The True Crime Weblog Message Board

Skeptical Bystander, a stalwart poster in the open threads about Meredith Kercher at the True Crime Weblog proper, has agreed to be a moderator for this site.

Skep's word is law, so if you're admonished to notch it back or receive a warning for any bad behavior from Skep, be assured I'll back it up.

That said, one reason I started this message board with a thread about the Kercher murder is the feeling I have that even the more rancorous exchanges found in those open threads are civil by typical web standards of discourse. I doubt either Skep or I will have much "admonishing" to do.

Steve

I think most of our regular posters know that while I am not the admonishing type I don't have much patience for ad hominem attacks or sophistry. I do think conflict that involves the clash of well-formed ideas can be beneficial, however. And I believe we all implicitly know the difference between sophistry and constructive argument.
If I had a recommendation (and please correct me if this seems silly), it would be that we use this slightly different forum to the fullest, which means taking a deep breath at times and sitting back to reflect before posting a reply. I am recommending this for myself as well. Lillian Hellman once said of the great Dash Hammett that he was a man who knew what he thought because he had taken the time to find out. We have time, folks: the wheels of justice turn slowly in Old Europe.

Skep,

Just thought I'd formally give you a warm welcome to your new Moderator position, you'll do just great. I can think of none better for the job

Hi Skep. Not many people here, eh?

Don't worry. Steve's going to post soon and Michael is going to help me lobby for more features. Take advantage of it to let your creative juices flow! I'm taking a dinner break!

I still don't understand how this is going to be better than the 'live' discussion board, for the simple reason that the same abusive and bitter posters will just post here instead! Where's the incentive for them to stop?

soozie -- it's much easier to ban people in a number of ways on this board than it ever was on the haloscan commenting system. And the fact that you have to register to post is a disincentive to some people.

Steve

Hi, Skep. I just read the vitriolic and abusive rants left by some of the "goofy" posters over on haloscan, as the rest of us packed our bags. Can they really believe that they do the "Amanda is Innocent" cause any good with their behavior? They really seemed to lose it at the prospect of our moving to a site where they will not have the anonymity they need to spew such anger and hatred.

At any rate, thanks for weathering it, and for agreeing to be the moderator here. I'm still trying my wings (sorry, sparrow!) here, but feel that this will be a more conducive home for real discussion. Thanks again!

To a2 and all:
I think they (the gang of two, let's face it) are so emotionally involved that they have lost the ability to think objectively about the message they are putting out. I also think that on some level they are getting a huge charge out of the attention they command in an online forum because of "who" they are. They were as anonymous as the next guy until this happened. Now they can get people's attention by just showing up. And last Saturday, I think alcohol may have fueled some of the rage and abuse that was hurled at the board.
Anyway, when the book is written on this case--and no, I am not writing it, in spite of what was suggested by Goofy and Anon last night--all of this will be part of the written record. If I were a family member and close friend of the suspect, I would think about that. If they want to file a suit against anyone for libel, on the grounds that some poster has harmed the reputation of Amanda Knox, I wish them luck in separating that harm from the damage they themselves have caused and continue to cause.
As moderator, I see my role quite modestly. I'm here to help.
I don't have a hard-line position on anyone's level of involvement in this case. My own position has changed, but I don't intend to let that position dominate. Please let me know, politely, if you feel otherwise.

Skep,

Damn. I thought I was finally going to get my chance to be a comic book character and was really hoping Neil Gaiman would be the author...

truecrimeweblog wrote:soozie -- it's much easier to ban people in a number of ways on this board than it ever was on the haloscan commenting system. And the fact that you have to register to post is a disincentive to some people.

Steve

[align=center]Thanks Steve, I'm beginning to appreciate the changeover already. [/align]

skeptical bystander wrote:As moderator, I see my role quite modestly.

You were busy yesterday, though.

I do not think the reins of authority will fall slack as long as they are in your capable hands.

Charlie

Charlie Wilkes wrote:

skeptical bystander wrote:As moderator, I see my role quite modestly.

You were busy yesterday, though.

I do not think the reins of authority will fall slack as long as they are in your capable hands.

Charlie

Is your only purpose here to be snide Wilkes?

Michael,
Kermit had excellent advice yesterday. He said we should just ignore Charlie unless and until he realizes what the topic is here and decides to put his Festering Grudge aside.
I'm taking Kermit's advice.

I think that's very good advice

Hi there,

Just a couple of suggestions.

It's normal practice on most major Nuke sites to create an invisible forum (except to staff) to send deleted posts, rather then to totally delete them. This is a case of Admin being able to cover its ass in case at any point in the future they need to prove what was, or wasn't said in case of any legal come back from some disgruntled banned member, or some party from outside the group. At the same time, the behaviour individuals who were deleted can be proven if required.

Second point. Could Admin switch the default to 'show newest posts first'....otherwise new posts get buried x number of pages down? It should be easy to switch in the Admin panel.

Third thing...would it be possible for Steve to turn the 'Avatar' feature on? That can be done in the Admin panel

Michael wrote:Second point. Could Admin switch the default to 'show newest posts first'....otherwise new posts get buried x number of pages down? It should be easy to switch in the Admin panel.

Lots of problems with that.

You have to read up the page not down to go with the flow - it ain't natural.

There would be more of a tendency for people to jump in with their comments responding to the top post without reading the post history of that particular subject matter.

It might be more appropriate to have the "Display posts from previous" default to 1 day?

.

I suppose you're right...but, I don't think defaulting viewings to a set amount of days would be a good idea either...many come in having been away for days ...

For sure...I think it would be good to increase the number of posts per page...that can be done in the Admin panel...that would reduce the number of pages overall as well as making it likely that one days worth of postings should only span one page. I think the max it can be set to is 50 posts.

Michael and Brian,
Let's see what Steve thinks about your suggestions, especially about nuked posts. I hope there will be no need to nuke posts, and believe that this is not too lofty a goal if members of the community are here in good faith, so to speak, and stay on topic.
On that note, posters who disapprove of the Moderator can send her a PM with their complaint(s) before posting their grievance for all to see, or take it up with Steve, who is the Ultimate Boss here. As for me, I don't intend to discipline people "in public" and will avoid it at all costs. This is in alignment with the larger goal of staying on-topic in public and letting it all hang out in private.

Brian, I think you suggested the other day that each page show more posts. I don't know if that can be done (Michael?), but why no?.

As for having to wade through the posts to get to the last page, I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. In Haloscan, I found myself reading the latest posts and thinking, did so-and-so not see my earlier post on that subject, or Sparrow's post, or....
But it is easy to show newest first and also display posts from just the previous day.

All in all, we are in a forum that seems to have a slower pace to it, but this may be more suited to this phase of our story. The investigation is winding up, there will be no new evidence until charges are filed, etc.

Anyway, thanks for your input. I'm not too tech savvy but am learning and appreciate the input.

Skeptical Bystander wrote:Michael and Brian,
Let's see what Steve thinks about your suggestions, especially about nuked posts. I hope there will be no need to nuke posts, and believe that this is not too lofty a goal if members of the community are here in good faith, so to speak, and stay on topic.
On that note, posters who disapprove of the Moderator can send her a PM with their complaint(s) before posting their grievance for all to see, or take it up with Steve, who is the Ultimate Boss here. As for me, I don't intend to discipline people "in public" and will avoid it at all costs. This is in alignment with the larger goal of staying on-topic in public and letting it all hang out in private.

Brian, I think you suggested the other day that each page show more posts. I don't know if that can be done (Michael?), but why no?.

Large forums tend to have a set protocol for how their Mods should take action in any given circumstance...for smaller groups like these it depends more on the Mod's discretion and their own particular style. Your outlined Mod style sounds fine to me

As for the number of posts per page...that can be set to a max of fifty per page (I think the default is 25). This is easily changed in the Administrator panel.

I think the slow pace can be largely put down to the fact people are still getting used to the new format...combined with the fact that the group got going during a reasonably quiet period in the case. We do tend to have these troughs and peaks.

Oh, group, Charlie's "reins of authority" was quite a good line and was meant as a compliment. Too much tension being carried over from Halo5 it seems to me. For those who remember Steve's last attempt at this format (involving the Melinda Duckett case in 2006), long-departed Emerson was a horde of VALKYRIES by comparison as to Skep as moderator, and nobody took much offense at it.

Oh Robert M,
Glad to see you here. Yes, it would be good to reduce the tension by about 200 notches, and I feel optimistic that will happen. Haloscan V got hit pretty hard by a couple of determined and not very merry pranksters, and that put everyone on edge. Charlie's comment was in reference to a little incident that I think we have now put behind us. He did put a smiley face on it. But the negative ad re HALOSCAN, and hence re Steve Huff, that he posted on another blog, needed to be dealt with. And was.

I'm an incurable optimist and lousy at discipline. Just ask my terribly spoiled dog, affectionately known around these parts as She Who Must Be Obeyed. So the reins will probably be pretty slack.

Please don't stay away, especially if the long-awaited face-off between our three suspects and Mignini actually takes place as has been rumored. It could happen very soon, although one of our two aforementioned pranksters says otherwise.

Skep,

Thanks for taking on the moderator position, I don't envy your task. I truly believe you will do a wonderful job with your humor wit and fair-mindedness. The best of luck to you.
I already miss the free flow of Halo...but what must be will be.
Again....Thank-You

Rhonda

Welcome aboard, Rhonda.
I found the first couple of days difficult, but it gets easier, believe me. You can pick and choose among topics, start one of your own....

Some random thoughts on making optimal use of the board:

Under media, you will find links to all video news reports related to this case through March 29, 2008, generously provided by Kermit. That's not all you will find, but I mention this in particular for the following reason:

Kermit has gone to great lengths to make a wealth of material available. Since the format of this board allows for it, I'd like to suggest that before you post a request for clarification on a particular point of fact, and before you post something as fact that you are not 100% sure of, you take the time to fact check.

It is easier to do than ever and will help to keep the board relatively uncluttered.

If you don't find what you're looking for under media, then take a minute to search on the WWW, using the search engine of your choice.

It is also a good idea to check the various threads here before posting a question. Minotaur, Michael and Finn have provided extensive timelines with references that will clear up many questions. If you come across something in a timeline that you think is wrong, you can post your view and we can hash it out. But please, before you do that, take the time to check your own sources and, when doing so, consider the quality of your source. It's also helpful if you provide your source, with a link if possible, rather than just stating your fact as a fact.

Obviously, these suggestions don't apply to flights of fancy, brainstorming and other forms of speculative thinking. And these are only my suggestions, made with the aim of ensuring that the board remains as readable as possible and that the wealth of information being provided is constantly mined and improved on.

One last thought: Kermit mentioned the hassle of having different topics.
Anyone want to weigh in on that? Is it a good thing? A bad thing? Neither? Both?

skeptical bystander wrote:Some random thoughts on making optimal use of the board:

One last thought: Kermit mentioned the hassle of having different topics.
Anyone want to weigh in on that? Is it a good thing? A bad thing? Neither? Both?

Thanks, Skep.

The different topics are a huge help to me when trying to find information we have forgotten, or need to clarify. At first,I felt the same way Kermit does. What has helped me is to follow the legend near the bottom regarding new posts. After we log in and read a post, it is marked "read." By checking here first, we can at a glance see the topics with posts which we have not read.

JMHO...

Stacey

I'm with bpcl. I don't like all the different topics, I'm not bothered about writing in fancy colours or italics, I had figured out how to quote people on Haloscan no problem and I suspect the lack of posts here isn't just because of a lull.
If I had a question before about a source or a bit of information, all I had to do was ask and some good person would help me out. Here it seems that the group ethic has fallen by the wayside.
Anyway, I understand the problems with trolls. I also empathise with you skep, for what you had to put up with at the end of Haloscan. There is no justification for that and I see the logic in coming here. Some people don't react well to change and maybe I'm one of them.

take the time to check your own sources and, when doing so, consider the quality of your source. SB

I have no idea how to check the quality of a source. I may have had ideas before I started following this case, but now I wouldn't know where to start.

Damian,
Maybe we should go back to one topic. In fact, the idea is that the one marked begin here, etc. IS the main topic. The other topics are really for reference material.

One problem may be that anyone can create a new topic. I probably would have been more inclined to stick to one main topic and have a couple of places to put reference material.

I'll see if I can do some reorganizing that suits everyone to some extent.

I think you'll find that even here people will step up to the plate if you want a source or a fact checked. It just may take a bit longer.

At the same time, I can speak only for myself, but I suspect this format is more freeing because it is less immediate. We have lost the "thrill" of the immediate, but we saw what that led to in the end due to the concerted efforts by two people to disrupt the flow of our discussion. They succeeded in disrupting that flow, but I hope they haven't managed to stifle discussion entirely.

Coming here wasn't my choice or anyone else's. Steve had been trying to nudge us over here for some time, and it seemed in light of the abusive and childish assault that we needed to take him up on that offer or lose the option of continuing.

Thanks for your empathy. Frankly, I found the whole thing rather pathetic. Like I said, two individuals, behaving badly and showing reckless disregard for the rights of others. That is now part of the public record and will become part of the history of this case.

I hope you can find a way to adjust your use of the board to the new circumstances. That's what I am in the process of doing. One thing is for sure: we don't get quite the same sense of connecting with others in real time. In other words, the bonds of the community have been loosened. But they need not be broken. Your willingness and ability to provide us with local information has been invaluable.


On another topic, I just posted some questions for Frank that I wanted to ask you as well. I'll post them over on our main topic. No hurry in answering.

damian wrote:take the time to check your own sources and, when doing so, consider the quality of your source. SB

I have no idea how to check the quality of a source. I may have had ideas before I started following this case, but now I wouldn't know where to start.

Ha! I hear you. What I meant was very simple, along the lines of The Sun is probably not as good as the BBC or the Guardian. But you're right. Not that I ever thought highly of network television in the US, but you would think ABC, NBC and CBS could be considered as reliable sources. Now we learn that Rudy never robbed the Merlin at knife-point, as was reported by CBS, etc.

I guess all sources are potentially suspect, aren't they?

The general idea is to guard against hearsay presented as fact, or prior speculations morphing into facts, but most people here don't do that.

Thankyou Skep, as ever. I think that if I was better with computers I'd have fewer problems adapting. I would certainly find it easier if we were following the same thread. But don't worry about me...anything new in the local press and I'll stick it up here. I didn't post anything on that discuss thingy, so progress is being made...
BTW. I just ventured over to that blog in Seattle. Do they know that the pm will present the evidence at the end of the PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION?
(that's a mighty rhetorical question)

damian wrote:Thankyou Skep, as ever. I think that if I was better with computers I'd have fewer problems adapting. I would certainly find it easier if we were following the same thread. But don't worry about me...anything new in the local press and I'll stick it up here. I didn't post anything on that discuss thingy, so progress is being made...
BTW. I just ventured over to that blog in Seattle. Do they know that the pm will present the evidence at the end of the PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION?
(that's a mighty rhetorical question)

My subject heading is also a rhetorical question.
I have been somewhat mystified about how what gets leaked and then played out in the press is taken as discarded or not discarded evidence, as if this is the trial phase or something. I had read some time ago that the tactics used by RS's team, in particular the tendency to call forensic evidence into question, are quite common and don't mean much in and of themselves. For example, the sweatshirt. I asked Frank if the sweatshirt that was taken in the seizure at the cottage before this last one had been "discarded" as evidence just because they found it (as opposed to it being thrown away or burned), and he said of course not.
Anyway, I am not a forensic specialist and, although I know more about criminal process in Italy than some people seem to, I am far from an expert in that department either. But drawing parallels from what I have seen in France, I would say that the investigative phase is far more exploratory and open than many people imagine. As far as I know, it is the PM who decides what evidence to present, not the press, the defense attorneys or anyone else.

Skep,

I wish this background font wasn't grey and black.

Is it possible for you to change it?

The haloscan one was lighter, brighter and may have been a sub-conscious reason for why people liked it.
The grey here is like a winter's afternoon of rain.

Hey TLC,
I hadn't thought of that. It's true that, with spring on the way, something brighter would be better. But we can fill the gap for now with colorful fonts. I'll tell you what. Let me consult the [font=Lucida Console]WIZARD OF OZ [/font]and see what, if anything, can be done. Maybe all we need is a little bleach. I'll head down to the corner store as soon as it opens and buy some.

...well all I have to say is - send chocolate and nobody will get hurt -

[font=Times New Roman] [/font] Thanks your Skeptuousness I will also try the psychedelics out without smoking myself into forgetfulness

[font=Courier New] [/font]try this psychedelics one more time [color=blue] man [/color]I sees that it works now popeye

[font=Comic Sans MS] [/font] I likes[color=violet] [/color]the psychedelics though I'm anhippy

pdx-77 and TLC,
Must be spring madness. I see you are both in fine form.

aha,

yes, what a mess I'm making eh Skep, this has become a practice page

(this was meant to be black n white) otherwise I'll be here all night

TLC,
Michael has created a topic called The Range, where you can fire away and practice to your heart's content!

skeptical bystander wrote:TLC,
Michael has created a topic called The Range, where you can fire away and practice to your heart's content!

[font=Comic Sans MS]Tcha! The one thing you can guarantee.,..if you create a special topic for the purpose of practicing...everyone will promptly go and practice everywhere but 'there'.[/font]

Hello I will practice further on Michaels Range.

Hi Skep I sent you a PM I don't know if it went I can't see it in my sent box I will try again later on.

It was me at haloscan yes.

TLC wrote:Skep,

I wish this background font wasn't grey and black.

[font=Verdana]
It becomes 'light' when something's enclosed in quote marks. It's so much easier to read from someone elses quote![/font]

[font=Comic Sans MS]Just winding things down on the board a bit now as we move over to the new forum. I am therefore locking this thread.

Michael (Moderator)[/font]