Please stop calling every new person a hoaxer

Thank you. Ask boring questions first. Hoax accusations after the witness refuses time, distance, waterline, and original file, not before they figure out how attachments work. We are not exactly running NASA here.

Half the old confirmed files would have been chased off by current reply-one energy. Sit with that before posting 'fake' at somebody with 2 posts, Kyle.

Counterpoint: some are hoaxes. Counter-counterpoint: making them answer boring questions exposes that faster than yelling fake in all caps. annoying but true.

The first reply being 'fake' teaches lurkers to never post the wide shot. Then everyone complains we only get crops. This is not complicated.

A bad photo is not automatically fraud. Sometimes it is just a bad photo. Sadly we must be adults for six posts before lighting the torches.

Six posts is ambitious for this board but I support the fantasy.

Original Lorida Herd would have been called fake in the first page now. Not because the evidence changed, because everyone got jumpier.

Ask: time, distance, waterline, return path, original file. If they answer none of it, then yes, sharpen your little skepticism forks.

Also stop using 'manatee' as a dunk on new posters. It is not even the right objection half the time, which is impressive.

Some people arrive from search engines half embarrassed. If we bark at them, they leave. Then the report lives only in a county Facebook comment forever.

And then three months later someone here finds the screenshot and says why didn't anyone archive this. Because you scared them off, probably.

New rule wording: ask for missing basics before calling hoax. Direct accusations without a field question may be removed. Yes, this means you, Kyle.

I have been here two weeks and already know who Kyle is without knowing who Kyle is.

Kyle is a condition, not a person.

Thank you mods. Skepticism is useful. Hazing new witnesses is just forum cosplay with worse punctuation.

I ask normal questions and everyone acts like I kicked the server. Sorry for not believing every blurry cow-shaped smudge is Poseidon.

Kyle you once called a fence shadow 'government wetness' and then edited it to 'optical wetness' like that helped.

Thread cleaned. You can be skeptical without being a lawnmower. Try it for one page.

the reason the old board worked, when it worked, was that witnesses could be wrong without being treated like enemies.

somebody would post a bad photo, three people would ask annoying questions, one person would make a joke, and then some elder with 8,000 posts would explain why it was probably a reflection. that process had friction, but it also had room for the person to stay. now the first answer is sometimes just 'fake' and a little victory dance. that is how you train normal people to never come back.

we need skepticism. obviously. this place would drown in dock shadows without it. but useful skepticism asks for missing pieces: original file, distance, waterline, return path, witness angle. lazy skepticism just performs disbelief. one builds the archive. the other makes the room louder and dumber.

anyway that's my old-man paragraph. carry on calling each other wet.