Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Just a little confusion on the god-like complexes of our mods

Just a little confusion on the god-like complexes of our mods

morganbw - 29-5-2019 at 12:44

Energetic Materials = never Detritus
Anything related to drug synthesis = always scorn and nearly always Detritus.

The founder of this forum was okay with drug synthesis discussion, minus spoonfeeding, but now a few loud members and our mods say it is not okay.

When did this become your forum, what guidelines are you following?

Most of what is discussed about drug synthesis are found in older chemistry textbooks, but now it is okay to discuss how to make powerful explosives, (I wonder what these are used for)?

Just get a friggin grip.

If someone gains joy from making a precursor then more power to them. If they are introduced to chemistry from a wrong direction then great. Education reduces harm.

Get your retarded morals placed into the guidelines and when you close something, point out the guideline you are using, else enjoy your Sunday School this Sunday.

j_sum1 - 29-5-2019 at 13:17

I will give a more complete response later.
Just a comment for now that you come across a bit ascerbic.

karlos³ - 29-5-2019 at 15:06

It is usually in the style of the threads related to drug chemistry.
You can differ between plain cookery without the science who often belong to detritus, but the ones keeping the focus on the science behind it can often lead to interesting discussions.
I experienced that myself too and now understand it well.

Of course there are a few negative members who will cry loud "drug cookery!" whenever they understand the discussed reaction or product...
But I don't find they get the attention they want with this, often these threads simply remain and the loud member gets ignored.

I agree that it is not everytime the case and sometimes good opportunities for discussion get lost, but in my opinion that happens rather rarely.
As my field of interest is this certain aspect of home chemistry, while energetic materials are not the least bit interesting to me, I think I have seen quite a bit over the times of the issue you are calling out.

In the end, it seems to be that some moderators who have no personal affiliation to that aspect judge different than others, while for example Nicodem and Polverone are on the pro-side of these discussions, some of the other moderators are not and found their way to chemistry as hobby making explosives and those may have prejudices against drugs.

Since I have experience in moderating another chemistry board dedicated solely to this special niche, I know and understand that one has to judge a lot of what is chemistry and what is plain drug cookery, and that the latter can not be tolerated as it leads to a significant drop in quality in a short time if tolerated, followed by attracting others only interested in cookery style discussions, etc...
That results sometimes in wrongly judged decisions by the moderators and that is understandable, and sometimes they act overzealous, and that is in my eyes also understandable.
It is a critical topic and not always easy to draw the line here.

j_sum1 - 29-5-2019 at 17:14

I am going to be the first to admit that we do not always get things right. The mods are not always entirely consistent with each other or even with themselves.
I will assert that things are more consistent now than they have been at some times in the past. You can analyse for historical patterns and report back if you think that assertion untrue.

I am going to guess that a recent mod action has precipitated this discussion. If you think a wrong call has been made then please send a message to a mod. We can discuss if necessary and reverse a decision made. There have been a few times that a thread has been pulled back from detritus -- it is one of the reasons we use detritus rather than just deleting.

It may well be a bias of the board but there is and has been more moderator discussion on drug-related threads than EM. And this goes back to well before my time here. I think it is a harder area to moderate. EM guys mostly tinker with stuff that goes bang and occasionally blow off a finger. Drug synth threads attract drug cooks and illegal activity in a way that just does not happen with EM. (Ironically), EM is just less inflammatory than discussion of psychoactives. This, I think, is one of the reasons that EM has its own forum.

As to how decisions are made, I am going to admit to not being expert in either field. I became a mod for the purpose of spam-busting and troll mitigation. I do not trust my ability to evaluate these topics on the basis of the chemistry presented alone. So again, I apologise if I have occasionally gotten it wrong.
The first thing I did when I became a mod was to read through the entire Mod discussion on moderation of drug-related threads. I have taken note of Polverone's comments, which are vague and non-committal in places. But the general principle is that if the focus is chemistry and mechanisms then that can be discussed. If the focus is obtaining a product which is either illegal or likely to be abused then it is not a welcome discussion. (If I was making up the rules then I would probably draw the line a bit more explicitly and a bit more conservatively. But never mind. I know I have to sometimes leave threads alone that I personally feel uncomfortable with.)

I believe the policy is similar for EM albeit a bit more vague. There just have not been the same difficult moderator decisions and hence less discussion. EM threads quickly get technical which plays towards the spirit of the board. Drug threads tend to gravitate away from mechanism and towards product and this plays against the spirit of the board.

All that said, there are a couple of lines that can be drawn in the sand -- which I think all the active mods are consistent on.

TATP threads get monitored closely. Genuine EM enthusiasts eschew this stuff and for good reason. If the focus is explaining the underlying chemistry or responsible use then the thread is ok. If it is some kewl fishing for recipes or wanting to scale up or showing no interest in either the chemistry or safe practice then we shut it down.

Class A drugs (or equivalents in other jurisdictions) are off limits. These get shut down quickly.

P2P has no uses for the home chemist other than as a precursor. So those threads get shut down too.

I meant to say earlier that I am giuded by three things: moderator policy, historical patterns, messages from members. The last couple of threads that I have sent to Detritus have been reported by several members with an explanation of why they think the thread needs attention. Similarly, if you think a wrong call has been made, then send a message. I prefer to discuss with at least one other mod so it might take a day or two to reopen a thread. If this comes across as god-like then I am sorry. That is certainly not the attitude or intention.

I really hope this clarifies things a bit.
J.

SWIM - 29-5-2019 at 18:43

I've been thinking of nitrating P2P to make a new energetic material

Then I'll make up some C-4 and eat a little to enjoy the high it gives you

karlos³ - 29-5-2019 at 19:55

Just make amphetamine fulminate directly, two birds one stone

j_sum1 - 29-5-2019 at 21:10

Quote: Originally posted by karlos³

Just make amphetamine fulminate directly, two birds one stone

Drug users could get quite a bit of bang for their buck with that.

mayko - 30-5-2019 at 04:46

Here is an overt drug synth thread which is in no danger of detritus. I think it's fair to say that most trashed drug threads don't rise to this standard in terms of quality and novelty:

https://www.sciencemadness.org/whisper/viewthread.php?tid=23...

DavidJR - 30-5-2019 at 06:29

On another thread concerning the production of a drug precursor, I pointed this out and said it looked a bit dodgy. This was the response I got:

Quote: Originally posted by Tsjerk

Can we please (again) stop the discussion about what should or should not be allowed to discuss on this forum? Again, I will quote Polverone.

Quote: Originally posted by Polverone

It's probably spitting into the wind but I would like to remind everyone that the legal restrictions (or lack thereof) on possessing/manufacturing a substance has never been a reason for me to shut down discussions here. Hence the large, flourishing Energetic Materials section. I would actually enjoy more discussion of novel psychoactive substances here, or novel routes to popular materials. Much how I enjoy new substances or synthetic routes to energetic materials when they're discussed in the EM section. The USA has some of the most overbearing synthetic drug laws but some of the most permissive free speech laws in the world, so there is no risk to the forum or myself from discussing any chemistry here no matter how great the legal penalties might be if you get caught trying to implement said chemistry in your own home.

I don't like low-effort threads started by people who are apparently just looking for a quick way to get high or get rich. Nor do I like low-effort threads started by people who just want to make a big, impressive explosion without too much work. But I am never going to lock a thread just because it might be a felony to do the chemistry where I live, or where some other members live. Everything is fine to write about and some members may be more risk-tolerant or lucky enough to live in less legally uptight jurisdictions. The legal considerations, like the personal safety risks, are the responsibility and choice of the individual contemplating doing some chemistry.

So please, feel free to discuss synthetic routes to this ketamine metabolite or any other interesting molecule that crosses your mind.

Source

If anyone here thinks further discussion is necessary I propose you set up a new topic. Either we change the original idea of SM and change the rules on this forum, or people who don't like it either capitulate or leave.

[Edited on 14-2-2019 by Tsjerk]

fusso - 30-5-2019 at 06:42

Quote: Originally posted by DavidJR

On another thread concerning the production of a drug precursor, I pointed this out and said it looked a bit dodgy. This was the response I got:

Quote: Originally posted by Tsjerk

Can we please (again) stop the discussion about what should or should not be allowed to discuss on this forum? Again, I will quote Polverone.

Quote: Originally posted by Polverone

~~Don't tell me you're Tsjerk~~I agree that these drug synth threads should be allowed, just as P said.

SWIM - 30-5-2019 at 13:40

I think the best way to sum the situation up is to say defining unacceptable threads is like what some US supreme court justice once said about defining pornography:

I can't explain it, but know it when I see it.

The 'rules'may have many exceptions depending on the situation.
The thread that started this discussion was pretty blatant,(and he wasn't making precursors, that was the final reaction to get amphetamine) but people with common sense can still discuss the same topics here without fear of detritus.

It just takes a little tact, like getting laid.
Well, on second thought that might not be the most effective analogy for this board, but I'm sure nearly 1/2 of you know what I mean.

[Edited on 30-5-2019 by SWIM]

clearly_not_atara - 30-5-2019 at 14:29

In addition to the various other points made, there is one other big difference between drugs and bombs.

There's money in drugs. There's no money in bombs.

People who are willing to do illegal things to make money very often are the worst sort of people. Even chemistry forums which tolerate drug chemistry always try to avoid attracting the venal sort who don't care what happens in their pursuit of a buck. When drug chemists frequent a place, people show up trying to sell them stuff, usually through PMs. Illegal stuff. I can't tell you how many times people have tried to sell me precursors.

Not here, though.

SM welcomes discussion of sourcing and the sale of chemicals. It's important for our general educational mission to promote people experimenting and doing interesting things. Particularly when it comes to the sale of rare elements and industry-only reagents like PPh3 and Me3SiCl, ordinary people can't source these things, but they make many more reactions possible.

Sourcing discussion is fundamentally incompatible with drug chemistry. Anywhere that you can sell chemicals to drug chemists is a drug market, plain and simple. You can tolerate one or the other, but not both.

SWIM - 30-5-2019 at 14:56

No money in bombs?
You just don't know the right people.

I personally saw a place making big money in illicit explosives go boom out by Oyster Point.
Judging from the blast, they must've had tons of the stuff on hand.

Then there was that house out on 19th avenue in San Francisco a few years later.
Much smaller place and less material going off, but that house was blown off its foundations.
That was an illicit commercial enterprise too. and in a row house.

Explosives are much less popular than drugs for obvious reasons, but they can be quite lucrative.

morganbw - 31-5-2019 at 13:03

Quote: Originally posted by fusso

Quote: Originally posted by DavidJR

On another thread concerning the production of a drug precursor, I pointed this out and said it looked a bit dodgy. This was the response I got:

Quote: Originally posted by Tsjerk

Can we please (again) stop the discussion about what should or should not be allowed to discuss on this forum? Again, I will quote Polverone.

Quote: Originally posted by Polverone

~~Don't tell me you're Tsjerk~~I agree that these drug synth threads should be allowed, just as P said.

And thus my ascerbic post @j_sum1

I am 64 years old, taking four medicines for heart/blood pressure. I am damn sure not a tweaker. I wish I had the health to tweak providing I had the desire, it is just not available to me at my age and health.

I still enjoy some chemistry that you and a few other will not respect.

Sulaiman - 31-5-2019 at 13:48

I occasionally enjoy reading some of the 'synth' threads,
the ingenuity and creativity and sheer knowledge amazes me,
and I have often ended up on sites such as erowid archives,
fundamental techniques and loads of great chemistry.
I can't imagine my digital footprint, but I don't really care.
Here on SM I get the feeling that there are members with direct knowledge, amongst those that have helped me, and I am grateful for that.
I have noticed that over the yers that I've been a member,
the hardcore chemistry seems to have given way to more elementary chemistry, I take some of the blame.
I hope that 'dubious' threads continue
I want as far as possible the free dissemination of knowledge,
the alternatives are bleak or bland.

j_sum1 - 31-5-2019 at 19:02

Quote: Originally posted by morganbw

Well, since we are quoting Polverone...
From the Moderator thread on drug moderation policy

Quote:

My personal rules: no SWIM or other cook-slang allowed, no questions that point to an obvious commercial interest (e.g. "how do I scale this synthesis up to 1 kg?"), and people asking questions must have shown that they put some of their own effort into answering the question first. This is to protect the forum from a flood of lazy, greedy people rather than uphold reverence for the law. After all, amateurs making explosives are on legally shaky ground but there's a whole sub-forum for it, because the profit motives that attach to drugs are not present there and do not attract the same sort of leaches.

I apply these rules more stringently depending on the degree of drug-relatedness. For example, I am not specially vigilant about phosphorus questions. Phosphorus and its derivatives have a multitude of uses and many members cannot easily purchase it. I consider asking about phosphorus no more suspicious than asking about sulfuric acid, unless the person is also SWIMing or giving other blatant clues.

At the other extreme, consider someone asking questions about the Henry reaction of benzaldehyde with nitroethane. They are inquiring about a well known method of making a compound that has few uses other than as an immediate precursor to a well known CNS-active drug. I will apply strict scrutiny, and it is not likely that the person has such novel, never-before-answered questions that they deserve an open questions thread. Most likely I would close the thread with a note like "do your own homework."

There are a couple of situations in between these extremes

There is elsewhere in the thread that moderators are going to apply their own judgement and Polverone also acknowledges (in the same post as above) that different moderators will draw the line in slightly different places.

I will reiterate the point that if you have an issue with a specific moderator decision, ask the question. No one is playing God here. We are all reasonable-minded people with the maturity to not let personal feelings stand in the way of objective facts.
If we are talking about general board policy and culture, these are deliberately a bit vague. No one wants to be a dictator here. (Nor is it a democracy where everyone's view holds the same weight.) You (morganbw) have expressed general dissatisfaction, blended with some coments about persons that are both perjorative and unwarranted. It is a hell of a lot easier to approach these things on a case by case basis and talk about specific actions rather than trying to assemble a broad set of rules. The board is not set up like that and no one wants to be in the posiotion of legal adjudicator on the minutae of complex policies.

I am going to cite a recent case which is probably he most extreme decision I have made as a moderator.

Recently there appeared an extremely well-written report on the large-scale manufacture of P2P via what I think was a novel process. The report used professionoal procedural language, was extremely detailed, included numerous photos, and in short, was an excellent piece of scientific writing. It ran to several screens and must have taken a couple of hours to type up.
The report however did not discuss mechanisms or analysis or anything that was related to theoretical chemistry. Rather it focussed entirely on product, methodology and tolerances.
A search on the posting history showed an almost exclusive focus on P2P and its manufacture. Most of this was in the form of short paragraphs in existiung threads, some of which were topically misplaced. Several members had commented either in thread or via U2U on the inappropriateness of either the posts themselves or their inclusion in those particular threads. There were allusions to commercial enterprise based on P2P manufacture. A couple of moderator warnings were issued by a couple of different mods.

When the thread appeared I hid it from view and invited the other mods to voice their opinion. I also sent a message to the OP explaining what I had done and the reasons for my concern.
The concensus was that the thread was not suitable for a combination of reasons. It remains permanently hidden.

It was strictly procedural with a product that is illegal in nearly all (all?) jurisdictions and which also has no practical use for the home chemist other than drug manufacture.
The OP showed no interest in the art and science of chemistry -- except as it served his comercial interest in an illicit trade.
If allowed to remain visible it would have been viewed purely as a recipe -- feeding into the spoonfeeding mindset that is frowned upon here.
It is likely such a thread would have attracted kewls and kooks with no interest in actual chemistry.

Legal and moral concerns were supportive of the decision made but not the reason for it.
I think we together acted in a manner consistent with what Polverone said, (quoted in this post). It might be that Polverone himself would have allowed it on the grounds of innovation and the strength of the writing itself. But he would also have supported our decision to make a call as moderators and employ our discretion.

Hopefully you can see that we are not being draconian or unreasonable. And certainly not playing God on the matter. And if you think we have made a mistake in any specific instance, please let us know. No one wants to make a mistake that impinges on freedom of speech or curtails the high standard of scientific discussion on the board.

AvBaeyer - 1-6-2019 at 06:03

The statement made above that phenylacetone (aka P2P) has no use in an amateur lab beyond making otherwise illicit materials is an astonishing profession of ignorance. It is no more than a small molecule starting material for a variety of more complex structures having no illicit potential. For example, I have made and used phenylacetone to make thiazoles and quinolines in my home lab. A search of the literature will reveal many other non-illicit uses achieveable in a home lab setting. Think beyond the small view obvious before making ignorant statements.

AvB

j_sum1 - 1-6-2019 at 06:29

Happy to be educated, AvB. My comment is based largely on things woelen has stated. And he certainly knows a lit more than me.
Realistically, how likely do you think it is that it is finding legitamite use in home labs?

Tsjerk - 1-6-2019 at 07:42

How novel was it? Now I'm interested, not that I need P2P, I could probably get it for next to nothing, I live in the Netherlands. But did it have a novel mechanism or a novel work-up?

AvBaeyer - 1-6-2019 at 08:20

j-sum1,
Realistically, I think far too many people interested in phenylacetone (as well as certain nitrostyrenes) have an unhealthy interest in amphetamine-like compounds as end products for "self-medication", etc. Most of this is relatively easy to pick out based on obvious chemical ignorance. However, for an interested few, phenethylamines are critical intermediates in the synthesis of isoquinolines and other heterocycles. These types of compounds can be accessed in a home lab setting with a bit of knowledge.

Tsjerk,
I think you might be asking about my synthesis route to phenylacetone? It is not novel, just long and based on published chemistry beginning with phenylalanine which is converted first to phenylacetonitrile. This first reaction I posted some time ago on this board. The rest of the synthesis sequence will be obvious to anyone with a reasonable level of organic chemistry knowledge though some of the reagents may be considered "exotic." Enough said as this is a discussion not related to the topic at hand.

AvB

Herr Haber - 1-6-2019 at 08:58

Quote: Originally posted by AvBaeyer

The statement made above that phenylacetone (aka P2P) has no use in an amateur lab beyond making otherwise illicit materials is an astonishing profession of ignorance. It is no more than a small molecule starting material for a variety of more complex structures having no illicit potential. For example, I have made and used phenylacetone to make thiazoles and quinolines in my home lab. A search of the literature will reveal many other non-illicit uses achieveable in a home lab setting. Think beyond the small view obvious before making ignorant statements.

AvB

THIS is interesting and I suppose no thread with that kind of use in mind would get closed.
Please do feel free to open / point me to a thread because I was also curious as to what other uses nitroethane / P2P might have and every source I found mentioned amphetamines and not much else.

I know nitromethane does amazing things on permanent inks, I suppose nitroethane does the same but that's about it

Pumukli - 1-6-2019 at 12:32

Interesting thread.

I don't think any of the mods have problems with god-like complexes, they moderate the forums fairly well.

On the other hand j_sum1: believe it or not, when I was looking for possible candidates for my decarbox catalyst experiments I considered P2P as a good one, because of its similarity to acetophenone! Then I realised that it was a forbidden substance

What a pity.

I can't resist but quote you: "how likely do you think it is that it is finding legitamite use in home labs?"
Errm, were you talking about TATP? Or RDX, HMX, ETN, PETN, etc?

What are their legitimate home lab uses besides making explosions or worse?
I'm especially angry at TATP because after the latest western european terror attack (Lyons, France, last week, 13 injured) I heard in the local news that traces of TATP had been found at the scene. It means another blow to our hobby. In every aspect (law, accessibility of chems, public opinion).

So a deliberate cookery report should be suspended. Regardless of the end product, be it any of the above mentioned acronyms!
And actually, I feel that recipes in the EM thread pose a more serious threat to the forum in the long run than anything else.

But this starts to get off topic.
On topic: the mods do their job pretty well.