The who should be Mod and Mod Issues Thread

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I don't mean this negatively but by a quick poll. In the above warning it was pointed out that the post that was removed was a example of something inappropriate, then it spoke of those of us trying and those of us pushing the limits, then another post pointing out something inappropriate with a comment that it was not one the posters mentioned in the other warning that was not mentioned actually.

So my question. Do any of you have a clue what was considered pushing the limits or if you are in the warned group or the OK group ?

Kind of like a ref throwing a flag, and saying somebody did something and it better not happen again, now start playing again ? What good does all that do if we have no clue who did what, if we were involved or what is considered pushing the envelope. Several post contain a another word for the male parts was not removed so I guess that was not it .

I love the direction they are heading but vague warnings and pronouns leave me confused

[Darnell 8,478]

I don't mean this negatively but by a quick poll. In the above warning it was pointed out that the post that was removed was a example of something inappropriate, then it spoke of those of us trying and those of us pushing the limits, then another post pointing out something inappropriate with a comment that it was not one the posters mentioned in the other warning that was not mentioned actually.

So my question. Do any of you have a clue what was considered pushing the limits or if you are in the warned group or the OK group ?

Kind of like a ref throwing a flag, and saying somebody did something and it better not happen again, now start playing again ? What good does all that do if we have no clue who did what, if we were involved or what is considered pushing the envelope. Several post contain a another word for the male parts was not removed so I guess that was not it .

I love the direction they are heading but vague warnings and pronouns leave me confused

to be honest, I not think I was writing a baiting post, as the member that I responded to had a long history here of writing about and posting pictures of male 'stuff'. Lesson learned, for me. FWIW, I had written about posting in the gallery here, as a bit of satire. But hey - I digress - I was lucky, no site ban.

Edited June 22, 2014 by Darnell

[spookyturtle 9,465]

to be honest, I not think I was writing a baiting post, as the member that I responded to had a long history here of writing about and posting pictures of male 'stuff'. Lesson learned, for me. FWIW, I had written about posting in the gallery here, as a bit of satire. But hey - I digress - I was lucky, no site ban.

I understood what you were saying. NB doesn't know Eric's prior history.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Telling someone they suffer from Narcissism would be a personal attack

This is true, its against TOS to direct a personal attack against a member of VJ. Eric isn't a member of VJ. He was banned many times.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Since Darnell has posted, yes, the post that was removed was aimed at a member with a history of getting caught up in the moment and going overboard in posting inappropriately. The post that was removed 'invited' this member to start on that road. I will take your word that it was not meant as a 'baiting' post to lure him into making inappropriate comments, but it did come across that way, especially in view of VJ's recent family friendly directive and the known proclivity for this individual to post comments that would quickly become non-family friendly.

I am sorry if I appear to be somewhat vague if the post has been removed and others have not seen what it was before it's removal, but it can be difficult to state what the problem was without that explanation quickly becoming problematic as well.

The biggest challenge we face as moderators is to determine where that line of appropriate vs inappropriate is, what is 'on' the line; what is beyond the line and what is approaching the line. It really is not as cut and dried as it would appear, and we have asked Captain Ewok to provide us with more direction in making this sort of determination.

The other post that was removed contained blatant and aggressive personal attacks that clearly violated TOS. The poster seemed to feel that the comment about crossing the line was aimed at him even though it wasn't - it was aimed at the person whose post had been removed - and he responded personally.

So, to clarify the warning - don't post material that appears to be encouraging another member to behave inappropriately (and unfortunately, a bit of VJ history was necessary to gain the full appreciation of that warning), and remember that this is supposed to be a family friendly forum.

I will now go back and remove the post pointed out as also being a personal attack, and thank you for pointing it out.

This is true, its against TOS to direct a personal attack against a member of VJ. Eric isn't a member of VJ. He was banned many times.

Eric is a member of VJ. His is the first case of amnesty which was unofficially offered upon a promise he would behave - which he has generally upheld in spite of those trying to lead him astray.

I understood what you were saying. NB doesn't know Eric's prior history.

Thanks Spooky. I agree that without that knowledge it would seem confusing.

Edited June 22, 2014 by Kathryn41

[Sousuke 1,214]

Eric is a member of VJ. His is the first case of amnesty which was unofficially offered upon a promise he would behave - which he has generally upheld in spite of those trying to lead him astray.

Seriously? You've given him "amnesty" multiple times and banned him more times then I can count and he still causes problems. Thats a joke quite frankly!

Edited June 22, 2014 by Sousuke

[Kathryn41 3,205]

He has actually only had one amnesty. He was banned repeatedly upon creating new accounts, yes. I am not going to go into the circumstances by which he contacted us to plead his case, but since then he has been a member of VJ and has kept the promise that he made not to repeat the behaviour that led him into being banned before. Trying to encourage a return to that behaviour by anyone was not a good move, and thus the warning. Eric has proved that he can post responsibly and should receive credit for making that effort. Those who are familiar with the past will understand how significant that is.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I understood what you were saying. NB doesn't know Eric's prior history.

Not that so much, it's jsut that I can't remember nor do i want to every post. I was not really commenting on if the post should have been deleted. Heck it always runs through my mind. I wonder if it was me ? Just saying if we could know what it was that tipped the scale or even if it was us, we might better understand what not to do.

Once again I like the direction things are heading, and just offering opinion. Overall I think everyone, Mods included are trying and it's appreciated ?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Since Darnell has posted, yes, the post that was removed was aimed at a member with a history of getting caught up in the moment and going overboard in posting inappropriately. The post that was removed 'invited' this member to start on that road. I will take your word that it was not meant as a 'baiting' post to lure him into making inappropriate comments, but it did come across that way, especially in view of VJ's recent family friendly directive and the known proclivity for this individual to post comments that would quickly become non-family friendly.

I am sorry if I appear to be somewhat vague if the post has been removed and others have not seen what it was before it's removal, but it can be difficult to state what the problem was without that explanation quickly becoming problematic as well.

The biggest challenge we face as moderators is to determine where that line of appropriate vs inappropriate is, what is 'on' the line; what is beyond the line and what is approaching the line. It really is not as cut and dried as it would appear, and we have asked Captain Ewok to provide us with more direction in making this sort of determination.

The other post that was removed contained blatant and aggressive personal attacks that clearly violated TOS. The poster seemed to feel that the comment about crossing the line was aimed at him even though it wasn't - it was aimed at the person whose post had been removed - and he responded personally.

So, to clarify the warning - don't post material that appears to be encouraging another member to behave inappropriately (and unfortunately, a bit of VJ history was necessary to gain the full appreciation of that warning), and remember that this is supposed to be a family friendly forum.

I will now go back and remove the post pointed out as also being a personal attack, and thank you for pointing it out.

Eric is a member of VJ. His is the first case of amnesty which was unofficially offered upon a promise he would behave - which he has generally upheld in spite of those trying to lead him astray.

Thanks Spooky. I agree that without that knowledge it would seem confusing.

My head hurts LOL.. Your really giving 100% no doubt, and I think we all appreciate it.

[MyLittlePony 340]

Like me or hate me ill stick around in a good manner.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Like me or hate me ill stick around in a good manner.

And you have done quite well since you've been back. The past has been forgiven, they gave you another chance and you are honoring it.

[MyLittlePony 340]

And you have done quite well since you've been back. The past has been forgiven, they gave you another chance and you are honoring it.

thanks

[UncleBeer 244]

In the above warning it was pointed out that the post that was removed was a example of something inappropriate, then it spoke of those of us trying and those of us pushing the limits, then another post pointing out something inappropriate with a comment that it was not one the posters mentioned in the other warning that was not mentioned actually.

I'm just back from another two day suspension, which was dealt out simultaneously with a warning. Now tell me: what's the point of a warning, if there's no opportunity for a warning to have an effect? The nature of the suspension is a whole 'nuther story which I'm told is currently under review.

Still waiting for signs of this "improved moderation". . .

[luckytxn 2,264]

Wrong. He was banned and some asked that he be allowed back and he was until he got banned again. It was not from creating a new account.

He has actually only had one amnesty. He was banned repeatedly upon creating new accounts, yes. I am not going to go into the circumstances by which he contacted us to plead his case, but since then he has been a member of VJ and has kept the promise that he made not to repeat the behaviour that led him into being banned before. Trying to encourage a return to that behaviour by anyone was not a good move, and thus the warning. Eric has proved that he can post responsibly and should receive credit for making that effort. Those who are familiar with the past will understand how significant that is.

Big change from a week ago when on a facebook post you said VJ was for losers. Why the change of mind now?

Like me or hate me ill stick around in a good manner.

[Jacque67 7,328]

I don't mean this negatively but by a quick poll. In the above warning it was pointed out that the post that was removed was a example of something inappropriate, then it spoke of those of us trying and those of us pushing the limits, then another post pointing out something inappropriate with a comment that it was not one the posters mentioned in the other warning that was not mentioned actually.

So my question. Do any of you have a clue what was considered pushing the limits or if you are in the warned group or the OK group ?

Kind of like a ref throwing a flag, and saying somebody did something and it better not happen again, now start playing again ? What good does all that do if we have no clue who did what, if we were involved or what is considered pushing the envelope. Several post contain a another word for the male parts was not removed so I guess that was not it .

I love the direction they are heading but vague warnings and pronouns leave me confused

I agree. Maybe one isn't allowed to mention genitalia? But if a thread is brought up about female circumcision ??

I really don't get it.