OT Rules of pissy behaviour...

[Captain Ewok 1,932]

Right now I am actually doing some research on post histories. Turns out there may be some duplicate accounts people have been using that I was unaware of -- using them to make trouble. I am not trying to side track this, but if people are doing this then I need to get to the bottom of it. That is a major TOS no no.

[StillThePrettiest 4]

If this were true, Charles' account would be under review almost constantly. Off topic supposedly has looser TOS. The Ovaltine Jenkins incident is a great example of how there is no consistency in modding OT. You take seriously complaints where one of the OT playground regs feewings got hurt, but ignore the vociferous minority who actually care about the quality of VJ as a whole when legitimate concerns are raised. Utterly pathetic. But sadly this is now the norm for VJ.

THIS

I'm sure the same would apply to charles if you performed a similar evaluation. In fact, I'm positive his offensiveness is far more egregious over a much longer period of time, and yet he was made a dep mod. Sorry, Ewok, but your judgement is really off. I'm afraid you are no longer able to be objective when it comes to Charles.

and, dear God, THIS

[Captain Ewok 1,932]

I am curious why every conversation comes back to charles? I get that several of you do not like him. Understood. But it seems like most all topics lead to him and I know I am not doing it. Not to side track but it is hard to make headway on any topic because somehow Charles is always brought up and becomes the "issue".

[Captain Ewok 1,932]

A moderator was angry that his wife was rebuked for an insensitive comment, and brought in another moderator friend (who happens to be a IRL friend) to help take action against a long-time poster. To justify immediate action, the fact that she wasn't a regular contributor to the thread was used against her. To justify the eventual suspension, her posting history has been dug up and used against her.

@mox, no moderator did anything. I put the account on review. Please do not insinuate Charles or William did anything here. I had many reports and that member upon looking did have some previous posts on record that warranted a closer look.

[StillThePrettiest 4]

I am curious why every conversation comes back to charles? I get that several of you do not like him. Understood. But it seems like most all topics lead to him and I know I am not doing it. Not to side track but it is hard to make headway on any topic because somehow Charles is always brought up and becomes the "issue".

Ewok, I have bolded the part of your post that most frustrates me... this is NOT about like/dislike; I have not liked Charles for ages and yet have not felt any need to comment on that fact for quite some time... it is about CONSISTENCY and FAIRNESS, both of which are lacking generally on VJ, but which are particularly lacking here, in the topic under discussion

people citing examples of gross inconsistency and people being subjective when they HAVE to be objective in order to do their job on VJ *IS* the topic, not a sidetrack from it

I feel that many many people are speaking plainly, giving you examples, asking questions - and yet you don't seem to heed it, or wish to answer... THAT is the sidetrack, as far as I'm concerned

oh, and - what mox said

[*julez* 124]

I am curious why every conversation comes back to charles? I get that several of you do not like him. Understood. But it seems like most all topics lead to him and I know I am not doing it. Not to side track but it is hard to make headway on any topic because somehow Charles is always brought up and becomes the "issue".

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Do you really not comprehend the concerns that have been raised repeatedly with regard to Charles?

[Captain Ewok 1,932]

- This is an opportunity to show that VJ isn't some "good 'ol boys club" by admitting that Ovaltine Jenkins was rail-roaded for doing nothing more than posting criticism of a moderator's wife in--IRONICALLY!!-- the "say anything" thread. As I've said before, this is your site and we are all here by de facto invite, to play by your rules or gtfo. However, you have repeatedly said that your rules are of fairness, openness, and inclusiveness, so I'm inclined to hold you to this. If these are indeed the rules you are going to play by, then stop trying to shoe-horn flimsy justifications for your team's actions. Whatever her motivations, this was clearly unfair treatment, and you need to acknowledge it.

You asked for an example... If you recall, I suspended the husband of a moderator in the past. More than once (a spouse) if I recall. If a person pushes the limits of the TOS it does not matter who they are.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Do you really not comprehend the concerns that have been raised repeatedly with regard to Charles?

I do understand your concerns, but to be fair, every topic gets side tracked to him. This topic has nothing to do with Charles. See the original post.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's because the incident in OT was instigated because Charles and W33 abused their positions as moderators to have a member harassed and suspended.

What abuse did they do? They did not make any admin/mod actions against them. None as is 0.

[*julez* 124]

You asked for an example... If you recall, I suspended the husband of a moderator in the past. More than once (a spouse) if I recall. If a person pushes the limits of the TOS it does not matter who they are.

I do understand your concerns, but to be fair, every topic gets side tracked to him. This topic has nothing to do with Charles. See the original post.

But given the recent OT incident involving Charles, Nessa and a ridiculous suspension for Ovaltine Jenkins, this topic is pertinent to Charles. The rules clearly aren't the same for him.

[SuperDuper! 230]

Charles heart is in the right place, and he seems to be a good human being. But I must admit, that his wife can throw down some very pointed and challenging opinions that beg and bait provocation. So now it seems she has a special shield against any and all criticisms and unfavorable responses? (Dish it out, but can't take it?). To me, this has a nepotistic flavor to it, and an air of having an "immunity shield" and special privileges that are not available to others. My .02

[Captain Ewok 1,932]

I wanted to add. I have even taken admin action against moderators in the past.. It does happen.

But given the recent OT incident involving Charles, Nessa and a ridiculous suspension for Ovaltine Jenkins, this topic is pertinent to Charles. The rules clearly aren't the same for him.

I was the one who put their account on review. I did such because of member complaints and after an initial review found some disturbing comments and trends. Will and Charles had nothing to do with this.

[Captain Ewok 1,932]

But given the recent OT incident involving Charles, Nessa and a ridiculous suspension for Ovaltine Jenkins, this topic is pertinent to Charles. The rules clearly aren't the same for him.

I understand, but every time someone sees something as unfair Charles is brought up. The original issue is lost and Charles becomes the center of conversation.

[Captain Ewok 1,932]

Charles heart is in the right place, and he seems to be a good human being. But I must admit, that his wife can throw down some very pointed and challenging opinions that beg and bait provocation. So now it seems she has a special shield against any and all criticisms and unfavorable responses? (Dish it out, but can't take it?). To me, this has a nepotistic flavor to it, and an air of having an "immunity shield" and special privileges that are not available to others. My .02

I will re-iterate that if any spouse or family mmeber of a mod is reported and violates the TOS I will take admin actions (and the mods should too). Spouse or not, they are under the TOS. You can ask several present and former mods who I actually did suspend their spouses (I am sure it was not the best of moods in their house that night but it was the right and fair thing to do). Actually in hind site, the suspensions did help to clear up boundaries. I am not saying anything about this situation or drawing parallels, only that I am not beyond doing this if needed.

[Captain Ewok 1,932]

Ovaltine: No, you wake up. Not giving a damn about what's happening around the world (you gave the example of the tragic events in Haiti that you don't think are tragic) isn't just insensitive. It's way, way, way worse. And so typical of you

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3663522

Nessa: yeah i was insensitive, but i didn't say it wasn't tragic. the beef smell was making me hungry and i still had to work until 830 and all i had to eat was tv dinner.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3664043

This is where it should have ended. Nessa said she didn't care about the Haitian crisis, Ovaltine berated her, and Nessa replied.

But it didn't end there.

Charles: are you just here to annoy people?

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3666082

Charles: your recent post history speaks for itself. you can have all the problems/issues you want with me. there's no reason for you to include nessa in your agenda.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3666108

Charles: don't play dumb. you know she's my wife. and i'm sure your opinion will mean the world to her

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3666244

William33: Why are you antagonizing people here? Do you have something to contribute?

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3666318

William33: Trying to understand the purpose of this account's resurrection. Read the posts since then..........That should say it all.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3666398

William33: It's called the process of investigation...In an effort to get to the core of the truth. Let's leave it at that.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3666422

So W33 has taken quite an interest in Ovaltine's account. And why? What is it that Ovaltine said that warranted W33 taking the time out of his very busy schedule to investigate a fairly innocuous (for OT) comment about another member. Why is she being investigated so deeply? Why not just post "attacks against another member will not be tolerated" as is the norm, and move on?

Willaim33: STP is not at issue here, someone else is. Balance your comments carefully here.....

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3666821

Now THIS is interesting. STP is also a member who hasn't posted in awhile, and just shows up in this thread out of the blue. But HER account isn't to be investigated. Huh. Say something bad about Nessa, and your account gets investigated because it just showed up out of the blue. But show up just out of the blue without "attacking" Nessa, and she's given a pass.

I don't know who suspended who, or what was said, but I do know that action was taken against Ovaltine because she had the audacity to say something against Nessa. Nobody else was subjected to this kind of treatment.

err. Mox. Neither of them took any mod action. I put their account on review independently after looking into the members account. If you like I can review the accounts above that concern you -- I was not aware of issues there. BRB, I am reviewing them to play fair. I can not investigate everyone all the time if they do something. Only those accounts that people raise concern to me on and those that I spot myself.

[Captain Ewok 1,932]

@mox. I have no issue with any of the members involved per their post history that I see. Even Ovaltene I had under review but once I looked at their account I was ok with things. They are not on my ####### list.

I don't know who suspended who, or what was said, but I do know that action was taken against Ovaltine because she had the audacity to say something against Nessa. Nobody else was subjected to this kind of treatment.

I put at least one or two accounts on a review every week when I look into their posts. I admit a lot of time this is for more clear reasons such as potential spam or troll account (dupes) but this is not anything extraordinary (reviewing an account). In this case I found nothing to warrant any further admin action or digging. I asked them to reiterate their understanding of the TOS and that was that.

[*julez* 124]

Dude, you seriously do not get the point! Which is amazing, given how clearly mox spelled it all out for you. This is not about whether or not Charles or W33 took mod action. The issue is that they both got over-involved in what was, for OT, not a big deal. I've seen way worse. But because the OT crowd, including dear ol' chuck and Billy-o, can't handle any feedback from OT outsiders who are, in fact, legitimate VJ members, you are called in to save the day! Nasty old Ovaltine Jenkins is suspended and the real bullies move on to the next victims. Asnd depite being told again and again why Charles is relevant to this discussion youy simply cannot comprehend it. Uh-mazing!