only temporary for a short time.
But if you used this to act like an ass like JF, don't expect it to be temporary, obviously.