ATS: Diebold Whistle Blower Faces Felony Charges

Republicans/Democrats, those are American novolties. This is an international board, this Dem/Rep # is getting old for the rest of us. Voting for a submission because you don't like the content of the story is LAME. Let's be better than the rest of the internet.

YOU CAN DO IT!!!

Let's deny ignorance together.

I just realized, SO that you can't receive a WATS... But you deserve it!

I stopped submitting long ago because it just wasn't worth the effort.

I look forward to your changes.

Skeptic Overlord

if only politicians were like SO, did something when a problem occurs.

Originally posted by DevinS
Sorry Skeptic, it sounds like Republicans control ATSNN. Anything that makes them look bad is voted down, if I had seen it in time I would have voted yes, it is a news story, therefor belongs on ATS News Network.

That's total HS. The political sniping and undermining of stories that are unflattering to one's political inclination goes both ways. In an experiment similar to SO's, I've submitted stories that are unfavorable to Dems and Republicans. Often, I'd get BS "No" votes right away (No - not right, No-writing when the writing was fine, No-bias when the intro stated only facts, etc). The BS "No" votes would increase as soon as someone posted a comment that leaned one way or another. Enough is enough. I'm looking very much forward to seeing some changes to the way ATSNN voting works.

Originally posted by loam
I just realized, SO that you can't receive a WATS... But you deserve it!

Yup. This is extremely apt. We can't continue to fall into the pit that mainstream media is in. Selling to the masses. I think SO pointed out quite clearly the problems in the machine. We're not here to make ratings, sell anything, we're here to deny ignorance. Polarity has been getting in the way. A story comes out about Bush, VOTE NO, from some members. You know who you are. A story about Palistine, VOTE NO. You also know who you are.

Read the stories, vote because of the topic and the content, not your political leanings.

DENY IGNORANCE! EMBRACE THOUGHT!

yea i noticed that the ATSNN headlines seemed really slow for awhile, i wasnt sure if it was the fact nothing was happening. then i thought
theres always important stuff happening" lol. thats when i noticed the random threads that seemed pretty important getting 'NO' votes. disappointing, and discouraging.

Originally posted by ChemicalLaser
The political sniping and undermining of stories that are unflattering to one's political inclination goes both ways. In an experiment similar to SO's, I've submitted stories that are unfavorable to Dems and Republicans. Often, I'd get BS "No" votes right away (No - not right, No-writing when the writing was fine, No-bias when the intro stated only facts, etc).

That's the frickin problem, no thought, party line.

Rant ON.

Ive been here for a couple of years and we used to discuss issues. Sometimes vehemanently. We discussed them and we LISTENED to each other. That's what's missing here now. What we have now is, "Is my Google better than your Google?" Who's gaining anything? No ONE!

Rant OFF.

Do you want to learn anything? I do. I've learned to hate logging on here lately because I'm going to learn little.

You can do that by watching TV, let's be better here.

Originally posted by ChemicalLaser

That's total HS. The political sniping and undermining of stories that are unflattering to one's political inclination goes both ways. In an experiment similar to SO's, I've submitted stories that are unfavorable to Dems and Republicans. Often, I'd get BS "No" votes right away (No - not right, No-writing when the writing was fine, No-bias when the intro stated only facts, etc). The BS "No" votes would increase as soon as someone posted a comment that leaned one way or another. Enough is enough. I'm looking very much forward to seeing some changes to the way ATSNN voting works.

Then why is something that is news voted no on? Because it makes republicans look bad! A republican owned company that promises Bush the election then rigs it and is now caught by a whistle blower is controlling the courts to make sure the whistle blower is prosecuted, not them.

It is clearly news, and not like "Jessica Simpson and what's his name break up!" news but real news. I don't care if a news thing makes dems or reps look bad, if it is actual news I vote for it. If I don't consider something to be news I don't vote, either way, cause I don't care about it.

To Intrepid, I would have voted for it if I had seen it. I went through ATSNN and looked for stories, ones not already voted yes on I opened, read, and everytime voted yes because it was news.

[edit on 27-2-2006 by DevinS]

Cool, what about this issue:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by DevinS
Republicans control ATSNN.

Not for long.

Republicans control ATSNN?....


That certainly has to be a joke..... There are more liberals/and every other party in these forums than there are Republicans.

To tell you the truth this morning i saw this submission, but saw the bias in the introduction line, I decided not to cast a vote yet even though I should have, later on the submission was locked by staff so that the original submitter would make corrections to the submission.

The submission might be important, but isn't it also important to have an unbiased ATSNN article? at least in the introduction? Hasn't this been always the guidelines of ATSNN?

What I have seen happening in ATSNN is that submissions which have no bias in the introduction, and follow all or most of the procedures to accepting submissions, are being voted no, being voted no for bias, or not right for ATSNN just because the topic in the original, and reliable, article does not settle well with a few of the members of ATSNN.

Is it wrong to vote no to a submission that has no bias in it's introduction and follows all the procedures? yes.

Is it wrong to vote no to a submission which has bias in it's introduction line? well, isn't that what the vote for "no bias" is all about?

You have voted ChemicalLaser for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

I agree with you. This has gone on long enough. Members are starting to fall into a pattern/habit of voting no on submissions, and of course they never anwser back even when you ask people why they voted no to a submission, just because it does not agree with their opinion.

I think there should be a new format for voting. Everytime someone votes no to a submission, they should have to describe why they voted no. If the submission follows all the guidelines and there is truly no bias on the introduction line, but there are still people voting no perhaps those people shouldn't be allowed to post or vote for a day. After the third time of doing this, the people that keep voting no to submissions which have no bias on the introduction, should not be able to post nor vote for a week and maybe even some points should be taken away.

It's drastic, but something along those lines should work. Let's get back to kindergarden shall we?

[edit on 27-2-2006 by Muaddib]

You know I have never vote no to a submission because I always feel that everybody has the right to get a chance.

If I am not interested in the article I just leave alone.

For some reason I will hate to become the executor of who or what gets to make it in ATSNN.

Bias or not we all have our preferences.

I guess that is the way I feel.

Equal opportunity for all.

I noticed content has dropped off and some important issues aren't even submitted. Why? For me, it's an effort to write up a header, do research, get relevant links, and then to see it voted down and shuffled off into the forums. Hence, I can save the headache by either not posting at all or posting directly to the ATS/PTS/BTS forums with no format hassles. Odds are that ATSNN submital will likely end up there anyways, so "why bother" echos in my head.

Conclusion: The the risk/reward factor does not favor submitting ATSNN articles.

Risk-aversion is the single biggest innovation killer, and of course it's not just Microsoft that's been infected. Taking risks is... risky. But if not taking risks is even riskier, then WTF?



What kind of safety? Sometimes managers are putting the best interests of the company first. That's great--they're often more experienced and have a better grasp of the bigger context. But (and it's a really big but) sometimes they're just worried about their own damn job. In other words, the leaf node/individual contributors often think about the effect of their work on users, while the mid-level managers often think about the effect of their work on their job. And whose fault is that? All those layers of bosses. Even one risk-averse boss in the chain-of-command can do major damage to innovation, spirt, motivation, etc. source

Looks like atsnn traffic is on a down trend too, even though it's winter and most people stay inside.

Traffic Rank for atsnn.com
Today: 126,186
1 wk. Avg.: 144,230
3 mos. Avg.: 97,552
3 mos. Change: down 7,173

Let's hope further changes don't include Diebold software



[edit on 27-2-2006 by Regenmacher]

But...

Why is the whistleblower up on felony charges?

And...

Haven't we seen this before?

In the time I've been amember of ATS I think I've voted no on submissions somewhere between two & four times. Generally I vote yes whether I like the article being posted or not. The only criteria that I generally apply to a submission is to ask myself whether or not the article is news or newsworthy. I rarely care if the article has typos or bias in it because those issues can be addressed after the article gets posted. I've only posted four articles because frankly posting an article is like pulling teeth or something else equally unpleasant and I don't need the aggravation. I do sometimes send U2U's to people with a link to an article and ask them to post it if they think it is newsworthy--sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. I could care less about the points & such.

One thing that would encourage me to post more articles would be a review board the article could be submitted to that would actually change the article to improve it. I'm not a writer and I could use the help. All I ever get though are U2U's telling me why someone voted no or what they didn't like about the article. Once and only once did I ever get feedback I could actually use to change my posting.

I'm not advocating that all new submissions go through a review board, only the ones where the poster honestly wants help.

[edit on 28-2-2006 by Astronomer68]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by DevinS
Republicans control ATSNN.

Not for long.

Interesting assumption and reply. Does this mean that our votes are not anonymous?

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by DevinS
Republicans control ATSNN.

Not for long.

Interesting assumption and reply. Does this mean that our votes are not anonymous?

OMG! ATS uses Diebold? And it was hacked? By Republican mods?


...Back to the topic:

How many cases of "whistleblowers charged with felonies" are we discussing here on ATS?

I can remember at least one, but don't recall the details.


.

Thanks for the humor, soficrow. Now do you know whether our votes are anonymous?

JEEZ!

This is an important story!

Why is no one discussing the story?!

Originally posted by jsobecky
Does this mean that our votes are not anonymous?

They are indeed anonymous. However, the observed results show an inability for conspiracy-themed stories to be approved that are politically sensitive.

Also, I had 18 "No Bias" votes and 9 "No not right" votes on this submission.

That's unfortunate.