Jump to content

85 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Other Country: United Kingdom
Timeline
Posted (edited)

Asking this question here, since it hasn't been answered elsewhere on the forums or by comment from the moderators concerned.

So last week I posted this thread. Following a post being removed by RyanH and then subsequently restored, the thread was then locked as a bait thread following a 'complete review of this thread by the Moderation Team'.

I'm interested in some explanation from the powers that be as to how the decision was reached that my thread was considered baiting, given that:

  • The article was posted verbatim with no editorialising in the OP
  • There was no editorialising in the thread title
  • Only a handful of replies were posted.

To date there have been several threads about the current Gaza crisis. Here are some examples:

Marco Rubio: Hamas to Blame for Gaza Casualties

Hitler quotes will not help the Palestinians

Sudan editor severely beaten after call for Israeli ties

Moral clarity in Gaza

Why are these considered legitimate for posting on the boards and mine was not? This thread, for example, has been allowed to continue for nearly 10 pages, despite numerous inflammatory images being posted within it. Why is that?

Further, I am interested in understanding why the thread entitled Sweden Goes insane, which I reported as being a bait thread (because the premise of the OP is that muslim immigrants are raping all the women and 'how long until the US is like this') was deemed to be acceptable under the TOS.

Just interested in an honest and transparent answer.

Thank you.

Edited by Hail Ming!
Filed: Timeline
Posted

You should know better.

You will get one of two things. I believe these are the responses they have documented in their Mod Playbook.

Response Type A: Tell you to take your complaints to VJ's private messenger. Lock this thread.

Response Type B: Carpet bomb your screen with a wall of text, intended to seem thoughtful and intelligent, but in actuality inane and ridiculous. Hope you get overwhelmed with the intellectual firepower of your Mod opponent and go away.

Posted

Because they don't have the teeth to follow through on previous warnings for certain posters, and someone must be friends with smoke, because he said it was bait so it must be true.

In other words, to cover up incompetence.

AOS for my husband
8/17/10: INTERVIEW DAY (day 123) APPROVED!!

ROC:
5/23/12: Sent out package
2/06/13: APPROVED!

Filed: Country: Monaco
Timeline
Posted

Write Ewok directly.

Asking this question here, since it hasn't been answered elsewhere on the forums or by comment from the moderators concerned.

So last week I posted this thread. Following a post being removed by RyanH and then subsequently restored, the thread was then locked as a bait thread following a 'complete review of this thread by the Moderation Team'.

I'm interested in some explanation from the powers that be as to how the decision was reached that my thread was considered baiting, given that:

  • The article was posted verbatim with no editorialising in the OP
  • There was no editorialising in the thread title
  • Only a handful of replies were posted.

To date there have been several threads about the current Gaza crisis. Here are some examples:

Marco Rubio: Hamas to Blame for Gaza Casualties

Hitler quotes will not help the Palestinians

Sudan editor severely beaten after call for Israeli ties

Moral clarity in Gaza

Why are these considered legitimate for posting on the boards and mine was not? This thread, for example, has been allowed to continue for nearly 10 pages, despite numerous inflammatory images being posted within it. Why is that?

Further, I am interested in understanding why the thread entitled Sweden Goes insane, which I reported as being a bait thread (because the premise of the OP is that muslim immigrants are raping all the women and 'how long until the US is like this') was deemed to be acceptable under the TOS.

Just interested in an honest and transparent answer.

Thank you.

200px-FSM_Logo.svg.png


www.ffrf.org




Filed: Other Country: United Kingdom
Timeline
Posted (edited)

You should know better.

You will get one of two things. I believe these are the responses they have documented in their Mod Playbook.

Response Type A: Tell you to take your complaints to VJ's private messenger. Lock this thread.

Response Type B: Carpet bomb your screen with a wall of text, intended to seem thoughtful and intelligent, but in actuality inane and ridiculous. Hope you get overwhelmed with the intellectual firepower of your Mod opponent and go away.

I'm open to the idea that there's a genuine reason why what I posted was treated differently to the other threads I cited. However, even if it was a mistake (whatever the reason) it shouldn't be difficult to admit it and use it to improve future moderation decisions.

Given that the moderation team is supposed to be about making the forums 'family friendly' in the spirit of community that forum members should feel that moderation decisions are being made fairly, transparently and with a degree of consistency. I get that people make mistakes, and this could involve a person being biased in their decision making. I just think not providing that transparency is very dubious and encourages people to violate the TOS or otherwise flood the mods forums with reports to get the outcome they want.

Edited by Hail Ming!
Posted (edited)

Family friendly means covering up photos of women, nothing more. Many people are confusing family friendly as defined here for being nice or honest or something, and it is not that.

There was a more recent resolution to improve moderation, but it has failed.

Edited by Harpa Timsah

AOS for my husband
8/17/10: INTERVIEW DAY (day 123) APPROVED!!

ROC:
5/23/12: Sent out package
2/06/13: APPROVED!

Filed: Other Country: United Kingdom
Timeline
Posted (edited)

Well apparently family friendly also means people's eyes not being offended by words like #######, #######, ###### and ####.

I've seen at least three moderators lurking in that Mod Issues thread, over the last couple of days so I know they've seen what was posted there. Not much in the way of comment on it though - apart from TBone and he didn't address it directly either.

It can't be only me that thinks that If moderators were clear and open about their decision making process you wouldn't get threads like this one.

Edited by Hail Ming!
Filed: Timeline
Posted

Family friendly means covering up photos of women, nothing more. Many people are confusing family friendly as defined here for being nice or honest or something, and it is not that.

There was a more recent resolution to improve moderation, but it has failed.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed (wo)man is king. But guess what? It's still the land of the blind. There is no way anything thoughtful ever comes out of this mod team. The ingredients simply are not there.

Posted (edited)

Well apparently family friendly also means people's eyes not being offended by words like #######, #######, ###### and ####.

I've seen at least three moderators lurking in that Mod Issues thread, over the last couple of days so I know they've seen what was posted there. Not much in the way of comment on it though - apart from TBone and he didn't address it directly either.

It can't be only me that thinks that If moderators were clear and open about their decision making process you wouldn't get threads like this one.

Oh, you are right. Family friendly now bans Richard Cheney.

And you are right that if the mods followed through on their own declarations and used common sense than this wouldn't happen. Better to ban chinese communists as a word but let sentiments of hate for a nationality from someone who has had other similar hate speech removed get a pass.

Because if you can hide your racism behind some special words, then the team will get confused and forget the context of previous behavior.

Edited by Harpa Timsah

AOS for my husband
8/17/10: INTERVIEW DAY (day 123) APPROVED!!

ROC:
5/23/12: Sent out package
2/06/13: APPROVED!

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...