I think the response to CHEMAGODDON was over the top. Here was the rationale for moving him to detritus:
- your question is too recipe oriented;
is this a forum rule? It's a new one to me.
- you give no references so to appear like having not searched the literature or used the search engine before posting;
That's one for sure.
- you do not use proper chemical names (slang type acronyms like p2p are not chemical names!) and lack in scientific discourse so you do not appear
like you are sincerely interested in the discussion of the pertaining chemistry.
Chemistry is rife with "slang" such as STAB, DCE, DIBAL, etc. so that's not a legitmate objection whether the term is part of the academic literature
or not.
I believe the censorship was motivated by a real concern for the forum that mention of anything related to amphetamines could lead to unwanted
attention. I also believe that's paranoia and over the top. MHO only. I feel a caution to cite refs. would have served the forum better; again,
MHO.woelen - 24-4-2008 at 22:42
Personally, I certainly understand the move of that topic to detritus, but I see the point of chemrox. It might be a good idea to make such rules more
explicit, otherwise indeed it may be better to leave such threads where they are (for that reason, I did not report nor respond in that thread,
because I just had a feeling about it, not something which could be made explicit).
I also must admit that this is the hard part of moderation. Not everything can be put in solid rules, and sometimes intuition/feeling is the main
reason for a certain decision. Altogether, I am quite happy though with how sciencemadness is moderated now. There is less blatant cookery over here,
compared to one year ago, while at the same time, the real chemistry has not suffered from the recent way of moderation.
One indication for me is the user name of new members. Look at it, if they have such screaming names, with all capitals, often a modification of some
grotesque word (in this case I immediately had an association with armageddon), then frequently (not always) they are either cooks, or k3wls .
[Edited on 25-4-08 by woelen]not_important - 24-4-2008 at 23:21
I think the reasons given for closing for the original posting were valid, given the "p2honey" term, and not of a FOAD nature but rather "improve and
repost".
I suspect it might have survived had it started out as a more general Strecker question, then had the specific modification added. Might have even
survived if it had left out the p2honey stuff, and simply asked "how might one make alpha methyl phenylalainine?" (at which point I would have given
the path to the desired amino acid, starting with their target ketone)MagicJigPipe - 25-4-2008 at 00:27
I don't see anything about "p2honey". What the hell is that?Nicodem - 25-4-2008 at 00:33
Chemrox, those are not rules, those are just the reasons I gave for sending that thread to Detritus. There is a difference, since it was my arbitrary
decision to do so. I saw the discourse used by the poster as inappropriate for someone with genuine interest in chemistry or science in general. I
could not care less for those who are interested in chemistry for profit related motivations, but I would sure leave a post where the discourse used
would indicate the poster's motivation is driven by genuine scientific interest in psychoactive drugs. Even more than that, I would gladly help such a
person with advices and literature. But helping cooks and kewls is not what this forum is for.
Woelen is quite right about the repulsiveness of using such a handle, but that was not the main reason. I'm not religious so I could easily tolerate
that, though I can't deny it could have somewhat contributed to the negative response.
Anyway, CHEMAGODDON could have rephrased his topic in the appropriate manner after I told him why his first thread ended in Detritus, yet he rather
chose an arrogant stand indicating he is not interested in adopting the culture of this forum. I fully respect his decision and certainly don't feel
bad about it since he has alternatives where he can discuss the way he is used to and feel accepted.Sauron - 25-4-2008 at 02:28
Nicodem made a good call, and Chemagodon amply demonstrated that he is an ignorant, rude and profane individual in his vitriolic reply. Nicodem was
right, he belongs at WD not here.
Keep up the good work, Nicodem!S.C. Wack - 25-4-2008 at 02:28
Quote:
Originally posted by chemrox
I believe the censorship was motivated by a real concern for the forum that mention of anything related to amphetamines could lead to unwanted
attention. I also believe that's paranoia and over the top
It doesn't surprise me at all that you are with CHEMAGODDON. But it is surprising that you don't realize that the best reason to keep the (overt,
lame) meth cooks out is to keep them from shitting all over this site. This is a forum for people who have an interest in chemistry that goes beyond
methamphetamine and yet another crap "how can I make this P2P precursor (preferably without real glassware and with OTC chemicals)" thread.YT2095 - 25-4-2008 at 02:55
the Moderation standards here deserves an accolade to be honest.
as a long serving Mod on another forum that deals with Science in general, I use this place as a Template and Scale by which I asses certain posts in
our Chem area.
Without the things I have learned here, I wouldn`t know a drug precursor and the sort of posts to be suspicious about if it bit me on the ass!
so the staff here may be proud in the knowledge that Here is used as the benchmark standard by which Other Chem areas are held to, on a Very Large and
well known forum.Fleaker - 25-4-2008 at 15:02
Reading over it, I believe Nicodem acted appropriately.
If there is no chemistry and no genuine interest in learning, only in profiting off of others' lives, there is no reason for it to be on this site.
I disagree with chemrox--there was no paranoia involved. His post was what it was and there was no ambivalence about it (at least in my mind).
As for his user name, I don't care how vulgar, coarse, or boorish it is. If they post good chemistry, they post good chemistry.MagicJigPipe - 25-4-2008 at 17:46
I agree with putting the thread in detritus, however, I see why chemrox was concerned. The meth scare can sometimes provoke emotional and sometimes
irrational knee-jerk reactions.
It's completely natural and acceptable for someone to be concerned with something like this IMO. I think as long as the moderators don't slip into a
detritus frenzy we'll be okay.
At least he was asked to repost his question and not completely censored.chemrox - 25-4-2008 at 23:25
I appreciate Nicodems clarification and accept the action on that basis. I can't agree with some others that censorship is ever a "good call." But I
do accept that it is sometimes in the best interests of the collective good of the forum. Thanks for clearing things up for me.
Justification
MadHatter - 25-4-2008 at 23:41
Nicodem, IMHO, your actions are justified. While wanting to be "open" about chemistry,
there certainly are limits. Unwanted attention by LEOs is always a bad thing. It
doesn't matter what the "discussion" is about. Perception by LEO's and politicians
can bring repressive actions against the community even if undeserved. And of course,
there are always rules set by the site's owner(s).Nicodem - 26-4-2008 at 14:01
It is not about avoiding attracting the attention of law enforcement. It is also not censorship, since I did not delete the posts. It is about
enforcing quality (the quality of scientific discussion, not about profit making discussion – hopefully this is clear by now).
If there would be no alternative forum for discussing illegal drugs related topics, I would tend to be more tolerant toward such kewlish behavior.
Yet, luckily there is more than one such forum where people like CHEMAGODDON can discuss that way without any problem. They have no real need to do
the same here as well. Actually we have some common members who post good chemistry here, yet they do it by respecting the local forum culture. I'm
glad they joined and contribute to the quality of this forum. So, what reason there is to be forgiving to those few who want to use this forum but
don't like to respect its culture? If you know of any such reason, let me know, and as long it is a rational one I might reconsider the way act in
related cases.
Also, do not forget that we have the exactly same policy in the other area that tends to attract kewls, the Energetic Materials section. There also is
at least one alternative forum for energetics where less scientific and more goal oriented discussion is allowed. Yet, here it is not.chemrox - 26-4-2008 at 21:11
Since we're all in basic agreement on this one perhaps we could put a wrap on the discussion right here. CHEMAGODDON obviously is not the poster
child for appealing to less restrictive policy. I wanted to raise a point others have made recently that the forum was at one time more friendly and
an easier place to post. Contrived is affraid to logon anymore. I also noticed that some of those "other forums" are trying to raise the overall
quality. I wonder if I missed something in CHEMAGODDON'S post. I didn't read the intention to manufacture for money part or was that an assumption?
Maybe I need to re-read it. It wasn't very interesting. Anyway, I think more than enough has been said on this topic.Sauron - 27-4-2008 at 10:43
It is not difficult to find details on how to methylate amino acids as this is a common technique in peptide and protein chemistry. SO I suspect that
Nicodem began with an accurate assesment that CHEMAGODON had made no attempt to search the lit.
What probably clinched it was the focus on N-methylation ofPhe (L-phenylalanine) as this is a dead giveaway and speaks directly to meth cookery.
The post might have been tolerable in context of AA N-methylation in general, and Nicodem might have been willing to overlook the implicit laziness of
the apparent lack of effort to research. But, as written, the post was pretty blatant.
I think Nicodem is hell on the indolent posters who just come here for spoonfeeding and recipes, regardless of whether or not they are dope related.
But being dope related does not salvage them.
He called it right.S.C. Wack - 27-4-2008 at 16:13
No. If we are going to be against a type of posts like this we had better take due care with facts. The title of the thread:
how to -alpha methyl phenylalainine
This is what he wanted to do in order to convert the product to P2P with bleach.
This is rather different than N-methylation and considerably more difficult as far as anyone knows, to the point where it is silly to consider it.
This question is asked all the time on the drug forums and the guy may have thought that he could get some magic insight on how to make it OTC here.chemrox - 27-4-2008 at 23:31
alpha methylate phenylalanine in order to make it into p2p using bleach? Good grief! I fear SC is right .. looking for magic or at least a
procedure for the first step . assuming it would be easy .. haw haw..Sauron - 28-4-2008 at 01:01
Alpha methylaction? Alkylation at the alpha position? He's dreaming. I just assumed he was talking about N-methylation because at least that is
feasible, and the product could be decarboxylated to something, but I haven' thought it through, and no point since it is not what he wanted.
a-methylation? Hardest way to P2P I ever heard of.Nicodem - 28-4-2008 at 08:22
Quote:
Originally posted by chemrox
I wanted to raise a point others have made recently that the forum was at one time more friendly and an easier place to post. Contrived is affraid to
logon anymore.
Why is Contrived afraid to logon? What terrible traumatic event happened to him? I don't remember ever doing him any harm, at least not intentionally.
I certainly did a few mistakes as a moderator but none involved him.vulture - 28-4-2008 at 13:12
Quote:
I appreciate Nicodems clarification and accept the action on that basis.
What makes you think you have the right to accept or sanction any action taken by Nicodem or any other staff member?
Quote:
Since we're all in basic agreement on this one perhaps we could put a wrap on the discussion right here.
Now this is gross. It's like putting your room on fire and then telling your parents while the house is ablaze "Maybe we should put
out the fire we started".
I didn't know we had our very own ambulance runner here...chemrox - 28-4-2008 at 14:36
and we were all getting along so well..chemoleo - 28-4-2008 at 17:51
This is *not* about 'getting along so well'.
Although that's very desirable, it is about the quality of the forum, and the genuine interest in chemistry, rather than nitwits wanting this
thing to blow up or that thing to smoke, eat or inject.
Both types of characters are part of this forum and certainly tolerated, and this is because they display intellect and interest in the science behind
it. If not, just like in this case, they are tackled.
Now if that interest lacks, there are plenty of forums for just this purpose where the 'goal', never mind the 'way', can be discussed freely.
As to censorship - since when is quality control censorship?
Quote:
Anyway, I think more than enough has been said on this topic,
.