There was a question about people wanting to meet in real life. Please review Websleuths policy:
Posting Personal Contact Information (Address / Phone Number):
Members may not post personal contact information such as home address, work address, home telephone number, work telephone number, etc., in the public forums. ANYONE, including guests to WS, can read the public forums - this policy is in place for YOUR safety and protection.
Contacting other members to meet in Real Life:
While members are always free to contact each other to meet in person, via telephone, or in other ways, Websleuths will in no way be responsible for any actions or events arising from such contact. Websleuths staff does not read or otherwise monitor Private Messages and has no way to monitor private emails, telephone calls or other such communications. It is up to each individual member to decide if they desire such contact and the resultant loss of anonymity. Websleuths neither condemns nor condones such meetings and it is up to the individual members to decide if they wish to get together.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7825556#post7825556"]Rules Etiquette & Information - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
A question (and I hope I'm asking this in the right place). I'm following the Allison Baden-Clay case. I've seen mention of "verified insiders" and I'm wondering what exactly this means. The reason I'm asking is I want to know what kind of weight to put on statements made by them. Are they just people who live locally and can verify they live in the area? Are they more than that. For example: they can verify that someone close to them is a member of the investigating team. Or can a "verified insider" be as simple as someone whose (for example) children attend the same school as the Baden-Clay girls?
Any info would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
A verified insider is someone who knows the family or immediate friend(s) of someone named in the case in one way or another. It means they "could" be getting true information about the case that hasn't been disclosed in the media. However, their information is only as true as the family/friend who is disclosing it to them.
It's hard for me to get specific because WS will not disclose the type of relationship. If the verified insider discloses it, we will only step in if it's not the same information they told us during the verification process.
Bear in mind that the verification process isn't foolproof. We'd have to fly to Australia and check it out ourselves and that isn't going to happen. This process has helped get rid of "trolls" in the past, however, and that's why we do what we do.
Hope that makes sense!
Makes sense. Thanks very much, Kimster
We do not discuss psychic issues on Websleuths. That includes tarot, astrology, visions, etc. This is not new. I've posted many times that we don't discuss dreams/visons/psychics on Websleuths. There are many sites out there for that sort of thing and we are not one of them.
In addition, Summer_Breeze is the point mod in Allison's subforum. If she doesn't know an answer to one of your questions, she will ask administration and get the answer. If anyone here wants to give her a bad time about that, I'm going to get grumpy and pull out the ray gun. Summer wants to be your moderator and deserves to be treated with respect for all the hours she volunteers here because she really likes you guys.
Complaints about the Websleuths member verification process need to be brought up to the owners: Tricia and/or SoSueMe. You can email them at email@example.com
Anyone who chooses to continue to complain about it on the forum is subject to a time out without warning. It's distracting to the case and disruptive to the forum.
Last edited by Kimster; 07-30-2012 at 06:01 PM. Reason: added email address
Oh, got it and removed my question, I hope everyone else does. Didn't know that you were a mod Christee. Thanks.
but much of it I still dont understand. for example:
quote: Plus, it can make some members feel they can't join in if they don't understand it unquote
this I dont get. If someone posts about subjudice, or hair banding, or personality disorders, I dont understand it, and it isnt removed. But I ask questions and get involved. Half the discussion on the main thread I don't understand.
On the chit chat thread, I wasn't aware that the topic of discussion was screened, and had limitations, other than being pg rated, obviously. I know bugger all about dogs, even though I have one. I know nothing about boats either. I really would appreciate the terms to be more specific as I am unable to understand them. thanks
Im not querying a moderator decision, I am doing the same as other posters and asking some questions, just as the lovely Kimster happily responded to as she said in her opening comment.
thanks for moving my post...can someone please answer it?
First of all, questions about how things are moderated belong in a private conversation or here, in the Threadiquette thread.
Second, you can ask about case posts all you want. If you have a question about it, then probably someone else does. But to make up words is entirely different. Modding for crime cases is what we do. Spending time modding word variations in chit chat threads is not. WS doesn't normally allow chit chat threads at all. This has been an exception and for the most part, we don't really care what you guys post in there. But when we can't even understand if the posts are WS violations or not, that's not going to work out.
Marly, I dont understand why some members have different rules? AM I wrong in thinking this? I am following your request to stay away form mental disorders and thought your comment was directed at all forum/thread members?
As has been stated in the past by Kimster, there is no evidence to date which mentions GBC has any type of mental disorder. All members were asked to refrain from discussing this.
In Memory Of Allison
I don't get it either. Most of these threads are full of rumours, speculation, and a little off topic stuff. If that was all removed, there were be almost nothing left.
I don't get the rumour thing at all. Why are some posts, eg. GBC possibly being gay, allowed to remain in the main thread, yet posts about diet etc are removed from even the chat thread?
Every time I look the page numbers are diminishing.
We've had threads and threads and threads discussing various personality disorders - Kimster herself even gave us links to discussions/radio shows etc on Sociopathy. As far as I remember she never said don't discuss it.
Have the rules changed?
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=179583"]Clarifying what to do about rumors - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
In Memory Of Allison
We have never allowed rumors on Websleuths. I've said this over and over again. This is nothing new! The issue we had before is that we didn't have a moderator to help us in the wee hours of the night. That's why we asked Marlywings to help us. Because we couldn't keep on top of all the problems. We would wake up to dozens of alerts every.single.morning. The rules were being broken on a constant basis and by the time we were up and ready to help, most of you were in bed.
This may seem like it's all new to some of you, but this is just normal to Websleuths. We don't do rumors. If you want to speculate, that is fine. Saying someone could very well be a sociopath is normal speculation because most men who kill their wives are found to be sociopaths. Do all sociopaths kill? No. http://www.youmeworks.com/sociopaths.html
That's just one example of speculation vs. rumor. Please don't make this harder than it is. Just use common sense. And feel free to read the forum rules: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2279603&postcount=1"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Rules Etiquette & Information[/ame]
Marlywings was a busy one last night as she fielded quite a few alerts asking about negative comments regarding law enforcement. I've reviewed the posts and am ready to give my final decision.
The links that were shared did not give me an inkling of an idea as to how a problem with law enforcement and the media share in not presenting the truth about this case. Unless such evidence is given, please stop posting about corrupt police and/or media.
If this is a true concern that you feel needs to be shared, please start a post about it in the Political Pavilian. You will need a link there about the topic in your first post. Here is a link to the PP: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=27"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
If you see any more posts about this topic, please alert them for Marlywings to remove and do not respond to them on the thread. If the issue of posters derailing the thread and other posters continuing to take matters into their own own hands via posting in response continues, time outs will be issued. That's not fun.