Whistle Blower Protocol for ATS

There needs to be a formal process since otherwise people become too desperate to be the first to call 'hoax' sometimes on spurious grounds.

Why not have a pro-forma Mod-written 'disclaimer that goes at the front of each such thread - as we do with called hoxes atm - saying that the jury is out and that the information is to be questioned but not 'called out' - yet.

After a determined period of time, there is a 'keep going/close' vote on the thread - lasting, say, a 24 hour period - as sometimes happens now.

This would demonstrate the healthy scepticism of ATS towards such claims without the thread descending into fish slapping.

reply to post by NGC2736


I'm not sure if it is technically possible. But here is an idea:

1) Create one extra board for whistle blowers
- in this board only the whistle blower him/herself and forum moderators can read back the thread (so can not read other's thread)
- Any whistleblower not posting his first post in this special board, the Mods of the particular board will move the thread to that special board.
- untill the forum moderators have discussed with a genuine whistle blower enough and feel that is not a hoax, then the thread will be moved to whichever board it suits the topic best.
- if it is a hoax, the Mods don't need to take care or pay attention to that particular thread anymore.

Pros:
-No disturbing of other users of hearing yet another hoax
-If it is a genuine message, then the whistle blower would not mind to take a little bit efforts in convincing the Mods
-Hoaxers will not get their trophy of a "public hoax labelled thread"

[edit on 30/3/08 by IchiNiSan]

reply to post by kosmicjack


I'm just saying that a new member could be very well educated and read the T & C's of this website and conduct themselves better then people who have been here awhile.

Originally posted by NGC2736
So NO TAKING THINGS PERSONAL in this endeavor.

I think that this is the first step for all us. To set our emotions aside and look at things from a logical point no matter how absurd the claims, the best thing for all of us to do is to get the facts as quick as possible and then apply the logic to it.

When a new Whistle Blower comes on board, I think the best way to get them to provide info, is to help them prepare them on how to provide that info. (A new thread for them etc)

Basically, any new poster that makes a post or thread, whatever you would like to call it, is to post a simple reply to them that states how they can protect themselves and what kind of info they need to be able to provide and where to get it. Mainly starting with the facts and proof. Also, helper new people who come to ATS to read the rules etc.

We also need to adopt more rules along these lines:

No pointing finger of any kind,
No negativity, To be sceptic is one thing and if your responses are negative then the chances are that the person will not release any info at all and simply go else where.

Basically, try to be professional in the way you interact with others.

I think and I speak only for myself here, I want to be able to get the truth and all the facts even if the person providing them is incorrect. We need all the info we can get so that we can extrapolate the truth. At least for me, it's all about the truth and the best way to get at the truth is get at all the facts and proof someone can provide.

I feel that if we badger someone emotionally because of others that have made a mistake we are reducing our chance of getting at that truth.

This is just a suggestion on my part.

Leave the emotions out of it and lets try to be "Professional" about it. After all you are professional at work and follow a set of behaviour rules.

This is just a suggestion on my part. I still have to go through this post so, I'm sorry if some else has already pointed this out. If someone has then this shows that others feel that it is necessary as well and deserves some consideration.

Just trying to do my part to help make ATS a better place so we can all get to what it is we really want, THE TRUTH.

By the way I'm new to ATS and am getting to know the rules. But you can view my intro thread that I did as a study which provides my conclusion on my findings of these same things.

My entire thread that I started was a hoax to show the type of resoponses that come accross and people are quick jump to conclusions etc. My full findings are on that thread. Perhaps they will help as well with suggestions that can help with this thread topic.



[edit on 30-3-2008 by Creo Coactum]

Could we develop a separate forum for whistleblowers? It could prove very interesting..

reply to post by Solarskye


Of course you are right, that is entirely possible, but the majority of T&C violations, trolling and stalking comes from new users. Every now and then a more experienced member flames out but it's not nearly as disruptive nor as repetitive. Typically it's more of a one/off, 'bad day' sort of episode.

Originally posted by NGC2736
But don't we defeat the purpose of sequestering if we do that? What if the first 11 posters happen to be the eye rolling "It's all crap because I know better" type, they hack off the OP, and he checks out to never return?

I know, it's not perfect. I even pointed out that very weakness (page one spamming) in my origional post. The problem is that by sequestering the OP you also isolate the general membership. If general members feel that they can no longer directly interact, with those bringing "extraordinary claims", I think it will hurt the site, and bring massive additional headaches to the staff. I've been around long enough to see the abuse you guys & gals have to put up with, and I think that filtering such threads, through making them "staff only", will only add to the troubles.

Originally posted by NGC2736
While I trust the members as a whole not to gum up things too bad, you have no idea how many posts are deleted per hour that are pure drivel and/or nasty. Since the members could see what was posted by the staff, there shouldn't be any censorship. Besides, basically it would be a matter of mostly routine questions.

Honestly, the amount of "pure drivel and/or nasty" wouldn't suprise me at all. :shk:

Personally, I'd be fine with having "staff only" comments (I thought some of yours, in a recent "rabbit hole", were some of the best in the thread ), but I'm tellin' ya... I see a big backlash, looming on the horizon, if "general members" start to feel like they've been cut out of the loop, and being able to read what's been "filtered through the staff" just won't cut it for some.

Also, some members have more than the avarage "routine questions", and that's why direct interaction can be so great.

Originally posted by NGC2736
And it's a fact that no course of action is going to be perfect. But would you not feel somehow cheated if the first page of posters failed to ask the most logical questions because someone went ballistic over the writing style of Mr.X and failed to ask him if he had any witnesses? Especially if Mr.X said he had to leave to go get documents, which was the only logical question out of the first page. Now you have to wait till he gets back to ask that question.

Without a doubt. With the system I suggested the responsibility would be on the membership's shoulders, and it would certainly be disapointing to see us drop the ball. That said, roadgravel sparked thoughts on how general members may still be able to reach the "locked thread".

Originally posted by NGC2736
I'm just grasping for a calm logical way to acquire information without undue drama.

I'm with ya 110%.



***********************************************************************

Originally posted by roadgravel
All in all a pretty good plan (the parallel threads). Of course the OP might view the public thread and get upset. Hopefully if the crap posting are not in his primary thread it would be of less concern.

That'd be my hope; To keep the primary thread focused, and keep the background noise a bit buffered so that it's less of a concern.

Originally posted by roadgravel
Seems like a tool to repost a post in the public thread to the private one wouldn't bet that difficult to create. This could be used to move the questions from the public if they are deemed acceptable. Any left behind are open for discussion in the public thread as to why. This allows public monitoring and no feel for major censorship.

You may be on to something there. It might be easier to script it so that when a post in the "general thread" recieves X number of stars it would automatically be duplicated into the primary thread; or that after a member recieves X stars, in the general thread, they'd gain privilages to post in the primary one. I'm sure that a few would slip in, but I don't find it very likely that thirty different one-lined "HOAX!" responses would all recieve a mass of stars.

That would increase membership participation, and focus the "primary thread" as well. Such a system may not even need an auto-locking OP Posts/Max Pages link. It would allow for NGC2736's "staff locked thread" concept, but it would leave an opening where any member could still participate.

[edit on 3/30/08 by redmage]

reply to post by Creo Coactum


Although of course your comments are appreciated, I find them to be more than slightly ironic, coming from the author of this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by Creo Coactum

 

Although of course your comments are appreciated, I find them to be more than slightly ironic, coming from the author of this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

THIS is what I'm talking about. CC's post made a helluva lot of sense but someone just HAD to come along and defecate in the pool. We remove that type of thing and the problem goes away imo.

Am I mistaken or is this thread about whistleblowers?
Or did I misinterpret and this is about whistle blowing?
If it is about creating a space for whistle blowers to come and be able to leak information to us, then I am all for a seperate forum being developed for that purpose.
If it is about more policing for the hoaxers and trolls then I have watched as people in the community as well as myself have grown by leaps and bounds in discovering truth from lie.
Could you imagine the possibilities in these crazy days if there was such a place for whistleblowers to give us the headsup of secret covert operations?
I would have to suggest that it would not show the OP's identity just their their information, only that would be trusted to the MOD's covering that section of ATS.

reply to post by intrepid



I stated that his comments were appreciated however, I felt it was relevant to direct members to the referenced post which is three pages of ATS members chasing our tails. I believe THAT type of attention-getting absurd post is what this thread is hoping to sort out. Nonsense and trolling.

You can u2u me if you would like to further express your opinion on my opinion.

Originally posted by antar
Could we develop a separate forum for whistleblowers? It could prove very interesting..

I also agree with this, but what's to stop a new member to come and just create a new post with what ever they like.... this is saying that the person is intentionally trying for a hoax...

I think that is the main problem, to separate the intentional hoaxer from the ones that have info and want to share and may even raise interesting points, and then we can work on debunking it.

For me it's the intentional hoaxer which leads to a lot of time wasted and in some cases a lot of time on reading nonsense which turns into the biggest Drama.

I rarely comment for those reasons alone. I might be new but I've been reading for a while now. And I just want to try to help out.

I do like the star system mentioned in this thread for new threads or a type of ranking systems that only allows useful info to get through and puts a stop to the intentional hoaxers thread.


[edit on 30-3-2008 by Creo Coactum]

[edit on 30-3-2008 by Creo Coactum]

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by Creo Coactum

 

Although of course your comments are appreciated, I find them to be more than slightly ironic, coming from the author of this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

That's exactly my point, If you read my thread and it shows ATS does not have a system in place to stop it ( I can now see that you're aware of it). And my thread also shows my findings on the things that I noticed which I think might help somewhere down the road. I clearly state in that thread which I believe to be my second post and I've stated that I am conducting a study, I aslo get to the point after a poster stated that I should get to the point. And I quickly explained what I meant and then I posted my results for the study.

I'm just trying to help as I would like to contribute to ATS in some way.
So please try not hold that against me as my intentions weren't unwarranted on my part. To conduct a study of your own, shold only help you establish more credibility as to say understanding of the matter.

If you are suggesting that I not help out then please just say it right out.
"You would not like me to make suggestions because I created a post which is exactly what ATS and other forums have a problem with.

This is as though you may be saying that why listen to you because of this and this, which in this case I don't think you've completely read my posts in that thread.

I would like to help in generating ideas to resolve this issue.

Originally posted by NGC2736

In your own words, tell us everything you want to put out to the world.
Where does this information come from?
Can you explain how you got this information?
Exactly what proof do you have that you are who you say you are?
What documents can you provide to back this story up with?
Do you have witnesses? Will they also speak with us?

This is the information we want to know when somebody opens a thread as a whistleblower.

Would it be possible to have an attention to whistleblowers message show when a person clicks on the new thread button?

How about a place for them to click they have read this information before proceeding to post?

This way there won't have to be a separate forum, and the poster will know what is expected of them. If they don't put the appropriate information in the opening post, they get a 24 hour warning period to do so.

I've heard quite a few interesting ideas concerning this issue.
One thing I would like to mention is that we all learn from experience. The more we see of similar issues, the better we are able to respond to future similar ones. In addition, 100,000 pairs of eyes are better than 7 or 10. Thus, in my humble opinion, to limit the triage to a committee would be to diminish everyone else' ability to ferret out hoaxes. Likewise, one of those 100,000 pair of eyes may be able to shed positive (or negative) light on an issue instantly, because of that persons' experience or knowledge.
Some of those spurious threads go on, because many people don't take the time to read the entire thread before responding, and merely respond to the last post or two. About a month ago, someone had posted a thread with a supposed quote by a famous personality. I found the quote on snopes almost immediately, and posted that it was a hoax. Posters continued to rant about the personality and the quote for pages, even after I posted again the link indicating that it was a hoax.I think that after awhile, most diligent members can make a reasonable assessment as to whether the thread deserves further attention, and if not, it's on to another thread. I do agree with those that have stated that people shouldn't continue on the thread, only to taunt or flame the OP.
One of those hoax threads that I stumbled on was the "I created a Free Energy" post. Most people realized fairly quickly that it was ridiculous. I just checked and there are 19 pages out there. The OP even kept changing his/her username, and signing on as a new member.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I think we were all guilty of staying on that thread too long. I learned from that experience. Today, when I encounter something like that, I'm off the thread. That's the learning and experience aspect I mentioned earlier.
Anyway, in my opinion, I'd leave things as they are, and let the members ferret out the hoaxes, but as someone said, maybe with more civility than some have used. I don't think the system is broken.

Originally posted by redmage
reply to post by roadgravel

 

You may be on to something there.

It might be easier to script it so that when a post in the "general thread" recieves X number of stars it would automatically be duplicated into the primary thread; or that after a member recieves X stars, in the general thread, they'd gain privilages to post in the primary one.

Here I go replying to myself, and possibly dreaming up even worse scripting nightmares.

I kinda want to expand on that second bit.

What if the star system linked into primary thread privilages? Could the system be used to vote-in "thread representatives"? Could there be participant-voted "TSMEs" who were able to interact with "wistleblowers" directly; almost a pseudo-staff for their respective "two threads"?

I don't know. It sounds interesting, but it may be much more difficult to implement.

That said, intrepid makes a lot of good points. A little self restraint, on behalf of all members, can go a long way.

[edit on 3/30/08 by redmage]

I would like to see a new section on the ATS "Board" called "Whistle Blowers". I'm sure that it would be fairly lean on posts but this is where "Whistle Blowers" could feel safe from ridicule and would be made to jump thru some hoops by the Mods before their post ever gets sent out for mass consumption. It would cut down on alot of negativity and
mean spiritedness by the general population.
Just a thought.

i dont think the whistle blower thing would work because whats to stop someone from posting their thread in a different forum to avoid the rules of the censored forum ?

what if you had some way of letting everyone vote in the thread if they agree or disagree that the thread should continue ?

if you feel this thread should continue click here__

if you think this thread should be locked until reviewed by a mod click here__


it would be a more democratic way imo.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by easynow]

Originally posted by Enthralled Fan

Originally posted by NGC2736

In your own words, tell us everything you want to put out to the world.
Where does this information come from?
Can you explain how you got this information?
Exactly what proof do you have that you are who you say you are?
What documents can you provide to back this story up with?
Do you have witnesses? Will they also speak with us?

This is the information we want to know when somebody opens a thread as a whistleblower.

Would it be possible to have an attention to whistleblowers message show when a person clicks on the new thread button?

How about a place for them to click they have read this information before proceeding to post?

This way there won't have to be a separate forum, and the poster will know what is expected of them. If they don't put the appropriate information in the opening post, they get a 24 hour warning period to do so.

I agree with this aspect as it will require the least amount of time to implement and although I do agree with having a separate forum, I think that we should also take into consideration as to why someone would really want to blow the whistle and what is the likely hood of a real whistler blower and would they trust this site enough to do that.

Bottom line is do we just want to create forum for possible whistle blowers or do we want to make sure that we stop the hoaxers or possibly both.

I think the solutions quoted above address both, so that would say that I'm in favour for both as it allows opportunity while reducing hoaxes.

reply to post by redmage


As for as the star system I had thought a mod might move it but the auto function might be cool once the proper threshold is determined. Or a mod could flag it as OK for move if it receives enough votes.

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.

Seems like questions based on their own merit would be good enough.

Edit: sp

[edit on 3/30/2008 by roadgravel]