It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Whistle Blower Protocol for ATS

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 11:15 PM
reply to post by antar

That is part of my confusion as well. I cannot tell if we are focusing on whistleblowers or hoaxers here.

If we want to create a way to differentiate and add credence to someone who is considered a "whistleblower", why not have a way to vet their credentials to a Super Mod or something, and then apply a tag to their profile (like the "document archivist" or "subject matter expert" tags). Would this not allow them to be protected and given credibility by site owership as verified "whistleblower"?

This may not be what some want....who knows. I know a couple on here that certainly don't want to be idenfitied. But they don't really make remarkable claims without a lot of support (eye witness testimony, if you will).

If you want an easier way to call out and "clobber" hoaxers, i say let the membership be the police. We are a pretty savvy, fair, and reasonable bunch (with some exceptions, obviously).

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 11:22 PM
There will still be those who start hoax threads in the regular forums. These people, in my opinion, are open to the regular actions of the forum. That's the poster's choice. If someone is looking for smoother seas, then new place is there for them.

Just my take on what is being proposed.

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 11:28 PM
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

That is part of my confusion as well. I cannot tell if we are focusing on whistleblowers or hoaxers here.

I think that one may easily become the other. It seems, in fact, the majority of potential whistleblowers are, in reality, hoaxers. I do understand that we have to be careful not to throw out the baby with the wash water, but I guess I have a hard time believing that ATS would be the first, or subsequent, stop for a whistleblower with potential earth-shaking information. Would most people go to a group of people that they know nothing about and spill "their guts" about such issues? Who did "Deep Throat" go to? Don't you think that would be a better choice? Just my opinion.

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 11:49 PM

Originally posted by roadgravel
The privilege access is interesting but it opens the door for only a select group to gain access, a popularity contest, etc. I am flashing to thoughts of our political process through representatives.

Yeah, I see your point. Then there's always the "first to cry hoax" star factor too. They tend to rack up quite a few, and often with only a "hit & run" post. I havn't gone through and done any official count, but I'd imagine that those who are consistantly posting thought-out responses are racking up more total stars, in a thread, even if it's just 2-3 here and there.

Originally posted by roadgravel
Seems like questions based on their own merit would be good enough.

Very true.

I'm glad to say that it seems like all of the hypothetical systems mentioned have ways of getting those to the "WB". I'm merely trying to brainstorm methods that would keep general members as involved as possible. I think there's far too much baggage attached to the idea of severing the direct general member-to-source relationship entirely.

[edit on 3/30/08 by redmage]

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 12:24 AM
a few points i'd like to add.

a discussion forum should never discourage people from posting ideas or claims. As a conspiracy theory site we will always get people posting everything from the most ludicrous to the most truthfull, its up to us (the members) to decide for OURSELVES, as individuals, if they are full of it or not.

2) i strongly disagree with having the moderator team check out peoples credentials just because they posted something thats a bit too "out there" for most to grasp.
- mods do not have access to find out if they work for some super secret underground rail system, " S4" or even the local butcher shop, so this idea is pointless and stinks of "big brother" style techniques while doubting every major post.

basically you are painting everyone with the same "hoax until proven as truth" brush.
what ever happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty?

the only way you could tell if they worked at some secret division is if YOU TOO worked there. do the mods work in every secret division of EVERY secret govt world wide? of course not, so how can YOU prove if they did/didnt work there?

- it also makes people feel like they have to expose their identity and prove themselves to a group of wannabe conspiracy detectives who doubt everyone unless they prove otherwise (no offence to the mods intended, but thats exactly what it is)

if member A claims to have worked on an underground, cross-planet light speed rail system and member B claims to be able to contact and see spirits, and member C says they are an angel/god/alien/reptile, and member D claims to have been part of a 9/11 coverup, what is the difference exactly that makes member A or D get put under a microscope compared to the others?
they are all making wild, baseless, unprovable yet undeniable claims, so why judge them seperately.

personally, i see nothing wrong with just letting them post as per every other member.

conclusion: if you put something in place to put posters of wild claims under heavy scrutiny + immediate "guilty of hoaxing until they prove their innocent + truthfulness", then it should be done wide spread across every forum and every crazy topic posted within the forum.

let us decide for ourselves, so my view is to leave it be.

people should be free to post their most ludicrous stories as they always have done, if you think its BS you dont have to reply you can let it slide off the page into the abyss.

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 02:14 AM

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

That is part of my confusion as well. I cannot tell if we are focusing on whistleblowers or hoaxers here.

I think that one may easily become the other. It seems, in fact, the majority of potential whistleblowers are, in reality, hoaxers. I do understand that we have to be careful not to throw out the baby with the wash water, but I guess I have a hard time believing that ATS would be the first, or subsequent, stop for a whistleblower with potential earth-shaking information. Would most people go to a group of people that they know nothing about and spill "their guts" about such issues? Who did "Deep Throat" go to? Don't you think that would be a better choice? Just my opinion.

I agree with the above but would also like to keep this in mind that the above may not consider...

It's easier to cover your tracks via the internet, so for a savvy whistle blower this might seem a good opportunity to do it here at ATS.

Just a possibility, I think it would make sense as said before to say that we could consider the “opportunity” aspect, so this way we are providing a chance for someone to do it and also developing a method where we can reduce a hoax at the sometime. I think some consideration should be given to providing the opportunity as well.

Who knows one of you could be a future whistle blower and because ATS had a system in place you could always create a new ID and let the secret out that way, at least you would know where to go and where someone would be listening. Or someone in your family could be a whislte blower and you could share it with us.

I think we could look at it this way,

Do we want to provide the opportunity --> Yes, then lets move on and discuss the best way to do it.

If no, then lets only discuss that we want to stop whistle blowing hoaxers and discuss that.

If no --> we'll what a waste of time.

Else we do both and keep discussing both aspects as it seems that is exactly what we've been doing here.

Just trying to help make this as easy and quick as possible. The clearer we are on what it is that we want to do, the easier it'll be on how we can do it.

I hope this helps.

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 04:29 AM
Good thread NGC.. S&F

I would like to offer my opinion, which is based on expanding the parallel thread idea.

When whistleblowers wish to post on ATS they have to submit their opening post WITH evidence to the staff. I say with evidence because we are talking about people that are making extraordinary claims. This process will do two things, stop the hoaxers bothering to post and encourage the whistleblowers who have something to say, knowing that are being taken seriously.

The staff then create two threads with the work submitted, one for the skeptics and one for the believers. As an ATS member you then decide which thread to post in, once chosen you cannot post in the other thread, but you can reply to the people posting in the other thread in your thread.

Example: If im in the skeptic thread and NGC is the believers thread I would write in the skeptic thread

Reply to NGC (believers thread) then stating the page number.

then copy & paste the text, (if needed) then write my reply.

This is a little more work on our part because we have to keep track of both threads, but it should cut out the name calling and also stop people attacking the OP. Also the OP can respond to questions from the two threads by replying in both.

I also think this will make skeptics think more carefully about what questions they ask, if they do insult the OP then he / she wont respond to their questions. So a constructive view point is needed.

Anyway just something to throw into the mix.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 06:53 AM
reply to post by Solarskye

I like intrepids idea......

Once again IT SOUNDS GOOD,but it isnt good as we can all see.No we need a new system here,NGC's idea was good.heck even the whistleblower button is good.

On a sidenote to kosmicjak:To your reply to the new member who created a hoax thread on purpose.I understand whee BOTH of you are coming from,but kosmic,lets not make members feel like their input isnt wanted-even if that wasnt your intent it can sem like it(I know cause sometimes it feels like older members kinda "disregard"new members ideas or statements)

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 07:00 AM
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

I actually just started a thread that explains topics like you asked,you can see the link on my signiture"why ats will nver find the truth".IMO "innocent till proven guilty"died along time ago,it might still be around but its on life support.

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 07:17 AM
reply to post by jkrog08

I can't be more clear...I stated very plainly that his comments where appreciated. Period. Elaborating that one of that member's threads is exactly the issue we are dealing with is relevant when considering his points. Read the link. IMO, comments in response to mine have been far less productive and no one is squawking about that, nor should they be.

Anyone may u2u me so that this thread is not further derailed.

[edit on 31/3/08 by kosmicjack]

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:56 AM
I find this a very good idea, I brought up a hint to this direction in my post on "How deep the rabbit hole goes" back on the 29th.

post by icblue

For any future "whistleblower" who would claim to have inside knowledge and who would want to be taken halfways seriously, IMHO this would be the way to do it.
- Prepare all your stuff offline
- Register
- Contact an admin, give credentials (implies you trust admin and site - if not don't come here), ask for extra upload space for documents, pictures etc.
- After confirmation by admin, upload your data and get the hell out of here.
- Any future contacts should be made by middle-man admin who could then also vouch for your honesty based on the given credentials.

Offer any "whistleblower" two roads to take : the high one - requesting before hand identification and justification which then adds a max to his credibility. (maybe in seperate forum aswell)
or the low one - where he can post whatever he thinks he must and sets him out to the possibility of immediate skeptical scrutiny by all of the community.

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:59 AM
As a former Federal civil servant, I can tell you that it's not that easy to actually blow the whistle. If you do pilfer documents, you can face legal consequences if the release is tracked back to you. Any leads given to ATS investigators wiould have to be FOIA-related.

Your hypothetical whistle blower would have to tell somebody where to find the information. Then, your ATS investigator would have to go through the FOIA filing process. Trouble is, that could involve some blowback from the government. If a Federal agency wants to know why you're asking for those documents, they can and will ask...not nicely.

If you ask for anything that ends up being heavily redacted, you will most certainly draw that kind of attention.

Are their ways around that? Yes, but they can't be discussed here for reasons on T&C, and the obvious legal CYA.

[edit on 31-3-2008 by Justin Oldham]

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 10:39 AM

Originally posted by more_serotonin_pls
kinda -

I was think more that is someone has something soooo worthy that they hit the whistleblower button beofer putting it out to the rest of us, so there are no issues over creds, etc...

I, for one, would trust it if the 3 amigos said - yep - this is who they say they are....

Agreed. However for checks and balances there should be a member board comprised of "experts" in the subject who have proved reliable in the past with their questions/posting/threads and documentation (links and such) regarding say aliens or whatever.

I say this because the ATS site owners/administrators/moderators are members here as well- and by spreading the risk they can participate and facilitate at the same time- otherwise their decisions could place them on a "pedestal" and be barraged with skeptics/debunker/and just plain buttheads. Yes, it would serve the whistleblowers from the brunt- but places our friends and trusted servants on the chopping block.

This member board would be confidential and the members must not reveal who they are to the rest of us or lose their seat. A nomination process followed by an election by us little folks could take place and the final nominees could be decided by the ATS staff. This would allow newbies and other very smart and experienced ATS members a chance so it is not just limited to people who have been around for a ling time....blah, blah,blah and it would motivate many to get more involved.

Dictatorships have been proven failures in governments and I strongly feel we and ATS have an opportunity to create a working, functional example of democracy which is rooted in truth, facts and open to opinion.

My idea is less complicated than it sounds and there are more than enough members to carry this off.

I love the hoax button- it is a great idea in theory- but this also invites sensitive button pushers to hijack bandwidth over an even unrelated subject. Possibly this button could be programmed to be available (active) only after a certain period of time, postings, comments, points whatever- the final approval and acceptance of accessing the HOAX command comes from final approval of the member board and ATS staff.

Sharing the responsibility of the burden of truth/proof among us by earning the respect of our peers will be a successful deterrent for hoaxers. It could lead to banning and/or a 100 most wanted hoaxers hall of shame- where their profile (now non-active) can be viewed and all of their postings could be accessed so the little peeps can read all of things not be on ATS. This would also help members to become more educated "civil" police and could report nasty activities with greater accuracy- thus ensuring a safer environment for everyone of us.

Just a thought.

[edit on 31-3-2008 by dk3000]

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 10:53 AM
IMHO a whistle blower protocol or special forum would just result in an endless amount of hoaxes. It will be counter productive. A committee of members evaluating posts will be like a communist nation restricting the media from being free.

ATS is a based on free speech, so whistle blowers should be treated like the rest of us. Special treatement can only result in hoaxers abusing it as a attention seeking device.

We are all able to post in confidence.

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 11:00 AM
The thread below is exactly why this issue needs to be dealt with as soon as possible.'

Threads that are actually trying to alert us to something or educate and inform us are getting lost in the minutiae of absurd, sad or prank postings. One can only hear the cry of "Wolf" so many times before you just blow it off. Unless ATS deals with the issue, it will not be taken seriously in the world of CT or Alt news.

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 11:02 AM
Excellent work people. Slowly, as should be, we are building a structure describing what we want/need and the varied ways to get that with the least wasted time and effort, and the least "bloodshed" on the boards.

I realize, because some of you have pointed it out
, that we need to better define our goals here.

Does this cover it?

1) Provide a means for WBs (Whistle Blowers) to air their information with the least amount of direct criticism (within a given time frame).

2) Provide as much transparency as possible for everyone to read and discuss the information in real time as is possible.

3) Provide a means for WBs to authenticate, at least to some degree, their 'bona fides'. ( And a method of assuring confidentiality of this information.)

4) Keep the system as simple as humanly possible.

This brings us to where we need to define, using the above guidelines, how best to accomplish this. We have the option, hypothetically, of arranging things however best suits the needs of the members and public as well as the WB . So, do we:

A) Remain with the system as it now stands, simply urging members to show restraint in "naysaying" the WB right out of the gate?

B) Modify the existing system in some (few) minor ways to insure that the "insult factor" is kept to a very minimum, (heavy/harsher modding) for a set period of time, yet retain the complete open access and involvement of all members?

C) Design a new WB system that works with keeping the WB simi-isolated for a period of time (to be determined)?

Faced with these choices, and please add anything you feel I have overlooked, the question becomes how far do we go in changing, if fat all, the methods used in these cases? Do we remain with the basic "free-for-all" now in place, or go to the opposite extreme where we put up a well advertised "Whistle Blower Drop Box" where the WB could anonymously leave material to be later digested by the community?

Also we have to keep in mind the constraints of complicated coding and oversight, no matter where we go within these perimeters.

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 11:40 AM
My suggestion:

Create a separate forum for "whistleblower" or "disclosure" threads. This forum would be locked for New Posts except by ATS Staff/Mods and accounts that have been verified by ATS Staff/Mods.

Allow 1 new Topic to be posted per-verified account.

Example: I want to start a post stating that my wife is a reptilian grey who belongs to the Tri-lateral commission.

Current method : start a post(s) on any given forum here. Evade answering any direct questions, refuse to post any proof or evidence and continue to reply using vague references and unintelligible acronyms and metophors.

Proposed method:
- Contact ATS Staff/Mods using a shiny new "Whistleblower" button on the main page.
- Agree to pre-determined TOS (Terms of Service) as set forth by the staff.
- Staff provides Whistleblower (WB) user account/login
- WB account can only start 1 topic in a designated Whistleblower forum.
- WB account can reply to the topic they created, but no others.
- Normal user accounts cannot start topics in this forum but CAN reply to ones.

This would help in keeping an identity to each topic created so threads don't get derailed as well as would help in self-moderation to some extent.

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 12:22 PM
Good Thread.. Thus I thought I would come in and offer my voice.

What is proof? And how can an illusion show another illusion something to proove that an illusion is real? Im cutting down to the bottom line here and telling you all that I have learned in my years. We are only illusions, in the minds of ourselfs. You will either belive or you wont. You will have seen the universe for what it is or what it isnt. No picture or video will make or break my feelings about this universe.
A person that comes along and has higher knowledge will know these things and not try to hoax. They will simply understand its all an illusion, and there is no point in trying to show other illusions an illusion of this so called proof. I personally have been seeking the answers to all this, and lose much sleep over who and what I am. When it comes down to it, I am but the ocean of the minds. I am not this body in which I exp this 3rd dimension, its only a computer shell which allows my mind to pick up the energy patterns of this matrix. Im plugged in, and so are you, but you are not the body that sits and reads this. You are part of me, and I am part of you. I am, there for I am. All that is, is just that. It is.
And there is no proof. There is only truth.
And what is truth? Its love.. And love is the only truth in this world.
Everything else is an illusion.

Prehaps this little picture will help drive my point home.

Do you see optical, or illusion?
Do you see good, or evil?

[edit on 31-3-2008 by zysin5]

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 12:29 PM
reply to post by zysin5

Ah, but even the illusion has rules and order, else it is called chaos.

While an adept may know the totality of truth and wisdom from the simple hum of the planet, we mere mortals still need to grope through the darkness as best we can, I'm for finding all the flashlights I can to beat back the inky night. (Until I well and truly become self luminous.

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 12:39 PM
reply to post by NGC2736

Right, and the Masons code is to bring Order to chaos. So prehaps those who plan on blowing the whistle will just be frank with us. Cut threw the crap, and just do what they plan on doing.
Like instead of making chaos they bring order to their post right off the bat.
Like instead of making 3-5 posts, all saying, watch for tommorow to be continued.

The dragging along in chaos is what most the problem is.
Either blow the whistle, or dont blow the whistle!

Do or do not.. There is no try! ~ yoda

Sorry for my out there answer to this.. But its tricky really.. And I do admire this site, and those who can spot a hoax from afar. Its good to know that things wont get played off on here, and we wont be used as play toys for those seeking revenge.

So I guess we have to be firm with these folks.. They will either want to share, or they will want to drag us along, into choas.

<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in