Member to member vetting process

I think most members' built-in BS detectors work just fine. Trolls are easy to spot, the shill-accusers are easy to spot, et cetera. A vetting process on an open forum is simply worthless. It'd just end up being tied to snotty elite club of posters who think they're better than other members because another club member affirmed it. Big whoop, that's not needed.

a reply to: Nyiah

That may be true do you think theres a way to work around that?

originally posted by: intrepid
Some see a differing opinion as "shilling". THAT is why this won't work.

That's why I said to put it together for staff to deal with and then forget about it. Keep the 'YOU ARE A SHILL' junk off the boards. ETA .. I didn't say that the staff would come to the same conclusion as the complainer. Just that it belongs with the staff to decide what to do, if anything.

a reply to: onequestion

You dont use information from sorcha faal because you know the source is bad right?

No, I don't know that, nor do I rely only on one source. And even if it is a disinfo site, it most certainly will be sprinkled with truths. You just have to pull them out when they are corroborated.

www.whatdoesitmean.com...

When you start Pointing fingers at people and places, full blown censorship is not far off. Interrogate the information only.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Your lieing ATS doesnt allow certain websites to be used as sources because they are known to falsify information why wouldnt it apply to its membership as well?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Nyiah

That may be true do you think theres a way to work around that?

Having been on many closed (i.e private) forums in my time, the only way to not let an elitism group blossom is to not give it the fuel to begin in the first place. Trust me, allowing people to group off on the basis of somehow being better than others is a forum's downfall, it erodes trust.

Vet the info. I don't care if it comes from John the Nutter, or Gary the Intellectual, the info is still something that needs vetted anyway. Sniffing out the poster before taking the time to check their information out isn't going to change the end much because it's either valid in some manner, or bunk anyway. Dragging John or Gary through the proof of worth hoops, however, is going to leave a sour taste in more mouths than just theirs.

a reply to: onequestion

My friend ... I have only one friend on here and that is you ... the rest of you suck (Joke)

It is such a tricky one

I have been guilty of posting mis information ... not intentionally ... I was duped

Trust has to be earned ... Like the mod said ... alert them and let them deal with it
Many have been banned ... many have been mis understood ... many are just plain know it alls

We are all learning here and using our digression as to who to trust

I do not mind that shills are on here ... I think of it as a challenge ... a fact of life

I admire your postings but also do get it ... Use that alert button as the mod said ... and let them use their disgression

Nothing is ever perfect

Who decides who is a shill though?

I have been called that because I didn't agree with posts on here.
Hell I have seen people called shill's because they asked for proof.
Just because someone doesn't blindly believer that criminals are just victims of the rules, that being successful is bad, that aliens are real or that 9/11 happened the way the OS says it did doesnt mean they are a shill.

a reply to: artistpoet

Good points.

LOL

Why give the NSA any extra info?



Hmmm.
[_O_\O_]

a reply to: xuenchen

Dont they already have it?

a reply to: opethPA

How does Twitter do it?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: opethPA

How does Twitter do it?

Who cares how Twitter does it this is ATS.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Your lieing ATS doesnt allow certain websites to be used as sources because they are known to falsify information why wouldnt it apply to its membership as well?

Last night I watched the movie"Stalage 17" with William Holden in it. Everyone suspected Holden's character of being a stool pigeon for the Nazis. On the first and second impressions one would come to that conclusion because of his bartering with the enemy. They vetted him, incorrectly!! It was later discovered that the true stool pigeon was actually a well trained Nazi agent planted in the barracks.

Rotten eggs peddlers will get away with it for awhile, but not forever. Besides, without rotten eggs, you would never know the good ones

I don't see how this could ever be successfully implemented on ATS. This is a site whose member base... well it used to be conspiracy theorists. There's certain personalities which tend to get on this board. How are we to get these types of personalities to be vetted? Well intended, not well thought out.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

thats what i mean by making it available.

for members who want to it to be known that they aren't shills then this opportunity is available for them. for member who aren't interested then no obligations.

Some time ago, there was someone on here claiming to be someone they were not. Many members here at ATS suspected this. It took time, but eventually the member was removed from ATS.....for lying about who they were.

The information was gathered through posts made by the individual on these boards. They ended up giving themselves away, and once alerted with all the information given, the staff was able to agree that the person was pretending to be someone that they were not.

All this without a vetting process.

ATS depends on content from it's members. Staff depends upon members to alert us to things.

A vetting process will only do the following:

1) Drive away members who do not wish to give out information that is not required here (currently, the only thing required is a valid email address, and to follow the TCs).

2) Alienate members who do not wish to go through a vetting process.

3) Will create an unnecessary divide: those who did, and those who didn't.

4) Those who did will find themselves part of a group that finger points, and is a serious violation of the TCs. This is called Forum Ganging....and very serious violation of the TCs.

5) Will make possible new members not want to join ATS.

Interesting reading...but one of the things I admire about ATS is that it is open to all people...ages,race,religion,alignment,...trying to vet people is not an option IMHO....it would lead to ats ' demise...but hey ho...shills exist....trolls exist....there are things I don't personally agree with how mods might handle issues...but it is ATS providing the platform and we as individuals post within those t&c....
I have personal views on Russia right now...but I am sure they would not agree with many Americans on this site right now....but propaganda is a vicious beast...and frankly it leads to heated discussions....right or wrong will be decided by the masses...even when sometimes the masses are wrong and takes years to realise it afterwords.
I think the fact ATS has mods who try their best to be equal and fair...it cannot be an easy task when dealing with such heated topics....simple thing really....just don't do personal attacks...quite simple really...I showed a story how the British army has organised a regiment the chindits reg 77 is to infiltrate social media to push the government line....or how the Jewish community has been en masse editing Wikipedia.... Shills exist....simple as that....just don't call a shill a shill....understand they exist....and realise what they are posting...and work with it...your not here to enlighten a shill...your here to deny ignorance....so just say your opinions and your word will get out there....if one cannot handle the heat...get out of the kitchen

a reply to: eriktheawful

it doesnt have to be mandatory

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: pl3bscheese

thats what i mean by making it available.

for members who want to it to be known that they aren't shills then this opportunity is available for them. for member who aren't interested then no obligations.

If you don't have full buy in then what is the point?
The same people that cry shill when someone doesnt agree with them will just cry shill louder because they still don't agree and don't want to be vetted.

AS for how Twitter does it..What does that have to do with ATS? Once is a mirco-blogging site with a character limit used for quick bursts of news or info. The other is a forum that has multiple page long debates.