Holding up the standard of this forum

Edit Post

One aspect that I would like to see when holding up the standard of this forum is that any claims members make regarding the safety of certain LL methods must be accompanied by scientific or medical sources. It is completely unacceptable to for members to say that one method is safer than another without any evidence to back that assertion. It spreads misinformation which when dealing with a surgery of this magnitude is dangerous.

Members must be held to account on this.

Edit Post

The forum should be a place where patients can come to confide their thoughts and feeling but when apothesis - sysop can get on here and make many fake accounts spread lies and make fun of fellow patients the forum has lost ita integrity .

Did you know sysop - apothesis - sysp from old forum  would take forum members personal details and use it against them in order to blackmail them .

He also revealed patients identities , and created stories about them , personally it happened to myself but the problem he has and what he didnt know was i actually dont get ashamed for bettering myself by way of ll , since i done it in a responsible manner 5 -6cms its not a big deal .

The problem lies when patients that lengthen think they now have a passport to make fun of others now that is simply low and hypocritical . it also shows the lack of character integrity .

Ultimatley i ve come to realise the forum be it here or the old one is no place to confide in

Edit Post

It's probably not a good idea to confide in anyone that you've not met in person. Too much personal info can be used against you online. We try to let everyone have a voice here but we're also trying to deal with trolls as well.

Edit Post

Quote from: theuprising on May 04, 2015, 11:12:22 AMOne aspect that I would like to see when holding up the standard of this forum is that any claims members make regarding the safety of certain LL methods must be accompanied by scientific or medical sources. It is completely unacceptable to for members to say that one method is safer than another without any evidence to back that assertion. It spreads misinformation which when dealing with a surgery of this magnitude is dangerous.

Members must be held to account on this.

I agree that misinformation can be an issue. But only using official scientific/medical information on the safety of LL? That would kind of defeat the purpose of keeping diaries and reporting our experiences.  If someone comes along saying outlandish things, like LL will make you a better basketball player, or the Fitbone is weightbearing, don't moderate them. Just tear their nonsense apart so all can see it and know the truth.

Edit Post

Quote from: FutureLengthener on May 28, 2015, 05:53:29 AMI agree that misinformation can be an issue. But only using official scientific/medical information on the safety of LL? That would kind of defeat the purpose of keeping diaries and reporting our experiences.  If someone comes along saying outlandish things, like LL will make you a better basketball player, or the Fitbone is weightbearing, don't moderate them. Just tear their nonsense apart so all can see it and know the truth.

It would not defeat the purpose at all. The diaries complement the medical information. What we want here is as much information as possible. The point of my statement was to deal with certain posters on here who made outlandish statements, would not provide evidence when asked and then continued to pollute other threads with their nonsense.

The poster "yemef" was a prime example of the type of poster I am talking about. Please take a look at this thread to get an idea of the issue I am referring to.

http://www.limblengtheningforum.com/index.php?topic=2164.18

Edit Post

I don't like censorship, and I think that self-censorship is wishful thinking (I'm always right unlike that idiot ...)

But in these cases of personal liberty vs. digital commons, I think there is a definite role for the moderator. And that role of control/moderation has to be based on the principles of inclusiveness, fairness, and scientific reasoning.

1. Inclusiveness. Here what I mean is that the moderator has to consider not any individual or group, but the whole community and perhaps even the whole digital community in its entirety. The question here is: Does a certain comment or thread or poster harm the forum and its members, AS A WHOLE? I'll admit it's not easy evaluating the pros and cons of more than one parties especially if one is personally invested, but that is precisely the role of the moderator. And the criteria should be for the benefit of the group as a whole, and in the case of doubt, it should err on the side of caution/scientific reasoning.

2. Fairness. By fairness I mean that the moderator has to weigh the relative weight of freedom of speech vs. the personal freedoms of the individual. Note that this is a more restrictive principle as compared to the inclusiveness principle, which is more of an economic benefit principle. The question here is: Does a certain comment infringe on the rights of others not to have that comment made? For example if a user reveals private information of another, and the other is offended and requests redress, the moderator has to weigh the relative values of the information and the damage to the other user.

3. Scientific reasoning. Here I mean that issues need to go through the scientific process of information/hypothesis/evidence/rebuttal/accepted theory to be useful. And that takes time. Very often we see that arguments made in the beginning do not seem to be very relevant or make much sense, but upon further discussion reveals important insights. In this case, the question is: Is the comment interesting and does it need time to develop? The implication is that certain comments or arguments should not be removed immediately but be allowed to see where they end up.

As regards to the punishments for breaking these principles, there is a whole gamut of possibilities, ranging from banning, suspension, comment deletion, but I think the punishment should fit the degree of the infringement.

I hope I have provoked thought on this topic. If not, you can say whatever you like!