REINSTATE BAD_DADDY NOW!!!

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Were you two ever instructed to put the other poster on ignore for a period of time, and not to respond either directly, or indirectly to the other's post, or not to participate in topics started by the other person? It appears that intermediate step was not utilized, as it was with other members, and even with Kip and another eventually banned member in the distant past.

I was never told to put him on ignore, but I was told repeatedly to watch the way I talk to him, or to simply not respond to him anymore.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

1st- thats what unofficially means.

2nd- the given to posters after their request was answered on matters involving big daddy says differnt

reports go unanswered everyday.

he tried to avoid it. he even engaged in direct discussion with you about it. he was blown off, no 'don't respond to each other' order was ever issued.

again the say different.

Then why make a point about someone being unofficially invited to join Visa Journey? No one who is a member of the Mod Team nor Captain Ewok invited the member in question to join. If you wish to invite someone to join Visa Journey you are welcome to do so but it is deceptive to then imply that the individual was invited to join at the 'unofficial' behest of someone who has some sort of responsibility for the management of this forum. There is no 'official' or 'unofficial' invitation from anyone involved in the management, administration or moderation of Visa Journey with regards to the individual in question.

Posting two flowers in support after an action does not indicate someone has influenced that decision prior to its implementation. The process involved does not allow for outside influence.

Reports may go 'unanswered' in that the reporting member may not get a response about what has happened to their report, but every report has been seen and actioned. There is currently only one open report in the Report Forum and that is for a report of a situation that is currently being monitored. When the situation has been resolved the report will be closed. Each report contains the comments and the actions of every moderator involved, including the date and time of each action. I try to respond to every report I action so the reporter knows it has been addressed, but just because someone does not receive a response, it does not mean their report has been ignored.

I did not 'blow' Bad_Daddy off. He may not have liked what I said and he may have disagreed with what I said, but I did not blow him off. Most recently he reported a baiting situation which I handled and I responded to him. He also asked about why a moderation decision (not the one in question) had been made and I also answered that it detail. The fact that he didn't like the answer and disagreed with the decision does not mean that he was 'blown off'.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Then why make a point about someone being unofficially invited to join Visa Journey? No one who is a member of the Mod Team nor Captain Ewok invited the member in question to join. If you wish to invite someone to join Visa Journey you are welcome to do so but it is deceptive to then imply that the individual was invited to join at the 'unofficial' behest of someone who has some sort of responsibility for the management of this forum. There is no 'official' or 'unofficial' invitation from anyone involved in the management, administration or moderation of Visa Journey with regards to the individual in question.

Posting two flowers in support after an action does not indicate someone has influenced that decision prior to its implementation. The process involved does not allow for outside influence.

Reports may go 'unanswered' in that the reporting member may not get a response about what has happened to their report, but every report has been seen and actioned. There is currently only one open report in the Report Forum and that is for a report of a situation that is currently being monitored. When the situation has been resolved the report will be closed. Each report contains the comments and the actions of every moderator involved, including the date and time of each action. I try to respond to every report I action so the reporter knows it has been addressed, but just because someone does not receive a response, it does not mean their report has been ignored.

I did not 'blow' Bad_Daddy off. He may not have liked what I said and he may have disagreed with what I said, but I did not blow him off. Most recently he reported a baiting situation which I handled and I responded to him. He also asked about why a moderation decision (not the one in question) had been made and I also answered that it detail. The fact that he didn't like the answer and disagreed with the decision does not mean that he was 'blown off'.

i used the term 'unofficially' because that is the term you used when addressing the questions stemming from thier assertion that 'they were invited to VJ', which was immediatley deleted by a member of the mod team.

sorry. but, when 2 posters openly complain about another poster's thread on the board (not in pm, not by using the report button, but, in the thread) and the requested action occurs. followed by: ~~~~Moved to Off Topic, from Polictics and Religion~~~~. posted by the moderator that moved it. busted. yes that was an influenced action & the appears to be a provication by that mod directed towards the person the action was taken against...btw. that was never addressed either.

answering (your wording again) is not the same as addressing. answering would be letting the reporting member know, the issue has been addressed in a quick pm. they may not agree with the outcome, but the report would be answered & the reporting member would know it wasn't just ignored.

when someone asks for mod assistance in preventing further ####### for tat baiting with specific posters (attempting to abide by the terms of their 'last warning') is told 'don't do it yourself' & no order to not address each other directly was issued (which has been ordered many times on VJ to quell a simmering rivalry, one of the mods was actually under that order at one time) while things cool off...thats pretty much a blow off.

eta: the results of the poll thus far are 8-6-3. are you sure you can't be persuaded to reverse this decision? more people disagree with the decision than agree & 1/2 as many that do agree don't care...fuzzy swayed math here. thats 11-6.

Edited January 10, 2013 by SMOKE

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Smoke,

You can try and twist things around as much as you like. The Terms of Service are very clear. Each time Bad_Daddy posted, he had the opportunity to make any number of choices on how to respond. He very consistently chose to post in ways that violated the Terms of Service.

The mutual post ban ignore direction to which you refer is one moderation tool that is employed when there is a definite problematic history between two individuals who consistently and pointedly go after each other. They are each told to place the other under a mutual ignore of all posts and comments for a specified period of time - a 'cooling off' time in which to stop the aggressive personal attacks and insults. While there were a few posters with whom Bad_Daddy had baiting exchanges, it wasn't restricted to just one or two people, and it wasn't to the extreme that requires the mutual post ban ignore directive. The reasons for Bad_Daddy's ban is a collection of violations of many different types over a number of months and not restricted to an exchange of baits with a number of different posters. The history of TOS violations - the majority of which did not involve the participation of other posters - leading up to this decision is long and well-detailed.

You can keep trying to find excuses and pass the blame on to other posters and to the Moderation Team but the long and the short of it is that Bad_Daddy was well aware of what he was doing and still chose to do it anyway. He was informed of the process, and still chose to continue. I am sorry that the forms are less enjoyable for some because a form of popular 'entertainment' has been removed from the forums, but the fact that Bad_Daddy's participation on Visa Journey was seen as a form of entertainment - as if Visa Journey is a type of modern day gladiator games or Coliseum - in and of itself speaks volumes about the nature of Bad_Daddy's posting behaviour.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Kathryn41

[^_^ 5,021]

Who gave who flowers? I missed that.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Then why make a point about someone being unofficially invited to join Visa Journey? No one who is a member of the Mod Team nor Captain Ewok invited the member in question to join. If you wish to invite someone to join Visa Journey you are welcome to do so but it is deceptive to then imply that the individual was invited to join at the 'unofficial' behest of someone who has some sort of responsibility for the management of this forum. There is no 'official' or 'unofficial' invitation from anyone involved in the management, administration or moderation of Visa Journey with regards to the individual in question.

Apparently this poster did it systematically and to more than one person.

What you describe is precisely what he did to me when I joined VJ, inquiring as to why I had joined and under whose authority and demanding answers to questions he was neither qualified nor authorized to ask. In fact, as recently as yesterday he insisted on this very point, in addition to other requests pertaining my personal life.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Gegel

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

This flower thing is very confusing, but flowers are pretty.

I know this is going to come off as total brownnosing, but I really appreciate Kathryn's explanations of the discipline process on VJ. It's much appreciated.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Smoke,

You can try and twist things around as much as you like. The Terms of Service are very clear. Each time Bad_Daddy posted, he had the opportunity to make any number of choices on how to respond. He very consistently chose to post in ways that violated the Terms of Service.

The mutual post ban ignore direction to which you refer is one moderation tool that is employed when there is a definite problematic history between two individuals who consistently and pointedly go after each other. They are each told to place the other under a mutual ignore of all posts and comments for a specified period of time - a 'cooling off' time in which to stop the aggressive personal attacks and insults. While there were a few posters with whom Bad_Daddy had baiting exchanges, it wasn't restricted to just one or two people, and it wasn't to the extreme that requires the mutual post ban ignore directive. The reasons for Bad_Daddy's ban is a collection of violations of many different types over a number of months and not restricted to an exchange of baits with a number of different posters. The history of TOS violations - the majority of which did not involve the participation of other posters - leading up to this decision is long and well-detailed.

You can keep trying to find excuses and pass the blame on to other posters and to the Moderation Team but the long and the short of it is that Bad_Daddy was well aware of what he was doing and still chose to do it anyway. He was informed of the process, and still chose to continue. I am sorry that the forms are less enjoyable for some because a form of popular 'entertainment' has been removed from the forums, but the fact that Bad_Daddy's participation on Visa Journey was seen as a form of entertainment - as if Visa Journey is a type of modern day gladiator games or Coliseum - in and of itself speaks volumes about the nature of Bad_Daddy's posting behaviour.

i'm not trying to twist anything and i don't appreciate you saying i am. i'm giving a pov shared by others here based/verified by the poll results. everyone that posts here makes decisions before they hit 'add reply'. when someone feels they are under fire & can't get assistance from mgmt. can you blame them for responding in kind? this entire forum outside of the upper forums is for entertainment. it takes more than one person to produce gladiator/coliseum entertainment.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

[quote name=' timestamp='1357847848' post='5914720]

Who gave who flowers? I missed that.

I actually don't know what posts or thread he is talking about either, however posting flowers after someone else's comment usually is an expression of sympathy. I don't recall seeing it used as an expression of endorsement but I can see how someone might use it for that meaning.

If someone has a link to the thread or posts in question, I would be happy to see them too.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Kathryn41

[Penny Lane 8,159]

This flower thing is very confusing, but flowers are pretty.

I know this is going to come off as total brownnosing, but I really appreciate Kathryn's explanations of the discipline process on VJ. It's much appreciated.

She's the one mod who, when dealing with me, has always answered my questions. Definitely appreciated.

[^_^ 5,021]

... it takes more than one person to produce gladiator/coliseum entertainment.

[SMOKE 1,426]

I actually don't know what posts or thread he is talking about either, however posting flowers after someone else's comment usually is an expression of sympathy. I don't recall seeing it used as an expression of endorsement but I can see how someone might use it for that meaning.

If someone has a link to the thread or posts in question, I would be happy to see them too.

headed to your inbox

She's the one mod who, when dealing with me, has always answered my questions. Definitely appreciated.

me too kathryn is the best. thats why she is the lead mod.

[quote name=' timestamp='1357849692' post='5914807]

[Kathryn41 3,205]

i'm not trying to twist anything and i don't appreciate you saying i am. i'm giving a pov shared by others here based/verified by the poll results. everyone that posts here makes decisions before they hit 'add reply'. when someone feels they are under fire & can't get assistance from mgmt. can you blame them for responding in kind? this entire forum outside of the upper forums is for entertainment. it takes more than one person to produce gladiator/coliseum entertainment.

At the time of my response, the poll results are currently running 8 yes, 9 no and 3 don't care. As you say, there are many different opinions on this subject, and I am sorry if someone feels that they are not getting the assistance they want from administration. Sometimes, however, it is not a matter of 'not getting assistance' but of 'not liking the response' instead. The moderation team is not perfect; we do make mistakes at times and when we do, we try to correct them. We do respond to every report even if the reporter isn't aware of the response. Sometimes, though, because the individual involved doesn't get the response they want to get, then they view the response that they do get, as insufficient. Even if they were totally ignored and no one ever responded to anything they had ever requested, and no one had ever tried to address the reported wrongs, it still doesn't give them permission to violate the Terms of Service. Repeatedly.

[hawkeyez 45]

In other words. The truth will not be told.

Bad_Daddy was warned a number of months ago that he was on thin ice due to habitual violations of the Terms of Service. The decision to ban his account was not one that was taken lightly nor made hastily.

The Moderation Team and Captain Ewok have discussed at length how to deal with members who continually violate the Terms of Service. It is not the objective nor the desire of Administration and the Moderation Team to ban members. It really is the action of last resort when the member has become a significant disruptive presence on the site and everything that has been tried to encourage a more responsible posting behaviour, has failed. The objective of the Moderation team is to try and ensure compliance with the Terms of Service. Every member who joins Visa Journey agrees to abide by the Terms of Service and the majority of them do.

When a member violates the TOS, we will try a variety of avenues to encourage a more responsible posting behaviour ranging from private warnings and discussions, to public warnings, to post removals to thread bans and to suspensions. The majority of members on Visa Journey have never even received a private warning, let alone a suspension. There are some, however, who violate the Terms of Service so often that they have experienced all of these actions, including suspensions of increasing length of time. When such members continue to violate the TOS in spite of every effort that has been taken to discourage such misbehaviour, and accrues a certain number of suspensions within a specified period of time (months), then that member is put on the habitual offenders list. If the member still chooses to post irresponsibly, then the member is informed that he/she has started a process that will lead to a permanent ban. They are informed that the next TOS violation will earn a 7 day suspension. If they chose to violate TOS again after their return, then the suspension doubles to 14 days. If a third violation follows within the specified time frame, then that will trigger a month suspension. If there are any more violations after that, then the account is permanently banned. Please remember that this happens only after a long history of TOS violations and attempts to correct the poor behaviour.

Any member involved in this process is fully informed of what to expect and what is expected of him or her. They are also notified at each step of the process where they are and what will happen next if they choose to violate TOS again. When it reaches the stage that an account is banned it is because the member has knowingly and willfully made the choice to continue to violate the Terms of Service. It doesn't come 'out of the blue'. It is the consequence they were fully informed would happen if they failed to observe the Terms of Service.

Bad_Daddy is not the first habitual offender who has been permanently banned, nor will he be the last. Please also remember that when this happens, the member has only him or herself to blame, as the avoidance of such a permanent step has always been in their own hands.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

In other words. The truth will not be told.

Not everything is a conspiracy.