Etiquette & Information Discussion

[Auntie Cipation]

I'm trying to understand why the Julia Mann threads were deleted. I understand that she was found. There is a whole forum for "located" persons so that cannot reasonably be the cause that her threads were scrubbed. There is also a section in the Rules saying that WS will not delete threads. Yet it seems to have happened here. Am I missing something? Can someone explain the specific circumstances that led to her thread being scrubbed from WS against the Rules?

I don't know the answer to your question, but you might try reporting your own post to ensure a moderator sees it.

 

[0101ABA]

I'm trying to understand why the Julia Mann threads were deleted. I understand that she was found. There is a whole forum for "located" persons so that cannot reasonably be the cause that her threads were scrubbed. There is also a section in the Rules saying that WS will not delete threads. Yet it seems to have happened here. Am I missing something? Can someone explain the specific circumstances that led to her thread being scrubbed from WS against the Rules?

No rules were broken. When teens go missing and are recovered safely, we often make the decision to pull the thread from public view so that a google search of their name will no longer bring up their Websleuths thread as that could negatively affect their future or their mental wellbeing.

If you have any other concerns in regards to this, I’d be happy to discuss them with you via PM.

 

[PunkCake]

I don’t really know where to ask this without clogging up the unidentified forum.

I was browsing namus and I found a possible match.

I don’t really know what to do with it now and I’d like to pass it off to a more experienced sleuther who knows the ropes.
Because I’m not even sure the correct format to made the UID post.

Thanks in Advance!

 

[Laughing]

I don’t really know where to ask this without clogging up the unidentified forum.

I was browsing namus and I found a possible match.

I don’t really know what to do with it now and I’d like to pass it off to a more experienced sleuther who knows the ropes.
Because I’m not even sure the correct format to made the UID post.

Thanks in Advance!

@PunkCake, just post in the UIDs thread and include the link to the NAMUS missing individual. Posters will give input, you betcha!

If you can do side-by-side images, include that.

Jump in, we're all needed here!

 

[MadMcGoo]

I don’t really know where to ask this without clogging up the unidentified forum.

I was browsing namus and I found a possible match.

I don’t really know what to do with it now and I’d like to pass it off to a more experienced sleuther who knows the ropes.
Because I’m not even sure the correct format to made the UID post.

Thanks in Advance!

I hope you were able to post your possible match. If you have any questions or still need assistance, I’ll be happy to help! Feel free to private message me!

 

[RumorMonger]

Can anyone draw a bright line on the victim-friendly rule for me? Based on the conversation on this forum it seems like suggesting certain activities that led to a murder/missing person are okay but some are not. Best I can tell the official rule is actually pretty short and ALLOWS saying negative or unflattering things. "Discussing victim behavior, good or bad is fine." But it seems the adjudication process that deleted posts and punishes commenters is more complicated. Its clear to me that it isn't necessary to say "he deserved it because" to run afoul of the rule. Okay. But where is the line, exactly?

For example, it seems that one suggesting a victim had an affair or may desire an affair is not victim-friendly, even when one specifically stipulates that it isn't. On the other hand, apparently talk of a victim leaving a marriage, perhaps moving away geographically, unhappy with a marriage, being long-suffering, etc., even in the context of motive for murder, IS victim-friendly.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

Can anyone draw a bright line on the victim-friendly rule for me? Based on the conversation on this forum it seems like suggesting certain activities that led to a murder/missing person are okay but some are not. Best I can tell the official rule is actually pretty short and ALLOWS saying negative or unflattering things. "Discussing victim behavior, good or bad is fine." But it seems the adjudication process that deleted posts and punishes commenters is more complicated. Its clear to me that it isn't necessary to say "he deserved it because" to run afoul of the rule. Okay. But where is the line, exactly?

For example, it seems that one suggesting a victim had an affair or may desire an affair is not victim-friendly, even when one specifically stipulates that it isn't. On the other hand, apparently talk of a victim leaving a marriage, perhaps moving away geographically, unhappy with a marriage, being long-suffering, etc., even in the context of motive for murder, IS victim-friendly.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I see a pretty clear distinction between suggesting that someone might have been unhappy/planning to leave a marriage, and suggesting that that person might have had or desired an affair.

In a nutshell, having or desiring an affair is unethical behavior, while planning to leave an unhappy marriage is not.

It's not ok on WS to speculate that a victim did something wrong (ie unethical) that 1) brought about whatever may have happened to them, or 2) disparages the victim in general, whether or not related to the possible crime.

IMO only, I'm not a mod.

 

[Magz]

Can someone please define DBM and BBM when used in WS posts? Thanks!

 

[JaneEyre]

Can someone please define DBM and BBM when used in WS posts? Thanks!

Deleted by me
Bolded by me.

There is a WS lingo thread as well.

 

[Satch]

A Websleuths Policy Question:

"NOTE: Websleuths does not condone members becoming personally involved in cases by initiating contact with family members, case players, law enforcement, or the media. This does not preclude responding to a request for volunteers, or utilizing proper channels to report valid information, i.e., "a tip", to law enforcement."

If we have contact with someone who is a team player on a case, would it be wrong to send the case link URL to them, to tell them that their case is on our site? Why or why not?

Satch

 

[Laughing]

A Websleuths Policy Question:

"NOTE: Websleuths does not condone members becoming personally involved in cases by initiating contact with family members, case players, law enforcement, or the media. This does not preclude responding to a request for volunteers, or utilizing proper channels to report valid information, i.e., "a tip", to law enforcement."

If we have contact with someone who is a team player on a case, would it be wrong to send the case link URL to them, to tell them that their case is on our site? Why or why not?

Satch

Potential con: sometimes, posters are unaware of TOS and post rumors and/or unsubstantiated claims as fact

Some posters can be uncharitable or unflattering to victims, family members, and LE

Posts could potentially provide information to families that is upsetting


IMHO including any LE contact is a positive/pro. Posters do hear rumors, do find obscure connections, and realistically have more time to devote to cold cases then most LE.

jmho ymmv lrr

 

[Jaanniss]

Within the search feature, make sure you remove the checkmark from the box that says "search this thread" and if you want to search all of WS, also remove the checkmark from the box that says "search this forum".

Within the search feature, make sure you remove the checkmark from the box that says "search this thread" and if you want to search all of WS, also remove the checkmark from the box that says "search this forum".

Yes ... those checkmarks have influence ... as does the 'more' button ... especially to open the search box to a full browser page sometimes it takes a series of search terms and wondering if a new thread with no discussion can be started based on a search term. .. for example .... Missing from North Bay Psychiatric Hospital ?

 

[Satch]

Potential con: sometimes, posters are unaware of TOS and post rumors and/or unsubstantiated claims as fact

Some posters can be uncharitable or unflattering to victims, family members, and LE

Posts could potentially provide information to families that is upsetting


IMHO including any LE contact is a positive/pro. Posters do hear rumors, do find obscure connections, and realistically have more time to devote to cold cases then most LE.

jmho ymmv lrr

How can we get family members onto our site who would probably have the best information about cases? What is the process, so that it is not a T.O.S violation? I think that family members who are involved in cases would become the best sources of information. I agree about the issues above though.

Satch

 

[Laughing]

@Satch, possibly send the person the link for the Verified Insider process. Possibly the staff clarifies the TOS during the VI conversation?

 

[TGRD]

Can I post about other countries cases on websleuths?

 

[Laughing]

Welcome to Websleuths!

Certainly! There is a forum, I think for UK cases specifically:

United Kingdom Crime Cases - Links to cases on Websleuths *No Discussion* #2

(This is the links-only thread, but should include links to the threads.)

IIRC, you'll need to have a certain number of posts before starting a thread. Find some cases that interest you & add your thoughts!

jmho ymmv lrr

 

[Mandalas]

Hello!

Just had a reread of the rules, so clear and useful, thank you!

Quick question: can I quote / use the official search website (eg as set up by family members) of a missing person as a valid source? Speaking in particular about Sarm Heslop case. Thanks.

 

[Sillybilly]

Hello!

Just had a reread of the rules, so clear and useful, thank you!

Quick question: can I quote / use the official search website (eg as set up by family members) of a missing person as a valid source? Speaking in particular about Sarm Heslop case. Thanks.

We like to review each one individually to ensure that family members are in fact aware of and involved in the page itself. We don't have much of a problem with SAR pages, but by reviewing them, we can determine whether or not it is in fact approved or actively associated with either the family or relevated authorities. (i.e. in Missing Persons cases, we frequently have random sites who wish to project their involvement to gain exposure when they actually don't have any relationship with the family or LE).

 

[Mandalas]

We like to review each one individually to ensure that family members are in fact aware of and involved in the page itself. We don't have much of a problem with SAR pages, but by reviewing them, we can determine whether or not it is in fact approved or actively associated with either the family or relevated authorities. (i.e. in Missing Persons cases, we frequently have random sites who wish to project their involvement to gain exposure when they actually don't have any relationship with the family or LE).

Thank you @Sillybilly . Is best approach then to report my own post so it can be checked by a mod?

 

[Sillybilly]

Thank you @Sillybilly . Is best approach then to report my own post so it can be checked by a mod?

Best way is to private message a Mod or Admin before posting the link on the thread.