Badgering people for classified information

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aniah

Senior Member
Registered Member
So, after the recent fiasco in the J-20 thread, we have lost a very knowledgeable and respected member of our community, possibly forever. And from what I understand, said member left because he does not want people soliciting intelligence from him that will cost him his career and land him in a federal prison.

So the question is, is there any plan to clarify existing rules or make new rule to prevent this from happening again in the future?
I don't think this needs to be a rule. It's personal accountability. Like some previous members mentioned, if you have some important info that shouldn't be put out to the public, be professional and don't say anything. Making a new rule just because of this feels overboard to me.
 

coolgod

Colonel
Registered Member
So, after the recent fiasco in the J-20 thread, we have lost a very knowledgeable and respected member of our community, possibly forever. And from what I understand, said member left because he does not want people soliciting intelligence from him that will cost him his career and land him in a federal prison.

So the question is, is there any plan to clarify existing rules or make new rule to prevent this from happening again in the future?
Are you implying that other people on this forum are just amateurs and not associated with any intelligence community? ;)
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
While his quit is an unfortunate loss, I take the incident as mistakes of patchwork_chimera himself more than anyone else. Others do not have to cuddle him (but read on). If his possession of certain knowledge cannot be disclosed in public, he should watch his own mouth in places where most go by pseudo names. It is really up to himself to know when to disengage. This saying of "Not every inch needs to be fought over" applies to all, him included.

Even if he does have the authority on certain things because of his professional work, no one has to take every word of him on the face value. Authority does not equal to credibility. People make mistakes. People lie. Had he joined the forum longer and with more quality posts that have been verified by time, he might have been able to build up the credibility to fence off the skepticism from the beginning.

In the age of information war, it is expected that your audience will be skeptical of what you are saying. They will question and challenge you if they do not believe your claims no matter who you are. We have seen too many false claims backed up only by "trust me bro". It's just a natural reaction for people to challenge yet another "trust me bro" when they can. I would not call such challenge as attack.

I would not think that anyone was in this debate with bad faith. We cannot really read someone's mind and judge by his intent. As long as no current forum rule was broken, no one should be punished.

Now, if mods need to value certain members more than the rest and want to have different standards for them, please change the forum rules and make them clear. Then we will know that "trust me/him, bro" is good enough for claims coming from such members of higher value. Mods will also know when to intervene firmly before debates can potentially endanger such valuable members.
There were numerous members that basically were warning people that discussion was going sideways and to just stop. But they kept going. At the end of the day, sdf is not going in the right direction if it's just an echo chamber.

People need to learn to just stop and listen sometimes.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
While his quit is an unfortunate loss, I take the incident as mistakes of patchwork_chimera himself more than anyone else. Others do not have to cuddle him (but read on). If his possession of certain knowledge cannot be disclosed in public, he should watch his own mouth in places where most go by pseudo names. It is really up to himself to know when to disengage. This saying of "Not every inch needs to be fought over" applies to all, him included.

Even if he does have the authority on certain things because of his professional work, no one has to take every word of him on the face value. Authority does not equal to credibility. People make mistakes. People lie. Had he joined the forum longer and with more quality posts that have been verified by time, he might have been able to build up the credibility to fence off the skepticism from the beginning.

In the age of information war, it is expected that your audience will be skeptical of what you are saying. They will question and challenge you if they do not believe your claims no matter who you are. We have seen too many false claims backed up only by "trust me bro". It's just a natural reaction for people to challenge yet another "trust me bro" when they can. I would not call such challenge as attack.

I would not think that anyone was in this debate with bad faith. We cannot really read someone's mind and judge by his intent. As long as no current forum rule was broken, no one should be punished.

Now, if mods need to value certain members more than the rest and want to have different standards for them, please change the forum rules and make them clear. Then we will know that "trust me/him, bro" is good enough for claims coming from such members of higher value. Mods will also know when to intervene firmly before debates can potentially endanger such valuable members.
You almost make it sound like him saying the F-22 is better than the J-20 is a taboo here. No one needs to take what he has to say at face value but that doesn’t mean he needs to be harassed about what he says either.

And please. Plenty of people on this forum engage in bad faith, with both pro and anti-China biases. That’s what all that haranguing toward Patchwork was about. Some people didn’t like what he had to say because it hurt their vibes and they retaliated by trying to be nasty to him. This is the part of this forum’s culture that frankly speaking causes so much productive conversation to be derailed and defending or excusing it when it’s your side isn’t in the spirit of “professionalism” or “truth” that a lot of people here like to grandstand on. It would be nice if the people here could exercise a bit more humility when they choose to engage.
 
Last edited:

BMUFL

Junior Member
Registered Member
I don't think this needs to be a rule. It's personal accountability. Like some previous members mentioned, if you have some important info that shouldn't be put out to the public, be professional and don't say anything. Making a new rule just because of this feels overboard to me.
That's why I said clarification of existing rules is also possible. For example, "inappropriate provocation of members" could be interpreted as "baiting people into posting classified info", except right now it is not exactly explicit. But then again, I am just some FNG so what do I know?

As for "personal accountability". Well, he left, so there you go. But that means we will be shedding knowledgeable people in the long run.
Are you implying that other people on this forum are just amateurs and not associated with any intelligence community? ;)
No. I am saying that badgering people for classified information will not help the forum in the long run. Please don't put words into my mouth. I am sure the ICs from all sorts of countries are trawling through this repository of information for low-hanging fruits, but that is not really my problem, eh?
 

Andy1974

Senior Member
Registered Member
IMO he should have been given a VIP Professional flair and respected a bit more, members harassing him should have been banned for a couple of weeks.

Members that talk a lot of crap and harass people should be banned. I propose that forum members use the ignore button then webmaster could ban users that are ignored by many people.

Straw poll about banning heavily ignored members: Like to agree, Angry to disagree.
 
Last edited:

coolgod

Colonel
Registered Member
That's why I said clarification of existing rules is also possible. For example, "inappropriate provocation of members" could be interpreted as "baiting people into posting classified info", except right now it is not exactly explicit. But then again, I am just some FNG so what do I know?
Are you telling me this forum is not a giant honeypot, baiting Chinese posters to share sensitive/classified up-to-date PLA info :cool: ?
No. I am saying that badgering people for classified information will not help the forum in the long run. Please don't put words into my mouth. I am sure the ICs from all sorts of countries are trawling through this repository of information for low-hanging fruits, but that is not really my problem, eh?
How come people here don't solicit classified information from the other forum members who may have ties with military or intelligence community?
Don't get me wrong, I like and value the high-quality content and opinions shared by the unnamed user, but maybe his humble brags about his ties to IC on Reddit might have something to do with his notoriety and his current situation.

As someone just learning about military stuff, I obviously like people (e.g., the unnamed user) to give as much detailed and accurate info as possible. However, as a supporter of China in this modern-day information age, I'd prefer people like 彩云香江 (twitter: @louischeung_hk) who intentionally post truths and dis-truth regularly on the PLA.
 

SanWenYu

Captain
Registered Member
There were numerous members that basically were warning people that discussion was going sideways and to just stop. But they kept going. At the end of the day, sdf is not going in the right direction if it's just an echo chamber.

People need to learn to just stop and listen sometimes.
True but you want people to listen to "trust him bro" when they were not happy with "trust me bro"?

I do not recall having seen warnings strong enough to remind people the potential risk to patchwork.
 

Andy1974

Senior Member
Registered Member
True but you want people to listen to "trust him bro" when they were not happy with "trust me bro"?

I do not recall having seen warnings strong enough to remind people the potential risk to patchwork.
Yes, people should realize that he can only say “trust me bro”, it doesn’t mean you should trust him, but we can’t expect him to screen share his top secret files with us can we?

We shouldn’t trust you, or me when we say “trust me bro”, but then we are not claiming to be an insider.

Instead of nurturing the member, we drove him away. If you don’t believe him, or think he is a fraud, then at least respect the persona that he is trying to present, and part of that is that he can’t divulge his sources, etc.
 
Last edited:

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
I remember 2-3 occasions where I made a post suggesting to drop that stupid J-20/F-22 comparison. Unfortunately people insisted on talking about who has the biggest d*, so here we are today...


I don't particularly blame any member here. One side appealed to authority while the other side questioned him and demanded to see the proof. Yet, repeatedly asking him to disclose info which could land him to prison is a mistake

In my ideal world, one side would say "I support this due to my line of work", the other one would say "Yeah ok buddy, I don't believe you. Your info is classified so we can't determine if what you are saying is right or wrong. Given the above, we can't prove what is the truth without someone going to prison, so lets just end it here. Until you present public evidence stating it otherwise, I don't believe you"

That's it, 2-4 posts max and the convo would be done. Instead we got an almost 10-page long back and forth
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top