It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TXRabbit
 



Originally posted by TXRabbit
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) [Anonymous emphasis added by KJ] 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.


Excellent plan. Thanks.


[edit on 31/3/08 by kosmicjack]




posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by dk3000

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.


How do you define an expert for some of this new territory? I can see some one good at research or knows about military organization or scientific method. All useful but no one can really say they are an expert at ET lifeforms, etc.

May be we would be limiting the pool of skills and thinking.


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.


The board is some of those members who ran for election. I suspect that most see a closed door except for what is released is just more of what we have in the world today. Unless all material is open to review but then is the approach not open to something being missed by the board?



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I still feel that a limit (ie: minimum points to participate) on who can reply to this forum would ensure that we don't have as many pranksters and bullys. However, I know this is not PC since soooo many new accounts are generated in response to sensational threads.

I guess this is where ATS has to decide which road it wants to travel down. Fewer limits on content draws more new members which means more money. Clearly defined parameters and oversight for dealing with whistleblowers, pranksters and trolls means more credibility.

I don't envy the decision makers but I do hope they will opt for authenticity in a world full of hype.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


Remaining free from censorship is a fine line with what you propose and that seems to be one of the reasons that I personally love this forum, the respect of not being censored. I do not envy the mods for the monumental task of placing threads in the appropriate forums rather than censoring.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by antar
 


You can feel better about your poor overworked mods by sending cases of cold beer. U2Us will follow with shipping addresses.


Seriously, censorship is not an option that I think would ever be considered. Some form of limiting direct contact with a WB might, as long as it was done in an open way, where members could see it working.

Just saying.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel

Originally posted by dk3000

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.


How do you define an expert for some of this new territory? I can see some one good at research or knows about military organization or scientific method. All useful but no one can really say they are an expert at ET lifeforms, etc.

May be we would be limiting the pool of skills and thinking.


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.


The board is some of those members who ran for election. I suspect that most see a closed door except for what is released is just more of what we have in the world today. Unless all material is open to review but then is the approach not open to something being missed by the board?


Experts would be defined by their impartial communication skills regarding a subject and based on their history/postings in showing and proving their less emotional responses. Of course this would definitely count me out!!!!

I do understand that this could bring on contest/election dissension which is why its has not been instituted yet. I doubt the originality of my suggestion and I don't know how best to achieve it either. If I did- I would probably be running my own site!

Details and implementation should be left for "cooler" heads than mine.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Why not just add one of those niffty little electronic taggs to the top of the post that simply states (HOXER) or (LEGIT) in BIG RED letters. And this way ATS doesn't have to remove the post but the community can vote one time ONLY that this story is Legit or not and that tag stays on ATS so everyone kinda knows whats up with the idiots who tryed to pass gas so to speak? This way we as a communtity police it's self. And who ever is hoaxing then will get tired of getting red flagged for hoaxing and the problem takes care of it's self.

Edit: Offensive content removed.

[edit on 31-3-2008 by intrepid]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsloan
So why not just add one of those niffty little electronic taggs to the top of the post that simply states (HOXER) or (LEGIT) in BIG RED letters. And this way ATS doesn't have to remove the post but the community can vote one time ONLY that this story is Legit or not and that tag stays on ATS so everyone kinda knows whats up with the idiots who tryed to pass gas so to speak? This way we as a communtity police it's self. And who ever is hoaxing then will get tired of getting red flagged for hoaxing and the problem takes care of it's self.


Digg dot com has tried this and it does not deter the douche's in question. This requires a bit more application and the support of the "experts" who learned to just ignore and avoid these creepy people.

My suggestions was to some how corral these members- who would stop by the thread and hit a hot button like you mentioned- this would indicate to newer or inexperienced members that PROCEED WITH CAUTION is in effect.

Diggers report this story may not be accurate has turned into a mess because any digger who can amass enough friend support to click the button can deny credible information and this leads truth further away and into the hands of the douche tards you mentioned.

Edit: Offensive content removed from quoted material.

[edit on 31-3-2008 by intrepid]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


Now, i do believe that is the best way to do it, i dont think that a specific forum would help that much, perhaps....
But the thing is to keep the poster anon while s/he is whistling his/her song


If anyone serious comes along, and they wish to share their knowledge i'm certain that the owners will help this fella as much as they can.
But i do think that if the poster wish to be taken seriously they should send some sort of credentials that could, in one way or other be certiefied as genuin.

Let the hoaxers come... The ATS members will handle them

The genuin ones, we leave to the three A's.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
LETTING HOAXERS PERPITRATE HOAXES-thus downing ATS's credibility and distracting us from the real truth.I personally didnt come to ATS to hear short sci/fi stories,did you?


I disagree. All is an illusion founded upon words. If you want truth, you can only find it within your own mind.

Certain tools can be used to unlock that truth contained within... reporting on actual events is one of those ways one man can convey truth to another.

However,

"hoaxing" a supposed event, through either science or political fiction, is another means for one man to convey truth to another and to draw attention to real issues related to the said hoax.

Regardless of what the "C2C Drone" really was; I learned something about society, technology, and life through that thread....

Did you not?

And what of the Orchard Sun?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Was the Debka Report a hoax? Does it matter? What if it was found to be the "truth" in 20 years... does it matter then?

Sometimes the same truth can be conveyed with a well placed hoax, as would have filled an encyclopaedia of precisely documented facts.

Sometimes what is truth now becomes known as "lies" in the future.

I say, so what if pokeman is a hoax; pokeman was a message.

Sri Oracle



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsloan
why not just add one of those niffty little electronic taggs to the top of the post that simply states (HOXER) or (LEGIT) in BIG RED letters. And this way ATS doesn't have to remove the post but the community can vote one time ONLY that this story is Legit or not and that tag stays on ATS so everyone kinda knows whats up with the idiots who tryed to pass gas so to speak? This way we as a communtity police it's self.



I would prefer the ability to tag BS posts with a "black star" the same way you can tag a good post with a "blue star"... this way each member could reprimand as well as applaud; a middle path towards community policing.

That said, the greatest truth may then be hidden behind black stars.

The masses are the untruth.

Its funny how all of this mirrors government.

Should we be able to vote directly on each truth or hoax?
Should we be able to vote on the credibility of each member?
Or should we have a board of moderators to ban untruthful members on our behalf?
Should we elect a Supreme Leader to declare what truth is?
Should we have a board of Judges?
Perhaps 2 representatives from each class year of ATS membership should vote as to whether each new thread is a hoax.

I've got it... we'll have the representatives decide which truths need to be reassessed, we'll let the judges do the assesing, and then allow our supreme leader partial veto power, pending a community vote of those who have been members at least 3 months.

free your mind, the rest will follow


in truth I am,

Sri Oracle - sovereign

[edit on 31-3-2008 by Sri Oracle]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by antar
Remaining free from censorship is a fine line with what you propose and that seems to be one of the reasons that I personally love this forum, the respect of not being censored. I do not envy the mods for the monumental task of placing threads in the appropriate forums rather than censoring.


I find from time to time when one of my threads is moved from one forum to another it can be a form of censorship in and of itself.

Perhaps I wanted the people in the Medical Conspiracy forum to listen to an article which moreso belongs within the category of Fragile Earth; but carries Medical Conspiracy overtones. Perhaps I placed it there, purposefully to extend my audience; in so conveying truth that would otherwise be missed.

Why should one individual moderator have the power to police my words into a given category? Perhaps that ONE moderator does not see the sublime undertone of a medical conspiracy in the otherwise fragile earth subject. And now... because of that change of forum... that sublime undertone is lost.

Moderation moves me around all the time, and I don't like it. The last thread I wrote about Ron Paul got pulled from US politics and dumped into "candidate advocacy"... Even though I do not advocate voting for anyone and I consider an individual's "candidacy" trivial when compared to their message... I do not myself participate in the voting process; I write. And I pay attention to the Wizard behind the curtain of Oz.

Sri Oracle



[edit on 31-3-2008 by Sri Oracle]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I do agree highly on one point many have made, and I will come down to earth for a moment and share that here.
I think if someone is going to come out with something so big. They should have a few posts under their belt. And be somewhat known to us.
These posters who make an account and their first post is the most amazing tale, it just tells me its a hoax 99.99% of the time.

So I just suggest that if you are going to blow the whistle, why not build up some rep here so we know you are not playing games. Also before posting send your info to Springer, or a Mod that could help you define your story, and validate it, check it out before you make it public.
While in the same hand, we dont need to know every detail of who you are, or what you do and work.. But a few posts, and a little rep might be very helpful. Atleast in my eyes, if I have seen someone around the board for some time, and they seem like they are not someone just looking for attention, or playing games, then I think it might be worthy of taking into consideration.

So to sum it up.. If you are planning on breaking the lid on something. Atleast build up some rep here with the members and staff so we know.
Also sending a mail to Springer or a CT master before posting, and working it out behind the curtin would also be a great start!

Like lets say I got something on flim.. Before I posted it, I would send a private U2 to Springer, or someone else I could trust, and work it out with them before I even made a post. I think that might be extreamly helpful if things are talked about privately before going public with ones story.

That way, the mods and staff can say, "we have checked this stuff out before hand", and are looking to expand with our members reactions.


[edit on 31-3-2008 by zysin5]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by zysin5
 


If your a true whistleblower you might not have time to buld up a rep.We cant let the majority rule here-as in since 99% of hoaxers are first timers dont believe the 1st timer that comes along and is actually telling the truth.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


Okay thats fair enough, I could agree.. But how about the private chats between staff to validate the story, and have some time to talk about it in private before launching it into the public arena?



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by zysin5
 



So to sum it up.. If you are planning on breaking the lid on something. Atleast build up some rep here with the members and staff so we know.
Also sending a mail to Springer or a CT master before posting, and working it out behind the curtin would also be a great start!


This actually seems to me, the best approach. And the most realistic one.

I think that most folks with this kind of “top secret” info would naturally prefer this method of release.


How to make that possible, or more obvious to that person here. I do not know.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I'm pretty new here but i just had to stick my nose in... what happens if you find some information and want to share it, ie a link to another site or something? what if that turns out to be a hoax and you didn't know? in the search for truth many lies must be uncovered, isn't this a place where we can be free to talk about and share things that we may feel we can't with the people who are around us?? i thought the way things were done is you post info and then others get to say what they think about it, discuss, share opinions etc? if i wasn't sure of something, other peoples input might help me make a decision by even providing other relevant proof that was either for or against the topic?

And one other thing, why can't we blow whistles any more? is it in case all the dogs in the neighbourhood start barking?



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by realism
 


People who come and claim to have personal information of a top secret type, are what we're looking at here. Not linking to a site. If you link to a site and it turns out to be a pack of lies, thats not your fault, unless it's your own site. Some places that older hands at the game are familiar with, which I won't name, might get you some ribbing for falling for, but nobody is going to seriously hold it against you.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 02:07 AM
link   
The question is what does ATS provide to the whistleblower? Protection? Immunity? Money? Nothing more than a sympathetic ear.

Given that simple fact, do we really expect serious whistleblowers to come here and spill the beans? Perhaps someday, some would.

But, as most people here feel, I too think that said whistleblowers need to be treated with extreme caution, lest we all get stringed along till page 36 again and again.

I vote for a "FREEZE" button. Operated by the mods, to halt discussion while they or the OP can clear things out, post all of their secret info, present evidence etc. without getting any extra attention - which is what the hoaxer variety is after. At the same time the negative comments can be avoided with some think time to boot!

[edit on 4/1/2008 by 2believeor0]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2believeor0
The question is what does ATS provide to the whistleblower? Protection? Immunity? Money?


In a word, Exposure. If someone truly wants to get something out there, and into the public's eyes, ATS is fully capable of accomplishing such efforts.


 



Originally posted by NGC2736
Some places that older hands at the game are familiar with, which I won't name, might get you some ribbing for falling for, but nobody is going to seriously hold it against you.


Check it out! The Onion, America's Finest News Source, has reported that a New Solar System has been Discovered!!!




 



Originally posted by Sri Oracle
I would prefer the ability to tag BS posts with a "black star"...


"Negative stars" (Black, Red, -X, etc.) aren't going to happen.

That said, it might be nice if... instead of merely being able to add a single "Blue Star", someone could also chose the option of clicking to remove one (only if/when a star is already present).

[edit on 4/1/08 by redmage]




top topics



 
17
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join