A New Approach to Moderation at Websleuths

[TMich6811]

I appreciate that you’re listening.
I feel this will get out of hand and be far too difficult to moderate.

IMO it’s more about consistency and tone between moderators and threads and less about letting stuff through that goes against websleuths foundations. I’d hate to see what websleuths was founded on changed, personally.

Thank you though, it’s nice to see you trying to solve problems and make people comfy

 

[mlhenn]

Just to throw my two cents in, fwiw.

The reason I became a member of this site is because it's a refuge from the absolute garbage commodity that true crime has become on social media sites. Victim blaming, conspiracy theories, rampant rumors from dubious news sources or individuals, and just flat out meanness is the norm, not the exception, in most Facebook and Reddit true crime discussions. I sincerely appreciate and value the Webslueths ethos. Webslueths is an oasis from the nonsense that much of the internet has become.

I fear that some of the changes being proposed could water down the ingredients that make Webslueths so special to me.


Reed

I totally agree with you on this.
Fact based, victim friendly, the absence of just plain out rudeness is what set Websleuths apart from other sites.

 

[mrjitty]

This allows people to see why a post was flagged. Sometimes if it just gets deleted, they have no idea why because who remembers what you posted yesterday that might have been wrong out of the 54 posts you made?

Although I don't post much anymore, I'd like to second this take from @Ghostwheel and echo this feedback for an important change from @Fraize and team

Something that is extremely frustrating is when complicated posts that took a long time to write got deleted - sometimes simply because the OP was deleted and you get caught up in the cleanup. Then you don't have your original text, or even know what post was deleted, in order to fix the issue.

I understand that in the past, the only tool mods had was a hammer, hence deletion - so as a tech update this at least means a poster can retain the original text to consider amending!

Credit to Fraize for a welcome improvement.

Cheers, 02c etc

 

[iulia]

@Fraize This change is very interesting, I am very curious to see it in action. I have a couple of questions:

1. Will there be an option for users to flag portions of their own posts that contain the rumor/unbacked by MSM information? I am thinking something like the Spoiler button. I think this could save the mods time, instead of reporting your own post.

2. I spend most of my time in the Missing and Unidentified Forum, where I post when cases are removed from NamUs. Sometimes I find unofficial updates on Facebook and really want to share that. I try to tiptoe around it by keeping it vague and saying “IMO”, but most of the time I don’t say anything at all. With the new rule, would I be able to say it upright, without linking to the unapproved FB group or page? How should I handle this situation? The Missing and Unidentified Forum is very much about the resolution of those cases and it’s a bit frustrating not being able to share or find out the outcome if it never makes it to MSM.

 

[Trebor5591]

I totally agree with you on this.
Fact based, victim friendly, the absence of just plain out rudeness is what set Websleuths apart from other sites.

I guess that's the theory, but in practice I see plenty of all out rudeness, viscousness really, in the way some WS members make comments towards people accused of crimes,. Like Barry the accused Colorado wife killer, nobody will say a balanced word toward him, even if his own daughters are supporting him, the lynch crowd of hateful comments toward Barry are just too raw and vicious for me to feel comfortably reading, I feel many times how I wish the site moderators would bring the worst of these personal attackers , who seem to have some unreserved crime trauma in their background to make them act so, under some form of control so their bad vibes don't contaminate those just wanting the know the facts. I do feel some encouragement with these new moderation techniques.

 

[Ruminations]

FOX affiliates are not banned, just FOX.

Local FOX stations are often solid journalism.



MOO

 

[Fraize]

Will there be an option for users to flag portions of their own posts that contain the rumor/unbacked by MSM information? I am thinking something like the Spoiler button. I think this could save the mods time, instead of reporting your own post.

It's something we've considered. For now we're keeping the ability to flag posts in the hands of moderators while we see how Websleuths users react to the new feature. I personally like the idea, but I don't want to upend too many site-wide cultural-norms at the same time!

Sometimes I find unofficial updates on Facebook and really want to share that. I try to tiptoe around it by keeping it vague and saying “IMO”, but most of the time I don’t say anything at all.

Bottom line, we want to allow for people to read unverified content and decide for themselves how much they can believe it. That said, when it crosses the line from "speculation grounded with the understanding that it may not be true" territory into "dissemination of misinformation and disinformation", we're going to have a larger problem.

We want to allow for limited discussion of speculative topics as long as it doesn't go over the line. Where that line is can be subjective, so we could be setting ourselves up to be accused of arbitrarily enforcing the rules because of where that subjective line is from case to case.

Maybe we'll always have that problem, who knows?

Here's what I want you to do, though. When you come across that information, and you're worried that it's from a questionable source, post it and report your own post to the moderators. We'll flag the post for you. If it's actually more problematic than a flag would allow, we may delete it, but if you're acting in good faith, you won't get dinged or get a time-out.

Moderation shouldn't feel like a punishment – unless you're being a jerk of course!

 

[Ruminations]

So, what, if anything does this have to do with the Renee Good thread and the inability to post or react?

Was it going in circles, yes. I can see saying something like, "No more posts with assertions regarding contact or threat of contact between the victims vehicle and the shooter." I can see, "No more posts about the clarity or lack thereof of the shooter's orders." Such thread rules could get us out of a few loops.

What possible good could closing the thread do for the site? How does disabling reactions help?

I'm sticking it out at this point, but I'm not going to lie. Not long ago, I was considering becoming a guardian even though I am philosophically opposed to subscription and would rather, say, pay 36 dollars for twelve months. Now, since the Renee Good thread debacle, I almost folded up my websleuths tent and left. I didn't get to guardianship, and I didn't leave, either. But I remain much closer to the leave side with what happened on the Renee Good thread.

Blurring by mods seems like a non-help, IMO. As someone suggested, a spoiler or not for everyone button controlled by the poster makes more sense. If someone is saying something they know some people will find rude or snarky, or is off topic, they should take responsibility and hide it. If they don't, mods should snip and delete. I'm not sure why mods would even want to take on making posts more polite, or have to do the work of taking responsibility for hiding off topic information.

And, Renee Good was shot dead. It's a crime. Let us discuss it.

MOO

Edit: I meant to ask about disabling reactions. I used the wrong word -now replaced with 'reactions.'

 

[bestill]

Local FOX stations are often solid journalism.

MOO

I'm not disagreeing with you, Ruminations, but your post triggered this post for me.

I know this isn't a FOX news thread, however I don't understand why FOX is banned while some other networks aren't. They have had to retract statements, settle lawsuits and pay fines too. I think we should all be able to make our own mind up about what news source we believe and which ones we don't. Prohibiting only one seems discriminating.

Here's some examples of the other networks that I'm talking about:

- ABC Fined 15M
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/media/cnn-settles-lawsuit-viral-video - CNN Settles Lawsuit
Paramount, President Trump reach $16 million settlement over "60 Minutes" lawsuit - CBS Settles Suit
CNN To Pay $76 Million In Backpay - CNN to pay 76M

I know I'm probably walking into a vipers den by posting this. JMO

 

[iulia]

Here's what I want you to do, though. When you come across that information, and you're worried that it's from a questionable source, post it and report your own post to the moderators. We'll flag the post for you. If it's actually more problematic than a flag would allow, we may delete it, but if you're acting in good faith, you won't get dinged or get a time-out.

RBSM.

Thank you very much for your answer. Sorry to nag you about it, but I had posts edited by mods in the past, so I just try to understand very well what I can or cannot say. To be more precise, there are numerous groups on Facebook for missing or unidentified persons. Some of them are approved sources on websleuths, but many are not. Sometimes people who identify themselves as family members or friends of a missing or unidentified persons comment under posts there and say “X person has been found” or “this Doe was identified as Y”. Can these type of things be mentioned now? And if yes can they be linked?

 

[shotgun09]

I'm not disagreeing with you, Ruminations, but your post triggered this post for me.

I know this isn't a FOX news thread, however I don't understand why FOX is banned while some other networks aren't. They have had to retract statements, settle lawsuits and pay fines too. I think we should all be able to make our own mind up about what news source we believe and which ones we don't. Prohibiting only one seems discriminating.

Here's some examples of the other networks that I'm talking about:

- ABC Fined 15M
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/media/cnn-settles-lawsuit-viral-video - CNN Settles Lawsuit
Paramount, President Trump reach $16 million settlement over "60 Minutes" lawsuit - CBS Settles Suit
CNN To Pay $76 Million In Backpay - CNN to pay 76M

I know I'm probably walking into a vipers den by posting this. JMO

My sentiments exactly.
WHO decides what is valid information?

I feel pushed to the brink....like a '1984' character.
We are here.

My feelings on censorship:

"There is no such thing as 'misinformation or disinformation' there is only information. You were not born with a brain that requires you to believe everything you hear or see; you were born with a brain allowing you to review information and make your own decisions. Do not delegate your thinking to the filters of others."

 

[Fraize]

Blurring by mods seems like a non-help, IMO. As someone suggested, a spoiler or not for everyone button controlled by the poster makes more sense. If someone is saying something they know some people will find rude or snarky, or is off topic, they should take responsibility and hide it. If they don't, mods should snip and delete. I'm not sure why mods would even want to take on making posts more polite, or have to do the work of taking responsibility for hiding off topic information.

In my original post, I spelled out what we would flag.

1. Rumor – Information being discussed elsewhere but not confirmed by reliable sources. Speculation presented as possibility rather than fact.
2. No Source – Content from unapproved or unknown sources. Links to sites we can't vouch for.
3. Unverified – Content from unapproved or unknown sources. Links to sites we can't vouch for.
4. Off-Topic – Content that strays from the case being discussed. Tangents, personal stories, general chatter.

Rude content, snarky content, and completely off-topic content can and will still be deleted. The point of flagging is to allow conversation that, while we can't vouch for it, still advances the topic somewhat. Even if we gave people the opportunity to flag their content, rude, snarky, and completely off-topic content will still be deleted.

We're going to figure this out as we go. We don't expect to have all the answers to every question and every permutation of how this will play out, but we are willing to adjust. We'll get it wrong sometimes, but I personally won't let Perfect be the enemy of Good.

 

[Ruminations]

I do not think websleuths is moving in a good direction when reactions and further discussion are disallowed because there is too much emotion.

If a thread is basically closed because of too much emotion, that allows activists to close a thread by over-reporting content, baiting and trolling. Emotions will start to run high, and posters who do not want a topic discussed will be able to thus control websleuths' content by creating emotion.

It is reasonable to consider some debates over-discussed and off-limits within a thread. For example, if again and again people are discussing what they saw or heard.

But to make something unable to be discussed because "emotions are running high," can only open the door to censoring topics.

MOO

 

[Fraize]

I do not think websleuths is moving in a good direction when reactions and further discussion are disallowed because there is too much emotion.

If a thread is basically closed because of too much emotion, that allows activists to close a thread by over-reporting content, baiting and trolling. Emotions will start to run high, and posters who do not want a topic discussed will be able to thus control websleuths' content by creating emotion.

It is reasonable to consider some debates over-discussed and off-limits within a thread. For example, if again and again people are discussing what they saw or heard.

But to make something unable to be discussed because "emotions are running high," can only open the door to censoring topics.

MOO

This is off-topic enough that I should remove it, but @Ruminations brings up something I wish to discuss publicly.

Sometimes we shut down threads because identity-politics gets in the way of the discussion of the case. When a thread no longer serves the interests of solving the crime, or deepening our understanding of it, then that thread no longer serves Websleuths or its members.

We are not a political forum. Some crimes are often motivated by, or twisted and tied into politics. That is inevitable, but there were two threads in the last few months which were shut down because users couldn't stop themselves from discussing politics. Nobody thought they were in the wrong in doing so, and nobody is going to be swayed by your arguments. We are so entrenched in our beliefs, we've tied our identities to them.

Neither Tricia nor I nor the mods are immune to the effects. We also get wrapped up in these discussions, we also get frustrated that we can't have open and honest discussions with you on these topics, and we have had to make moderation choices that go against our own personally held beliefs...

But one belief we have that is stronger is the belief that we can help solve crime by sharing what we know with each other. If we have to delete a post, it's not because we wish to serve a political ideology, it's because we wish to help solve crime.

Already reaching for that reply button? Don't. Take it to my DMs.

 

[Deleted member 369619]

In my original post, I spelled out what we would flag.

1. Rumor – Information being discussed elsewhere but not confirmed by reliable sources. Speculation presented as possibility rather than fact.
2. No Source – Content from unapproved or unknown sources. Links to sites we can't vouch for.
3. Unverified – Content from unapproved or unknown sources. Links to sites we can't vouch for.
4. Off-Topic – Content that strays from the case being discussed. Tangents, personal stories, general chatter.

Rude content, snarky content, and completely off-topic content can and will still be deleted. The point of flagging is to allow conversation that, while we can't vouch for it, still advances the topic somewhat. Even if we gave people the opportunity to flag their content, rude, snarky, and completely off-topic content will still be deleted.

We're going to figure this out as we go. We don't expect to have all the answers to every question and every permutation of how this will play out, but we are willing to adjust. We'll get it wrong sometimes, but I personally won't let Perfect be the enemy of Good.

Fraize, believe me, I am NOT trying to be snarky, but all the posts deleted for politicizing and blurred smack of censorship to me. I’m totally a child of the 60s and I will fight censorship every step of the way, even at the age I am now.

 

[Fraize]

Fraize, believe me, I am NOT trying to be snarky, but all the posts deleted for politicizing and blurred smack of censorship to me. I’m totally a child of the 60s and I will fight censorship every step of the way, even at the age I am now.

I appreciate your perspective and the reasons you have for holding it. I would prefer content isn't deleted. In fact, you may not ever see the posts that get deleted at all, but we do delete posts when they violate the rules. For most users, it's as if that content never existed at all.

Instead of doing that in every case, we're giving you the chance to view the content, but armed with the understanding that the content may be problematic. We leave it up to you to decide rather than deciding for you.

 

[marble]

Fraize, believe me, I am NOT trying to be snarky, but all the posts deleted for politicizing and blurred smack of censorship to me. I’m totally a child of the 60s and I will fight censorship every step of the way, even at the age I am now.

Fraize, you are stating you want to remove "identity politics" which I want to point out is a loaded term broadly used as a dog-whistle to discount opinions from marginalized groups, especially from groups that would be most directly affected by policies (the end game of politics) when they are discussed. I'm not sure if you are aware of the connotations.

There is no way to remove politics from opinions, opinions that look "non-political" aren't, they just align with the status quo or popular opinion. I'm stymied as why you would shut down the Renee Goode thread but leave this propaganda thread up and running (and untouched): Minnesota Fraud

 

[Traymar]

I would just like to say that I really like the new changes. It makes sense, but is still impressive, that a site committed to rational, fact-based discussion would take a proactive and measured approach to problem-solving and change.

I greatly appreciate Websleuths, and I agree that what sets it apart is the focus on verifiable facts. And people's feelings and opinions are not facts.

Also, freedom of speech and censorship arguments/concerns don't apply here. That only applies to governments.

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

Local FOX stations are often solid journalism.



MOO

This is definitely unfounded rumour and should be blurred, surely?

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I guess that's the theory, but in practice I see plenty of all out rudeness, viscousness really, in the way some WS members make comments towards people accused of crimes,. Like Barry the accused Colorado wife killer, nobody will say a balanced word toward him, even if his own daughters are supporting him, the lynch crowd of hateful comments toward Barry are just too raw and vicious for me to feel comfortably reading, I feel many times how I wish the site moderators would bring the worst of these personal attackers , who seem to have some unreserved crime trauma in their background to make them act so, under some form of control so their bad vibes don't contaminate those just wanting the know the facts. I do feel some encouragement with these new moderation techniques.

Just wanted to echo this because I've noticed it too. I'm not one going to come to a true crime board and defend criminals obviously. But it's when the person is accused, not yet convicted (often before we even know anything at all) that the pitchforks come out and for some reason, being victim-friendly is conflated with tearing down the accused, sometimes viciously, for everything they write, photos they post, what they say, how they sound, how they look. It's really creepy and often not discussion-friendly or productive/constructive, which is what makes me leave those threads.