New "credibility" idea for your account

I got a question about providing evidence to add something to your account that would give you better credibility when it comes to your background. Sorta like the way some are listed as Mods, members, writers, etc.

Because of certain laws that would limit some from speaking about what they do or did, this would have to be something that is public knowledge that you can share with the members if you decided to. Like prior/current military/gov't employment, or the current clearance you have or what you held in the past.

I know that many question what some post and without having hundreds of posts/replies, a public or otherwise well known following, it is tough for them to be looked at as trustworthy source of info. So how can we help the average member who isn't a celebrity, sorry to use that term but you get what I mean, get credit for something they really have knowledge about?

This is where anything public can be used to help. Let this site add something to their account listing them as having certain proven factors that would give them more clout when posting. I would rather hear from someone who has a clearance or was in the gov't when it comes to many topics. So many are armchair generals or say they worked someplace and have no way to prove it physically. I'm sure that some sort of agreement would have to be written up that expresses this to become public knowledge and will not harm national security of any country.

I have nothing to hide other then the normal privacy act stuff that all US citizens should keep private. While there are things that I won't talk about, there are things that I can talk about and I, along with other members, have a way better background to discuss then other members. This is the main point of all this, to have a real way of letting everyone know that you have been checked out and you are legit.

It is an idea and i'm not trying to make or break anyone on this board. We all read the T&C of this board and know that posting false info is a no no, so this will help keep bad info from appearing since you would have been checked out. It adds to your posts instead of taking away just because you are new or don't post that much.

How this will happen is up to the owners and that is if they think this little addition to each member's profile would be worth it. Let me know what you think since I have a hard time trusting some of the stuff that some people say they have seen or done. Sorta like a background check to help weed out the liars from those who might know something. That is if those who have something to show for are even interested in this idea.

But what about those of us who don't have a security clearance, or, in fact, are not even US citizens? There are some people who aren't yanks you know.

I don't want to spend ages putting effort into something, only to have it dismissed because I have never worked for the military-industrial complex or stepped inside the Pentagon.

This site is, and I believe should remain, a place where anyone can present their ideas without prejudice against them. Anyone can start on a clean slate here, and anyone can reply with any opinion. As soon as you start fingering people with more credibility, then that all goes out the window.

Plus, it's also probably illegal and I'm sure the admin would not want the responsibility of keeping a list of people with security clearances and whatnot.

Originally posted by NJ Mooch
How this will happen is up to the owners and that is if they think this little addition to each member's profile would be worth it.

While it would be interesting to have a methodology that provides increased personal credibility... such a system would conflict with our Privacy Policy.

I think it's more important to be vigilant about the privacy of our members... and rely on the reader to make their own judgments about the integrity of a member's contributions.

Just on each post have a 'credible' option an 'incredible' option and a 'not credible' option. Have people show their tallies on their posts. Stroppy individual bombardment may be a problem.......

Let us not forget that having some past, or current, clearance is no guarantee of reliability. The world is full of high placed liars.

Nor does it matter that one has a string of letters to append to their name. There are just as many nutcases in academia as elsewhere, and sometimes more.

These pages are for you, gentle reader, to look at and decide. You do not have the ease of others to decide for you. If you have dared to come this far, then dare to throw off the yoke of letting others do your thinking. Evaluate each claim on the merit of what is presented, not who has the "backing" to talk the loudest.

Deny Ignorance! But do so with your own voice.

Edit to add: Many can claim to be great because of the paper trail that they have left in their wake. I prefer the truth, even from the mouth of an ass.

[edit on 6-8-2007 by NGC2736]

[edit on 6-8-2007 by NGC2736]

The ability and right to be anonymous is an underlying principle of the freedom of speech.

i can see the validity of the idea from the OP but i kind of see it as a waste of time and the privacy issue is kind of important in this.

i have always looked at it this way using myself as an example.

ive claimed many times to be an expert in military demolitions and other WMD's and have posted data relevant to that. but im always careful to post things in such a way that anyone that doubts me can verify it.

so for example i post that C4 has an RE factor of 1.34 you can look it up if you doubt me. IF what i post checks out, then does it matter if i am really who i claim to be? facts speak louder than claims IMO.

besides, ive also offered many times that if someone really wanted me vetted they could have a mod or one of the sysadmins contact me via u2u and id provide whatever they wanted to vet me, and im sure others would be willing to do so as well because then your info doesnt have to be posted, youd just need whoever checked your story out to post "hey he/she is legit" or "BS artist".

but does anyone have to go that far? let what you say speak for itself, credibility much like respect should be earned.

Thank you for the replies.

I have thought about some of the opinions that you posted and I have no rejection to any of them since they are all correct. I find it hard to trust anyone, regardless of clearance or background, but I thought that it would help out. Going against the privacy of this site is something I don't want to do or promote. How I missed that fact is something I have to figure out since I thought you can post what you wanted on this site if it wasn't illegal. I think I have to add "as long as it doesn't go against the privacy of the members on this site" to my way of thinking, that is something I can easily handle.

The 3 Amigos are here to protect the member's privacy and I hope that is what Skeptic meant with his post, if not i'm really lost...lol

Letting the reader's make up their own minds can be manipulated and I think that has happened to some on this site from constant reading of members who are stuck in a set way of thinking without being able to change. Controlling the public is a game played by many big companies as well as gov'ts and there is no way to deny that, but I thought about taking some of that control away from those who might have more influence on the public that use this forum.

I hope that made sense since I know the public is always being pushed in one direction or another no matter what they might think is going on. For all I know I was setup to post something like this from the variables that I have witnessed in my life. What can you do other then ask when you have an idea that seems ok at the time.

I have a hard time, like I said above, to trust people. This site is full of people with some creative minds, some realistic while others are not. Helping to find the truth is what I was after, but that can be manipulated no matter the source.

I can safely say that I have met or talked to some of the people who may have some influence over members on this site. I know they are not trying to control anyone, but helping the members have an open mind is something that they all promote. That makes me happy.

So it's time to let this thread sleep since I already got enough info from those who posted to make up my mind. Funny how easy that was to do.

This is a conspiracy site.
By definition, those who work for the government are extremely suspect-disinformation.......

As for something about people choosing weather a post is legit or not, like our star system, will turn into a popularity contest and do nothing but bring ATS one step closer to being like GLP-something to be avoided at all costs.(imo)

Lol typical people. We fall for credibility all the time. Bush tells you one thing...do you believe it? Hes credible, christ, hes the president of the united states of america. Thats credibility is it? We sure are an awesome breed of sheep

I could easily state that I work for a classified government department with high security clearance whilst in reality being a junior office clerk for an insurance company; it's impossible to verify one's alleged "credibility".

Surely, it's the strength of reasoning and quality of supportable evidence that help give credibility to a particular opinion / theory etc.

As a relative newcomer to ATS I have swiftly learnt to treat each individual post on it's own merits; one good post does not mean that all subsequent post's will be equally informed or reasoned, and vice versa.

Besides which, isn't the annonymity of ATS part of it's attraction?

Originally posted by NJ Mooch
... better credibility when it comes to your background....

Fortunately we can rely on the deductive powers of a LARGE percentage of ATS members when it comes to question anothers credibility.

Placing too much value on status in the employment area is a very very dangerous way to go and could lead to an environment for deliberate misinfo agents..
eg
"There are no such things as Black Op programs involving trillions of dollars... I should know cuz I,m the President .." ..for instance..

I think the whole debating process establishes whether or not credibility is awarded.

For me personally,I look for signs like a basic knowledge of punktuashun/'.speling,
Timing of the posts after a tricky question during an online debate.. Ie, have they just ran off to google an answer they should know if they are who they claim to be.
Coherence.. do they seem to randomly change subject mid-sentence from rocket science to .." Ooo look. there,s a dog outside hehe."

I also check out location in relation to knowledge presented in conjunction with their mastery of the English language.It speaks volumes.
I am constantly embarrassed buy Non-English speaking members presenting a well written and informative piece which is then replied to in 'txt speak' and what seems to be deliberate derisery remarks.

It's a learning process but good practise for real life 'people situations too'


..Off Topic quick rant..
Using "Would of..." is a VERY FAST credibility destroyer.
It only sounds like 'OF' because of the shortened 'Would've'.... (VE),
"would have" ... 'have' being past tense
Now stop it.. You know who you are../RANT OFF
(Couldn't find Mech32's 'Would have' rant thread.