A New Approach to Moderation at Websleuths

[Spy Versus Spy]

Im really unsure about the changes.

I'd like to know how much pressure is on WS to grow. Is there a timeline where slow or no growth becomes financially unsustainable to proceed in any form?

One of the growing issues for some time, but especially since the maximum number of participants in Private Chats were increased, is that posters were taking less part in main threads due to restrictions on what could or couldnt be said in them, instead, large number of posters were leaving the MT to join Private Chat Groups where discussion and Sleuthing could happen more freely, leaving MT's stagnant and irrelevant. Some loosening of rules would help stem this but at what cost?

I love that Fraze has appeared at WS, his contributions have been huge, but @Fraize , I think such sweeping proposed changes, especially ones that are fluid, are unwelcome from where I stand. Potentially chaotic. Especially regards libel, maybe even intefering in Trials, which earlier posters have mentioned.

I do think our Mods are top potatoes and its definitely consitency thats needed, for which clear rules are needed.


While changes are afoot, Id love to see some way that all posts in Threads must be read and noted in chronological order before being able to post in said Thread. Possibly with extensive Cliff Notes at various stages in longer threads. There is nothing worse than being drawn into a thread, only for it to enter periods of repetitive whirlpooling as those joining at a later juncture start to post. This frustrates both posters and thread progression imo. Some Threads are incredibly fastmoving with highly active numbers of posters, also Time Differences etc, which all complicate a solution, granted.

SvS x

ETA: Maybe subscription only access to Mod-blurred posts? I know Im getting quite Draconian and Tyrannical. Tomorrow........Greenland!

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Fraize, I appreciate the opportunity to have open dialogue about the changes to WS.


I just want to say one more thing regarding politics. I get it, there's plenty of political talk all over the Internet and people sometimes come to WS to avoid all that. But a point made earlier is valid and that is that it's really difficult to take out politics when it comes to crime.

For instance, the death penalty is political. NGRI is political. Mental health, in general, is political. Whether we like it or not, true crime has always involved politics and politicians. We've had politicians on both sides of the aisle sent to prison for crimes they've committed. We've also had crazy criminal cases that are politics-based or influenced -- Jan 6th, for instance, which we were able to discuss. But also George Floyd, Trayvon Martin, Ahmaud Arbery, etc, etc, etc. To now draw the line with what seem to be a departure from what has historically been allowed seems like a deviation and new policy rather than reflective of existing policy around politics. I suspect it's because of the shift in popularity of opinion and if that's the case, I find that really sad and I fear it will impact the future of the site.

I feel we're at a turning point in American history and politics. Sometimes there are absolute rights and absolute wrongs, and fear of offending the other side shouldn't always be the motivation.

MOO.

ETA: I'm also wondering if you all would consider political threads being housed somewhere else on the site, maybe a place that's only open to posters who've been around a while rather than first-timer posters, and a place where posters can have posting privileges revoked if they get in the sandbox? Could that be a potential compromise to keep it off the main pages and still allow for discussion of crimes with strong political ties?

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

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.

Agree.

That's without posters' vitriol to each other.!!

 

[seasideForest]

ETA: Maybe subscription only access to Mod-blurred posts?

I'm wondering what you hope to achieve by this? If my own post were blurred, I couldn't read it because I'm not a Guardian... If you want to restrict access, I think it would make more sense to do so according to frequency of posting or length of time on the forum.

For some people $3 a month is no problem, for others it's a hurdle. Financial means doesn't say anything about ability to discern meaning of a post. MOO

 

[Spyralflare]

What about opinions (not speculations) posted as facts?
I’m not even trying to read any threads here that in any way relate to politics anymore for this reason.

 

[Fraize]

I just want to say one more thing regarding politics.

If you want to litigate the merits of political discussion on a true crime board, send me a DM, and I would be happy to share my thoughts. But I thought I was very clear when I said

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

because the second you mention politics, the thread immediately becomes about politics. And that is why we don't allow politics on a true crime forum.

I'd like to know how much pressure is on WS to grow. Is there a timeline where slow or no growth becomes financially unsustainable to proceed in any form?

Websleuths costs more money than it makes. Full stop. Guardians offsets that, but not by enough. There are two ways to get more Guardians:
1. Add value to the membership so more of our regular users decide to sign up
2. Add more regular users to the site so the number of Guardians members scales with it.

The features I add to the site mostly contribute to the 2nd way. More users overall means more paid users. The features I add that are Guardian-exclusive, like the Media Bias Checker and the flagging-feature opt-out, add value to Guardian-membership which gets more users to sign up.

I'm motivated to make Websleuths at least cost-neutral to Othram. Every dollar Othram spends to keep Websleuths operation is a dollar they don't spend performing DNA tests and helping solve cold cases. Othram's CEO David has shown an incredible amount of patience and willingness to support Websleuth's mission, but I'm the one applying pressure to stop being a drain on their resources. Othram wants that, too, but has given me no specific timeline.

Im really unsure about the changes.

We are too, which is why we're testing them now. If they work, great. If they don't, we'll adjust, fix the issues, or throw them out.

Many of you are worried for the future of Websleuths, and I get it. For a lot of you, Websleuths is your home, and change can be worrying when you've made your home here. I'm here to tell you that no change is permanent.

What about opinions (not speculations) posted as facts?

Tricia and I discussed your exact concern this morning during our daily call. We don't yet have a great response, yet. We're leaning towards saying that as long as everybody exploring speculation does so fully understanding that it's only speculative, we should be okay. However, the moment it crosses the line into disinformation and misinformation (speculation posted as facts) we'll take harsher measures. We haven't hashed that out, so this isn't policy, but I felt you should know where we are in the discussion.

 

[Knox]

JMO, if peeps want to discuss straight up politics there are many other options elsewhere.

WS is a true crime discussion forum, I prefer to keep it true to form.

Regarding the changes; it’s a little weird, but like other upgrades which have been made throughout the years, I’ll get used to it after a time. You’ll never make everyone happy, appreciate your efforts Fraize!!

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

If you want to litigate the merits of political discussion on a true crime board, send me a DM, and I would be happy to share my thoughts. But I thought I was very clear when I said

because the second you mention politics, the thread immediately becomes about politics. And that is why we don't allow politics on a true crime forum.


Websleuths costs more money than it makes. Full stop. Guardians offsets that, but not by enough. There are two ways to get more Guardians:
1. Add value to the membership so more of our regular users decide to sign up
2. Add more regular users to the site so the number of Guardians members scales with it.

The features I add to the site mostly contribute to the 2nd way. More users overall means more paid users. The features I add that are Guardian-exclusive, like the Media Bias Checker and the flagging-feature opt-out, add value to Guardian-membership which gets more users to sign up.

I'm motivated to make Websleuths at least cost-neutral to Othram. Every dollar Othram spends to keep Websleuths operation is a dollar they don't spend performing DNA tests and helping solve cold cases. Othram's CEO David has shown an incredible amount of patience and willingness to support Websleuth's mission, but I'm the one applying pressure to stop being a drain on their resources. Othram wants that, too, but has given me no specific timeline.


We are too, which is why we're testing them now. If they work, great. If they don't, we'll adjust, fix the issues, or throw them out.

Many of you are worried for the future of Websleuths, and I get it. For a lot of you, Websleuths is your home, and change can be worrying when you've made your home here. I'm here to tell you that no change is permanent.

Tricia and I discussed your exact concern this morning during our daily call. We don't yet have a great response, yet. We're leaning towards saying that as long as everybody exploring speculation does so fully understanding that it's only speculative, we should be okay. However, the moment it crosses the line into disinformation and misinformation (speculation posted as facts) we'll take harsher measures. We haven't hashed that out, so this isn't policy, but I felt you should know where we are in the discussion.

Thanks, Fraize

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

I'm wondering what you hope to achieve by this? If my own post were blurred, I couldn't read it because I'm not a Guardian... If you want to restrict access, I think it would make more sense to do so according to frequency of posting or length of time on the forum.

For some people $3 a month is no problem, for others it's a hurdle. Financial means doesn't say anything about ability to discern meaning of a post. MOO

Fair point.

 

[bestill]

Personally if it's blurred out I'm still going to click on it, because that's the Gladys Kravitz in me!

JMO

 

[tlcya]

Personally if it's blurred out I'm still going to click on it, because that's the Gladys Kravitz in me!

JMO

same friend. I suffer FOMO - fear of missing out

 

[Ruminations]

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.

I came to websleuths when Shannan Gilbert was missing. The horrible unfounded things people say about her without evidence appalls me to this day. I agree that pitchforks for the accused, plus the sicko prison-justice fantasies that are constantly posted are in poor taste. But I don't think it is because this forum holds up its promise to be victim friendly. It's because some people are just sadistic to victims, the accused, and the convicted.

I would like to see higher standards for decency to humans: victims, accused, even convicted. There are people that are very despicable. But I don't want to sink to their level.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

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.

Well, you are kinda right, but...what do we want here?


While it is true that this is a business that can censor discussion if it chooses to, I believe the moderators are saying that is not what they want to do. They are saying they are trying to balance freedom of speech and other pressures. The disagreement on the thread revolves around the ways to preserve freedom of speech and address those other pressures.

I guess it's possible some people want only one point of view to be allowed. As for me, I don't want to be here if it is an echo chamber for one point of view. I'm trying to stick websleuths out because the site is saying they don't want to keep it to one point of view, either.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

What about opinions (not speculations) posted as facts?
I’m not even trying to read any threads here that in any way relate to politics anymore for this reason.

I don't mind an opinion stated as a personal perception of, say a video, stated once and labeled as an opinion. I agree that it is problematic when people state the same opinion again and again, and there is a non-productive perception war on a thread. I have been drawn into more than my share of those, and I don't pity the moderators/administrators in working around that. When I'm drawn in, it is because I feel that someone is trying to create a false narrative.

What can be done? Perhaps something along the line of a must read first rule, as has been suggested above. And perhaps eventually, a tribunal of some sort should be allowed to adjudicate something such as what happened in a video, if there was ever evidence a person did something, etc.

I feel like something like a tribunal is what main stream media used until recent times, with talk radio podcasts that engage into perception- assertions echo chambers or wars on national networks.

There are reputable outlets that take a stand on what actually happened. After a while, there is an ability to just agree on reality. Now, while main stream media might refuse to touch certain subjects, and be biased in that way, they do at least avoid perception wars.

Agreement on reality seems to break down on some websleuths threads.

The problem is, staffing a tribunal or mechanism to agree on reality that is able to be unbiased is problematic to put it mildly.

MOO

 

[Ontario Mom]

Question - if someone posts a pic alleging it's from the case, but zero source link & the post gets blurred...

We can no longer discuss the pic on the thread because it was blurred instead of removed?

Also - does this now mean no one needs to source where their images come from, since they'll just get blurred without a source link?

 

[Fraize]

Question - if someone posts a pic alleging it's from the case, but zero source link & the post gets blurred...

We can no longer discuss the pic on the thread because it was blurred instead of removed?

Also - does this now mean no one needs to source where their images come from, since they'll just get blurred without a source link?

Great question. I don't have an easy answer. Because we're opening ourselves up to nuances, I have to say "it depends."

Does the potential for being wrong about posting this image, even behind a warning, so high that it warrants being more circumspect?

For example, a popular artist was gunned down in the street. Somebody posts a photo on Twitter that a rival artist did the deed and submitted a photo proving it, but with no attribution. We know that posting that photo, even behind a flagged warning, would cause an uproar. It would be prudent for us to not allow that photo, even behind a flag.

Contrast that with a photo somebody claims they uncovered in a family album that shows Ted Bundy enjoying a Sunday Roast with Caryn Eileen Campbell three months before she was found. I could see allowing that behind a warning while we work to verify the source.

Just a quick example, but it really comes down to the circumstances. We would still request and ultimately require sourcing for nearly all statements of fact. As I stated earlier, but is probably lost in the discussion, is we're formulating a policy around discussion of flagged content as long as it remains speculative. As soon as it crosses the line between speculative exploration of ideas and declarative statements of fact we would have to reign in the discussion. We don't want to be the source of the spread of misinformation, but we also think our methods can be too stifling in some circumstances.

 

[Inthedetails]

Great question. I don't have an easy answer. Because we're opening ourselves up to nuances, I have to say "it depends."

Does the potential for being wrong about posting this image, even behind a warning, so high that it warrants being more circumspect?

For example, a popular artist was gunned down in the street. Somebody posts a photo on Twitter that a rival artist did the deed and submitted a photo proving it, but with no attribution. We know that posting that photo, even behind a flagged warning, would cause an uproar. It would be prudent for us to not allow that photo, even behind a flag.

Contrast that with a photo somebody claims they uncovered in a family album that shows Ted Bundy enjoying a Sunday Roast with Caryn Eileen Campbell three months before she was found. I could see allowing that behind a warning while we work to verify the source.

Just a quick example, but it really comes down to the circumstances. We would still request and ultimately require sourcing for nearly all statements of fact. As I stated earlier, but is probably lost in the discussion, is we're formulating a policy around discussion of flagged content as long as it remains speculative. As soon as it crosses the line between speculative exploration of ideas and declarative statements of fact we would have to reign in the discussion. We don't want to be the source of the spread of misinformation, but we also think our methods can be too stifling in some circumstances.

Given AI, I caution against allowing any images without a source.

My 2¢

 

[Fraize]

Given AI, I caution against allowing any images without a source.

My 2¢

For sure, caution is warranted.

 

[Muddy K]

As soon as it crosses the line between speculative exploration of ideas and declarative statements of fact we would have to reign in the discussion. We don't want to be the source of the spread of misinformation, but we also think our methods can be too stifling in some circumstances.

@Fraize snipped by me for focus. I think you meant "rein" in the discussion. Horseowner here.

I am reading this thread with interest and find myself appreciating many of the comments. Thank you for opening the conversation.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Great question. I don't have an easy answer. Because we're opening ourselves up to nuances, I have to say "it depends."

Does the potential for being wrong about posting this image, even behind a warning, so high that it warrants being more circumspect?

For example, a popular artist was gunned down in the street. Somebody posts a photo on Twitter that a rival artist did the deed and submitted a photo proving it, but with no attribution. We know that posting that photo, even behind a flagged warning, would cause an uproar. It would be prudent for us to not allow that photo, even behind a flag.

Contrast that with a photo somebody claims they uncovered in a family album that shows Ted Bundy enjoying a Sunday Roast with Caryn Eileen Campbell three months before she was found. I could see allowing that behind a warning while we work to verify the source.

Just a quick example, but it really comes down to the circumstances. We would still request and ultimately require sourcing for nearly all statements of fact. As I stated earlier, but is probably lost in the discussion, is we're formulating a policy around discussion of flagged content as long as it remains speculative. As soon as it crosses the line between speculative exploration of ideas and declarative statements of fact we would have to reign in the discussion. We don't want to be the source of the spread of misinformation, but we also think our methods can be too stifling in some circumstances.

Thanks for your response.

I'd genuinely prefer a straightforward "easy" answer that contributes to a FACT based conversation the way WS has always done.
Images posted without any approved source links, do not contribute to a fact based conversation but instead, insert wild speculation based on an image with zero credible source link. Social media is flooded with this garbage already.
Anyone could post anything, real, fake, AI or photoshopped slop & introduce 100% misinfo into any discussion with these new "nuanced" guidelines.

In the context of images related to a case discussion, deletion seems to be the better response than blurring it.

jmo