OT Rules of pissy behaviour...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

No? Interesting. I will go back and read the thread again... now you all have my curiosity piqued

Edited January 31, 2010 by w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

sounds like mods are allowing personal feelings to get in the way of sensible moderation decisions.

[English Muffin 59]

Maybe only one mod??

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

sounds like mods are allowing personal feelings to get in the way of sensible moderation decisions.

I will say this - it is a well known fact that Charles and William (and their spouses) are friends IRL. I don't believe any impropriety has occurred - but for purposes of appearance, it may be a good idea for William to let the other mods address issues like this.

Maybe only one mod??

Bad moderating is not limited to just one mod.

[English Muffin 59]

Bad moderating is not limited to just one mod.

But I've only seen one mod allow personal relationships and feelings influence how they moderate.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

But I've only seen one mod allow personal relationships and feelings influence how they moderate.

I hardly ever see you in OT so perhaps that's why? Or hey, maybe we just perceive things differently.. it's been known to happen

[English Muffin 59]

I hardly ever see you in OT so perhaps that's why? Or hey, maybe we just perceive things differently.. it's been known to happen

I don't post in OT but I often venture in there if I move a post from another forum. And I agree that we may perceive things differently - I'm neither a friend or an enemy of this person so I like to think that I can look at their posts objectively - and I honestly believe that they allow their personal feelings to dictate how they moderate.

Anyway, it's late here on the east coast and time for my bed.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Anyway, it's late here on the east coast and time for my bed.

It's only 12:13am! Weakling!

[English Muffin 59]

It's only 12:13am! Weakling!

[rae_and_scott 1]

I didn't read anything after that initial post by Nessa. I agree with the characterization that it was a heartless and insensitive thing to say but am skeptical that the poster who said that was banned for merely saying that. That just doesn't sound like William or Charles. It must have escalated beyond that, no?

It wasn't said she was banned; she was suspended. Which, I sadly feel, was spurred by my getting involved and prodding William33 as to why his questions had any relevancy (because they didn't; it's clear he was stepping in *B/C* he and Charles are friends IRL). Either way, her suspension was completely uncalled for.

Captain Ewok, with all due respect, as I know you wanted this thread back to its original topic, but as this conversation has continued I'd like to voice my opinion -- please take this comment coming from someone who was once an active member and now rarely posts. I respect VJ for the information it can provide for those of us who have gone through US immigration and have found it to be extremely valuable, but the moderation team should be *respected* members, IMO. There are certainly more members besides just Mox who disagree with Charles being a mod and the way he interacts with other members. Just because we aren't actively hitting the report button doesn't mean there is just one person with an axe to grind. This is supposed to be an open, welcome forum, where people can find help. Depending on the thread one is in, it doesn't always feel that way.

[Brad and Vika 129]

Sometimes I think some of us take the concept of web-community WAAAAY to seriously. That goes for mods and members. I will say that any vindictive action or personal attacks by the moderating team should not pass without comment from ewok, and he cannot expect us to understand his corrective action if he doesn't tell us about it. Having said that, if I am offended by some one on VJ I do have the option of shutting it off.

[William33 110]

For the record, I did not suspend anyone. The topic was passed to Captain Ewok.

[StillThePrettiest 4]

but the question remains - WHY was it? the comment that earned the suspension was a simple reaction to someone else's comment, in OFF-TOPIC, in a thread called 'Say Anything'

one person, who happens to be a (deputy) mod, got the idea in his head that the comment in question was 'attacking' his wife in order to have a go at him - an idea which he has not defended, or given ANY proof for, by the way - and so that person was suspended... FAR WORSE is said in Off Topic all day, yet those people don't get suspended; people complain about the mod in question for comments at least on par with the one that got the suspension, but HE'S not suspended - it's just inconsistent all the way through, and grossly unfair, if not actual abuse of power

and then when people like me, who now post far less than they read because it's seemed for months like the lunatics are completely running the asylum in here, are told 'you hardly post in Off Topic so your comments don't count'

#######? so you have to be a regular poster in a thread to be able to speak out about it? and if you're not it's different rules for you? I'm sorry, everything about this situation reeks, from start to finish

[Ovaltine Jenkins 5]

Well, I'll be accepting apologies this week. Everyone involved can line up. Plus, I have some tips for the worst members thread

[StillThePrettiest 4]

Captain Ewok, I think in the end it comes down to this:

can you, or anyone else, truthfully and with a straight face, claim that if the positions had been reversed - ie Ovaltine Jenkins had made the original Haiti comment, and Nessa had made the reply calling it insensitive - that the same actions would have occurred? would Nessa have been suspended? I think we all know the answer to that... and it's not even as if there were grounds to suspect Ovaltine Jenkins of being a sock-puppet; she's been posting from the same account for more than two years and is clearly a genuine member

and with that being the case, it's VERY clear that there are major problems with some people's ability to be objective, and keep personal feelings/relationships/opinions/whatever out of their moderating decisions... it's all well and good when people simply disagree; that makes for good debate, and (when people are civil and reasonably intelligent) keeps life interesting... but when there's a difference of opinion and one person has more power than another, AND chooses to wield it inappropriately, then you've got problems... as you do here

and it's not like this is the only example of such things

if you like, I will happily submit all of the above, verbatim, in a ticket, so that you can deal with it as an actual complaint