My understanding is that, if they were public message boards - rather than transient websites such as are operated by terrorists and other criminals - the killer would be caught in no time. We had somebody doing bomb scares around the country a few months ago using messages on mainstream internet sites, and they were soon caught.

If he is a stupid killer, that's right. I think 4chan killer was never caught.

On the internet, you don't need to have any hacker skills to hide your position. In "real life" you just have to be careful. Fire can destroy all proof. All you have to do is be carefull about witnesses and be careful about your moves ("Where are the bodies?").

But this post is not about that. Let's suppose it happens. You rely on other people, ok, but you don't know how will they catch him, so you should be able to imagine this situation. Are you saying you wouldn't do anything?

The OP was a hypothetical stating that "they can't catch him." Your response of "the killer would be caught in no time" violates the given hypothetical and is therefore non-responsive. It's a given - he can't be caught. Don't fight the question.

If I understand the hypo, if the question is simply whether I would delete a thread if I knew it would result in someone's murder, I'd not delete the thread. I mean I get the need to free up server space and having an orderly website, but I don't see a real harm in letting an uncatchable murderer post at will if it'll keep him from murdering.

I'd delete the thread. It's not like the chap's going to not kill if I don't; it's not like my relationship with them is going to persuade him of anything; why would I want to play his manipulative game?

But he is asking for a reason to stop, the question is what would you do (maybe, what would you say), it's not only a choice between delete or not delete. You have said what you wouldn't do, but...

Are you saying you would do nothing?

You've posited that the murderer is uncatchable, so I think I have to do whatever I can to limit his murdering, right?

The only "manipulation" is about the thread, since he has asked you not to delete it. But nobody has to answer.

But ok, he killed more people... now he is in another forum. Same question: what would you do now? (And now you can't delete his thread because you are not in charge of that forum).

Maybe, it's your choice, but how would you do it?
He isn't uncatchable, that's beyond imagination. He has been doing this a long time, and it seems that nobody can catch him, that's all. You can try to catch him, you can ask for more info about the hypo... e.g. you can ask "where are the bodies?". Suppose that they're all in the same area and bombing a big zone would kill him (I'm sure you wouldn't do that, even if you could, but that's a possible answer).

Anyway, I find it more interesting what you would say to the killer.

Yes, I would not respond. There is no 'reason' not to kill people that isn't obvious unless one is oblivious.

Another forum? Complain to the moderators and leave the forum if they don't respond.

The only "manipulation" is about the thread, he ask you to don't delete. But nobody has to answer. — TSBU

No. the whole thing is a manipulation whereby it becomes the reader's fault if they fail to obey or fail to give 'good reasons'. If you want to kill people, I will stop you if I can, but not by playing your game of making me responsible for your folly.

The killer is killing already, he didn't say "I will kill if you don't answer", he is just asking for a reason to stop, he is not making you responsible, nobody can do that, it's your choice to feel responsible or not.

I find your answer curious XD, you are so sure about the mind of a guy you don't know, that you are not going to try to ask him why is he doing that, and you are going to try to stop those who try... thanks for the answer.

I don't know why you talk in plural, it's just one murderer.
For the killer, it can be like play chess... or it can be many reasons, maybe he is killing bad people, maybe... but you are not even asking. He may want a reason to stop like... a person who want a reason to try pokemon go.

This is out of the thread, you can create a new thread for it: Responsability can't be given, every person accept or not his own responsability in what he wants to accept it.

It seems like you are saying that the murderer actually feel responsability and guilty, but he avoid that sense of responsability by asking that. Even when I didn't say anything about that, you can't imagine a murderer if he isn't like you are saying.
You "know" that he feel that way, even when you don't know him. Even when he is a hypothetical man. "There cannot be any other kind of murderer"

Have you met many murderers? Maybe you are an expert in psychology?

Why don't you say "I think in that situation he is probably this way, and so, I wouldn't say anything" instead of saying how he feel? he doesn't exist! you can't be sure!

For me, if someone want to close a killer thread, he clearly feels responsible (because... you can live the same life with that thread in your forum, you don't have to participate in that thread, the killer can move to another site, the killer will keep killing... he will (probably?) kill more, and yet, you feel that you have to close that thread), it's curious to feel the responsability to avoid people asking or talking. Even when you know you can't do that, you can't stop everybody.

Who is the one who try to avoid a sense of guilty?

If you want to do it, feel free to explain why would you do that. But, ey, only if you want XD

The OP was a hypothetical stating that "they can't catch him." — Hanover

Then it is a question pertaining to ethical systems of another universe, not this one. With that condition insisted upon, the question (as with so many ethical hypotheticals) is properly posed to an inhabitant of such an alternative universe.

In this universe, there will be a very good chance of the person being caught, so most ethical systems will recommend that actions be taken towards catching him, not pandering to him. The decision to delete or not delete, to allow responses or not, should be taken based on expert police advice as to which gives the greatest chance of catching him soon. These sorts of decisions have to be taken frequently often by police incident response teams in negotiating with hostage-takers. Sometimes it is better to give them rope. Sometime it is better to shut them down and close them off.

You haven't said that we know that the killer is a killer. Did you mean to? Anyway, if this hypothetical is to be realistic, chances are we wouldn't know that.

If all we have to go by is his or her word, then I would assume that they're bluffing and either respond as I pleased or report it to the authorities if I was concerned enough.

There are probably quite a lot of people who falsely claim to be killers on the internet. Why would I believe that this person is any different?

Well...

... if this means I'd need to be on a chan4 board, then I'd never see it. Actually outside of this Forum and Facebook I don't think I've ever been on a message board.

Anyway...

... how this?

If I had the time and wanted to bother, I might post a time, a date, a location and a color of a t-shirt and follow this by saying "game on".

Meow!

GREG

Did you read this?

He isn't uncatchable, that's beyond imagination. He has been doing this a long time, and it seems that nobody can catch him, that's all. You can try to catch him, you can ask for more info about the hypo... e.g. you can ask "where are the bodies?". Suppose that they're all in the same area and bombing a big zone would kill him (I'm sure you wouldn't do that, even if you could, but that's a possible answer).

As I said, I think the 4chan killer was never caught, and there have been more serial murderers that are still free.

But now that you've given an answer, I would wait for others like the police in my country to tell me what to do. Not everybody will do the same, as you can see.

He posted photos of his victims. He has proven what he is. (I wrote the original post, but it was edited, as I said, because my english is bad). I don't know how to say it right. :D

He posted the photos, and after that, the police found the bodies, or the families. But he is a murderer, that's for sure.

Now you are asuming he is an attention whore XD. I can understand if you think that I am an attention whore (and I don't mind), cause this topic is clearly something that catch attention, but the inexistent murderer is not what you want him to be XD. Well, I don't know if it is my english or... whatever.

He posted photos of his victims. He has proven what he is. (I wrote the original post, but it was edited, as I said, because my english is bad). I don't know how to say it right. :D

He posted the photos, and after that, the police found the bodies, or the families. But he is a murderer, that's for sure. — TSBU

Okay. And yes, your English is indeed bad, and it's a chore to edit your posts, so please bear that in mind.

Well, assuming that I know that he or she is indeed a killer, I would report the situation to the authorities immediately and refrain from involving myself in any interaction with the killer, because I think that that's the most sensible course of action to take.

Yes, you've already said that, maybe you have read a lot of murderers books, or... films. It's just an opinion. I don't think that all murderers are what you think they are, that's another opinion. Ciao.

Sorry, I try to do my best. And I am grateful for the help.

Thanks for your answer.

Now you are asuming he is an attention whore XD. I can understand if you think that I am an attention whore (and I don't mind), cause this topic is clearly something that catch attention, but the inexistent murderer is not what you want him to be XD. Well, I don't know if it is my english or... whatever. — TSBU

Yes, I made that assumption based on the lack of presented evidence that he's a killer, and on the likelihood that he's just an attention whore, because the part about the photos or whatever it is that supposedly counts as proof was not in the version that I read. I have now given a different answer, in light of this revelation.

@TSBU

I see the part about posting photos. I don't know how I managed to overlook that. But you do realise that anyone can post photos of people that have been killed, and claim that they are their victims? So, I would've actually have to have had it verified in some way, and that doesn't seem very realistic, but then I can't say I'm familiar with the procedure in that kind of situation. What are the chances of the police or whoever getting in touch with me to confirm the identity and status of some anonymous internet user posting photos of dead people online and claiming them to be their victims?

I think in reality, I'd be oblivious, although perhaps suspicious or even alarmed, and the authorities, once aware of the situation, would track the killer down and shut the website (or websites) down as soon as possible to keep members of the public out.

On 4chan, some people helped the police, and they found who some of the victims were. Of course, at first, people thought like you.

But maybe you are right: it isn't clear in the first post. But now it is: he is a muderer. (Edit the post if you want, I'm sure you can do it better than me).

I think the 4chan killer was never caught. — TSBU

Do you have a credible source for that?

The wikipedia article on 4chan lists various threats of violence and one actual murder but in all cases the threateners, including the sole actual (non-serial) murderer were swiftly apprehended.

The only thing that sounds like what you are talking about, that I could find via a quick web search is this, of which there seems to be little doubt that it was just a hoax by an attention-craving person.

On 4chan, some people helped the police, and they found who some of the victims were. Of course, at first, people thought like you. — TSBU

Well, if it helps the police, then that's good. But talking to known killers who are still at large is something that one should be very careful with. Best left to the professionals, if possible.

I said I think...
Really, the post isn't about the possibility. Of course it is possible, maybe difficult, ok. And because of that, you would act that way. Ok, it's a reasonable answer.

The hypothetical killer's thread reminds me of the very-real-life threads that are occasionally started on philosophy forums by people who sound suicidal and are asking if there are any reasons to stick around. It is generally understood and agreed that these people need to be implored to obtain professional psychiatric help. But amidst the many posts that do that, it is hard to avoid the temptation of adding a sentence or paragraph that tries to be encouraging, and maybe referring to something that has helped the (non-OP) poster cope with dark times of their own.

These things are indeed best left to professionals, and sometimes it is difficult to be firm enough to do that.

Well I imagine that he posts these photos for a reason, but that reason is probably not the reason he gives, i.e., that he wants to know why he should stop killing, which sounds like a plea for attention (or perhaps help). Probably, like the anorexic who can not eat, such a killer feels helplessly impelled to act in a certain manner, impelled in such a manner that he/she cannot act otherwise. Posting is part of his routine, and I gather that he does not depart from it, which means that he/she must derive some enjoyment from this action, his unique authorship.

I want you to show me why I shouldn't go ahead and kill my next victim".

Perhaps one way to show him why he should not kill his next victim is to render his post ineffective by fictive duplication of his posts, all claiming to be the killer, all claiming to be responsible and all mixed up in time with the complicity of the web site, so that no one viewing the site can distinguish which post is real versus the many fictive posts. This might blunt his horrific excitement/enjoyment, and spoil his routine without transgressing his injunction against deletion.

It's up to the authorities to catch the killer, not the posters.

Perhaps one way to show him why he should not kill his next victim is to render his post ineffective by fictive duplication of his posts, all claiming to be the killer, all claiming to be responsible and all mixed up in time with the complicity of the web site, so that no one viewing the site can distinguish which post is real versus the many fictive posts. This might blunt his horrific excitement/enjoyment, and spoil his routine without transgressing his injunction against deletion. — Cavacava

Or it might anger him, which probably isn't a good idea. Anyway, there's only one way to find out. Who wants to be the killer? Or do we already have one in our midst?