SUGGESTION BOX (for Admin action)

[SacredCowSlayer]

Observer wrote,

[a]nd from now on, any member who breaks that rule . . . should automatically have all their posts (the initial trust-building-posts together with their final terror-story-reveal post) deleted to effectively take away the motivation for that action.

Dear Observer,

As you know, I have addressed most of these suggestions (in your full post above) previously. However, I don’t recall this one (that I have quoted in this post) mentioned before.

In legal terminology this would be descriptive as a rule that serves (at least in part) prophylactic purposes. Do you find my recently created topic sufficient as such? That is sort of what I was/am aiming for.

And if so, I would be delighted if you wish to help me compile Examples from the lengthy “Introduce Yourself” thread. I simply have to many “spinning plates” at the moment. You may (if you are inclined) post links in this topic, and I’ll (or of course another Admin or Moderator if he/she wishes) move them as time allows.

Sincerely,

[Observer]

By the way, Simon, and SCS, and all the other Admins here, here's an idea (no pressure) to consider:

When potential new members follow the instructions in the "How to Register at CluesForum" thread,
they then reach that "Initial Introduction By New Registrants" thread (visible only to new potentials)
(where that vital "significant connection with any news story covered on the forum" check happens)
then, after the admins ask such questions, such potentials arrive to the "Introduce Yourself" thread,
where current members should ask each potential, "Any attack-claims? If so, present evidence now."

All that is fine, yet I still think Simon can also add a sentence to the "How to Register" instructions:

If you or someone you know has witnessed or been the victim of any terror/shooting/bombing/attack,
we require any claims of such an unlikely experience to be included in the very first introductory post,
and we require extraordinary evidence for such extraordinary claims in the first introductory post too.

Such a visible warning will reduce the number of time-wasters (behind-the-scenes/posted-on-forum)
since potential new members will know, even before trying to sign-up: we require upfront evidence.
Less attack-story attempts will be sent to the admins & less attack-story attempts will appear here,
when the would-be-infiltrators realize: they have to present evidence of their claims in the 1st post.

An analogy: I sometimes watch "Stop a Douchebag" videos (which seem unscripted - but, who knows)
in which folks-tired-of-drivers-driving-on-sidewalks take a moral stand by forcing the cars to back up.
One technique is standing in the way until the car illegally tries to push them, then pressing charges.
The other often concurrent way is threatening to place a sticker, which they should do immediately.
But the activists waste time, debating with drivers who lie/cry/yell/beg/debate for sidewalk driving.

The effective solution would be: stand in one place - not move an inch - and silently point to reverse.
Moving to the drivers' window and debating with the jerks is an ineffective (dramatic) waste of time.
Trying to get drivers to admit the error of their ways is like trying to get shills to admit they're shills.
If the goal is truly to prevent the next car from entering the sidewalk: stand in the middle and point.
Don't debate with the perps, that just emboldens them by showing them they can waste your energy.
By not moving towards their window, by not debating, bad drivers would quickly give up and back up.
Don't allow them to push you backwards even 1 cm, stand firm, hold a concrete pylon near your feet.
See the concrete pylon is all one needs, to block cars from entering a sidewalk, so here's the analogy:

The visible concrete pylon of "claims must be made in intro, with proof" prevents the entry attempts.
No more "I like the other things this person types - maybe their attack-story is true" internal conflict.

If the intro post has an attack-story without evidence to back it up, mere typed words prove nothing.
Authentic attack footage, or at the very least authentic footage of your non-acting face describing it.
It becomes simple: "You physically cannot enter this space without authentic non-acting real footage."
So attach that to post #1, we'll analyze your video for evidence of acting or fakery, or don't even try.

This totally avoids typed-words debates, "I trust potential X's words vs. I distrust potential X's words."
Psyop agents have trouble creating authentic attack footage & creating authentic non-acting videos.
I know, folks like to say, "I can tell from just typing" but we can tell much BETTER from seeing faces.
Any attack-claim helps lead to wars & right-loss, so show us (the CF court) your footage & your face.

Currently Simon there is no concrete "claims must be made in intro, with proof" pylon visible upfront.
Thus currently cars are able to slide past initial questioning and then 100 posts later: Surprise Claim!

But who knows - maybe the concrete-pylon-less sidewalk-activists actually PREFER dramatic debates?
In one "Stop a Douchebag" video, an observer wisely said, "Cut the chit-chat, just put on the sticker!"
I'm basically suggesting taking it a step further, "Cut the chit-chat, put up the visible concrete pylon!"

BTW - my personal feeling is that in life: all new laws/rules should be NON-retroactive, for fairness.
IMO - my new strict rule idea shouldn't be suddenly retroactively applied to Kham or to anyone else.

I'm simply suggesting it be considered as a non-retroactive new rule for all NEW prospective members,
from NOW moving forward into the future - to preemptively prevent any and all FUTURE time-wasting
(and sometimes heart-breaking) debates filled with real internal conflicts about what to do each time.

"Any attack-claims must be made in 1st post, with evidence: authentic video of attack and claimant."

The punishment for breaking this strong-concrete-pylon could be one of three options, up to Simon:

Style A. The rule-breaker gets banned,
-----------and their evidence-less-claim remains hosted at CF forever,
-----------and their trust-building other-posts remains hosted at CF forever,
-----------and those posts might sow bad seeds in the minds of a few readers,
-----------but at least everything is nicely kept for posterity and properly ridiculed.

Style B. The rule-breaker gets banned,
-----------and their evidence-less-claim gets deleted,
-----------so they don't receive that big 'claim-still-hosted-at-CF' bonus from their boss.

Style C. The rule-breaker gets banned,
-----------and their evidence-less-claim gets deleted,
-----------plus ALL-their-posts-from-first-to-last get deleted,
-----------so they don't even receive that tiny 'other-posts-still-hosted-at-CF' bonus from their boss.

The pretty-good-post I wrote yesterday was OK, but my masterpiece post I wrote today is BETTER.

My masterpiece post wisely DOES NOT require matching any beliefs/dogma, allow me to explain:

When I walked off on my journey into the Concave Earth idea over at WildHeretic, I found a problem.
The problem was folks over there would post a bunch of trust-building-posts, and then, make a claim.
One kind of claim was the indirect, "Maybe SOME folks died in 9/11, since my dad knew Sumaya" type.
The other type was the more direct, "My dad was hit by shrapnel in the San Bernardino shooting" type.

I campaigned strongly to have those shills banned and to have a new rule created: a rule about belief.
So - WildHeretic required intros state whether one believes people are killed/injured in attack-events.
But that was a mistake of mine, because: it doesn't matter what folks believe, it's about their CLAIMS.

People can stupidly believe 3,000 died in 9/11 - sure - just don't claim "My daddy knew a 9/11 victim."
People can stupidly believe 14 died in San Bernardino - okay - just don't claim "My daddy was injured."
I had to quit that forum: in protest of WildHeretic not requiring claimants to FILM their attack-claims.

As you can see, my pretty-good-post which I wrote yesterday still mistakenly contained belief/dogma.
I was still suggesting mere belief in 9/11 victims, or humans in space, should be used to prevent entry.

But my masterpiece of today is perfect because it only demands the 1st post state any attack-CLAIMS.
It doesn't legislate belief, it simply says: if you have an attack-CLAIM, you must state in your 1st post.
& if you state in your 1st post an attack-CLAIM, you must attach authentic attack-video + face-video.
& if you hide your claim until later or attach forged-video or acting-video, then you get auto-banned.

From now on nobody can type 100s of trust-building-posts, then break our hearts with a LATER CLAIM.
From now on nobody can make an attack-claim without providing authentic attack-video + face-video.
And yes attack-claims lead to actual war deaths, so you must show the CF court authentic face-video.

No more later claims, no more claims without evidence, and no more labeling typed-words evidence.
The CF court hereby demands you show your face, as you make your deadly claim of "I saw a murder."
CluesForum broadcasts your war-initiating claim to millions, so you must appear in the witness stand.
Hundreds of thousands of humans are killed based on attack-claims, 9/11 is killing in Iraq even today.
Billions of people might lose human rights due in part to your testimony, so no hidden-face claimants.

Include in your 1st post authentic face-video of you discussing your claim, or never type such a claim.
Attack-claims start wars, but you're "too embarrassed" to share a video of your face? STFU and GTFO.
Simply typing "I saw an Iranian shoot some Jews" could lead to WW3, so showing your face is required.

Wow, I'm really spitting hot fire now. I'd better quit while I'm ahead, before I somehow trip and fall.
Pride cometh before a fall and all that. So anyway, I stand 100% by this masterpiece & this summary .
And yes I have the honesty to admit I'm having delusions of grandeur, and SCS's sentence is sufficient:

Also, if you claim to know a victim (or a friend or family member of a victim) significantly connected to a news event that has been discussed on this forum, let us know that up front.

[SacredCowSlayer]

Dear Observer and Cluesforum Members,

I find it appropriate to make my introductory post (to the newly vetted registrants) visible here. I appreciate the suggestions made by Observer, and I think they are largely addressed in this post below.

Many (if not most) of the concerns will be addressed (primarily by yours truly and Simon- at the time of this post anyway) specifically on a case by case basis. That’s far preferable to a “litmus test” of some sort.

And I have previously written about my opposition to any suggestion that we engage in, let alone impose a dogma of our own. Simon and I have discussed this point specifically, and we are in complete agreement as such.

Even though our “new registration process” is in its infancy, it is clear (at least to me) that he and I are more than equipped to do the vetting in the manner we have established thus far. It’s not perfect, but such a thing likely doesn’t (and never will) exist.

In any event, here is my post in the “Introduce Yourself to the Administrators” topic.

Dear New Registrants,

After your account is active, you will need to post here with some basic information about yourself.

Please include what led you to Cluesforum (and how long you have been reading here, if applicable), the topics you are primarily interested in, and what kind of life experience (personal or professional) you have that may be relevant to contributions you anticipate making.

Also, if you claim to know a victim (or a friend or family member of a victim) significantly connected to a news event that has been discussed on this forum, let us know that up front.

This is the exclusive Forum for New Registrants to post on at the outset. After review, and perhaps one or more exchanges with the Administrators here (prior to, and subject to Admin approval), your Group will be changed to that of an Active Member.

I recognize this is not ideal. But, this gives the Administrators here the opportunity to engage in some back and forth (if necessary) before the new registrant/member begins posting elsewhere on the Forum.

This will also serve to prevent the seemingly constant problem we have with new members having to be reminded to “please go introduce yourself.”

The only groups permitted to post here will be Administrators and New Registrants. So you need not worry about a “free for all” at the beginning from the entirety of Cluesforum.

Indeed, this particular thread will not even be available to be viewed by our members or guests. Please understand that your “handshake” Introduction here will (upon Admin approval) eventually need to be placed in our customary “Introduce Yourself” thread for the benefit of our members.

Thank you in advance, and please remember to become acquainted with this forum before posting.
I highly recommend becoming familiar with the following two topics before beginning to post here.

Please see Simon’s “TOUR GUIDE” to the September Clues research.

Then, to complete the picture, you should become acquainted with The Vicsim Report, and to drive the point home, you may find it helpful to read through some of what we refer to as The 9/11 Memorial Scams, which also exists here.

The concept of Vicsims is vitally important, since it isn’t exclusively a 9/11 method of Deception.

As a bonus (that I personally think is an “eye-opener”), you may look through the topic ”FALLING MAN”-the phony jumpers.

Sincerely,

SCS

[pov603]

Dear SCS without wishing to sound picky, isn’t It better to have people mention “any” newsworthy event whether discussed on CF or not (the latter being most pertinent)?
No disrespect to Kham but Observer’s point (IMO, that is) was that an event (not previously discussed on CF) was used in connection with an event that was being discussed.
Forgive the intrusion as your inclusion is a step in the right direction and this posting is not to open any sort of “debate” about any specifics.

Edits: typo & punctuation!

[SacredCowSlayer]

Dear SCS without wishing to sound picky, isn’t It better to have people mention “any” newsworthy event whether discussed on CF or not (the latter being most pertinent)?
No disrespect to Kham but Observer’s point (IMO, that is) was that an event (not previously discussed on CF) was used in connection with an event that was being discussed.
Forgive the intrusion as your inclusion is a step in the right direction and this posting is not to open any sort of “debate” about any specifics.

Edits: typo & punctuation!

Dear Pov603,

It’s possible that I’m simply tired and am therefore missing your message/suggestion here.
If you would like to send me a PM I would greatly appreciate it, and I’ll reply tomorrow.

Sincerely,

[Observer]

If you or someone you know has witnessed or been the victim of any terror/shooting/bombing/attack,
we require any claims of such an unlikely experience to be included in the very first introductory post,
and we require extraordinary evidence for such extraordinary claims in the first introductory post too.

Also, if you claim to know a victim (or a friend or family member of a victim) significantly connected to a news event that has been discussed on this forum, let us know that up front.

Dear SCS without wishing to sound picky, isn’t It better to have people mention “any” newsworthy event whether discussed on CF or not (the latter being most pertinent)?

I think pov603 is suggesting (about your current "Introductory Request for newly-vetted-registrants" draft) that maybe the "has been discussed on this forum" limiting-qualifier should be cut?

Pov603 makes a good point there, since the "has been discussed on this forum" limiting-qualifier would allow future newly-vetted-registrants to later type in their 100th post: "The following story hadn't yet been discussed on this forum when I joined, so I didn't feel compelled to mention it up front in my intro, but now that we've become friends over the past year of posting: I now want to reveal that I DID witness..."

And following up on Pov603's good point there, the "significantly connected" limiting-qualifier would also allow future newly-vetted-registrants to later type in their 100th post: "I wouldn't call myself significantly connected, so I didn't feel compelled to mention it up front in my intro when I joined, but now that we've become friends over the past year of posting: I now want to reveal that I DID witness..."

Cutting those two unneeded limited-qualifiers thus preemptively prevents the possibility of highly-probable divisional-dramas caused by future-claimants writing a year from now, "But, my sudden witness-experience-reveal in my 100th post didn't break the 'Introductory Request', I simply didn't feel compelled to mention upfront in my intro this witness-experience (of me or someone I know) since hey: the 'Introductory Request' contained those limiting-qualifiers of significantly connected to a news event and has been discussed on this forum."

Thus that important sentence in your "Introductory Request for newly-vetted-registrants" letter could probably be improved by saying:

Also, if you or someone you know has witnessed or been the victim of any terror/shooting/bombing/space/nuclear/attack event (or any media-mentioned event whatsoever) let us know up front in your intro.

That's just a suggestion for consideration.

That suggestion is actually quite loose, compared to the tight "prophylactic" idea of asking future prospective members to type their claims up front in their intro AND provide a little visual evidence:

Also, if you or someone you know has witnessed or experienced any terror/shooting/bombing/space/nuclear/attack event (or any media-mentioned event whatsoever) let us know up front in your intro.

AND please provide up front in your intro some visual evidence for your typed witness claim, such as a video of the event which you (or the person whom you know) witnessed or experienced. At the very least a 5-minute video of you (or the person whom you know) looking us in the eye and telling us about the event witnessed or experienced.

There is a very good reason why juries in courts need to see the facial movements and hear the voice of the claimants making claims about any event witnessed or experienced: typed words simply lack the visually analyzable evidence which we humans need, to make a fair decision about the probability of a claim being true or false.

We can't allow our rare oasis of truth to publish typed claims to millions of readers without the Admins first analyzing your visual evidence: at the very least a 5-minute video of testimony from the 1st-hand event-witness, or the 1st-hand injured-person, or the 1st-hand killed-person's-surviving-family-member.

Simply visually testify for 5 minutes about the terror/shooting/bombing/space/nuclear/attack event (or any media-mentioned event whatsoever) which has been witnessed or experienced, or: if too shy to visually testify then you agree to never type (and never even indirectly imply) such a claim on this forum. From the moment of these updated Terms Of Service being posted, any future new-registrants who type such claims without visual testimony may be banned and possibly even have their posts deleted at the discretion of the site Admins. Thanks for understanding.

Perhaps I'm crazy for suggesting such claims in the intro should provide visual testimony evidence.

OK, if I seem crazy for suggesting that, then alright, back to this relatively quite tame suggestion:

Also, if you or someone you know has witnessed or been the victim of any terror/shooting/bombing/space/nuclear/attack event (or any media-mentioned event whatsoever) let us know up front in your intro.

OK, that's my final suggestion on that subject, promise.

[HonestlyNow]

Question for the forum administration:
What is the reason for the color-coding of user names, besides letting the reader know whether the author of a post is in forum administration or simply a contributing member?

[simonshack]

Question for the forum administration:
What is the reason for the color-coding of user names, besides letting the reader know whether the author of a post is in forum administration or simply a contributing member?

Not my idea, dear HonestlyNow - but I'd say it's not a bad one. After all, most forums I know of indicate (underneath each member's username) whether a member is this or that - so it's common practice, really. As you can see, SCS has made it so that four categories are indicated :
Legend: Administrators, Global moderators, Newly registered users, Registered users

[SacredCowSlayer]

Question for the forum administration:
What is the reason for the color-coding of user names, besides letting the reader know whether the author of a post is in forum administration or simply a contributing member?

Not my idea, dear HonestlyNow - but I'd say it's not a bad one. After all, most forums I know of indicate (underneath each member's username) whether a member is this or that - so it's common practice, really. As you can see, SCS has made it so that four categories are indicated :
Legend: Administrators, Global moderators, Newly registered users, Registered users

That’s true. There’s nothing all that special about it. I find it helpful to me (for Administrative purposes) to be able to more quickly scan a page.

I tried to pick colors with a strong contrast, but different enough from one another to be useful.
In particular while the settings continue to be refined, I want to see VERY quickly (for example) in the event a “member” in the “newly registered users” group is (for some reason) able to post where they otherwise should not be able to.

With color-coding, it’s far less likely to get by me. I hope this makes sense.

Warmest Regards,

[fbenario]

Once again, the Mint statistics page won't open.

[SacredCowSlayer]

Once again, the Mint statistics page won't open.

Hmm. Okay, I’ll see what I can do about that.
Thanks for letting me know.

[fbenario]

Once again, the Mint statistics page won't open.

Hmm. Okay, I’ll see what I can do about that.
Thanks for letting me know.

Still down.

MySQL Error: Access denied for user 'clueman78'@'fossil.dreamhost.com' (using password: YES). (1045)

[SacredCowSlayer]

Once again, the Mint statistics page won't open.

Hmm. Okay, I’ll see what I can do about that.
Thanks for letting me know.

Still down.

MySQL Error: Access denied for user 'clueman78'@'fossil.dreamhost.com' (using password: YES). (1045)

Yeah, I obviously haven’t figured this out. Would you mind emailing me (use the email address in my signature line below-not through our email system, which isn’t working right now) with exactly what you are doing to receive that “MySQL Error” message?

And if you have a suggestion for how I can fix it, please of course include that in the email as well.
I’m trying to find somebody with tech expertise to assist here.

Sincerely,

[elmoastro]

It's been awhile since I've posted and had to check the "How to" on embeds. For some reason my browser blocked the page due to an infect. Might want to check it.

[SacredCowSlayer]

It's been awhile since I've posted and had to check the "How to" on embeds. For some reason my browser blocked the page due to an infect. Might want to check it.

So, when you click here, it won’t open?

Any other members having that problem?

You may need to clear the “cache” in your browser.