Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[fokid]

here are my humble suggestions:

1. some diaries get to have a "[WITH PROOF]" tag in the title which is added only if the patient provides reasonable evidence in the form of pictures of x-rays, legs, hospitals, etc. to their level of comfort. people who don't want to provide any photographic evidence are still welcome to post diaries but readers will be able to read the diary with caution.
2. more moderators. for the successful implementation of point 1 it is important to have more moderator because most old moderators are not active any more.

what do y'all think?

[Android]

I'm in agreement, I posted a similar topic a while back:
http://www.limblengtheningforum.com/index.php?topic=4906.0

I'll leave the logistics up to Admin and crew, but something resembling verification would add some credibility to the threads. It's not that I personally don't trust them, but it's tiring when a thread derails into a conspiracy. I imagine it's frustrating for the authors as well.

[fokid]

how do we get the moderators to respond to this?

[Penguinn]

I encourage this too. However, only the admin can edit posts after a certain period, not the mods- so the admin would need to edit every title and reaching them is difficult sometimes. I will try.

Also I'm unsure what constitutes as proof because in my diary, I posted tons of X-rays and some people (granted it was only 2 or 3 and they didn't seem to have all their marbles intact) called it fake.

[fokid]

Also I'm unsure what constitutes as proof because in my diary, I posted tons of X-rays and some people (granted it was only 2 or 3 and they didn't seem to have all their marbles intact) called it fake.

those were a vocal minority.

x-rays are the bare minimum though...

[Penguinn]

I agree, x-rays should be mandatory. They don't even pose a privacy problem but if the patient's worried about the doctor finding out in case of a bad result, they can show them to just the mods and we can testify to their legitimacy.

[myloginacc]

Should we get this thread back on track?

1. some diaries get to have a "[WITH PROOF]" tag in the title which is added only if the patient provides reasonable evidence in the form of pictures of x-rays, legs, hospitals, etc. to their level of comfort. people who don't want to provide any photographic evidence are still welcome to post diaries but readers will be able to read the diary with caution.

We could have even "levels" or degrees of verification. Not too many, or it'd get confusing and cumbersome soon. Maybe two:

• Level 1. The minimum. Consistent x-ray pics throughout the diary. These can be easily reverse image searched so as to ensure they were never posted somewhere else before. This should happen in all cases before diaries get a verification. They should be uploaded by non-accounts of imgur and similar image hosting websites. This way the pictures can't be deleted later and won't be possibly re-utilized for fake diaries in the future. This is a burden that anyone who wants to have a verified diary would have to accept. Maybe we should have a level 0 (better than nothing) verification for diaries with x-rays pics, but that have the possibility to be deleted at any point in time.
• Level 2: for those who went above and beyond. These diaries would have included videos showing the person's full body (aspects such as the face being blurred out not being a problem), leg pictures, handwritten usernames (ideally compared against their doctor's own handwriting if such information is known, or any document that the patient has signed, even if parts of it have to be censored out for anonymity), in addition to the x-rays throughout the diary.
• (If it ever happens) Level 3. For those who went public with their CLL, making their real identity public to the forums, in addition to providing all the aforementioned evidence in the other levels.

[fokid]

maybe we should just let things be. we don't want 2-3 mods endorsing diaries using their own fallible judgement.

it is not hard for doctors come here and post fake diaries with pictures they have taken of their patients.

[myloginacc]

maybe we should just let things be. we don't want 2-3 mods endorsing diaries using their own fallible judgement.

it is not hard for doctors come here and post fake diaries with pictures they have taken of their patients.

Well, other users can call the mods' judgement if the community finds it flawed.

@2nd point: It is not hard, but it'd be good. The biggest money hungry surgeons would be opening themselves to all kinds of legal problems.

[totallyred]

I agree, x-rays should be mandatory. They don't even pose a privacy problem but if the patient's worried about the doctor finding out in case of a bad result, they can show them to just the mods and we can testify to their legitimacy.

Sorry to interrupt, but for a novice  like me, first of all one need to verify or prove that this forum itself is an  indepedent forum and not driven by any doctor/promoter/advertiser/collaborater/vested interest. How is it funded. What is the proof that there are indeed multiple members and not a single person taking multiple roles. Then only could anything said by mods or members should be an unbiased opinion.
May be too much to ask for but would help in calming down any skeptics in future.

[Penguinn]

How do you prove the negative?

[totallyred]

How do you prove the negative?

Negative

[myloginacc]

Negative

I think he means proving all members are not actually a single person taking multiple roles.

As far as that point goes, I think it is moot. The logistics, and seeing how this forum operates in real time, makes it impossible for it to be realistically all one person.

I don't know about the other points.

[Penguinn]

The negative = something that's "not"

How do you prove something "ISN'T"? If the fact that something "IS" can't be proved, it means it isn't.

For example how would you prove there ISN'T a ghost in your room?

[myloginacc]

The negative = something that's "not"

How do you prove something "ISN'T"? If the fact that something "IS" can't be proved, it means it isn't.

For example how would you prove there ISN'T a ghost in your room?

But that doesn't mean you can't prove a negative.

How do you prove there isn't a human lawyer hiding somewhere in your room? If you search all possible spots in your room, you can claim with good plausibility (beyond reasonable doubt) that there is not a lawyer hiding anywhere in your room. Record all spots in your room 24/7, for a month straight, analyze all the footage, and that's very strong proof. He'd have to have appeared sometime or die out of dehydration. 

What is generally meant with "proving a negative" is that you can't prove "something does not exist". That becomes a problem with ill-defined phenomena that have never been observed before.

How do I prove there isn't a magical, invisible, immaterial, aphonic, human-shaped lawyer hiding in my room? Well, that I can't prove with any of my means. The vagueness and lack of concrete definitions for the first word makes the case ever more difficult. Is the human-shaped lawyer invisible only to the capacity of the human eye, or magically invisible?

Anyway, for those of us who registered after the drama in the old forums, I understand totallyred's concerns. What I can say is that the mods and their diaries seem pretty trustworthy.

I'd also like to think this forum operates on a loss.