So, I still lurk on the boards from time to time, and I post where I feel compelled - usually some jokey response to something happening on the boards. But the quality and quantity of my "real" posts - those on the cases - has waned, and there are a few reasons for that, some having more to do with me than anything else, but there is one major external factor that we all deal with - the Unsolved Mysteries universe is a limited universe, with a limited number of cases worth discussing, and it has been a "stagnant" universe for 13 years now. It's a struggle to find cases that have enough to discuss to find something new to say, and for me anyway, half the time when I am reading a thread discussing some case with recent posts, and I do think of something I'd like to say, I look back to past posts of my own, and discover I've already said it. That's happened to me more than once.

The thing is, we have a good community here, of dedicated posters, who spend lots of time thinking deeply and intelligently about unresolved cases of various sorts. I'd like to keep actively engaged with the group, but with no new fuel for the fire, it's hard.

So, rather than endlessly going round and round about the same cases, I suggest that we develop some kind of LIMITED system for introducing "new" Unsolved Mysteries segments to discuss on here. What I have in my mind - and what might not work at all, for any one of a number of practical reasons - is something fairly strictly organized wherein a nominated "member in good standing" of the board is tasked with selecting and writing up, sort of UM style, a summary of a case s/he finds intriguing, worth discussing, and perhaps most importantly, one where some exposure, even of the limited kind we can offer here, might help to keep the case alive, draw attention to it, etc. The person could start a thread called "OT (for Off Topic) UM: Case Name), their post would obviously be the initial post, and then the discussions could begin. The thread would be open to discussion after that. Then, after a couple of weeks, a new poster would be nominated to select a new case, and so forth. After a year, we'd have 24 "new" segments added to the UM cannon for us to discuss.

This is just a proposal. The numbers could change (we could have only one of these threads introduced a month, etc.). Maybe it won't work - maybe it will be too tough to moderate and to keep new or relatively new posters from dropping in on the board and starting new, non-UM threads. Obviously this would take some tight moderation. I don't think we'd want a proliferation of non-UM cases: this is a UM board after all. Also, I think, if the board were collectively agree to pursue something like this, and it was OK with the moderation team, rules would have to be developed more-or-less cooperatively, with the understanding that all rules around this idea would be subject to a final up-or-down vote from crystaldawn (if it doesn't fly with the moderators, it doesn't fly).

What do y'all think? crystaldawn, I imagine you'll want to weigh in on this and smack it down if it needs to be smacked down.

I guess I don't understand. Take my posts from earlier today, for example. In one, I introduced most of Pam Page's letter, which previously has never been made available on the boards. And then, a series of articles on Sandra Breed, which had not only not been mentioned, but the segment has had no discussion here on the forums. And so on. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm very careful not to fall into a trap of me just repeating the same points on the same cases.

I guess you could refer to UM's 15 years worth of shows "limited", but its also vast. The forum is the most active now that it's ever been. Friends and family members pop in all the time with new info. I don't think we're going around in circles.

I don't mean to imply that there isn't - or won't be - new information and new things to discuss about old cases. But every time I visit, I see the same cases at the top of the thread - I don't have an exact count, but there are probably around three dozen or so that generate consistent, active conversation that are still unresolved.

I guess I see the cases falling into one of four categories:

Total Mystery, nearly to the point there is nothing to discuss: I am thinking of a case like Angela Hammond, really. Despite the pages and pages and pages of the thread - mostly dedicated to the resolved question of whether Rob could have done it - there isn't much to discuss. There's been some good conversation about whether Kenneth McDuff could have been involved, but honestly, just throwing out serial killer names and debating whether they could be the guy or not isn't really all that interesting. Without a body, and without more to go on, we're stuck just speculating totally. This is probably not the best example of the phenomenon I am speaking of, but is the one that leaps to mind - I mean the kinds of cases that stump LE for the same reason they don't invite a lot of interesting or productive conversation - someone has disappeared, or been left murdered, and the perpetrator, whether through skill or luck, has left basically nothing to "go on," and leaves outside discussion to basically speculation only, with no facts on which to base ideas, write-ups, etc. I think, as a general rule, UM's producers tried to avoid these sorts of cases, precisely because with nothing for LE to go on, there is correspondingly no "hook" for a television audience, and the segment itself would be very brief. Most UM cases have some weird wrinkle to them, some kind of thing that makes them stand out from a "standard" unsolved missing person or murder case. Still, there are a few that fall into this category I think, at least for me.

Unresolved, but lots of clues: These are some of the most interesting cases. Sometimes these cases have a definite suspect or two or three, or sometimes not, but in any case they are the cases which have lots of interesting evidence of some kind to help support discussion and theories. Perman Gilbert, Ayleen Conway, Eric Tamiyasu, Chaim Weiss, Tim McClure, etc.

Resolved, but in an unsatisfactory way: This is where I'd place most final appeal segments (this is exactly the point of these segments), and maybe some others that have gotten subsequent "solutions" that are not entirely satisfactory. Arguably, you might throw in cases where the obvious suspect seems nearly certain to have done it, but it has yet to be proven (Dottie Caylor, for example).

Resolved Cases: There are many cases which have solutions already, which takes the UM universe and shrinks it. Some are sort of on the border of resolved - like the Steven Marfeo case (he clearly did it, he is dead by his own hand, but no body was ever found for his first wife), and, at least in my mind, don't really invite a lot of interesting discussion.

These are broad categories, which can be stretched and redefined however you like. I guess the bottom line for me is that, of the unresolved cases left, there aren't very many where I feel like there is new ground to be trod, unless and until new information arises. This is just the way life is; my proposal is meant as a way to kind of kick start some new conversation.

If people don't like the idea, hey, fine.

I've actually made a pretty compelling argument for Stephen Marfeo's possible innocence (in regards to Doreen anyways, we know he's a murderer) as I feel there are a lot of factors about the case that don't quite make sense.

We also just re-opened the Mary Morris discussion back up, after not having been able to discuss it for years. The thread quickly ballooned up to a lot of pages.

There's been a lot of activity lately on the Renee Lamanna case, which had previously been rarely mentioned on here. And I've introduced a ton of new info on the Etan Patz and Jacob Wetterling cases on the Other True Crime Shows board.

I just don't agree with your assessment. UM had roughly 1,500 or so segments throughout its time, and I don't think we're re-hashing the same old stuff year after year. If that were the case, I think the forum would drop significantly in activity.

I really like this idea, mozartpc27!

Interesting way to keep true to the spirit, if you will, of UM, while bringing attention to cases that one might not have otherwise ever even heard of.

I'm not opposed to the idea, either. I know that in discussion of UM cases, we have touched on the subject of cases that were not covered on UM but would have been great to discuss.

Examples off the top of my head are Susan Powell and Maura Murray.

I haven't really been on to check, but I understand that the new UM site does put up new "segments" with regard to current missing persons cases. I wouldn't want to see it overrun the forums, but I think it's a really interesting concept. I would be open to it.

I actually have a case that's local to me of a missing person.

I know the prime suspect in the disappearance.

Given my "modest proposal" on the main board, looks like I should have discovered this board, and this thread, much sooner.

This was lifted from the Charley Project thread. I think it says it all.

Wherever it winds up. I think it being on the main board increases the likelihood of general participation and the feeling that it is something "we" are doing as a community, but, as I indicated in that post, it could easily fit in over there.

Wherever it winds up. I think it being on the main board increases the likelihood of general participation and the feeling that it is something "we" are doing as a community, but, as I indicated in that post, it could easily fit in over there.

I agree. Being on the main board would, in essence, increase exposure to the cases. I think it'd be an interesting idea for people to post something that happened in their state, or a case where they have some knowledge of the case to help others get a better understanding of the locations, people involved, suspects, etc.

I think adding new cases to discuss would be great! I think the regular UM cases are great and its always good to re debate or being up new info but sometimes there are fascinating cases that UM definitely would have covered back in the day that members should be able to discuss. I don't see the harm and actually think it would be a great idea to add to the forum.

http://reeelapse.com/images/smilies/gong.gifhttp://reeelapse.com/images/smilies/threadsucks.gifhttp://reeelapse.com/images/smilies/gong.gif

Classy

Part of what I think is cool about this idea is that one aspect of the internet age, and having a message board dedicated to a favorite TV show, that UM fans miss out on is the whole "congregating to discuss the latest episode" bit. I do this with Game of Thrones (on another board), and did it with Mad Men, but none of us get to do that with UM. If we set this up so that there was a semi-strict "schedule" in advance, we could have that too - people looking forward to the new "episode" ("segment"), wondering what the nominated person for that week will choose, whether it will be something they themselves had read about before, or not, etc., and then the fun of everyone having the same "new" case to discuss at the same time - like the new Mary Morris thread, guaranteed at some regular interval.

Admittedly, the moderating will be the tricky part. First, you'd have to have rules about who would be "eligible" to be invited to start one of these threads, then probably a fair and impartial way of laying out who goes first, second, third, etc. On another board I participate on, for a much different purpose, there is something like this - a list of "eligible" posters, updated annually, for a special purpose. Could be the same here. This would obviously all be up for general discussion - if crystaldawn and the moderator team would even allow it to go forward - but you might have a rule like, "only posters who have made 100 posts in the UM portion of this board, and who have made at least 12 of those posts in the last calendar year (so, an average of 1 a month in the last year), are eligible to be considered for the schedule." Then, from that master list, you just go down, in order of board seniority, offering each one a chance to begin a thread: if one does, that's it until the next thread period begins (perhaps as I suggest above, once every two weeks); if the first person passes or does not respond to the invitation within a designated window, then it passes to the next person, and the next, until someone does take up the opportunity. Again, all open to debate, but that is a model of how it might work in my mind. This way, there aren't too many non-canon threads floating around, they are clearly marked, and, hopefully, with a limited number of new "cases," each case remains forever active on this board, just like all the regular UM cases, so that there is constantly at least some little corner of the world discussing them, bringing attention to them, etc.

It's a little bit like the democratization of UM, a process we've seen with so many other shows. As a side benefit, although I don't think we as a small group have enough juice to get a network to pick up UM again and start filming new episodes (at least not at our current level of participation/organization), I think it would be a pretty powerful statement to anyone monitoring the situation out there (and I feel certain Cosgrove-Meurer must at least be keeping an eye on this place) that there is a fervent, if small, group out there willing to essentially to crowd-source their own UM "segments" in the absence of any new official ones.

Just throwing this out there.

Part of what I think is cool about this idea is that one aspect of the internet age, and having a message board dedicated to a favorite TV show, that UM fans miss out on is the whole "congregating to discuss the latest episode" bit. I do this with Game of Thrones (on another board), and did it with Mad Men, but none of us get to do that with UM. If we set this up so that there was a semi-strict "schedule" in advance, we could have that too - people looking forward to the new "episode" ("segment"), wondering what the nominated person for that week will choose, whether it will be something they themselves had read about before, or not, etc., and then the fun of everyone having the same "new" case to discuss at the same time - like the new Mary Morris thread, guaranteed at some regular interval.

Admittedly, the moderating will be the tricky part. First, you'd have to have rules about who would be "eligible" to be invited to start one of these threads, then probably a fair and impartial way of laying out who goes first, second, third, etc. On another board I participate on, for a much different purpose, there is something like this - a list of "eligible" posters, updated annually, for a special purpose. Could be the same here. This would obviously all be up for general discussion - if crystaldawn and the moderator team would even allow it to go forward - but you might have a rule like, "only posters who have made 100 posts in the UM portion of this board, and who have made at least 12 of those posts in the last calendar year (so, an average of 1 a month in the last year), are eligible to be considered for the schedule." Then, from that master list, you just go down, in order of board seniority, offering each one a chance to begin a thread: if one does, that's it until the next thread period begins (perhaps as I suggest above, once every two weeks); if the first person passes or does not respond to the invitation within a designated window, then it passes to the next person, and the next, until someone does take up the opportunity. Again, all open to debate, but that is a model of how it might work in my mind. This way, there aren't too many non-canon threads floating around, they are clearly marked, and, hopefully, with a limited number of new "cases," each case remains forever active on this board, just like all the regular UM cases, so that there is constantly at least some little corner of the world discussing them, bringing attention to them, etc.

It's a little bit like the democratization of UM, a process we've seen with so many other shows. As a side benefit, although I don't think we as a small group have enough juice to get a network to pick up UM again and start filming new episodes (at least not at our current level of participation/organization), I think it would be a pretty powerful statement to anyone monitoring the situation out there (and I feel certain Cosgrove-Meurer must at least be keeping an eye on this place) that there is a fervent, if small, group out there willing to essentially to crowd-source their own UM "segments" in the absence of any new official ones.

Just throwing this out there.

I am 100% behind this idea.

Another forum (horror movies) did something similar to this. They set up "special privileged" posters who could do things in the board. They had a chat room so every weekend there would be a selected movie and the board would get together and watch and discuss the movie.

I think this is an excellent idea, mozart.

http://img5.visualizeus.com/thumbs/21/f0/airplane,awesome,dinosaur,thread-21f027a6e389876e11bcadfb72fca688_m.jpg

UM features new stories posted about once a week on their website, youtube, and Facebook. The family of the victim produces a short video. Maybe those cases can be up for new discussion. They are the only "new" Unsolved Mysteries we have now.

UM features new stories posted about once a week on their website, youtube, and Facebook. The family of the victim produces a short video. Maybe those cases can be up for new discussion. They are the only "new" Unsolved Mysteries we have now.

Really? I had no idea they were doing this.

I guess I don't really see the point of this when we have a whole section of the board devoted to non-UM cases. IMO, adding a bunch of non-UM cases to the main board would result in a lot of clutter. And I hate clutter. If the board were close to dead it might be different, but we still have a lot of traffic and discussion here.

I guess I don't really see the point of this when we have a whole section of the board devoted to non-UM cases. IMO, adding a bunch of non-UM cases to the main board would result in a lot of clutter. And I hate clutter. If the board were close to dead it might be different, but we still have a lot of traffic and discussion here.

I agree. Every poster likes to be able to post when they please. Creating some sort of posting "schedule" is going to be too difficult on everyone. I honestly found the proposal to be too complicated, convoluted and unnecessary.

Plus, the off-topic threads are going to confuse people. New posters and even some older ones will see a thread on the UM board and think that Unsolved Mysteries aired it when they really didn't.

Additionally, the assigning of posters to come up with a case, research it, and write a detailed description about it feels like "homework". People shouldn't feel like they're obligated to make posts on here.

I guess I don't really see the point of this when we have a whole section of the board devoted to non-UM cases. IMO, adding a bunch of non-UM cases to the main board would result in a lot of clutter. And I hate clutter. If the board were close to dead it might be different, but we still have a lot of traffic and discussion here.

Because no one posts to the "other cases" sub-forum. I've been over there before trying to get conversation going about newer cases. I might get one response and then the thread dies.

Plus, the off-topic threads are going to confuse people. New posters and even some older ones will see a thread on the UM board and think that Unsolved Mysteries aired it when they really didn't.

The threads could be clearly marked in such a way to avoid confusion, and there wouldn't be all that many of them anyway.

Additionally, the assigning of posters to come up with a case, research it, and write a detailed description about it feels like "homework". People shouldn't feel like they're obligated to make posts on here.

Although I am suggesting we develop a schedule based on a list of eligible posters, participation would be strictly voluntary, as I've indicated. If someone's "turn" comes up and they do not wish to participate, they can simply say so (or not reply for a certain pre-determined period of time) and the turn would pass to the next person on the list. I imagine many on this board would like a shot at this, but many couldn’t be bothered. That's fine.

And remember, everything I've proposed is only an initial suggestion. It will only work if the rules are crowd sourced and agreed upon. I think the most important part of my idea is that if we can all agree on a set of rules and do this, these "new" cases we introduce would have some legitimacy as part of the UM canon, precisely because they were selected for inclusion and discussion by the best specifically UM message board and discussion group on the Internet, bar none.

Because no one posts to the "other cases" sub-forum. I've been over there before trying to get conversation going about newer cases. I might get one response and then the thread dies.

Yes, I've noticed this as well. Human nature, I think: personally, 99% of the time I check the board, I never think of the non-main boards at all. Just scroll down and see what threads are at the top.

Yes, I've noticed this as well. Human nature, I think: personally, 99% of the time I check the board, I never think of the non-main boards at all. Just scroll down and see what threads are at the top.

Me too.

And if posters don't want to be involved, I don't understand why they would be adverse to this idea anyway. It's like a breath of fresh air for the board, IMO.

Because no one posts to the "other cases" sub-forum. I've been over there before trying to get conversation going about newer cases. I might get one response and then the thread dies.

That is simply not true. You just made a post in the "Websleuths sucks....any alternatives" thread, which currently has 46 replies. Looking at the other 2 threads among the 3 at the top, they have 504 and 45 replies.

Because no one posts to the "other cases" sub-forum. I've been over there before trying to get conversation going about newer cases. I might get one response and then the thread dies.

Exactly correct. Starting a new thread in that forum is a low-percentage waste of time. It's like asking to be ignored. Very interesting and valid cases, many of them more intriguing than Unsolved Mysteries offerings, receive little to no response at all. The first page currently retreats more than a full year. Most of the threads have single digit number of replies, and some none at all. The view count is very low.

As always, the exceptions mean nothing. Naturally there will be the occasional thread that prompts a decent amount of response. Nothing is 100%. But it's laughable to suggest the forum is well trafficked. It's like on sports forums when someone suggests a trend, and others jump in to deny it. They have to scramble for those one or two exceptions, like rookie quarterbacks who were great, and then sit back as if they've proven their case. Nope, you've merely certified the value of the rule as opposed to the exception, via necessity to spotlight a small sample.

Regardless, this is a site devoted to a specific show. Anyone looking for discussion on other cases has more logical options. It is indeed remarkable that the main board here has remained so heavily trafficked. I wouldn't expect it to continue, at least not along 2015 terms. There has been an uptick in number of fresh developments. That logically can't continue, not at anything close to the same pace. Beyond that, there are still a number of devoted posters here who breathe life into old and seemingly dormant cases, like Timothy McClure recently, and somehow those threads explode for page after page when they just as easily could sit unbaked.

Because no one posts to the "other cases" sub-forum. I've been over there before trying to get conversation going about newer cases. I might get one response and then the thread dies.



Maybe people aren't interested. If they don't post up there, what makes us think they will post in the main board?

Yes, I've noticed this as well. Human nature, I think: personally, 99% of the time I check the board, I never think of the non-main boards at all. Just scroll down and see what threads are at the top.

I don't think we should re-make the whole board because people are too lazy to put forth one extra click.

I agree. Every poster likes to be able to post when they please. Creating some sort of posting "schedule" is going to be too difficult on everyone. I honestly found the proposal to be too complicated, convoluted and unnecessary.

Plus, the off-topic threads are going to confuse people. New posters and even some older ones will see a thread on the UM board and think that Unsolved Mysteries aired it when they really didn't.



All of this.

I don't have a problem with discussing new cases. I just don't think it should be on the main boar, when that board is dedicated to Unsolved Mysteries, the show. We have a section for other cases- let's make use of it and not make the main board a confusing mess.

This idea of mine sure died on the vine but I still think it’s workable if our inestimable new moderator were to be willing to endorse it. Could be fun!

This idea of mine sure died on the vine but I still think it’s workable if our inestimable new moderator were to be willing to endorse it. Could be fun!

I think still this was a good idea. Similar to what the subreddit Unresolved Mysteries does.