I want to BELONG

[14hm14]

Hi y'all. I'm pretty much a noob here and HAVE attempted to post stuff. But, frankly ... the effort seems a bit too great, That is, Mick West can have only so much of my limited human lifespan before I think the time-sink effort ain't.
Specifically, I keep runnin' into this:

Landru started a new conversation with you at Metabunk.

Video lacks context

14hm14,

Your message (UFOs Are Real (documentary, 1979)) Contains a video that breaks the Metabunk No-Click Policy. Your message may have been removed or altered.

All videos posted should be accompanied by a description of the point or evidence in the video that you want to convey, together with the timestamp (i.e hours:minute:seconds) of that point in the video. If the evidence is spoken, then please include a timestamped transcript of the relevant section. If the video is about analyzing images then the important images must be included in the post in the form of screenshots. For more details see the Metabunk No-Click Policy

The above post could have been left in situ with a WARNING of, say, "unconfirmed" content. But, instead, the mod takes the drastic action of completely removin' the whole thaaaaaaaaaaang. A weird move cuz folks just don't have the time and patience to re-edit their artwork.

Bottom line: I want to BE[LONG] sooooooooooooooooo much, here at da 'bunk, .... but y'all put too many obstacles in the way.

 

[Mendel]

But, frankly ... the effort seem a bit too great, That is, Mick West can have only so much of my limited human lifespan before I think the times-sink effort ain't.
Specifically, I keep runnin' into this:

we've all been there, and it's frustrating

but consider that these rules are there so that your post won't be a time sink for the readers

 

[14hm14]

It has gotten SO BAD here at the bunk that I am screen-capturing ALL my postings, henceforth, and then RE-posting the captures on other platforms (Reddit, Twitter, etc) just to prove I created the content. Mick West should be grateful for all the FREE content all of graciously GIVE AWAY here on da 'bunk.
I mean, come on!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sauron]

It has gotten SO BAD here at the bunk that I am screen-capturing ALL my postings, henceforth, and then RE-posting the captures on other platforms (Reddit, Twitter, etc) just to prove I created the content. Mick West should be grateful for all the FREE content all of graciously GIVE AWAY here on da 'bunk.
I mean, come on!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's not usually Mick, but the over zealous attack dog Landrau. So many posters get turned away at the gates because of the maddening thread removal loop. You could spend an hour on a post only to see it wiped out. I get that MB wants quality control, but the system is biased towards 'trusted members'. The same posts from a newbie would be removed.

 

[Ann K]

The above post could have been left in situ with a WARNING of, say, "unconfirmed" content. But, instead, the mod takes the drastic action of completely removin' the whole thaaaaaaaaaaang. A weird move cuz folks just don't have the time and patience to re-edit their artwork.

I think everybody gets a message (generally from Landru) when they haven't learned the ropes yet. I'm going to assume from your language that you are much younger than I am, and yet I'm not too old to learn the procedures. It's worth the effort, because I'd rather look stupid than act stupid. If I can learn, you can learn.

 

[deirdre]

A weird move cuz folks just don't have the time and patience to re-edit their artwork.

the video was your artwork? from 1979?

 

[deirdre]

It's not usually Mick, but the over zealous attack dog Landrau. So many posters get turned away at the gates because of the maddening thread removal loop. You could spend an hour on a post only to see it wiped out. I get that MB wants quality control, but the system is biased towards 'trusted members'. The same posts from a newbie would be removed.

they tell me it's because they don't actually read the threads, so they don't realize everyone else is posting things that you get a warning strike for. If you are a newbie your post has to be approved, so they read that. Or if someone doesn't like you and reports you, then they read those comments (in isolation) too.

 

[Mendel]

Mick West should be grateful for all the FREE content all of graciously GIVE AWAY here on da 'bunk.

you overestimate the value of your contributions

also, they won't be used elsewhere, you're unnecessarily paranoid about that

 

[Mendel]

they tell me it's because they don't actually read the threads, so they don't realize everyone else is posting things that you get a warning strike for.

thread starter posts are scrutinized more closely, if that is bad the thread is usually doomed

 

[deirdre]

thread starter posts are scrutinized more closely, if that is bad the thread is usually doomed

no they aren't. we have had a bunch of thread starts these last few years that break posting guidelines. specifically OPs that dont quote (or link to) a specific claim. let alone a specific claim of evidence.

Granted if 14h14m didn't paraphrase an alleged claim any ol way he chose, then his OP would have been worse.

 

[Ravi]

thread starter posts are scrutinized more closely, if that is bad the thread is usually doomed

Like this one.

 

[Mendel]

we have had a bunch of thread starts these last few years that break posting guidelines.

I know. I "rescued" some of them by supplying the missing information before the mods got to them.

My point still stands, a bad post inside an otherwise good discussion isn't as problematic as a bad thread starter, and thread starters get more attention. The mods do respond to reports on the "inside" posts.

 

[deirdre]

I know. I "rescued" some of them by supplying the missing information before the mods got to them.

ah. you remember. and noted it.

but you are assuming the "before the mods got to them" bit. did the mods get to the rainbow OP ever?

 

[Mendel]

Like this one.

well, this one is doomed for a different reason

if this was a court case, it'd be thrown out because it's not clear what relief the plaintiff is seeking—I don't think there's a chance 14h can get anything worthwhile from this.

but at least it's site feedback.

 

[Landru]

There are rules. They are written down for you to read and follow. If you can't do that it will be removed. Simple.

 

[Ann K]

There are rules. They are written down for you to read and follow. If you can't do that it will be removed. Simple.

My, what sharp teeth you have, grandmama!

 

[JMartJr]

The site has rules that are quite different from the rules on, say, Reddit. First coming here, it takes a minute to learn the ropes. During that process, odds are good a new poster will make mistakes, see posts deleted, get pointed but helpful notes from a moderator, etc. I know that happened to me, and I'm better about posting here because if it. I hope. I dont get chided as often anymore, at least!

There's a learning curve. Stick with it. Don't take it personally. I'm an old guy, set in my ways. If I can learn to find a place here, you probably can too.

 

[Landru]

My, what sharp teeth you have, grandmama!

This is a screenshot of 14hm14's post.

No description, nothing. The rules are pretty clear.

 

[Landru]

It has gotten SO BAD here at the bunk that I am screen-capturing ALL my postings, henceforth, and then RE-posting the captures on other platforms (Reddit, Twitter, etc) just to prove I created the content. Mick West should be grateful for all the FREE content all of graciously GIVE AWAY here on da 'bunk.
I mean, come on!!!!!!!!!!!!

For the record, I have only removed two of your posts. The one I posted above and another complaining about its removal. I moved another thread you started to Rambles.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Bottom line: I want to BE[LONG] sooooooooooooooooo much, here at da 'bunk, .... but y'all put too many obstacles in the way.

They are not obstacles; they are guidelines that keep this forum different from something like Reddit. Learn to work with them, and you'll belong. I don't think Mick designed them to punish anyone, but to keep the forum from becoming a free for all, again, like Reddit.

Here we have to provide evidence and reasoning to back up our claims and assertions, not just SHOUT them louder than the next person. It really does make for a much more engaging and reasoned discussion.

If your new here, I would suggest trying to participate for a bit before starting a thread. Get the feel of how it works. Even so, your first thread about the UFO over Cairo was not rejected. It more closely followed the rules set forth.

You provided a video with the claim that UFOs were recorded over Cairo in 2015. That's a claim we can work with. I just debunked it. It turns out the OP on YouTube made it as a joke.

Your second attempted thread appears to be a whole documentary film. It's not a single claim that is conducive to discussion. A film could maybe be discussed in the "ChitChat" or "General Discussion" sub-forums but save that for later.

Try again. Pick out 1 claim in the film you feel strongly about. Give us the timestamp so we can find the part in question. Maybe include a screen shot from the film. Tells us what is said and what the specific claim is.

Not:
"Hey watch this film about UFOs, it's really good".
Rather:
"At this time 0:00 in the film, a pilot claimed to see a UFO and took a picture. Here is a screen grab and here is a brief description of what he said he saw. I find it compelling because of thus and so."

That way we have something specific to work with.
Go one better and see if you can debunk the claim, if you think it needs debunking.

And think of Landru as that hard-ass teacher you had at some point that hounded you to do better and now you realize they were right and your better for it.

I think all are welcome, but all have to follow some rules.

 

[NoParty]

A thought I've had 100 times:

"It seems that Landru was given a lemon instead of a pacifier, shortly after birth.
But he's not wrong."

 

[deirdre]

"It seems that Landru was given a lemon instead of a pacifier, shortly after birth.

that comment is entirely inappropriate.

 

[NoParty]

that comment is entirely inappropriate.

Well, I assume you know that I meant that, while he often needs to play
the hatchet man, his actions are usually correct. But feel free to chastise.

 

[14hm14]

This is a screenshot of 14hm14's post.
View attachment 54704

No description, nothing. The rules are pretty clear.

So, you could've moved it to another sub-forum that is just for ... you know ... posting "UN-Categorized" stuff. But you didn't. You wanna playz Godz. You just keep on steppin' on your own D, toots. Meaning: potential posters and content creators will simply move elsewhere. SGU Forum anyone? https://sguforums.org/index.php

 

[14hm14]

If your new here, I would suggest trying to participate for a bit before starting a thread. Get the feel of how it works. Even so, your first thread about the UFO over Cairo was not rejected. It more closely followed the rules set forth.

But heavily edited and one posting deleted by that Landru fella on a power trip.

Nah ... even w/o the ubermodeatorship ... I've been goin' thru myriad threadz and topiks at Meta .... not very intellectual. The filter-bubbling and echo chambering here is off-the-scale. Typical SM urinal.

I'm done at this joint.

Hmmm ...

Maybe I'll re-register ... under a another name ... with one sole purpose: TROLLING. Ready for some fun, y'all?

 

[NorCal Dave]

I've been goin' thru myriad threadz and topiks at Meta .... not very intellectual. The filter-bubbling and echo chambering here is off-the-scale. Typical SM urinal.

Hmmm, I've seen this response before. What exactly is "not very intellectual"? Your first thread was about a claim of UFOs over Cairo. You did not describe the video or offer any background or even your own ideas about it, you simple stated:

Please try to debunk this:
REAL UFO Alien sighting caught on tape, Egypt 2015

Fair enough, that was Sunday morning. Various members pointed out some important issues, like why not a single other person seemed to report this incident. We all have lives outside MB, so it took until this afternoon to figure it out, but per your request, it was debunked.

It wasn't analyzing the video but looking into the contextual evidence around the video that led to the FB post where the person that posted it and made it admitted that it was CGI fake satirical response to fake UFO videos on YouTube.

How is that intellectually lazy? What do think would have been a more "intellectual" response?

Your second attempt at a thread was just, "everybody watch this old documentary" and...what? Agree with it? Debunk it? It creates unwieldy threads trying to debunk an entire film.

TROLLING. Ready for some fun, y'all?

The only way to successfully troll, is to follow all the rules, so not sure what the point is. You wouldn't be the first to think everybody here is your intellectual inferior and therefore easily manipulated by a Master Troller.

What exactly are you going to Troll with? It will have to be a single easy to understand claim to get the thread to hold up. Something you could do now. Is it going to something fake, like the Cairo UFOs? That'll get figured out. The old standbys, like Roswell or Bigfoot? They've been discussed. A lot.

I hope you'll stick around as you, but if you're into trolling us, good luck. It sounds like a fun exercise for me and others.

 

[Landru]

14hm14 banned for numerous violations of the posting guidelines.

 

[deirdre]

So, you could've moved it to another sub-forum that is just for ... you know ... posting "UN-Categorized" stuff.

There is no forum for what you are calling "un-characterized stuff". If we want to just post long videos of ufos and bigfoot and such, for others to watch, all we have to do is post the link to Tubi.com 1,000 ufo videos there for members to watch.
This isn't Youtube. Posting a movie is not posting content.

Before you try to troll (and good luck hiding your unique way of speaking) read the Posting Guidelines. They are currently hidden under the INFO tab in the header. Why they are hidden i don't know, but you probably want to check them out.

 

[Landru]

There is no forum for what you are calling "un-characterized stuff". If we want to just post long videos of ufos and bigfoot and such, for others to watch, all we have to do is post the link to Tubi.com 1,000 ufo videos there for members to watch.
This isn't Youtube. Posting a movie is not posting content.

Before you try to troll (and good luck hiding your unique way of speaking) read the Posting Guidelines. They are currently hidden under the INFO tab in the header. Why they are hidden i don't know, but you probably want to check them out.

A link to the Posting Guidelines is also included in the warnings.

 

[deirdre]

The only way to successfully troll, is to follow all the rules, so not sure what the point is.

Actually we have a troll now who only occasionally follows the rules. And really never with OPs, at least none i can recall.
(and no, im not talking about the lefties that always attack me )

Trolls are just as debunkable as everyone else. Troll/conspiracy believer/debunker... potato potato, bunk is bunk.

 

[deirdre]

A link to the Posting Guidelines is also included in the warnings.

yea but we both know that only maybe 5% of people ever click that link. They assume the warning tells them everything they need to know.

 

[Mendel]

There is no forum for what you are calling "un-characterized stuff".

"Here's a UFO documentary I enjoyed growing up" plus the link would've fit in Chitchat?

Maybe I'll re-register ... under a another name ... with one sole purpose: TROLLING.

These words are a bannable offense in almost every online community I know.

 

[deirdre]

"Here's a UFO documentary I enjoyed growing up" plus the link would've fit in Chitchat?

technically no. but lots of technically no stuff is allowed now, so you're probably right.

These words are a bannable offense in almost every online community I know.

more likely it was the "SM urinal".

 

[Mick West]

The rules are there to increase the signal-to-noise ratio.

People stay here not because you can post anything you want, but because it's geared toward posts that are both polite and useful.

Metabunk does not attempt to please all of the people, but rather to create something specific. It's not perfect, and sometimes people who might be valuable contributors might not make it past the first barrier. But If you simply want a place where people can post whatever they want, then many places exist for that.

Neither @Landru (thanks Landru) nor I am a perfect moderator. Some people want more moderation, some less, some different.

You can shout into the wind anything you like on Twitter, Reddit, or Facebook — and you'll get ignored. Or you can create quality posts that follow the site rules here and get constructive engagement. Your call.

 

[Henkka]

The rules here feel pretty arbitrarily enforced, though. It creates a feeling of walking on eggshells, I have no idea when or if my posts will get edited or deleted lol. Sometimes you can go on for pages and pages of technically "off-topic" discussion without so much as a warning, then other times you get clapped for going even slightly off-topic. I also feel like my threads are moved to Rambles even though they're completely in line with other threads that are allowed to stay up. I get that you want quality discussions, but there's not going to be basically any discussion if anyone with an opposing point of view feels like they have a target painted on them and just leave. I was reading an old thread where Tony Szamboti was complaining that it was taking a long time for his posts to get approved. If someone as professional as Szamboti is too spicy for this forum, what's the point?

 

[Mendel]

It creates a feeling of walking on eggshells

inside a hundreds of posts long discussion, moderation somewhat depends on user reports

when you post saying, "this is somewhat veering off-topic, but...", you're creating that 'egg shell situation' yourself

don't complain that there's a gray area when you get close to the line, stay away from it

 

[Sauron]

I would like to apologize to @Landru for part of my post yesterday. That was uncalled for. And I wasn't defending the OP of this thread. On the moderation..is what @deirdre claims true? I guess the argument is that once you see a poster has done a couple of ok posts, that is him vetted. I think the problem with that is the difference between commentors and those starting a new thread with the concomitant stricter guidelines. For the sincere newbie who has tried to start a thread, wouldn't it be better if the moderation more often consisted of letting it through while posting the infractions in the thread? The OP can even go back and edit it. Far more welcoming than a terse PM saying you've violated guidelines, and an inability to reply to the PM to find out what the matter was.

 

[econ41]

The rules here feel pretty arbitrarily enforced, though. It creates a feeling of walking on eggshells, I have no idea when or if my posts will get edited or deleted lol. Sometimes you can go on for pages and pages of technically "off-topic" discussion without so much as a warning, then other times you get clapped for going even slightly off-topic.

Just read the OP and ask "is my post on the topic". If you doubt it is, or think it is relevant but the on-topic aspect is not obvious - then explicitly state why it is relevant to the actual OP. I have done just that when responding to a number of your posts. And, if the derail leads to a discussion that could be valuable in its own right, on this and couple of other forums, I keep copies of all my brilliantly persuasive ( ) comments. CYA >>cover your ....

I was reading an old thread where Tony Szamboti was complaining that it was taking a long time for his posts to get approved.

Did you read context to see why he had been put on "Post Approval" status?

If someone as professional as Szamboti is too spicy for this forum, what's the point?

Tony? "Spicy"? Not the Tony I've "spoken to" recently. He can vary from time to time. Sometimes attempting two, even three, rounds of counter-rebuttal before he resorts to PA. Or simply runs away. He was probably wrong but that would not be the reason for sanction or constraint.

inside a hundreds of posts long discussion, moderation somewhat depends on user reports

when you post saying, "this is somewhat veering off-topic, but...", you're creating that 'egg shell situation' yourself

I've created that "egg shell" myself on many occasions given the tendency of several of my regular discussion partners to ramble off-topic into speculation. I'm aware of the risk. Prepared to accept it. And, if the derail topic is worthy, I keep copies of the relevant posts. PLUS I routinely suggest that persons who want to derail simply OP a thread for their specific claim.

don't complain that there's a gray area when you get close to the line, stay away from it

Mmmm... If someone has fallen off a cliff some other person has to rescue them.

 

[Mendel]

For the sincere newbie who has tried to start a thread, wouldn't it be better if the moderation more often consisted of letting it through while posting the infractions in the thread? The OP can even go back and edit it.

Typically, I got told I could fix the problems and repost. The deleted post was attached to the mod message, so I could kind of do what you're suggesting.

With your process, what if the OP doesn't edit it? then you get a low-quality discussion anyway, shich is what the rules are meant to impede.

Far more welcoming than a terse PM saying you've violated guidelines, and an inability to reply to the PM to find out what the matter was

It should always be possible to reply to these PMs, and I've generally gotten responses to my replies. If that does not work for some users, that seems like a bug that would warrant its own thread in this subforum.

 

[econ41]

... wouldn't it be better if the moderation more often consisted of letting it through while posting the infractions in the thread? The OP can even go back and edit it. Far more welcoming than a terse PM saying you've violated guidelines, and an inability to reply to the PM to find out what the matter was.

I know that this is the best currently active forum for my favourite topics (Forensic engineering of WTC 9/11 collapses, and any Public Health Engineering topics such as anti-vax and epidemiology/risk management) (I have little interest in UFOs et simile.)

Some of the rules frustrate me but they suit the ethos that members seem to endorse.

My personal preference is for the traditional moderation of JREF - in thread explicit warnings backed by removal of offending posts where the post together with the Mod ruling remains on view. A good "training aid" in expected standards PLUS they had an open-to-view thread for appeals. A very transparent process. I've not been as intensively involved since the JREF>>ISF transplant.

Such strictness is probably overkill for this forum.