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.
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.
Yes, please send me what ever you have.How do we get these? One of the videos even has his notorious "gold house" in Miami. Do you want me to send you the links, is someone investigating, or what? I guess I am just saying that these questions are not going to answer themselves, and the MSM is not going to go against the narrative they spun, no matter what the facts.
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.
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.
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.
Are presumption of innocence of the accused and "following the facts wherever they lead no matter if they agree with our feelings and beliefs about the matter" are not practiced here? Respectfully, when you say "Allowing the discussion of Mr. Zimmerman's defense" it as if the discussion is resulting from your benevolent nature rather than a healthy examination of all relevant facts, which I thought was what WS was founded upon. I certainly think exculpatory evidence is of the utmost relevance.
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."
Please send the information to me as well and I will discuss it with Tricia, the other co-owner. This has been a very difficult case for us. We realize there is a plethora of information out there surrounding TM, but due to our rules requiring verified links; the fact that he was a minor; and the fact that GZ has been charged with second degree murder, TM is considered the victim by WS standards.
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.