Thursday, February 26, 2009

Legions of the Websleuths Banned

UPDATED MARCH 7, 2009 - New Websleuth Scandal - Moderator at Websleuth
True Crime forum a convicted sexual abuser.

Patsy's view of Tricia Griffith


February 25, 2009

Legion of the Websleuths Banned

I'm going to detour from my usual type of entry to speak about
the Legion of the Websleuths banned.

For those of you who aren't familiar with the true crime forum
Websleuths, the "legion of the banned "are those persons who
were longtime members of that forum. Among them are a former
owner of WS, former moderators of long standing, and many
others who read or posted there.

The majority had well known nics and are a lot of fun and
insightful persons who made reading and participating at WS
interesting and enjoyable.

But then the tone changed.

I really don't know when it started, how it started, but I
was like everyone else who read the crappy diatribe against
a long list of members who were abruptly banned.

It appeared to many that it was the beginning of a systematic
and methodical purge of longtime members, especially those
who knew too much about the new owner.

Accusations of trying to sabotage and ruin the forum (among
other rumors) were lodged against them by Tricia, the owner
of Ws. But without any outward proof. Everyone was expected
to "take Tricia, (the owner's) word" for it. Many did.

But others had questions and asked them. They too were banned.
Simply for asking a question.

The once respected crime forum morphed into a police state.
Members were told that you can't be a member of a specific forum,
JusticeQuest,(where many of the banned had gathered) and of WS at
the same time. To be a member of one, you had to give up the other,
or be banned. In fact, it seemed that if the WS owner even thought
you were a member at the opposite site, or were reading there,
your nic would be gone.

In private messages (that aren't so private) you aren't to discuss
the situation or ask each other questions about those who'd been
banned, or about "the other website." To do so meant censure and/or
banning. Big Brother "Tricia" was reading right along with you.

So much for truth and justice at a website that bills itself as a
forum for truth, and justice. The one that says it respects its

There were members who quietly, or publicly, announced their
withdrawal from WS in support or out of personal dislike for being
told what they can do or not, and began posting at JusticeQuest.

Others, like myself, read at both places and some, were or are, member
sat both sites, and have friends at both. Freedom of choice is alive
and well, and exercised.

Don't get me wrong, there are still many great persons posting
at WS.
There are still some mods and other posters whom I still
have respect for. Insightful information and opinions are posted
there. And yes, the owner has the right to kick out whom they wish.

But that tone I mentioned, was growing.

On one particular forum area,the tone was downright nasty. Emotions
run high in cases where children are involved, and this case was and
is, no different. The Caylee Anthony case. Yet this was beyond high
emotions between posters who usually would agree to disagree and move

There were certain persons who ran amok and gave the appearance of
being allowed to act with impunity, and that turned many new members
away from participating. There are those types, certain persons, who
began to insert themselves into the ongoing, active investigation.
They began digging up anything they could use as "dirt" to try and
denigrate people involved in the case, or even to get them arrested.
(Reminiscent of the Scott Peterson case)

This went way beyond WS's former mission of shining truth and light
onto a case by sleuthers dicussing a case.

If they say or believe their accusations, then they must be
true. After all,they're "sleuther experts" who know more than
the police investigators, FBI, and other forensic experts put together.

What they perceived that they saw on tv news casts had
to be
the truth. The owner fed at the trough and spun a veneer
of "sleuthing" over the dirt diggers and anyone who thought to question
or complain were timed out or booted out pronto. The owner of WS didn't
appear to put the brakes on the run amok types until after their
accusations were investigated and found to be false.

Then miraculously the warnings went out, the nics were poofed, the spit
shine was applied and the spin of glossy veneer was in place and
polished over WS. Those nics went bye bye and well rehearsed excuses
pasted in place.

The whole incident left a nasty taste for those who witnessed the whole
"piggy" mess.

Then there are the ads. Ads on a forum or blog or other website are the
perogative of the owner. But most owners will take into consideration
that for many of their members who are on dialup, those persons will
have trouble accessing their site, and will act accordingly. Most will
put up a minimum of ads in order not to annoy their readers. WS is now
a veritable kiosk of items to buy.

You can be poofed at WS faster than a member on dial up can get past
the ads.

Oh, and I'm now one of the poofed! After having difficulties staying
logged in at WS for months,(After the new upgrade to their server,
many aol users have had that difficulty at WS) it was too much trouble
to try and stay logged in.

But with time on my hands the other night, I decided to see if IE would
log me in and keep me there for more than one page load. I figured if
I could log in that would keep my nic from being labeled inactive.

Things were routine, I was logged in. And then....

Wow! I'm now one of the legion of the banned! Tricia has banned my nic!

My crime? "Violating the TOS in having more *then one nic."
*(Their spelling not mine)

LMAO! Tricia, since 2003 when I joined WS, I've had one and only one
nic. There was mollymalone and no other.

So Websleuthers, even if you've done nothing to irritate or otherwise
say something not acceptable to the owner, you too can be joining the
legion of the banned.

A few less members..... ahhhhh.. but although your nic says banned,
you're counted as part of the huge number of current members.
Some of the former members claim that their nics were being used
AFTER they were booted.

A friend of mine, also a member there, as an exercise in well meant
futility, asked Tricia why I'd been banned. Tricia asked her to "give
her a day and she'd be happy to check into it." Tick tock, tick tock...
the friend has yet to receive a reply.

So Tricia, Sayonara. You've made yet another silly mistake in your ban
happy paranoid way, and from past treatment you've meted out to those
you've banned wrongly, I can expect no less.

That's okay though, because there are plenty of other True Crime Forums
on the web, without a fidgeting paranoid, publicity seeking owner with
ban happy fingers.

And those who wish to read here, or there, or anywhere, are more than
welcome to do so.

I fully expect my site(s) to be on your blacklist. PFFFT.

I'm in good company.