The thread locking is out of control

[mox 298]

Did I say 'lock it if it goes off-topic'? I don't believe I said that at all.

Argue syntax if you want, the general point still stands. A very large number of your own posts would never have been posted if the moderating policy was as you advocate in your previous response. You of all people have been given a tremendous amount of leeway in how far you've been allowed to drag a post way down into the deepest darkest bowels of off-topicness. And while I completely agree with you about certain members pushing agendas, you've pushed your own agendas like a well aimed nuke as well. You and your posts are in fact the poster child of exactly what I'm advocating, so it seems a little disingenuous to me that you would take a position contrary to what your own actions in the past have demonstrated.

I find a lot (hell, most) of what Gary posts to be objectionable, including his comments in the locked post, but I also notice that the membership is very capable of taking him and others on when their posts are out of line. Sorry TBone, you know I fluffy heart you and all, but I gotta disagree with you on this call.

[rebeccajo 14]

Did I say 'lock it if it goes off-topic'? I don't believe I said that at all.

Argue syntax if you want, the general point still stands. A very large number of your own posts would never have been posted if the moderating policy was as you advocate in your previous response. You of all people have been given a tremendous amount of leeway in how far you've been allowed to drag a post way down into the deepest darkest bowels of off-topicness. And while I completely agree with you about certain members pushing agendas, you've pushed your own agendas like a well aimed nuke as well. You and your posts are in fact the poster child of exactly what I'm advocating, so it seems a little disingenuous to me that you would take a position contrary to what your own actions in the past have demonstrated.

I find a lot (hell, most) of what Gary posts to be objectionable, including his comments in the locked post, but I also notice that the membership is very capable of taking him and others on when their posts are out of line. Sorry TBone, you know I fluffy heart you and all, but I gotta disagree with you on this call.

Oh FFS. Pardon me.

I don't know what your problem is. First you don't like it if people argue. Then you don't like if mods moderate.

Go back and re-read what I wrote and try to utilize your skills of comprehension. I was talking about members advocating, talking about or speculating with information that could potentially be detrimental to the site. I am not talking about people discussing finer points.

And when you are re-reading what I wrote, you might observe that I AM talking about myself. I've been told by YOU and others that there have been times when trying to corral the hamsters, I've made myself look stupid. I reference that in my post.

Perhaps your problem isn't what gets locked as much as who is in the thread?

Edited July 27, 2009 by rebeccajo

[mox 298]

I'm not gonna bite RJ. I have a bigger point to make, and I don't want to lose it in the noise. My apologies if I misunderstood you.

[TBoneTX 47,527]

I find a lot (hell, most) of what Gary posts to be objectionable

100% si, man.

the membership is very capable of taking him and others on when their posts are out of line.

The membership shouldn't have to. The guy consistently parachutes in without reading entire threads, produces "drive-by" posts that often (usually?) contain irresponsible or genuinely detrimental recommendations, and needs to be dogged like a bloodhound so that untold numbers of VJ members can be presented the prudent side of issues. Let's remember that marriages and lifelong futures are at stake here! Why should it solely be up to other regular members to present both sides of big pictures and to protect the unwashed from potential harm? Furthermore, I perceive that his posts can be as much self-aggrandizement as they are helpfully meant. The foregoing is NOT to state that I am perfect or always correct -- far from it -- but I try to show restraint in many ways, no matter how tempted I am to "ready, fire, aim."

[rebeccajo 14]

I'm not gonna bite RJ. I have a bigger point to make, and I don't want to lose it in the noise. My apologies if I misunderstood you.

I believe you did misunderstand. No need to apologize. Just please try to really look at what I have said without focusing on my disagreement with you about the lock in this case.

[mox 298]

I find a lot (hell, most) of what Gary posts to be objectionable

100% si, man.

the membership is very capable of taking him and others on when their posts are out of line.

The membership shouldn't have to. The guy consistently parachutes in without reading entire threads, produces "drive-by" posts that often (usually?) contain irresponsible or genuinely detrimental recommendations, and needs to be dogged like a bloodhound so that untold numbers of VJ members can be presented the prudent side of issues. Let's remember that marriages and lifelong futures are at stake here! Why should it solely be up to other regular members to present both sides of big pictures and to protect the unwashed from potential harm? Furthermore, I perceive that his posts can be as much self-aggrandizement as they are helpfully meant. The foregoing is NOT to state that I am perfect or always correct -- far from it -- but I try to show restraint in many ways, no matter how tempted I am to "ready, fire, aim."

It needs to be up to the membership because it's the members who set the tone and "personality" of VJ, not the moderators. Or at least it should be. People who have been around awhile know to either ignore Gary or to at least take his advice as biased and narrow-minded. For newer members, they have the advantage of seeing that everywhere he posts there is a counterpoint and (often) well-reasoned rebuff to his opinions. Ultimately we then leave it up to the person seeking information to make up their own mind. I don't believe in protecting newbies from "potential harm" by way of locking threads or banning members, except in the most egregious (i.e. eric) circumstances. We are all adults, and if we can't sift through the noise ourselves on VJ, then we're probably better off hiring a lawyer to do the filing for us.

And don't kid yourself TBone, you are perfect. Except this one time.

[TBoneTX 47,527]

For newer members, they have the advantage of seeing that everywhere he posts there is a counterpoint and (often) well-reasoned rebuff to his opinions.

I wish that I could be that optimistic. He's too much ALL over the place ALL the time.

we're probably better off hiring a lawyer to do the filing for us.

Shhh!!! Gary will hear! Edited July 27, 2009 by TBoneTX

[rebeccajo 14]

I find a lot (hell, most) of what Gary posts to be objectionable

100% si, man.

the membership is very capable of taking him and others on when their posts are out of line.

The membership shouldn't have to. The guy consistently parachutes in without reading entire threads, produces "drive-by" posts that often (usually?) contain irresponsible or genuinely detrimental recommendations, and needs to be dogged like a bloodhound so that untold numbers of VJ members can be presented the prudent side of issues. Let's remember that marriages and lifelong futures are at stake here! Why should it solely be up to other regular members to present both sides of big pictures and to protect the unwashed from potential harm? Furthermore, I perceive that his posts can be as much self-aggrandizement as they are helpfully meant. The foregoing is NOT to state that I am perfect or always correct -- far from it -- but I try to show restraint in many ways, no matter how tempted I am to "ready, fire, aim."

It needs to be up to the membership because it's the members who set the tone and "personality" of VJ, not the moderators. Or at least it should be. People who have been around awhile know to either ignore Gary or to at least take his advice as biased and narrow-minded. For newer members, they have the advantage of seeing that everywhere he posts there is a counterpoint and (often) well-reasoned rebuff to his opinions. Ultimately we then leave it up to the person seeking information to make up their own mind. I don't believe in protecting newbies from "potential harm" by way of locking threads or banning members, except in the most egregious (i.e. eric) circumstances. We are all adults, and if we can't sift through the noise ourselves on VJ, then we're probably better off hiring a lawyer to do the filing for us.

And don't kid yourself TBone, you are perfect. Except this one time.

mox - I do think we need to take some responsibilty for protecting members from 'harm' in the case of immigration advice. I see an awfully lot of threads were ALL the answers are wrong. I can't imagine how many I do not see as I tend to hang out in just a few forums.

I would love to see moderators for each forum who were empowered to try and stop speculative answers. I don't think that is in any way is policing people. I think it is preserving the integrity of the information.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

I would just like to address the issues that led to my decision to lock the thread under discussion:

*First, it was in the K-1 forum. It was not an Off Topic thread no matter how much people seemed to think it was;

*Second, the OP asked for advice about what format to use on a letter. He did not say anything anywhere about a lawyer, whether he had one, whether he should have one, whether lawyers are good or not - the OP did not even mention lawyers;

*Third, the thread went 'off topic' on the 4th response where GaryandAlla immediately introduced the topic of lawyers - not that the OP had ever said anything about a lawyer, just asked for advice about the format for a letter - and Gary told him to fire this so far non-existent lawyer. Mox's post followed shortly saying don't fire the lawyer, and the thread completely turned into a discussion of the pros and cons of using a lawyer. It continued in that vein with others discussing why they did and didn't like lawyers with tempers beginning to fray and quickly became a discussion more appropriate for Off Topic than the K-1 forum.

*Fourth- we have been asked to curtail the overflow of OT behaviour in the Upper Forums. By now, this thread was an OT topic that bore no resemblance to the question asked nor had any business being in the K-1 forum. If it had been in OT I would have issued a warning about tone and kept the thread open. Since it was in the K-1 forum and no longer on topic (and had not been for quite some time), I closed the thread.

If any of the participants wish to start a thread on the value of using or not using a lawyer in OT they are certainly free to do so but the K-1 forum was not the proper place for this particular discussion, nor was the discussion in answer to the question asked by the OP.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Kathryn41

[TBoneTX 47,527]

As stated, I eminently support the judgment of the Moderatrix in this instance and in all other matters that I have observed.

[SMOKE 1,426]

IMO the publicly critizing the mods is out of control in this forum. seems everytime someone doesn't get their way, we get a new 'the mods are wrong' thread.

[daboyz 36]

I would just like to address the issues that led to my decision to lock the thread under discussion:

*First, it was in the K-1 forum. It was not an Off Topic thread no matter how much people seemed to think it was;

*Second, the OP asked for advice about what format to use on a letter. He did not say anything anywhere about a lawyer, whether he had one, whether he should have one, whether lawyers are good or not - the OP did not even mention lawyers;

*Third, the thread went 'off topic' on the 4th response where GaryandAlla immediately introduced the topic of lawyers - not that the OP had ever said anything about a lawyer, just asked for advice about the format for a letter - and Gary told him to fire this so far non-existent lawyer. Mox's post followed shortly saying don't fire the lawyer, and the thread completely turned into a discussion of the pros and cons of using a lawyer. It continued in that vein with others discussing why they did and didn't like lawyers with tempers beginning to fray and quickly became a discussion more appropriate for Off Topic than the K-1 forum.

*Fourth- we have been asked to curtail the overflow of OT behaviour in the Upper Forums. By now, this thread was an OT topic that bore no resemblance to the question asked nor had any business being in the K-1 forum. If it had been in OT I would have issued a warning about tone and kept the thread open. Since it was in the K-1 forum and no longer on topic (and had not been for quite some time), I closed the thread.

If any of the participants wish to start a thread on the value of using or not using a lawyer in OT they are certainly free to do so but the K-1 forum was not the proper place for this particular discussion, nor was the discussion in answer to the question asked by the OP.

I agree that this thread went off the rails so to speak. What I don't understand is why discussing lawyers should be considered OT? Seems like it is definitely relevant in visa discussions.

[nowhereman 1]

IMO the publicly critizing the mods is out of control in this forum. seems everytime someone doesn't get their way, we get a new 'the mods are wrong' thread.

From what I've seen the mods do a good job. The only (constructive) criticism I would give is if a thread becomes a pissing contest between two people (but otherwise some constructive comments are being made) then give the offenders a virtual time out vs. closing the thread. In know in the OT forum there are a handful of instigators that always seem to be in the middle of the fray when a thread goes sideways.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

I agree that this thread went off the rails so to speak. What I don't understand is why discussing lawyers should be considered OT? Seems like it is definitely relevant in visa discussions.

Discussing lawyers isn't a problem - it was where this discussion was taking place. The K-1 forum is for the K-1 process - not a free form discussion about the value or evils of using a lawyer. The OP asked a specific question then his thread was hi-jacked for a discussion that had nothing to do with his question. If anything, it could be a 'general immigration' discussion but it was pitting one position against another and had become combative. That is what happens - and is allowed to some degree - in the OT forums. It is not allowed in the Upper Forums. If you want to start a discussion on lawyers, then please feel free to do so.

[mox 298]

I would just like to address the issues that led to my decision to lock the thread under discussion:

*First, it was in the K-1 forum. It was not an Off Topic thread no matter how much people seemed to think it was;

*Second, the OP asked for advice about what format to use on a letter. He did not say anything anywhere about a lawyer, whether he had one, whether he should have one, whether lawyers are good or not - the OP did not even mention lawyers;

*Third, the thread went 'off topic' on the 4th response where GaryandAlla immediately introduced the topic of lawyers - not that the OP had ever said anything about a lawyer, just asked for advice about the format for a letter - and Gary told him to fire this so far non-existent lawyer. Mox's post followed shortly saying don't fire the lawyer, and the thread completely turned into a discussion of the pros and cons of using a lawyer. It continued in that vein with others discussing why they did and didn't like lawyers with tempers beginning to fray and quickly became a discussion more appropriate for Off Topic than the K-1 forum.

*Fourth- we have been asked to curtail the overflow of OT behaviour in the Upper Forums. By now, this thread was an OT topic that bore no resemblance to the question asked nor had any business being in the K-1 forum. If it had been in OT I would have issued a warning about tone and kept the thread open. Since it was in the K-1 forum and no longer on topic (and had not been for quite some time), I closed the thread.

If any of the participants wish to start a thread on the value of using or not using a lawyer in OT they are certainly free to do so but the K-1 forum was not the proper place for this particular discussion, nor was the discussion in answer to the question asked by the OP.

Kathryn, at any point all you'd have had to do was pop in, ask people to take it back to topic, and that probably would have been that. You used the "nuclear option" as a tactic of first resort, rather than performing any actual moderation. But I don't believe it serves the membership well. Not to beat a dead horse, but moderation is a synonym for facilitation, which can only be done through dialog. Thread locking should be done when all other avenues have failed.

I'm a little disturbed that you're continuing to address what was being discussed, rather than how you chose to approach the problem.