Since when

[rebeccajo 14]

Would someone please explain to me what a 'post leader' is?

Hmmm.

Well, it's a term I've seen used before that seems to mean - posts a lot, but usually posts in the 'intended' parts of the community - not the social parts.

[rebeccajo 14]

The OP and other readers should be intelligent enough to know where advice ends and moralizing begins, and if they're not then no amount of rationalizing is going to help them anyway. You've been around long enough to know you're just not going to be able to 'squelch' people who think they're right. All they're going to do is go back and forth for as long as you go back and forth with them, or until the thread is locked.

Oh I know........I should rise above it and all.

I'm trying.........believe me I try......

In this particular thread, I felt (still do btw) that because of Push's influence (mostly well deserved) that his opinion could be interpreted as fact.

That bothers me.

[William33 110]

Wm - the "debate" in that thread isn't the problem. Debate is what we all USED to do on this forum to learn about this process. Ego needs to be checked. That thread was muddied only because of it.

It does seem to (lately) have become a 'traveling debate' though - showing up in multiple threads...

Good points.

Which is precisely why I requested that it end. It didn't, so I closed the thread.

As always, members are free to contact Captain Ewok about a Moderator decision.

[sara..... 371]

nothing wrong with having a short time line...... if people are being rude its prolly jealousy cuz theirs are longer!!!!

sara

Sara -

I appreciate your words and I take them to heart.

When I was first here, I did post differently than I do now. I was more friendly and took more time with my words.

After a while, many of the persons I journeyed with left the forums - just natural attrition. I became less "known" for our personal journey and more known for my work on the forums. I put less of my personality into the writings and tried to stick more to the facts. I did this partly because I didn't have the time, and also because without the 'players' who knew me more personally I found myself subject to more and more attacks because of my short timeline.

I tried several times to leave this community because of hurtful words that were written to me about the timeline. But time and time again I was drawn back. I agree with you 100% that this journey is a stressful one. I would read things that I knew I could answer (posted by people in stress) and I knew that I could help them. I knew I could not help with every question but I knew I had areas of expertise. I cared about the cases - not about WHAT I know of the process.

*sigh*

That is still, to this day, my goal. I don't write words in the forums because I want to be RIGHT. I do what I do because I want people to have what I have - to be together - to be reunited and happy. If they are given false information; or wrong answers; or just downright blowhard conjecturing loaded up on their plate - to me that is stressful. That won't help them with their journey.

So with me - yeah - it's personal.

[mox 298]

Good points.

Which is precisely why I requested that it end. It didn't, so I closed the thread.

When this kind of thing happens, why is the thread locked? Out of all the members, it was only a couple of people who were disrupting the thread. So by locking it, an otherwise helpful discussion was completely shut down. Why are the disruptive posts not removed and the disruptors not held accountable? It seems to me that pissing contests would soon become a thing of the past if the individual pissers were held accountable and the disruptive posts removed.

[William33 110]

Good points.

Which is precisely why I requested that it end. It didn't, so I closed the thread.

When this kind of thing happens, why is the thread locked? Out of all the members, it was only a couple of people who were disrupting the thread. So by locking it, an otherwise helpful discussion was completely shut down. Why are the disruptive posts not removed and the disruptors not held accountable? It seems to me that pissing contests would soon become a thing of the past if the individual pissers were held accountable and the disruptive posts removed.

Mox,

Looking in from the outside, Moderation appears quite simple. In reality, it is a complex balance between member rights and the VJ TOS. Trust our judgement, won't you?

[mox 298]

Mox,

Looking in from the outside, Moderation appears quite simple. In reality, it is a complex balance between member rights and the VJ TOS. Trust our judgement, won't you?

William, I know you don't mean to be condescending, but damn that's condescending. Of course I understand that it's a complex balance. I don't think a single person here thinks otherwise. For the most part I trust the moderators judgment, and I've said so on numerous occasions. But I also don't think the moderation team is above criticism, and quite frankly I think you all have been handling flame wars poorly for a long time. I can't think of a single other forum that I belong to that just locks threads when a few members knock it out of control. VJ is alone in this regard. (btw--and I don't mean this to be snarky, but only because it's relevant to the conversation--I used to moderate Stratics back in the day, so I do know what's involved in moderation)

As a result of the "warn the naughty kids and then lock the thread" policy, the flame wars have gotten to be more and more intense, and more and more disruptive. There's no value in letting a couple members destroy a thread and just simply locking it so they can move on to the next thread. And I know that in many cases actions aren't being taken against these members, because I see them wrecking threads on a daily basis. I know the details of member actions are kept (necessarily) confidential, but when I look back to see a few members who have racked up dozens and dozens of destroyed threads, and they're still posting and still wrecking threads. (and yes, I've wrecked a few threads of my own in my day, and I'm not proud of it. But I'm whatchacall "reformed" and stuff )

And talking about balancing member rights, what about the right of the OP to have their posts not deteriorate into TOS violations and ultimately locked before the actual topic of conversation can come to a natural conclusion? I'm not advocating a heavy-handed approach to moderation, and I'm not opposed to even heated debate. But the epeen fights and flame wars are getting completely out of control, and you (the moderators) need to re-think how you've been handling it, because what you're doing now is not working.

[William33 110]

Mox,

Looking in from the outside, Moderation appears quite simple. In reality, it is a complex balance between member rights and the VJ TOS. Trust our judgement, won't you?

William, I know you don't mean to be condescending, but damn that's condescending. Of course I understand that it's a complex balance. I don't think a single person here thinks otherwise. For the most part I trust the moderators judgment, and I've said so on numerous occasions. But I also don't think the moderation team is above criticism, and quite frankly I think you all have been handling flame wars poorly for a long time. I can't think of a single other forum that I belong to that just locks threads when a few members knock it out of control. VJ is alone in this regard. (btw--and I don't mean this to be snarky, but only because it's relevant to the conversation--I used to moderate Stratics back in the day, so I do know what's involved in moderation)

As a result of the "warn the naughty kids and then lock the thread" policy, the flame wars have gotten to be more and more intense, and more and more disruptive. There's no value in letting a couple members destroy a thread and just simply locking it so they can move on to the next thread. And I know that in many cases actions aren't being taken against these members, because I see them wrecking threads on a daily basis. I know the details of member actions are kept (necessarily) confidential, but when I look back to see a few members who have racked up dozens and dozens of destroyed threads, and they're still posting and still wrecking threads. (and yes, I've wrecked a few threads of my own in my day, and I'm not proud of it. But I'm whatchacall "reformed" and stuff )

And talking about balancing member rights, what about the right of the OP to have their posts not deteriorate into TOS violations and ultimately locked before the actual topic of conversation can come to a natural conclusion? I'm not advocating a heavy-handed approach to moderation, and I'm not opposed to even heated debate. But the epeen fights and flame wars are getting completely out of control, and you (the moderators) need to re-think how you've been handling it, because what you're doing now is not working.

Sorry if you feel that my comments are condescending. You have obviously thought this through at length, But I have not. Frankly, I have been super-busy at my regular job. I suggest you forward your comments to Captain Ewok, who most assuredly, has seen this thread.

Regards.

William

[Captain Ewok 1,900]

And talking about balancing member rights, what about the right of the OP to have their posts not deteriorate into TOS violations and ultimately locked before the actual topic of conversation can come to a natural conclusion?

I agree that often times the "fast" solution to fix an out of control thread is to lock it and discipline members that may have violated the TOS. That said, it may not always be the most prudent / successful / right way to solve the issue. I would offer that when possible we (myself or the mods) should try to "clean out" the mess as to preserve the original topic instead of simply locking it. We can then subsequently address any TOS issues. To be clear though, in some instances there are "insults" and other issues span page after page and are so intertwined that locking the thread may be the only choice that makes sense.

So the quick and dirty... I will pass on to the mod team that when it is clear where things "bad" happened in the thread, and practical to do so, we should remove those offending areas (in truth just make them invisible but kept for the record), and address the members who potentially violated the TOS or caused the problem. We can drop a note saying we cleaned things up and to PM myself or the mod if anyone has q's. My last comment to be made is that the moderators have personal life's that need attention as well; sometimes they can only dedicate "so" much time and can not fully dive into each and every issue fully. If you feel that an issue needs more attention I ask that you PM me directly. Feel free to use me and abuse me .

[rebeccajo 14]

And talking about balancing member rights, what about the right of the OP to have their posts not deteriorate into TOS violations and ultimately locked before the actual topic of conversation can come to a natural conclusion?

I agree that often times the "fast" solution to fix an out of control thread is to lock it and discipline members that may have violated the TOS. That said, it may not always be the most prudent / successful / right way to solve the issue. I would offer that when possible we (myself or the mods) should try to "clean out" the mess as to preserve the original topic instead of simply locking it. We can then subsequently address any TOS issues. To be clear though, in some instances there are "insults" and other issues span page after page and are so intertwined that locking the thread may be the only choice that makes sense.

So the quick and dirty... I will pass on to the mod team that when it is clear where things "bad" happened in the thread, and practical to do so, we should remove those offending areas (in truth just make them invisible but kept for the record), and address the members who potentially violated the TOS or caused the problem. We can drop a note saying we cleaned things up and to PM myself or the mod if anyone has q's. My last comment to be made is that the moderators have personal life's that need attention as well; sometimes they can only dedicate "so" much time and can not fully dive into each and every issue fully. If you feel that an issue needs more attention I ask that you PM me directly. Feel free to use me and abuse me .

Expressing an opinion that something "may happen" can only be wrong if it's impossible to happen. The argument was as usual, one person expressing practical information for consideration and another wishing not to alarm anybody.

The fact is CO's can "consider" anything they want as they evaluate public charge concerns and it is irresponsible to advise against a co-sponsor when a petitioner's personal income is less than the 125% for two people, even when court ordered child support allows them to qualify. The petitioner grows even more vulnerable as the children's ages approach the end of the child support obligation.

If somebody is courageous enough to seriously assert that no Consular officer would ever request a co-sponsor when the petitioner's income from a part-time job is $12,000 a year and their twins' child support payments end in six months, I'd be very surprised. Individual officers may draw than line as they deem appropriate but the lines do get drawn. I've seen them be drawn and advised the OP and any readers of same.

Arguments about "may" vs "may not" are really silly. Where one is asserted, the other lives on.

My objection is that Rebeccajo can't seem to stop concluding people challenge her opinions because they are misogynists. The name calling requires disciplinary action, IMO. Warnings don't seem to work. Just how much of this are you willing to put up with?

Yes I said it was misogynistic. That post was also deleted. If I cursed you that might be worthy of disciplinary action.

And I will sit hear RIGHT NOW and assert that making up this kind of #######:

..............."it is irresponsible to advise against a co-sponsor when a petitioner's personal income is less than the 125% for two people"................

is not only FALSE but it's clearly based on an opinion that child support is somehow 'less desirable' income than 'earned' income.

Push - you are MAKING STUFF UP. Why in the world would you want to put it in people's heads that CO's use this calculation of 'earned income' having to be at the 125% level? Because a CO can? That's just over-reaching to try and make your argument hold water.

You are talking right through a sieve.

You need to get over the fact that you aren't always right. I got over it a long time ago around here. It's really a healthy trait to develop.

Unless you would prefer to continue to propogate your current God-like image. Here's a hint for you though, if you wish to stay on your current path. People aren't stupid. They can tell the difference between someone who can move clouds with their breath and someone who can blow up an onion sack.

Especially when they want to start making stuff up.

[Matt & Bing 56]

Why don't you go take a long walk off a short pier.

Please take the personal bickering to PM or not at all. I appreciate the thoughtful conversation on how we can better mod the site, but lets keep it on that topic please.

This is not about personal bickering.

This is about an egomaniac who wants to spin his bull$hit.

The fact that YOU, Captain, allow it speaks volumes about the integrity of information on your website.

Congratulations. VJ is now a sewer run by the King of Informational Vomit.

Have a nice day.

LOL - No, its obvioulsy thoughtful conversation.

[Captain Ewok 1,900]

I have removed several posts that contained personal attacks. Please keep the topic "on" topic. As a result of the accusations in the removed threads I will tell everyone that I plan to "stop in and read" every post by the members involved over the next few days/week. I can not tell who is right or wrong without doing so, and to "guess" would not be fair. I am also going to read old posts and see if I can follow what has happened more as well. Clearly both parties do not like each other and both insist that they are right. Maybe they both are but from two different perspectives; or maybe there is something going one (fued?). I guess I will find out. Please wrt this topic do not continue bickering in this thread. I have thick skin so you can insult me if you want. I will simply try my best to get to the bottom of things and be as fair as possible. I obviously have a "light touch" and believe in freedom of speech, but at some point things can become destructive.

[rebeccajo 14]

Why don't you go take a long walk off a short pier.

Please take the personal bickering to PM or not at all. I appreciate the thoughtful conversation on how we can better mod the site, but lets keep it on that topic please.

This is not about personal bickering.

This is about an egomaniac who wants to spin his bull$hit.

The fact that YOU, Captain, allow it speaks volumes about the integrity of information on your website.

Congratulations. VJ is now a sewer run by the King of Informational Vomit.

Have a nice day.

LOL - No, its obvioulsy thoughtful conversation.

I am beyond thoughtful conversation at this point.

But hey, that's OK.

I can obtain personal nirvana by accepting the fact that I'm not the one spewing ignorant ####### to members whose lives actually depend on the resolution of a visa.

My ego is not so big that I've ever cared about this issue enough to do battle out of boredom or some twisted Ceasar complex.

[Kez/JWolf 6]

And talking about balancing member rights, what about the right of the OP to have their posts not deteriorate into TOS violations and ultimately locked before the actual topic of conversation can come to a natural conclusion?

I agree that often times the "fast" solution to fix an out of control thread is to lock it and discipline members that may have violated the TOS. That said, it may not always be the most prudent / successful / right way to solve the issue. I would offer that when possible we (myself or the mods) should try to "clean out" the mess as to preserve the original topic instead of simply locking it. We can then subsequently address any TOS issues. To be clear though, in some instances there are "insults" and other issues span page after page and are so intertwined that locking the thread may be the only choice that makes sense.

So the quick and dirty... I will pass on to the mod team that when it is clear where things "bad" happened in the thread, and practical to do so, we should remove those offending areas (in truth just make them invisible but kept for the record), and address the members who potentially violated the TOS or caused the problem. We can drop a note saying we cleaned things up and to PM myself or the mod if anyone has q's. My last comment to be made is that the moderators have personal life's that need attention as well; sometimes they can only dedicate "so" much time and can not fully dive into each and every issue fully. If you feel that an issue needs more attention I ask that you PM me directly. Feel free to use me and abuse me .

Expressing an opinion that something "may happen" can only be wrong if it's impossible to happen. The argument was as usual, one person expressing practical information for consideration and another wishing not to alarm anybody.

The fact is CO's can "consider" anything they want as they evaluate public charge concerns and it is irresponsible to advise against a co-sponsor when a petitioner's personal income is less than the 125% for two people, even when court ordered child support allows them to qualify. The petitioner grows even more vulnerable as the children's ages approach the end of the child support obligation.

If somebody is courageous enough to seriously assert that no Consular officer would ever request a co-sponsor when the petitioner's income from a part-time job is $12,000 a year and their twins' child support payments end in six months, I'd be very surprised. Individual officers may draw than line as they deem appropriate but the lines do get drawn. I've seen them be drawn and advised the OP and any readers of same.

Arguments about "may" vs "may not" are really silly. Where one is asserted, the other lives on.

My objection is that Rebeccajo can't seem to stop concluding people challenge her opinions because they are misogynists. The name calling requires disciplinary action, IMO. Warnings don't seem to work. Just how much of this are you willing to put up with?

You have done your "I am just straight talking" to other on here, Including my late wife, who you hurt very much. I see you are still lording around and have now moved on to Rebeccajo. Is it just women you have these issues with? As I am as out spoken and will correct people who give wrong info just as strongly as my Kezzie did, but you never start your "talking down to people with me or any other men.

I dont like to get involved in these needless posts. But I have witnessed the sheer nastiness you have dealt out to my late wife and the pain you caused her as she tried so hard to help as many people on VJ before she died.

Jon

Sorry Captain But sometimes things just have to be said!

Edited March 21, 2009 by Kez/JWolf

[mox 298]

So as I understand it, this thread is about (roughly) opinion versus facts, and what place they have on VJ.

I'll throw this out and see if it sticks, and I'm not addressing it to anybody in particular: If someone is putting out incorrect information, then discuss it, criticize them for it, throw the evidence in their face, or whatever. But after a few rounds of "uh-uh/uh-huh", just let it go. Let the OP and other readers decide for themselves who is right and wrong, or at least give them the opportunity to continue the thread and ask questions. We're either here to be helpful, or to seek help. Once a thread devolves into a personal battlefield, it ceases to be helpful to anybody. So after you've said your peace and debated the issue, just let it go. We are all adults, and we are all able to weigh the evidence and decide for ourselves who is right and wrong.

Hell, how about we give out hearts for NOT getting in the last word? I'd vote for that.