Social Groups

[LaLaw2000]

FWIW, I saw baiting on both sides in the RT thread.

 

[VolLady]

First I would like to thank Trish and all of the mods for doing such a great job! This is a very large forum and in part I think it is one of the best ones out there.

In saying that, I totally disagree with allowing any rumor threads for any case. When the RT was started the upstairs became like a ghost town. I know that the "locals" were approved by Trish and allowed to post however I still don't think that rumors in ANY case should be allowed. Links do not have to be provided and they could say whatever they wanted to say. That is not sluething!

Let's say I hated my neighbor and they got into trouble. I could come on this board prove I was who I said I was and my word would be golden. I could say anything I wanted about them and many of the other posters would believe me simply because I "knew" this person and lived next to them. I saw that many times in the RT. I could destroy this person just because I didn't like them or I wanted to be somebody important in a case.

IMO it's not the SG's that were the problem, it was the RT. The difference in opinion happens in every case however TOS not being the same in the RT allowed a free for all against certain players in this case. If TOS in the RT was the same as the main board, SG's would not have been needed. To be honest, I saw posters on both sides of this getting away with things that made me question if WS was professional. Time again I saw personal infor being posted on other posters (Player for one) and even some personal information on players in the case that had NOTHING to do with this case.

I was a member of Busy's group. I enjoyed reading in there much more that I did the RT. I guess the reason for that is that there were links, reasons why or why not a certain person should be looked into etc. No snarky comments, no gang mentality, just the facts. That's what any case should be about, fact.
To end this book I think that SG's should be allowed but for the right reasons. Some of the SG's I have seen are about very personal things that should not be posted in an open forum. I do not however think that SG's should be allowed simply because both sides of a crime cannot be examined in a professional manner.

Just my 2 cents.

My bold. I couldn't agree more Littleone. As a member of Busy's group I only remember a couple of times TG having to remind us why we were there and to please not take out our frustrations on posters with opposing views in the RT. If we used the same standard that was allowed in the RT, nothing we sleuthed could not have been posted in the RT. The problem was, the disruption to come would have shut the thread down again and most importantly, if we found information on someone who turned out not to be connected to this case, we didn't have to worry about someone taking that informaton and posting it on another forum where it would cause harm to the uninvolved person.

Sure we got off topic many times. Just like on all forums, you develop friendships with these people and the "social" side of us takes over. I miss the people in the RT, but the rumors, not so much.

I'm fine with WS's decision. All I can say about the group I was in is that not once did we have an argument among ourselves and these people will always be my friends.

 

[JBean]

Just for the record, the problems were not specific to just one SG. This all was going on in several of the social groups.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I am not a member of any SG's. What I saw IMO, was that there are definitely sides to the HC case. However, there were gauntlets thrown down on both sides. There was a clear distinction. There has been talk that a certain group didn't gang up on others in a bullying fashion. That's not true, IMO You could see a person's avitar and you knew whether they would blast the comment, or agree with it. It's that way on both sides. What is required in ALL the threads is to take the information being given and weighted whether you want to believe it or not. If you don't agree, skip over it. The world won't stop because you proved him/her wrong or that's not right. That's what the RT had started to become. I looked at it as a free for all. If you don't like it, stay out of there. It's your choice. It is for members only and not viewed by the general public. If people want to hash out theories with each other, do it, but DON'T tattle to the moderator when it gets hot. Of course this is just my opinion and it's not really worth a plug nickle.

BBM

Yes, there were two totally different sides there for sure and neither side is/was innocent. Also, I feel it was a behind the scenes decision for a certain group to have an 'in your face' Cummings avitar. I think that is over the top.
Some hit the alert button and was angry enough to tattle. Over and over. Childish, IMO. There was a great moderator there that had to give warning after warning time after time. I find it very refreshing to actually be on some threads here at WS where moderation intervention isn't even needed.

My last thing, (and then I will hush) got me really badly. Links to various media articles would be posted. Links would be used to prove a point and people would be insistant. Then these same people would get upset when there was a link on the same subject posted that had different information that may or may not be correct. Both could not have been accurate, but time after time, some would use these links to disagree. I may not be explaining it clearly, but some would believe one link one day and the opposing link the next day. Then would drop a tidbit and state they could not reveal their sources.

Both sides were at fault, IMO. I got to the point where I just read and rarely posted.

Now. I am going to drop it and not look back, but neither side was as innocent as they would like others to believe!

 

[STEADFAST]

Just for the record, the problems were not specific to just one SG. This all was going on in several of the social groups.

I was starting to wonder about that.

 

[atherella]

Just for the record, the problems were not specific to just one SG. This all was going on in several of the social groups.

Can I ask you to clarify please, JBean?

The decision to get rid of the Social Groups is not only related to the HaLeigh Cummings case? It is a generalized decision? TIA.

 

[Busylady]

I really hate when people beat around the bush trying to get a point across. NO one was required to name their source, however when I was kind enough to do that the result was not pretty. Someone actually called that sources supervisor and tried to get them fired for giving out PUBLIC information to me. So no way in heck was I giving out anymore names in the future. The mod knew who my sources were. I also have been told repeatedly in pms that I tattled and hit the alert button, so far from the truth but I will let a mod handle that if they feel it is necessary. I am not ashamed at what took place in our social group, there was no planned attacks, no behind the scenes change avatars plan, yes people vented out of frustration about certain posters behavior and that was wrong and the mod would remind us it was wrong and to get back on track, and there were pep talks when people where ready to throw in the towel. If people chose to have an avatar to show support for RC how is that any different that the many nasty signature lines posters have about RC, MC and TN are we to assume they got together behind the scenes and planned that. The bottom line is you can disagree, challenge and discuss different things without attacking, some unfortunately chose the attack route as long as they had backup. Unless you were on the receiving end of those attacks or saw those attacks before they were deleted it is impossible for you to understand the magnitude of what went down. One last statement in fairness to the mod, people who broke TOS rules were timed out from BOTH "sides" so the insinuation that the mod overlooked things for one side and not the other so off base IMO. I have never seen so many adults play grade school games in my life, and I hope to never see it again. This is not what WS is about.

 

[KOOL LOOK]

, I saw an announcement relating to the selling of Justice domains here last night, I accidentally clicked the red x when trying to go read further information. How can I find that again?

I don't like your line below your avatar, you are an intelligent caring guy with a great family.

I read just this page of the discussion, I'm glad to see it brought to the light for discussion. I went to Haleigh's rumor thread in the PL, and it was obvious there was some baiting, and causing dissension. I left the thread because I didn't want to get pulled into it further and become angrier.

I enjoyed that thread, the theories, rumors, because it allowed those to share ideas though not substantiated, but decent sypnosis' along with an effort to try to piece together an un-solved crime against a little girl and her family. Til we know who is guilty, we must show some compassion for the family on both sides. If we feel one contributed or is guilty, it can be said in a respectful thought provoking way to continue discussion, not start a flame feast.

I will abide in aministrations decisions concerning the topics discussed here, as websleuths grows, there will be constant change, to improve areas needing updating and growth towards the future. Hugs to everyone :blowkiss:

 

[JBean]

Can I ask you to clarify please, JBean?

The decision to get rid of the Social Groups is not only related to the HaLeigh Cummings case? It is a generalized decision? TIA.

Oh my gosh yes. Some groups were warned very early on, (well before the HC SG) to stop what they were doing, because it violated TOS and it was really hurtful to those that did see what was written.Members of the groups themselves complained which is what prompted us to check the SG's more carefully in the first place. There were time outs given. but even at that we were hoping those were just isolated cases. But that was unfortunately not how it unfolded. I am not even sure I saw what was written in the HC SG, but I did see others.

We understand that some of the groups were harmless and perhaps helpful in some ways. but that is why we are trying to sort this out and have an open discussion about it.

If we figure a way to open them again, would members be willing to step up and truly moderate their group? Would the organizing member be willing to make sure their group is in compliance?. I am here to tell you it doesn't make one very popular or well liked. That person would have to warn people, explain the rules to people,remove people, and whatever else it takes.

 

[KOOL LOOK]

If we figure a way to open them again, would members be willing to step up and truly moderate their group? Would the organizing member be willing to make sure their group is in compliance?. I am here to tell you it doesn't make one very popular or well liked.

True for those who don't take the time to get to know the person, the poster, the moderator. Those who care about this forum, the issues we discuss get it. Actually, I admire you more as I see the heat you withstand. Believe me, most here appreciate the moderation, and though we don't cry foul everytime we see it, we don't appreciate the same ones over and over giving administration a hard time.

Keep being you, don't change you. :blowkiss:

For , you Darling, I can see all my notices again. You are the best.

 

[atherella]

Oh my gosh yes. Some groups were warned very early on, (well before the HC SG) to stop what they were doing, because it violated TOS and it was really hurtful to those that did see what was written.Members of the groups themselves complained which is what prompted us to check the SG's more carefully in the first place. There were time outs given. but even at that we were hoping those were just isolated cases. But that was unfortunately not how it unfolded. I am not even sure I saw what was written in the HC SG, but I did see others.

We understand that some of the groups were harmless and perhaps helpful in some ways. but that is why we are trying to sort this out and have an open discussion about it.

If we figure a way to open them again, would members be willing to step up and truly moderate their group? Would the organizing member be willing to make sure their group is in compliance?. I am here to tell you it doesn't make one very popular or well liked. That person would have to warn people, explain the rules to people,remove people, and whatever else it takes.

Thank you SO much for your explanation!

Reading some of the comments on this thread, I felt as if people felt like the problem was limited to "our" little corner of WS. When I do venture out (and get lost), I realize just how big it really is here. Not that I'm "glad" to know the problem isn't limited to the "HaLeigh case", but... I'm glad WE didn't get the SGs shut down.

I do hope that there is a way to bring the groups back - even if it isn't my group or on this case. I think there is a lot of good that can be done in them under the right circumstances.

Thanks again!

 

[Texana]

Heck, I had forgotten all about them, lol.

Me, too. Gosh, Poco, maybe we need to send the Cat to rehab.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Last comment, I promise. I am not beating around the bush at all. I also had no idea who the sources supervisor was or is. I was not a part of that or attacking. Heck, I still do not even know who the A/C man is! I was not privy to a lot of the inside information and did not ask to be. I do not care for all of the 'secret stuff' or the 'don't tell so and so I said that' mess.

The unnamed sources deal was on both sides as I recall. That's it for me. I have never been rude to another poster or in any post that I know of. I have never had to have a TO either. My point was that it got nasty on both sides. And it did, IMO. I was addressing this thing in generalities.

ETA: I just want to add that it does not make any sense to alienate (sp.) another poster on any one case because another case will inevitably come along and you might find yourself in total agreement with that poster.

 

[smile22]

i am on this website all the time and i didnt even know they exisited

 

[songline]

I believe you had to be invited to join by someone that had created an existing group.

ETA -- I think there were groups that existed for all sorts of reasons. Sleuthing groups, social groups (for OT chit chat), etc.

Not just invited, but others had to agree too,
and if you don't dance around people, you were not voted for.
Or, so I hear.

 

[songline]

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

OMG I'm glad I'm not the only one!

Actually I first heard of it about a month ago, had no problem with it because I select not to be on all the cases.
I care deeply and do not think it is healthy for me personally to be immersed in more then a couple of cases at one time. So I really did not care.
I found out most recently that it is by invitation, and one gets selected and agreed on by the others
that begun to seem like a privet club and not REALLY about a case, nor about like minded thinking, because if all people thought one way only surly things would be dry, boring not expending
or stimulating. Whatever :blowkiss:
What did Groucho say? "I would not want to be a member of a club that would have me as a member anyway" LOL

 

[travelgal]

Wow-I must be so out of the loop, because I didn't even know there was such a thing as 'social groups' on WS.

Me either, Eleven. I must have missed that memo!
What is a "Social Group" anyway?

 

[cajun]

I'm not certain one should assume responsibility for the SG's being shut down, let alone the RT. However, and again from my perspective, there was precious little fact sharing going on in the RT and the subterfuge of those SGs to "sleuth out the truth" bore no fruit of their labors.

What was obtained was the breeding ground for the infamous "Breasts for Skin Art" debates, with very little LISTENING to either side going on. And without turning THIS thread into a debate about THAT, I hold tightly to my belief that the SG did more to shut down honest debate which examined both sides. To believe one had the "truth" in their SG is bogus, no matter how you see this case playing out.

That's not true. What information we did find, has been turned over to LE, maybe the other groups bore no fruit of their labors, but we did. Sometimes what we were looking at didn't pan out, sometimes it did and it was turned over to the proper people.

 

[cajun]

Busy, although you and I have opposing views of the Haleigh case, not only did I want to 'thank' your post, but I wanted to say DITTO DITTO DITTO.
The shock I am feeling regarding some poster's behaviors inside and outside of this forum against you, me, and others, is going to be with me for quite some time.

Like you, I think I'll stick to the open threads from now on.

In my very humble opinion, I think the SG's created in the HC case only, was not only a part of the undoing of the RT. but also defeated the whole purpose of us coming to WS in the first place. (As stated in a previous post by )

I agree, I was highly surprised by some people's behavior, it bordered on being juvenile and it still does, but I don't think the SG's was the downfall of the rumor thread.

Hopefully soon Haleigh will be home.

 

[Dr. Know?]

Okay, it was all my fault. I caused everything to happen. SG's, fighting, swooping of posters, counter attacts, infighting, you name it. I did it all by myself.

So blame me and get over everything. Please. It's not helping anyone here at all. Won't do it again. Promise, love DK aka Gilly "sorry"




Let's all find out where some of the children (Haleigh especially) and missing adults are too. Thanks all.