Missing boyfriend in Maine

[Anonymous]

op of thread here. Jeff, please lock this thread. I'm really NOT ok with the info I got from the trooper and the comments that some people are making is not helping at all so I would really appreaciate it if you could lock my thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I was all about this thread for a long time, but the information that the OP received from the cops strongly indicate that something tragic has happened. I think the thread should be locked because at this point, the boyfriend is officially a missing person and the various people crying TROLL TROLL TROLL are probably just making this woman feel worse.

Agree although I think the guy disappeared under his own steam due to mental health issues. He could be starting over somewhere or ended himself. Keeping the thread going makes no sense and I think it's detrimental to the OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:a lot of people are indeed invested, regardless of whether it's real or a hoax, so please consider carefully before deleting. if you have to do anything, I'd suggest locking the thread, but the OP continues to engage so I"m not sure she wants it locked.

WHY???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:op of thread here. Jeff, please lock this thread. I'm really NOT ok with the info I got from the trooper and the comments that some people are making is not helping at all so I would really appreaciate it if you could lock my thread.

Jeff if this is from the OP, please lock the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:op of thread here. Jeff, please lock this thread. I'm really NOT ok with the info I got from the trooper and the comments that some people are making is not helping at all so I would really appreaciate it if you could lock my thread.

Jeff if this is from the OP, please lock the thread.

I agree. I know this thread is a money maker for you but has passed the point of spinning out of control. The op has repeatedly asked that it be locked.

[Anonymous]

Damn, does this mean I have to actually do work now?

[Anonymous]

Patience, ladies. I doubt Jeff is online 24/7.

[jsteele]

Okay, I just locked it.

BTW, for those of you who seem to think that everything we do is to generate traffic and/or ad revenue, you don't know how Google's model works. Very little revenue is generated by users sitting there refreshing the same page. We need unique traffic -- i.e. from lots of different users -- and clicks on ads. Nobody who is obsessed with the latest post of a thread is going to risk missing one by clicking on an ad. So, threads like that one are almost all the same users refreshing and not clicking ads, don't generate much -- if any -- revenue from them. And, since they can monopolize user's attentions, such threads may actually decrease revenue generated by traffic from users who might otherwise be leisurely be browsing threads and more willing to click an ad.

[Anonymous]

Oh come on, Jeff.

You deleted my post and I'm crying foul (although I know I have no right to and that won't change your mind).

I gave a very reasonable explanation of why people might think that OP is fake. I did not call her names, and I was very polite. I even acknowledged that she may be legit! I merely explained why people might think she is fake and why she should not be enraged or surprised.

Your deleting it and shutting down an explanation as reasonable as any other for what is going on is a disservice to the 126 pages of posters who are invested in a thread and there is no harm exploring that as a possibility so posters can decide for themselves to stay invested in her or decide they've been had.

I can understand deleting posts that just read TROL!!!! but I didn't do that. I usually agree with your moderation, but I think this time, helping OP scrub her thread clean of doubters is a disservice to the rest of us.

I'm done now. As you can see from my posting history, I don't usually complain to you about your moderation.

[Anonymous]

I wasn't thinking about the website traffic, but the OP seems in a bad place and there were too many people egging her on.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Oh come on, Jeff.

You deleted my post and I'm crying foul (although I know I have no right to and that won't change your mind).

I gave a very reasonable explanation of why people might think that OP is fake. I did not call her names, and I was very polite. I even acknowledged that she may be legit! I merely explained why people might think she is fake and why she should not be enraged or surprised.

Your deleting it and shutting down an explanation as reasonable as any other for what is going on is a disservice to the 126 pages of posters who are invested in a thread and there is no harm exploring that as a possibility so posters can decide for themselves to stay invested in her or decide they've been had.

I can understand deleting posts that just read TROL!!!! but I didn't do that. I usually agree with your moderation, but I think this time, helping OP scrub her thread clean of doubters is a disservice to the rest of us.

I'm done now. As you can see from my posting history, I don't usually complain to you about your moderation.

The problem with your post, and why I deleted it, was that it was partially based on a false assumption that you probably didn't realize. You stated that nobody was calling the OP names but just questioning whether she was a troll. One could argue that calling a poster a troll is itself calling her a name, but more to the point, I deleted many posts calling her names. You appeared to be telling the OP that she was getting angry in response to legitimate questions when, in fact, she had legitimate reasons to be angry. The vast majority of those reading the thread appeared to be interested in the drama and didn't really care if it was true or not. The constant attempts to "out" the OP were distracting.

[Anonymous]

I was just as engrossed as anyone, but I think Jeff is right to close it. There are only two scenarios, neither of which are good: a missing person or a troll.

In the s/o thread someone said this was identical to a Gurugossip post. If that happens to be true, you are dealing with someone who should not be engaged.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for saving me from myself Jeff.

I can't believe how much time I spent reading all of that, but I never would have had the strength to walk away!

[Anonymous]

Oh come on, Jeff.

You deleted my post and I'm crying foul (although I know I have no right to and that won't change your mind).

I gave a very reasonable explanation of why people might think that OP is fake. I did not call her names, and I was very polite. I even acknowledged that she may be legit! I merely explained why people might think she is fake and why she should not be enraged or surprised.

Your deleting it and shutting down an explanation as reasonable as any other for what is going on is a disservice to the 126 pages of posters who are invested in a thread and there is no harm exploring that as a possibility so posters can decide for themselves to stay invested in her or decide they've been had.

I can understand deleting posts that just read TROL!!!! but I didn't do that. I usually agree with your moderation, but I think this time, helping OP scrub her thread clean of doubters is a disservice to the rest of us.

I'm done now. As you can see from my posting history, I don't usually complain to you about your moderation.


The problem with your post, and why I deleted it, was that it was partially based on a false assumption that you probably didn't realize. You stated that nobody was calling the OP names but just questioning whether she was a troll. One could argue that calling a poster a troll is itself calling her a name, but more to the point, I deleted many posts calling her names. You appeared to be telling the OP that she was getting angry in response to legitimate questions when, in fact, she had legitimate reasons to be angry. The vast majority of those reading the thread appeared to be interested in the drama and didn't really care if it was true or not. The constant attempts to "out" the OP were distracting.

Thanks, Jeff, for taking the time to respond to me.

I agree that one could argue that calling her a troll is itself calling her a name. I considered that, which is why I tried to say I didn't believe her, etc, rather than calling her a troll myself. For me, calling someone a troll is outing them for the act of trolling on a particular thread. It doesn't mean they are always a troll everywhere. In any case, perhaps I didn't choose my words well enough and you're right that there is another way to see it.

I was absolutely telling OP she was wrong to get angry in response to legitimate questions. I'm not sure why she has legitimate reasons to be angry at anyone who doubts her. Unless you are referring to the posts you deleted calling her names. That's legit, in my mind. I also agree that the constant attempts to out her were more 4chan or MeFi on steroids than DCUM.

Anyway, thanks again for letting say my thing and thanks for your thoughtful response. In our long, one sided relationship, I'm pretty certain this is the first time I've be swiped off a thread, so, really, I'll get over it and continue respecting this place.

I think you and Maria do a great job moderating and running DCUM.

Peace out.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh come on, Jeff.

You deleted my post and I'm crying foul (although I know I have no right to and that won't change your mind).

I gave a very reasonable explanation of why people might think that OP is fake. I did not call her names, and I was very polite. I even acknowledged that she may be legit! I merely explained why people might think she is fake and why she should not be enraged or surprised.

Your deleting it and shutting down an explanation as reasonable as any other for what is going on is a disservice to the 126 pages of posters who are invested in a thread and there is no harm exploring that as a possibility so posters can decide for themselves to stay invested in her or decide they've been had.

I can understand deleting posts that just read TROL!!!! but I didn't do that. I usually agree with your moderation, but I think this time, helping OP scrub her thread clean of doubters is a disservice to the rest of us.

I'm done now. As you can see from my posting history, I don't usually complain to you about your moderation.

The problem with your post, and why I deleted it, was that it was partially based on a false assumption that you probably didn't realize. You stated that nobody was calling the OP names but just questioning whether she was a troll. One could argue that calling a poster a troll is itself calling her a name, but more to the point, I deleted many posts calling her names. You appeared to be telling the OP that she was getting angry in response to legitimate questions when, in fact, she had legitimate reasons to be angry. The vast majority of those reading the thread appeared to be interested in the drama and didn't really care if it was true or not. The constant attempts to "out" the OP were distracting.

But Jeff, objectively, the OP was the one feeding the thread, and at least two seperate similar threads - with all sorts of conflicting data. And now the OP is feeding the story in a off shoot thread...

I see the point about calling an OP a troll is name calling if not a troll...but the idea that she wasn't 'feeding the beast' and engading in the 'outing' through the incomplete and timely dropping of facts unknown to the mystery I think is unfair to PPs point about her reaction to questions about the story's veracity.