Since when

[mox 298]

its not a matter of what u think is helpful or not...if its against tos it has to be closed.

I for one don't blindly follow the rules when they don't make sense. The TOS is there to avoid problems. There are no problems in this thread. One of the themes of this thread has been "the old ways aren't working, let's come together as a community and brain storm some new ways." Nothing has been violated in spirit, and as I said, it's been a really helpful conversation. No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

expats is only bad for when people go there and hide out and read everything thats said and then come here and have an attiutude againt expats members. then they run off and tell their friends hurry go look and thats what causes the problems. if they want to confront the person at expats they are more then welcome but they wont...they bring it here and then start #######.

The problem with Expats is bigger than that. The problem with Expats is that VJ members are regularly ridiculed in an open forum that is an extension of VJ. Attacks on other members or threads are regularly launched from Expats, and the results are then posted back at Expats in a sort of meta-game of "look how big my epeen is." If somebody wants to make their own forum where they want to encourage this kind of behavior, more power to them. But for VJ to de facto sanction it goes directly against the purposes of VJ.

it has been told before that expats is not to be braught up here and people wont listen so they need to be the ones punished for no obeying what they were told.

As I understand the unwritten rule, there's no rule against bring up Expats. It's bringing arguments over from Expats that is forbidden. I haven't brought any arguments over from Expats.

[mox 298]

expats discussion should be kept at expats.

This thread has been left open so that there can be some positive discussion regarding VJ. If we can't all agree to do that it will need to be clsoed.

I would like some clarification from Ewok please. My understanding of the Expats discussion ban is that conversations are not to bleed over from expats to VJ. As I understand it, there is no ban on talking about Expats.

And I'll add that the fact that even talking about Expats is actionable should indicate a problem in and of itself.

Edited March 22, 2009 by mox

[Marilyn. 340]

expats is a good place to blow off steam..... which is what a lot of people use it for..

[Otto 83]

And I think the worst thing that could happen right now is if this thread were closed. This, IMHO, has been an amazingly helpful thread, and as long as it continues to be helpful I think it needs to stay open.

I would disagree, simply on the basis of the original theme/spirit of this thread has a cloud of murkiness hanging over it. I don't feel it is prudent to try to resurrect 'something good' from a topic started (and sprinkled) with such a poisoned/narcissistic tone.

Yes, the tone has changed in the last 12 hours - but anyone reading from the beginning will most certainly wonder about the values we hold. IMO the worst thing we could do is to allow this sort of behavior to have any effect on VJ policy/procedures and/or methods.

~end rant

[Captain Ewok 1,900]

I wanted to chime in and say that Expats is not VJ and is simply another website. They have a MUCH looser TOS because the site is not about family immigration and is simply about Expatriates around the world. That said, I know the administration there does not want to see Expats be used as a staging ground to attack any site. They posted as such today as a courtesy to us. But I want to be clear that unlike here, people there are not under the same TOS as VJ and the conversations are certainly not going to be the same as here. If there are things on Expats that you want to address I strongly suggest you contact the admin and moderation team there directly.

expats discussion should be kept at expats.

This thread has been left open so that there can be some positive discussion regarding VJ. If we can't all agree to do that it will need to be clsoed.

I would like some clarification from Ewok please. My understanding of the Expats discussion ban is that conversations are not to bleed over from expats to VJ. As I understand it, there is no ban on talking about Expats.

And I'll add that the fact that even talking about Expats is actionable should indicate a problem in and of itself.

I think the issue that is VJ is not the place to suggest ways Expats should be run. Expats is not VJ and those types of suggestions are best made by talking to the admin and moderators on Expats.

[Donna A 4]

its not a matter of what u think is helpful or not...if its against tos it has to be closed.

I for one don't blindly follow the rules when they don't make sense. The TOS is there to avoid problems. There are no problems in this thread. One of the themes of this thread has been "the old ways aren't working, let's come together as a community and brain storm some new ways." Nothing has been violated in spirit, and as I said, it's been a really helpful conversation. No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

expats is only bad for when people go there and hide out and read everything thats said and then come here and have an attiutude againt expats members. then they run off and tell their friends hurry go look and thats what causes the problems. if they want to confront the person at expats they are more then welcome but they wont...they bring it here and then start #######.

The problem with Expats is bigger than that. The problem with Expats is that VJ members are regularly ridiculed in an open forum that is an extension of VJ. Attacks on other members or threads are regularly launched from Expats, and the results are then posted back at Expats in a sort of meta-game of "look how big my epeen is." If somebody wants to make their own forum where they want to encourage this kind of behavior, more power to them. But for VJ to de facto sanction it goes directly against the purposes of VJ.

it has been told before that expats is not to be braught up here and people wont listen so they need to be the ones punished for no obeying what they were told.

As I understand the unwritten rule, there's no rule against bring up Expats. It's bringing arguments over from Expats that is forbidden. I haven't brought any arguments over from Expats.

if u can find the post where this was braught over from expats then i will apoligise personally to u. but just because people over there doesnt mean every opinion over here was braught from over there. just because someone is a member over there doesnt mean everything they post is the opinon of expats. they are just coming here to make brownie points over there. that is not the truth at all.

[rebeccajo 14]

And I think the worst thing that could happen right now is if this thread were closed. This, IMHO, has been an amazingly helpful thread, and as long as it continues to be helpful I think it needs to stay open.

I would disagree, simply on the basis of the original theme/spirit of this thread has a cloud of murkiness hanging over it. I don't feel it is prudent to try to resurrect 'something good' from a topic started (and sprinkled) with such a poisoned/narcissistic tone.

Yes, the tone has changed in the last 12 hours - but anyone reading from the beginning will most certainly wonder about the values we hold. IMO the worst thing we could do is to allow this sort of behavior to have any effect on VJ policy/procedures and/or methods.

~end rant

Is there something you would like to say about 'values', Karin?

*sigh*

If there has been a 'tone change' it is because the discussion has been allowed to continue in a grown-up fashion.

[mox 298]

My understanding was that Expats and VJ ownership is the same. Even the WHOIS database shows a very strong relationship. Am I wrong? Would it be safe to say that VJ and Expats ownership is as different as VJ and Amazon.com ownership? If this is the case, then ok, I'll drop it. But I and I think many others are under the impression that there is a very real connection between the two sites. This is what bothers me.

[Captain Ewok 1,900]

There may be affiliation in membership and even those people who helped create it, but that site was launched as a completely separate endeavor. It is not supposed to be the right or left wing of VJ. I will tell you for a fact that the administration between the two sites is separate and then moderation as well. Like any website, each has their own TOS and that site specifically allows most adult language and discussion to occur that would never be acceptable on a family site like this. There are many people who are expatriates that want to discuss topics and not feel they have to walk on eggs because of the family nature of VJ. That is more of Expats domain. That said, I am not sure people "speaking freely about things" means that they would bring it here either. Someone here may simply not say things because it is against the TOS but may say it there. That does not mean that they would not "think it" in either spot.

[pushbrk 13,099]

There's a lot of collective understandings out there that you're just not going to find in a PDF on USCIS's or the State Department's website.

This was precisely my earlier point. There are lots of people here with different very valuable sets of collective understanding of all or parts of the immigration process. That sometimes their collective understandings will differ occurs based on various factors, including frame of reference and variations in anecdotal information observed. Much of the anecdotal information comes from sources other than the internet. We don't all have access to the same information and even when we do, we comprehend and interpret it through our own unique filters. Citing sources works fine for the objective issues but the subjective ones are and will remain subjective.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

Well, I thought it would be abundantly clear (apparently not) that one would cite sources when such sources are 1. available and 2. appropriate. If, however, the *discussion* between two or more people that results in opposing views is solely based upon anecdotal information, surely it would be wise to so indicate.

For example: "I have witnessed situations where ............" or, "I read somewhere (I can't remember at the moment) of an instance where a........"

There's a lot of collective understandings out there that you're just not going to find in a PDF on USCIS's or the State Department's website.

This was precisely my earlier point. There are lots of people here with different very valuable sets of collective understanding of all or parts of the immigration process. That sometimes their collective understandings will differ occurs based on various factors, including frame of reference and variations in anecdotal information observed. Much of the anecdotal information comes from sources other than the internet. We don't all have access to the same information and even when we do, we comprehend and interpret it through our own unique filters. Citing sources works fine for the objective issues but the subjective ones are and will remain subjective.

[Sinergy 3]

Maybe the solution, for the time being, is that rather than a mod getting involved and asking for people to "stop bickering or the thread will be closed" they should simply pop on and say something along the lines of "opposing opinions, parties please cite your sources".

1. If one does and the other doesn't, then the object of the thread has been accomplished. The question has been answered and some veracity to one party's "opinion" has been provided.
2. If both do, then the debate was useful and necessary to weed through and demonstrate that there is conflicting information "out there".
3. If neither does, both will know that they are simply conjecturing, (or as Pushbrk refers, offering anecdotal knowledge, that can hardly be regarded as fact, but just an observation), and the OP will know that neither has enough factual background on the matter to be taken as expert.

I am not advocating sources or citations for each and every post on this forum. Rather for when it is clear that an opposing opinion has developed and a discourse between two or more has ensued. Those that should then go back to an arsenal of knowledge or links to reputable sources know "instantly" when that becomes necessary. The mod directing the parties to do so, is only a warning that the discussion, so far, has been insufficiently "backed up" with factual sources.

It's a good idea, but this really only works when one party says that immigration works like *this* and the other party says it works like *that.* In the case of what started this entire post in the first place, it wouldn't work because push's argument was based on his collective understanding of how the consulates work. (and PLEASE let's not drag that argument back into this thread, I'm just using it as an example, and continuing that argument will be detrimental to the value of this thread.) There's a lot of collective understandings out there that you're just not going to find in a PDF on USCIS's or the State Department's website. There *is* a place for opinion, and while it's important to have a back-and-forth on subjective answers, it's also important for people to feel like they can post without be launched on for every single tiny little detail, or have their motives called into question every time their answer could possible be interpreted a certain way. Discussion good. Heated debate good. Crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentation of their women...it's awesome in war, but it's not good for VJ.

The best moderation system is for people to just behave. To realize that, unless you are the OP, the thread is not about you. To realize that we are all adults and after some healthy back-and-forth, the OP will just need to make the decision who is right. I'm not sparkly-eyed enough to believe that self-moderation is the answer, but it would make it easier in support of other moderation systems.

Oh, and either close or overhaul Expats. It started off as a great idea. It's turned into nothing but a place where those in the know can run off-site and ridicule VJ members without having to worry about TOS violations. It is now a meta-game, where the Expats membership feeds off each others' bitterness and cynicism, and then bring it back to VJ in order to score points back at Expats. There is a rule here that Expats conversations are forbidden to bleed over onto VJ. There is no such rule going the opposite direction, and it is poisoning VJ.

Lastly, I want to say that I agree with rebeccajo's last comment--community-specific filters need to be lifted. The goal is, and always has been, to get people through the process. Blocking access to helpful information is unhelpful. We're asking members here to swallow their pride and back off from hurting useful threads. I think it's only right that the VJ administration heed that same advice.

Oh give me a break. if you dont like it then dont go there. stop whining about it so much. the only poisoning in VJ regarding "there" is when ppl like you come to VJ and whine about it. grow up mox.

There may be affiliation in membership and even those people who helped create it, but that site was launched as a completely separate endeavor. It is not supposed to be the right or left wing of VJ. I will tell you for a fact that the administration between the two sites is separate and then moderation as well. Like any website, each has their own TOS and that site specifically allows most adult language and discussion to occur that would never be acceptable on a family site like this. There are many people who are expatriates that want to discuss topics and not feel they have to walk on eggs because of the family nature of VJ. That is more of Expats domain. That said, I am not sure people "speaking freely about things" means that they would bring it here either. Someone here may simply not say things because it is against the TOS but may say it there. That does not mean that they would not "think it" in either spot.

THANK YOU!!! it needed to be more explained, tho im still certain no one will even understand it still! but thank you for your post on it.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

mox for moderator

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

expats discussion should be kept at expats.

This thread has been left open so that there can be some positive discussion regarding VJ. If we can't all agree to do that it will need to be clsoed.

typical.

[TBoneTX 46,067]

Two fundamental considerations are these: It can be difficult to discern a poster's "tone" simply from reading the written word; and the Internet lends itself to "ready, fire, aim" postings. A third reality, endemic to VJ, is that the Immigration issue is very personal and emotionally loaded, within each member who posts or lurks.

From the standpoint of responding to posts: If I read something here (or anywhere) that initially strikes me as abrasive or makes my eyebrows raise, I think to myself, "Would I interpret this particular post more positively if this person were saying these same words to me in person, with his/her arm around my shoulder and in a kindly tone of voice?" If my answer is "yes," I am less likely to want to fire back with a message that expresses personal umbrage or hurt. Perhaps reminding ourselves of the above will minimize the need to respond sharply to given posts that we read.

From the standpoint of posting: If we adopt the attitude of "I would like readers to perceive that I'm putting an arm around their shoulder," fewer people may be inclined to misinterpret what we are intending to help them with. Without composing lines and lines of "mush," we can nevertheless take subtle steps to craft our writings so that emotional overreactions are minimized.

Edited March 23, 2009 by TBoneTX