Thanks to JBean
All of our Mods are listed at the bottom of the page, we are all happy to help you out with any questions you many have.
[ame=http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65798]Websleuths Etiquette & Information[/ame]
Regarding facebook,twitter, and myspace you can link but do not cut and paste. But the goal is to really only link to those that are directly linked to a case. IOW, we don't want to post to someone's mother, brother, employer, milkman , or postal carrier just because they know the main player. It just gets too invasive and half the time we are not even sure it is the right person. When a post starts out, I found 5 people with this name do you you think any of these are [insert person here]? that is not a good thing.
It will often be up to mod discretion as to who can and cannot be linked, but the general rule of thumb is if they are named in the media specifically as having some role or are being questioned or have information then you are probably safe to link. No screen caps and no cutting and pasting. If a social media is set to private and you get in the back way and post what you see, that is not a good thing!Private means private.
Just imagine if is you if you cannot decide and you shoulod be able to figure out if it is ok.
You are free to discuss what you may come upon,but if it is just a lot of gossip and rumor it won't fly. People open facebook accounts and post whatever they want and to carry that as some sort of inside info is careless. but, sometimes there is really valuable information that may even come into evidence as in the Caylee Anthony case.So, if you know for a fact it is the right person and they are named outright in the msm as someone linked to the case it should be fine. IF IT IS A MINOR DON"T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT!!!
If something was posted as public and then removed you might be able to post it, it is up to the mod of the forum and it depends on who, what, when and where.
The mods are listed at the bottom right of the forum under the index, they can generally help. If not, they will ask admin for guidance and we will all decide what is best.
Generally we try not to invade everyone's privacy and if the linked information has no bearing on anything, then leave it out.
We moderate here. Some people love it and some people hate it. Up to you to stay or go, choice is yours. Complaining about our rules doesn't help. if you have a suggestion or think of a better way, bring it on! We are far from perfect and welcome your input as long as it is civil and basically polite.
we will be breaking things out into discussion topics- but for now carry on as you have been.
if you feel a topic should have it's own thread- go ahead and start the thread. You will not see it as all new threads will be "moderated" in here first. That means the mods can see your thread and no one else can. if the topic is approved, it will be visible to all.
Due to the controversial nature of this case we are going to do this for awhile. We are really sorry to have to be so tight-but the goal is to get everyone on board with rules and then it will run more like other forums. Ultimate goal is to give you more room to discuss all aspects more freely.
thanks for your cooperation.
The rules here can be quite confusing at times-but they don't have to be.
Please post any questions you may have about the rules here and a moderator will try and answer them for you.
Last edited by JBean; 04-29-2012 at 04:39 PM.
Good morning Mods/Admins...
I know we only link to MSM where we can post part of the article...10% or the first paragraph due to CR infringement...
I'm wondering if it's okay to supply a link to a blog that might have some insight into this horrific case, or any case topic...TIA
send the blog to one of the moderators in the forum.
It largely depends on the context in which it is used.
If it is controversial,new information that no msm is reporting-then chances are it will not be allowed.
If it is generally composed of offensive or questionable material-then it probably will not be allowed.
It is difficult to make a blanket approval or disapproval for any site and sometimes even allowed sites are not allowed for certain topics or specific discussion.
Any blog or site that is completely forbidden no matter what the context wil have **** when you try to post the link. If you ever get that do not post the informtaion or the link.
Last edited by JBean; 05-04-2012 at 10:18 AM.
Please use common sense when asking for or when asking others to provide a link.
If a link is requested for a disputed fact - that is reasonable because misinformation is spread when someone makes an off the cuff comment and no one asks for a link and it becomes fact.
if a link is asked for your obvious opinion- forget it- don't even respond and alert on the post.
If a link is requested to support something that is basic to the case or clearly stipulated by all like "trayvon was killed by George Zimmerman" no need to supply a link-no need to ask for a link.
if you say something that is not in msm and someone asks you for a link don't be shocked or offended and you will be required to post it.
Generally ,links are not requested or required to be annoying. Generally they are requested to make sure that what we are posting can pass fact check.We need them, but I think it is not rocket science to figure out when a link is requested in good spirit and when it is requested to be a pill. If you are requesting a link- take a moment to check the media thread and see if one is posted already.
People new to the case should take a moment to read in the media section
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166507"]Trayvon Martin Shooting Media Thread - NO DISCUSSION - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
or scan the conversation to unecessarily bog the thread down with link requests.
But veterans- don't give new posters to the case a hard time for not knowing all the detail like you do. This is a discussion forum and they need to jump in somewhere and ask questions. New members come in the forum all the time and will continue to do so-don't make then feel as though they are putting you out by asking basic questions.
Last edited by JBean; 05-04-2012 at 10:50 AM.
In reading thru the many posts on this topic and in agreement with your assessment of it's controversial nature...I wonder if we might have a thread devoted to the Divisive nature the MSM have used in their coverage of this case.
It is a sad commentary on our nation when the death of a young man can be used to divide people along "racial" lines. It is a tragedy when anyone is killed, period. the "race of a person" does not make one life more important than another, furthermore the added controversy of Black on White crime, and White on Black crime has become the "issue" rather than the loss of life.
It is the opinion of many, that the lives of the TWO individuals and their families have been changed forever, and for these families life will never be free from this profound tragedy.
The Media has turned this into a black vs white case, and I wonder how Treyvon's family feel about their son's death being used to forward racial intolerance.
This case should be about the quilt or innocence of a "man" accused of the shooting and death of a young man. Was it self defense (FL. SYG law) or not. Intent must be proven.
We are being influenced by the media to "TAKE SIDES", IMO--May we use this thread to call out the media outlets and their pundits who feel the need to make this "racial"?
Recently there was an incident of some 30 black youths who were responsible for the beating of 2 news reporters in North Carolina and this is being dismissed as "wrong neighborhood " for 2 white people to be...in fact their own newspaper refused to report the beating!!!
You may not believe a specific thread should be set up for this, but I at least wanted to point out that as long as we allow manipulation (in this case) by the MSM, the discussion will continue to be contentious--at least this way we may have a way to lessen the personal attacks, and acknowledge that racial overtones have been invited by media's coverage of this case.
Thank you for your consideration.
R. U. Kidding
I would love to see good discussion about this topic. It is not isolated to this case -we see sensationlized reporting play with our minds over and over.
Please go ahead and start the thread so you can craft the OP the way you want.
What about TM's YouTube Page? Is that ripe for discussion?<modsnip>There is a particular video that was there, which is no longer, and was just recently removed when the account started to be discussed on the Interwebz. Others have captured this video before it was removed, and it can be documented that it was indeed posted on the page. The video shows TM (referred to by name in the video, as well as with his distinctive right arm tattoo) refereeing a "fight club." Since this is primary source information about someone involved in the case, I assume it is fair game, but wanted to check. I know such things were allowed in the CA case, but seems many of the rules and standards seem to have shifted a bit with this one. I think this is directly relevant because it speaks to TM's involvement in fighting.
Last edited by JBean; 05-21-2012 at 08:53 PM. Reason: removed identifier
For the immediate I am going to say no. if the youtube has been removed then want to make sure of a few things.
1. Was it really his?
2.Should it be linked if has been removed?
3. is this in MSM?
Once we can get answers to thesequestions(not on this thread) then this may change. so no for now-but we roll with the news.
"In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same."
~~~ Albert Einstein
On WS, Trayvon Martin is considered the victim. He was shot and killed by George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman is charged with second degree murder. We are allowing the discussion of Mr. Zimmerman's defense, but until and unless it is proven otherwise, Trayvon Martin is the victim.
I spent a few hours researching and gathering pertinent information, which I think substantiates the matter I asked about beyond any and all reasonable doubt. I sent it to JBean, and I hope JBean will share it with you, as I think it is certainly worthy of discussion, and hope at the very least, it is a discussion which is "allowed."
I believe you were asking whether we would drop the "victim status" of TM in discussions allowed on WS. Due to the charges against GZ, the answer is no. We will allow members to question TM's actions of that night as it relates to GZ's defense.
If the information you have surrounding TM can be verified and linked by WS standards, we most probably will allow it, if it relates to the defense of GZ.
As for presumption of innocence, that is for a court of law and each and every member must decide for themselves whether they want to follow that practice. Personally, I do.
I have not so much an issue of calling Trayvon a victim as I did with the poster who immediately responded that we should not "demonize the victim" as if TM's history and predisposition (in their own words/actions no less), especially in a case which there is a legitimate dispute as to some of the most important material facts of the event, seemed to me almost akin to someone refusing to discuss something by calling it "racist" and then setting it aside as some sacred cow which cannot be touched. I just feel in any subject, setting something aside and refusing to investigate it because it is uncomfortable, is counter-productive to the one thing I hope we all want, the truth. A bit like not exploring the fossil record with regard to evolution because we believe in Creationism.......
The search for truth cannot have sacred cows.
Okay, we have not set aside Trayvon Martin as a sacred cow. We have stated he was a victim because he was killed and the State asserts it was second degree murder.
We have allowed the discussion of Mr. Zimmerman's defense to determine if the killing was justified under the Stand Your Ground law. The fact that he has second degree murder charges pending doesn't help the situation when trying to label him as a victim; however, if GZ was indeed a victim, hopefully the truth will come out.
There seems to be trashing of GZ's father allowed...in themost offensive way.<modsnip>
Last edited by JBean; 05-20-2012 at 11:07 PM. Reason: removed information that is not open for discussion.
Yesterday I tried to start a thread on one of the most serious charges against GZ...profiling. There was an article addressing the sad frequency of Black teenage male crime in that condocomplex. You did allow the article but not the thread.
If Gz is charged with a Hate Crime, he could be executed...but we cannot discuss the Charge that might result in his death...in a way that might bring undetstanding to his state of mind? Why not? Is that fair when a man's life is on the line? Are we not serious here? We can discuss how he broke his own nose..But not the charge that hangs over him?
Thank you for allowing me some latitude in the threads but this is not a side issue: profiling is key to this case.
Why can it not be a thread?
I didn't find this thread until today...so my WS geography is not topnotch. LOL
But I hope it isn't in a dungeun somewhere...because it is one of the key charges.