TOS Violations and Moderator Responses

[Boiler 43,517]

In the interest of fairness please post the offending text.

I have it somewhere in my deleted e mails as I participated in that thread, you can find it a lot quicker than I can.

My response to such issues is that whilst you can not have the intent at entry, you can always change your mind AFTER entry. I was told this by an Immigration Lawyer, he did not mention the change of mind!

Interestingly I have not seen people who cry Immigration Fraud banned where no such fraud has been mentioned.

[Avery Cates 1,141]

Sorry I am so late to this discussion. I have been dealing with a lot of personal life concerns recently so have not been able to commit the time to VJ as I usually have in the past. The situations are moving along so hopefully will be well enough advanced soon that I can be a lot more present.

Please don't feel that your comments are unheard or ignored. The moderation team has been discussing this situation in the report forum and the mod forum, reviewing the original report, the posts involved, the posters and the various decisions and choices made.

While we don't discuss mod action taken generally with anyone other than the individual involved, sometimes, more details can help to clear the air so I am going to go over what happened, from the perspective of the moderation team.

You have all correctly identified the thread which resulted in a removal of 2 posts and the issuance of a 24 hour suspension. I have gone through the thread and the post in question - which can still be read at the moderator level and above - and while I agree with the moderator involved decision, I wonder if the poster did not realize why her post created a problem.

The issue under discussion was the legality of adjusting status from a Visa Waiver Program. The issue hasn't always been clear-cut as many people have adjusted from a VWP status, and then for a while West Coast petitions were being refused with one or more USCIS office stating that VWP petitioners were ineligible to adjust from that status, which meant they had no appeal and had to leave the US. Since this was not a consistent decision across the country, it was very confusing as petitions from the west coast were being denied, while petitions on the east coast were being granted. That ambiguity was introduced by USCIS and it did impact quite a number of our members, hence the confusion.

Nich-Nick's response provided a link showing that someone who entered the US on a VWP was eligible to adjust status from within the US. If she had only posted the link, there would have been no problem, however in the rest of her post she went on to advise the OP about what to look out for and how to prepare if he chose to use the VWP with the deliberate intent of entering the US and applying to adjust status - in other words, using it to immigrate rather than visit. Intentionally using one immigration program to bypass another, more time-consuming but legally proper immigration program is visa fraud - a violation of US immigration law. Advocating or advising someone on how to commit visa fraud is a violation of the Terms of Service for Visa Journey:

The whole moderation team read Nich Nick's post and unanimously agreed that her choice of words was instructing the OP on how to enter on the VWP with the full intention of using it to immigrate. Other posters also got the same message and the post was reported via the Report button.

Accordingly, the post was removed, and Nich Nick was sent a message from the warning center notifying her of the violation,the TOS involved and the 24 hour suspension. This is actually a reduced suspension from the recommendation provided by administration in recognition that this poster does not have a history of making inappropriate posts nor violating TOS. We were actually all quite surprised to read the post in question which is why I wonder if Nich Nick was unaware of how it came across.

Suspensions are issued through a structured protocol enacted by a function called the 'warning center'. The moderator will type in the message to the recipient, make file comments for the moderation team and administration - who see both messages - then selects the appropriate actions from pull down menu options. The site software then issues the warning and enacts the modification action. Before the recent software updates, individuals would say they had never received the notice and that led to concerns that people did not know why they received certain moderator attention. So administration added a 'read and respond' function to the warning message. The recipient needs to acknowledge that they have received and read the action before the software will free up their account to start posting again. This is a guarantee for administration that the individual knows why he or she received this action. The read and respond function is nothing personal aimed at any individual, nor is it something over which any individual moderator has any control. It is embedded into the software of the site and happens automatically.

I agree that Nich Nick has been a great member of this site, and it may just have been bad judgement for her to word her post in the way she did. The post, however, clearly provides supportive commentary on committing visa fraud by using a VWP with the intention of coming permanently to the US, and as such, does violate the terms of service. So, the report was treated according to the guidelines posted by administration, the post was removed and the suspension issued. It could have been bad judgement on the part of the poster, or even that sometimes even good members make mistakes - (heaven knows I have made a number of them myself and I believe I am generally a good member) - but the report and action were appropriate to the circumstances.

I know that the recent changes have caused a lot of concern and confusion, and sometimes administration and moderation are not always as clear or consistent as we would like to be on explaining our reasons or our actions. It isn't our objective, though, to 'go after' people, to be vindictive, or power hungry or even to 'punish' members, although I know that is the way it can be perceived. It would be great if we didn't have to worry about making sure everyone follows the TOS because they are doing this for themselves. Unfortunately, this doesn't always happen, and either deliberately or by accident, inappropriate posts happen. Visa Journey has a responsibility, however, to ensure that the actions of our members do not put other members at risk, cause them to violate American law, or to make choices that compromise the well-being of their own visa journeys.. Trying to be fair and even-handed is a lot more difficult than it appears as nothing is ever a level playing field. All we can do is our best. Sometimes that is enough - and sometimes it isn't.

A fair enough response.

I would encourage a reach out to Nich-Nick and get this resolved, find some way to remove the acknowledgement, and we can all get back to business as usual.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Avery Cates

[Karee 4,189]

Sorry I am so late to this discussion. I have been dealing with a lot of personal life concerns recently so have not been able to commit the time to VJ as I usually have in the past. The situations are moving along so hopefully will be well enough advanced soon that I can be a lot more present.

Please don't feel that your comments are unheard or ignored. The moderation team has been discussing this situation in the report forum and the mod forum, reviewing the original report, the posts involved, the posters and the various decisions and choices made.

While we don't discuss mod action taken generally with anyone other than the individual involved, sometimes, more details can help to clear the air so I am going to go over what happened, from the perspective of the moderation team.

You have all correctly identified the thread which resulted in a removal of 2 posts and the issuance of a 24 hour suspension. I have gone through the thread and the post in question - which can still be read at the moderator level and above - and while I agree with the moderator involved decision, I wonder if the poster did not realize why her post created a problem.

The issue under discussion was the legality of adjusting status from a Visa Waiver Program. The issue hasn't always been clear-cut as many people have adjusted from a VWP status, and then for a while West Coast petitions were being refused with one or more USCIS office stating that VWP petitioners were ineligible to adjust from that status, which meant they had no appeal and had to leave the US. Since this was not a consistent decision across the country, it was very confusing as petitions from the west coast were being denied, while petitions on the east coast were being granted. That ambiguity was introduced by USCIS and it did impact quite a number of our members, hence the confusion.

Nich-Nick's response provided a link showing that someone who entered the US on a VWP was eligible to adjust status from within the US. If she had only posted the link, there would have been no problem, however in the rest of her post she went on to advise the OP about what to look out for and how to prepare if he chose to use the VWP with the deliberate intent of entering the US and applying to adjust status - in other words, using it to immigrate rather than visit. Intentionally using one immigration program to bypass another, more time-consuming but legally proper immigration program is visa fraud - a violation of US immigration law. Advocating or advising someone on how to commit visa fraud is a violation of the Terms of Service for Visa Journey:

The whole moderation team read Nich Nick's post and unanimously agreed that her choice of words was instructing the OP on how to enter on the VWP with the full intention of using it to immigrate. Other posters also got the same message and the post was reported via the Report button.

Accordingly, the post was removed, and Nich Nick was sent a message from the warning center notifying her of the violation,the TOS involved and the 24 hour suspension. This is actually a reduced suspension from the recommendation provided by administration in recognition that this poster does not have a history of making inappropriate posts nor violating TOS. We were actually all quite surprised to read the post in question which is why I wonder if Nich Nick was unaware of how it came across.

Suspensions are issued through a structured protocol enacted by a function called the 'warning center'. The moderator will type in the message to the recipient, make file comments for the moderation team and administration - who see both messages - then selects the appropriate actions from pull down menu options. The site software then issues the warning and enacts the modification action. Before the recent software updates, individuals would say they had never received the notice and that led to concerns that people did not know why they received certain moderator attention. So administration added a 'read and respond' function to the warning message. The recipient needs to acknowledge that they have received and read the action before the software will free up their account to start posting again. This is a guarantee for administration that the individual knows why he or she received this action. The read and respond function is nothing personal aimed at any individual, nor is it something over which any individual moderator has any control. It is embedded into the software of the site and happens automatically.

I agree that Nich Nick has been a great member of this site, and it may just have been bad judgement for her to word her post in the way she did. The post, however, clearly provides supportive commentary on committing visa fraud by using a VWP with the intention of coming permanently to the US, and as such, does violate the terms of service. So, the report was treated according to the guidelines posted by administration, the post was removed and the suspension issued. It could have been bad judgement on the part of the poster, or even that sometimes even good members make mistakes - (heaven knows I have made a number of them myself and I believe I am generally a good member) - but the report and action were appropriate to the circumstances.

I know that the recent changes have caused a lot of concern and confusion, and sometimes administration and moderation are not always as clear or consistent as we would like to be on explaining our reasons or our actions. It isn't our objective, though, to 'go after' people, to be vindictive, or power hungry or even to 'punish' members, although I know that is the way it can be perceived. It would be great if we didn't have to worry about making sure everyone follows the TOS because they are doing this for themselves. Unfortunately, this doesn't always happen, and either deliberately or by accident, inappropriate posts happen. Visa Journey has a responsibility, however, to ensure that the actions of our members do not put other members at risk, cause them to violate American law, or to make choices that compromise the well-being of their own visa journeys.. Trying to be fair and even-handed is a lot more difficult than it appears as nothing is ever a level playing field. All we can do is our best. Sometimes that is enough - and sometimes it isn't.

Interesting. Good to know how the sausage is made.

[Zedayn 485]

You have all correctly identified the thread which resulted in a removal of 2 posts and the issuance of a 24 hour suspension. I have gone through the thread and the post in question - which can still be read at the moderator level and above - and while I agree with the moderator involved decision, I wonder if the poster did not realize why her post created a problem.

Accordingly, the post was removed, and Nich Nick was sent a message from the warning center notifying her of the violation,the TOS involved and the 24 hour suspension. This is actually a reduced suspension from the recommendation provided by administration in recognition that this poster does not have a history of making inappropriate posts nor violating TOS. We were actually all quite surprised to read the post in question which is why I wonder if Nich Nick was unaware of how it came across.

I do believe that Nich-Nick did not have any ill intent in her posts, however I believe the problem was in how the message was delivered. From what you have posted, I think the situation was handled fairly and I do hope that Nich-Nick will acknowledge receipt of the warning and come back to VJ.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

There seems to be a new strongly increased reliance on "mod tools" instead on using words. Before, I witnessed many verbal warnings before "admin action" was taken. I would see a post removal, then a warning to not post in this matter. Then if a second post, a post removal and a warning of "any further posting will result in admin action." Then I assume a warning, then I assume a suspension (I could not see these parts). I can recall one instance where someone got three distinct verbal warnings before anything was done.

Now, "mod tools" come into play immediately, with no warning. Perhaps three warnings are too much, but zero is too little.

My view is that the users and the mods are on the same side. The users help the mods by reporting things and the mods use their tools and their "mod message" to keep things going as smoothly as possible.

Now there is a sense that some mods think they are here like prison wardens, to police the site, to find bad offenders and punish them. Why is that?

[luckytxn 2,263]

Should have deleted and a verbal warning given. Nich deserves consideration. Ryan is a bad mod.

Edited March 20, 2014 by luckytxn

[Karee 4,189]

There seems to be a new strongly increased reliance on "mod tools" instead on using words. Before, I witnessed many verbal warnings before "admin action" was taken. I would see a post removal, then a warning to not post in this matter. Then if a second post, a post removal and a warning of "any further posting will result in admin action." Then I assume a warning, then I assume a suspension (I could not see these parts). I can recall one instance where someone got three distinct verbal warnings before anything was done.

Now, "mod tools" come into play immediately, with no warning. Perhaps three warnings are too much, but zero is too little.

My view is that the users and the mods are on the same side. The users help the mods by reporting things and the mods use their tools and their "mod message" to keep things going as smoothly as possible.

Now there is a sense that some mods think they are here like prison wardens, to police the site, to find bad offenders and punish them. Why is that?

I've also noticed the thread locking seems to happen much quicker than it used to. Seemed like before they would give someone a warning and then thread ban the member if they didn't stop the behavior. Now it seems like the thread just gets locked.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

There seems to be a new strongly increased reliance on "mod tools" instead on using words. Before, I witnessed many verbal warnings before "admin action" was taken. I would see a post removal, then a warning to not post in this matter. Then if a second post, a post removal and a warning of "any further posting will result in admin action." Then I assume a warning, then I assume a suspension (I could not see these parts). I can recall one instance where someone got three distinct verbal warnings before anything was done.

Now, "mod tools" come into play immediately, with no warning. Perhaps three warnings are too much, but zero is too little.

My view is that the users and the mods are on the same side. The users help the mods by reporting things and the mods use their tools and their "mod message" to keep things going as smoothly as possible.

Now there is a sense that some mods think they are here like prison wardens, to police the site, to find bad offenders and punish them. Why is that?

All very good comments, Harpa. Thank you for your post. You are right, of course, that we are all on the same side, and I know that we depend on our members to help keep this site moving 'as smoothly as possible'. Sometimes we can become overwhelmed with the volume of work and reports and I know that due to a variety of circumstances in the last few months we have been somewhat light in moderator availability. Finding the win win situation often takes time, especially to go back and read over threads to try and look at a reported post in 'context'. It may be that we have become somewhat lax in taking the necessary time to get the best overall perspective and thus the best 'solution'. I agree that sometimes the relationship between certain members and the moderators - and recently, even administration - seems adversarial. It is not intentionally so, and I know we all try to keep it out of out moderating, but there may be times when, due to lack of time or too much work, or being tired or worried about our own personal life concerns, or even on site personality issues, it becomes harder to gain that objectivity or put the effort into finding the best workable resolution. You say you are seeing us taking shortcuts with the mod functions rather than working with the personal touch. It may be we need to review our moderation styles and see if we have slipped into some habits that are not always the most effective ones for the circumstances, and I will certainly add this on to our next mod meeting agenda. We should be leaving warnings before threads are locked unless things are obviously seriously out of hand, and we should be leaving warnings when there are problematic posts in a thread and try to find the work-around solution rather than immediately suspending or banning someone. There are times when we get castigated for being too 'harsh' and other times for not being harsh enough. Sometimes it just won't be a win win situation, but that doesn't mean we can't try to find it. Certainly we can take a look at how we have been moderating lately and see how we can improve.

[MacUK 983]

In the interest of fairness please post the offending text.

I have it somewhere in my deleted e mails as I participated in that thread, you can find it a lot quicker than I can.

My response to such issues is that whilst you can not have the intent at entry, you can always change your mind AFTER entry. I was told this by an Immigration Lawyer, he did not mention the change of mind!

Interestingly I have not seen people who cry Immigration Fraud banned where no such fraud has been mentioned.

I remember the post as I was one of the ones who commented on it although as I'm using my phone on here I don't have a 'report' button so that wasn't me.

The OP had been asking about travelling to the US and adjusting. Nich-Nick wrote a lengthy post which appeared to be instructing the OP on what to say and do at POE to get through. Stuff along the lines of you don't want to get to the airport with all your belongings and all the forms filled out in advance.

Maybe it was just badly worded.

So basically she was given a light slap on the wrist and asked to just click a button to acknowledge that she'd received it, not that she agreed with it, just received it?

Personally I fail to see what all the kerfuffle is about. Pride?

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Should have deleted and a verbal warning given. Nich deserves consideration. Ryan is a bad mod.

The recommended actions for anything to do with fraudulent activity are some of the strongest listed. Ryan is not a bad mod. He is a good mod who was following the rules. As he gains in experience, Ryan will also become a better mod.

Under the circumstances a removal of the post and a warning would have been appropriate, even though it is not listed as an option. This is where experience in moderating comes into play; options become a judgment call based upon experience and knowledge of the individuals involved.

I also suspect that If the action had involved someone who wasn't a well known regular, no one would have found the moderator action - if they had known of it - out of line.

[Vanitas 310]

The recommended actions for anything to do with fraudulent activity are some of the strongest listed. Ryan is not a bad mod. He is a good mod who was following the rules. As he gains in experience, Ryan will also become a better mod.

Under the circumstances a removal of the post and a warning would have been appropriate, even though it is not listed as an option. This is where experience in moderating comes into play; options become a judgment call based upon experience and knowledge of the individuals involved.

I also suspect that If the action had involved someone who wasn't a well known regular, no one would have found the moderator action - if they had known of it - out of line.

He is a disgraceful mod and should be fired. This is not the first heavy-handed moderation of his - locking all the stickied threads in the forums ring a bell?

You should also tender your resignation because you have proven time after time that you cannot be impartial.

[KayDeeCee 4,891]

Running off someone that is knowledgeable and has been extremely helpful for so long is really messed up. Taking administrative action against people violating the TOS and posting nonsense is supposed to be for the good of the site. This is just really sad and only hurts this place, by far. Perhaps the moderation around here should follow the ways of interviewing officers and consider the totality of the situation before handing out disciplines. Everything is not always simply black and white. The world is full of gray areas, and driving away Nich was/is a terrible decision for VJ as a whole. That means this particular administrative action backfired and failed big time.

[luckytxn 2,263]

The recommended actions for anything to do with fraudulent activity are some of the strongest listed. Ryan is not a bad mod. He is a good mod who was following the rules. As he gains in experience, Ryan will also become a better mod.

Under the circumstances a removal of the post and a warning would have been appropriate, even though it is not listed as an option. This is where experience in moderating comes into play; options become a judgment call based upon experience and knowledge of the individuals involved.

I also suspect that If the action had involved someone who wasn't a well known regular, no one would have found the moderator action - if they had known of it - out of line.

Nich is hardly a newbie. She made a mistake and deserves consideration. She also needs to learn as we all do. Now with this over handed moderation the site has lost a valuable asset and for sure others are saying goodbye. Hope it is worth it to this site when doing the right thing could have avoided this acrimony. As you said Ryan is a new moderator and did the wrong thing in this instance. Hope he learns but since there has been so many that have complained about him shows me is in over his head and that means he is a bad moderator. Make him an Organizer maybe he can handle that.

[Ban Hammer 12,845]

I've also noticed the thread locking seems to happen much quicker than it used to. Seemed like before they would give someone a warning and then thread ban the member if they didn't stop the behavior. Now it seems like the thread just gets locked.

threads sometimes get locked to give the mod time to read and review the entire thread. threads are also locked to gain a quorum from the mod team as to the action (if any) to take. and sometimes threads are locked as they have gone hopelessly off the rails.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

He is a disgraceful mod and should be fired. This is not the first heavy-handed moderation of his - locking all the stickied threads in the forums ring a bell?

You should also tender your resignation because you have proven time after time that you cannot be impartial.

You probably need to calm down. You aren't making a good case for your issue by getting so upset.

Don't think I should be saying that to you? I've been down the road you are on right now. So I know what an incident will look like later once the heat has died down.

And, I also know you've already been given your answer and it won't change. You either accept it or you leave. You aren't as valuable as you think. Nich isn't as valuable as you think. Not in the big scheme of things. Not to those with the tools to decide.