- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 31,034
- Reaction score
- 52,588
Hi Everyone,
Look, it is very difficult to discuss personal information about verified insiders or any poster for that matter. The former VI wrote and said she felt she was being disrespected and reminded me of the real reason.
The particular VI, in this case, was put on "inactive" by management because the VI said she was getting threats. This is the official reason and that is all I am going to say about this particular situation. We certainly meant no disrespect to our former VI.
Whenever anyone tells Websleuths they are getting threats because of what they are posting we immediately put them on inactive and tell them to get off the Internet. It is not worth it. We also say they are not allowed to post on Websleuths. Yes, this has actually happened before, several times. Maybe even to another VI.
Anyone who wants to post after getting personal threats is not thinking straight. While I believe Websleuths is extremely important it is not so important that members have to risk their lives to post.
We do not check out the threats. We take the word of the member. Why would someone lie about something like this?
This case since is so old and we have not had any word really on whether this was a sex trafficking case or a case of falling overboard. In my opinion, I take that to mean nothing from the past has really checked out. IN MY OPINION.
So we are basically at square one until LE comes out with something more solid that we can latch onto and start sleuthing.
From now on we will enforce the rule of discussing former members. We cannot discuss former members including former VI's.
<modship>
Thank you,
Tricia
Look, it is very difficult to discuss personal information about verified insiders or any poster for that matter. The former VI wrote and said she felt she was being disrespected and reminded me of the real reason.
The particular VI, in this case, was put on "inactive" by management because the VI said she was getting threats. This is the official reason and that is all I am going to say about this particular situation. We certainly meant no disrespect to our former VI.
Whenever anyone tells Websleuths they are getting threats because of what they are posting we immediately put them on inactive and tell them to get off the Internet. It is not worth it. We also say they are not allowed to post on Websleuths. Yes, this has actually happened before, several times. Maybe even to another VI.
Anyone who wants to post after getting personal threats is not thinking straight. While I believe Websleuths is extremely important it is not so important that members have to risk their lives to post.
We do not check out the threats. We take the word of the member. Why would someone lie about something like this?
This case since is so old and we have not had any word really on whether this was a sex trafficking case or a case of falling overboard. In my opinion, I take that to mean nothing from the past has really checked out. IN MY OPINION.
So we are basically at square one until LE comes out with something more solid that we can latch onto and start sleuthing.
From now on we will enforce the rule of discussing former members. We cannot discuss former members including former VI's.
<modship>
Thank you,
Tricia