I think it's somewhat of a wide scoped answer. There's really no cut and dry definitive criteria. There's been discussion on this years back about what actually constitutes being a SM. What I've gathered from it all, and somewhat of my own opinions on the whole thing:
- A person that's been a long standing member (though this doesn't always apply it seems, as there's a few members here that are relatively new and they became SMs)
- Continually active on the forums in some area/s or another, which this in and of itself lends to them being a valuable asset. Knowledge, experience, etc, and with this - helping out new members, or even current members.
There's several SMs here that are still active as far as logging into the forum goes, though they barely if ever post on the forum. A few of them just strictly go into chat and decide not to contribute to the forum, not sure why that is. Idk, I think you should at least be somewhat active with contributing to the actual forum.
I know this had been mentioned before in discussion, and it might seem silly to some, but this site is the 'DMT' nexus, (I realize 'entheogenic university' is a broad scope term and can encompass more than just DMT), look at the old standing 'about' page for this forum.
Now I know that these are just one person's opinion, but there's several SMs here that have barely (or not) have even taken or worked with DMT. That's one thing that I never entirely understood. Not throwing shade at them, as ultimately it's a group decision on who becomes SM and who doesn't, with Trav being the final nail in the coffin.
I know this DMT bit was mentioned years back by member joedirt, and I agree with him in that area. Trav did make a good point though after that in saying that it can be a good thing to have long standing folks of the forum that haven't taken or worked with DMT and from that being consequently more grounded, potentially, than say someone who might've taken DMT for a number of years but could be real far out on a limb as far as thought, nonrationality, etc goes (though I understand very well that the DMT experience at sufficient levels completely defies rationality and logic, both those things seem extremely peripheral). I see Travs point though, understandable. Though I still stand by my opinion/s on that.
But with that said, SMs can come from a variety of angles (cacti, other tryptamines, LSD, growing of various plants, etc), so I'm not saying that having worked with DMT be some end-all-be-all as a prerequisite, but I think it should be strongly considered given the nature of the forum and alot of what the new members post - either regarding insight or help with their own experiences, or questions on extraction/s, efficient administration of DMT, methodology, etc. I'll even add that it should maybe be considered that SMs be somewhat seasoned with at least the classical psychedelics and the experiences of them.
A variety of angles, mods/sm's decision, with trav being the final piece.
Again, not throwing shade, just speaking my mind. Love u all
