The thread locking is out of control

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Big Sigh. I kindly asked people to stop baiting and being flippant about a sad topic. Since when is that a threat?

Edited July 27, 2009 by Kathryn41

[steve 27]

One last point (phew!). I want to reiterate this because I think I may have implied otherwise inadvertently. The suggestions (items #1 and #2 above) are already how the mods work now. The key phrase I used is, "Again this is not always possible but is preferable." Moderators are inundated with tasks and while they try their best to socially interact and cure problems, there are limits. They (or even me) often have to resolve issues in more expeditious ways given various scenarios but we always try our best to be fair and give good community feedback.

Well, yet another step forward in the steady "mommy-fication" of VJ. A thread was threatened by Mother Moderator for being in bad taste. Since when did bad taste become against TOS? We make fun of tragic situations all the time on OT, it's been par for the course. But now that we have mother superior on board we can't?

** that #######. If y'all want a PG-rated OT, by all means go for it. It's your site. I like my forums a bit more edgy, a bit less slavish to the dictates of good taste.

This is in general not not regardnig any specific issue:

My understanding is that specifically (like always) the TOS applies to OT. See "Permitted Uses". Off Topic certainly does havea greater degree of "openess" than other forums but certainly there are times where people may do things that are hurtful to others or greatly demeaning which "in sprit" is what the TOS hopes to prevent. The TOS offers a complaint resolution process if you would like to use it. This is a private process though and not something done in the open forums.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I thought I would point out that the lawyer discussion wasn't completely off topic really. In one of the middle posts the OP says:

interesting --- that is why I asked... I saw letter of intent on forum -- but nothing as to the "sincere relationship" does the initial filing and then the follow up documents come into play at a later time? Or am I just being taken by an attorney because I am too lazy to do the work myself? Not necessarily lazy, but quite busy.

The above was in reference to his attorney and points back to his original question.

[daboyz 36]

Laugh. This thread is becoming very ironic. In before the lock.

[steve 27]

A thread was threatened by Mother Moderator for being in bad taste.

I appreciate your opinion, and respect your position, but out of consideration for our moderation team I would like to ask that you not purposefully encite or attack them like this. "Mother Moderator" is cute, but it was used to convey your opinion that the moderation team is trying to do something they should not be. I personally know that the team has the best interests in mind for the site. I am all for an open and adult conversation on what is and is not appropriate in OT but it should be done in a way as to not attack or put down others (including the moderators).

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

There are also times where the discussion between members in a thread starts to border on illegal behavior or behaviors that could be detrimental to the status of aliens. These discussions IMO are detrimental to the well-being of the site.

Moderating in the upper forums should be different than Off-Topic. Free-for-alls should not be tolerated under the guise of 'adult conversation' or 'free speech'. IMO that same sort of moderation should be performed in the Regional Forums in regards to questions about the immigration process.

I wanted to reply to this as this was obviously directed at me. I agree that a "free for all" should not be tolerated. However if the topic is still within the general realm of the original and is a discussion of something illegal that has already occurred and its ramifications, then that fits well within the TOS. To say that other users might take something that someone did illegally in the past and take it as gospel for themselves to do in the future is preposterous and is the definition of a thought police. In those situations as long as advice is not being given to conduct illegal activity the discussion is valid. Otherwise you would find yourself quickly locking every thread where the OP asks for help after they have done something illegal...because well you never know charlie over here says he used ladder to climb that texas wall. Even though he's asking the correct way to make himself legal well heck.. the other users may just think its okay to start grabbin them ladders and coming right over that there wall.

That being said, I agree that in the particular thread I am referring to Kathryn was correct in closing it because without case studies we will never come to agreement on the subject. The subject itself was fine.

[john & jean 37]

WARNING!

This thread has strayed off topic....

WOULD SOMEONE CLOSE IT PLEASE

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

One last point (phew!). I want to reiterate this because I think I may have implied otherwise inadvertently. The suggestions (items #1 and #2 above) are already how the mods work now. The key phrase I used is, "Again this is not always possible but is preferable." Moderators are inundated with tasks and while they try their best to socially interact and cure problems, there are limits. They (or even me) often have to resolve issues in more expeditious ways given various scenarios but we always try our best to be fair and give good community feedback.

Well, yet another step forward in the steady "mommy-fication" of VJ. A thread was threatened by Mother Moderator for being in bad taste. Since when did bad taste become against TOS? We make fun of tragic situations all the time on OT, it's been par for the course. But now that we have mother superior on board we can't?

** that #######. If y'all want a PG-rated OT, by all means go for it. It's your site. I like my forums a bit more edgy, a bit less slavish to the dictates of good taste.

[rebeccajo 14]

There are also times where the discussion between members in a thread starts to border on illegal behavior or behaviors that could be detrimental to the status of aliens. These discussions IMO are detrimental to the well-being of the site.

Moderating in the upper forums should be different than Off-Topic. Free-for-alls should not be tolerated under the guise of 'adult conversation' or 'free speech'. IMO that same sort of moderation should be performed in the Regional Forums in regards to questions about the immigration process.

I wanted to reply to this as this was obviously directed at me. I agree that a "free for all" should not be tolerated. However if the topic is still within the general realm of the original and is a discussion of something illegal that has already occurred and its ramifications, then that fits well within the TOS. To say that other users might take something that someone did illegally in the past and take it as gospel for themselves to do in the future is preposterous and is the definition of a thought police. In those situations as long as advice is not being given to conduct illegal activity the discussion is valid. Otherwise you would find yourself quickly locking every thread where the OP asks for help after they have done something illegal...because well you never know charlie over here says he used ladder to climb that texas wall. Even though he's asking the correct way to make himself legal well heck.. the other users may just think its okay to start grabbin them ladders and coming right over that there wall.

That being said, I agree that in the particular thread I am referring to Kathryn was correct in closing it because without case studies we will never come to agreement on the subject. The subject itself was fine.

lancer -

The subject of my post was not directed at 'you'. Rather it was directed at something I myself was taught by a well respected and valuable member of Vj, Yodrak, who sadly no longer posts here.

There was a thread a few years ago about wearing wedding rings to the AOS interview - whether or not NOT having rings would be bad. The poster in that case did not own a ring.

I made a rather innocuous comment about if they were worried about it, just go to a pawn shop for a set of rings which could be returned later. My thoughts (thought police reference of yours) were simply about budgeting.

Yodrak made a rather abrupt comment about my suggesting illegal behaviors. I then had to explain myself, which he accepted but still pointed out to me that I should be careful what I suggest.

In other words - you never know who is reading and what they will take from discussions. I was mildly alarmed at the tone of our discussion the other day. I realize we can't turn off peoples brains, but I see no reason to give them 'something to think about'. I feel this way because of the lesson taught to me.

I think what concerns me in regards to 'teaching' newer members such as yourself (who are trying to be helpful and pay back what you got from Vj) is knowing whether or not you are going to be offended. I can only speak for myself when I say that (when addressing newer members such as yourself) I apply lessons taught to me by persons who knew what they were doing. Sometimes those lessons stung, but if I reflected on them I could usually see why I had been admonished.

The purpose of the site is to promote anecdotal knowledge of the process. I know we often conjecture about what might be 'legal' or 'not' when we put up cites from the FAM, INA, etc. We need be cautious in overstepping into that arena because there are few of us here who are attorneys.

BUT - by the very nature of that anecdotal experience shared on the internet, we encounter persons we know are skirting for loopholes, methods or outright scams to circumvent the process. By example - just today I saw (on another immigration website) a question by a member whom I am familiar with from a different site. Let's call them Site A and Site B. The gentleman had posted his question on Site A and been roundly told (by persons who know the process well) that what he was proposing to do was risky and could possibly jeopardize the entry of his family into the United Kingdom. Not to be dissuaded, the gentleman took his question to Site B, where he is leaving out pertinent details. As a result, he is being told his plan should work. Hard to say what will happen if he takes his plan out there in the real world. But you and I both know that if a person practices a deception long enough, they just may pull it off.

I hope you can understand what I am saying and take it with the good intent put into typing it!

Edited July 28, 2009 by rebeccajo

[scandal 951]

One last point (phew!). I want to reiterate this because I think I may have implied otherwise inadvertently. The suggestions (items #1 and #2 above) are already how the mods work now. The key phrase I used is, "Again this is not always possible but is preferable." Moderators are inundated with tasks and while they try their best to socially interact and cure problems, there are limits. They (or even me) often have to resolve issues in more expeditious ways given various scenarios but we always try our best to be fair and give good community feedback.

Well, yet another step forward in the steady "mommy-fication" of VJ. A thread was threatened by Mother Moderator for being in bad taste. Since when did bad taste become against TOS? We make fun of tragic situations all the time on OT, it's been par for the course. But now that we have mother superior on board we can't?

** that #######. If y'all want a PG-rated OT, by all means go for it. It's your site. I like my forums a bit more edgy, a bit less slavish to the dictates of good taste.

WORD.

Actually, I think the best policy for this site is to lock threads as soon as possible after they are opened. After all, one never knows what ####### the next poster is about to post that will render the thread useless. Much better to nip it in the bud and abort early. Certainly well before the thread has any hope of reaching page 2. Actually, why bother having responses at all? Maybe just have the site be autoconfigured to self-lock as soon as an OP gets in Post #1. Or even better-- why not just lock the whole site outright, with no ability to post or create new threads at all? Just think -no new threads, no news posts! Just a nice static site which the mods can patrol to their hearts' content.

I realize I'm in a minority as to what I think of the moderation here. Most of you like it, fine. It's not my site - if the site owner wants it this way, and has the TOS defined as he does, fine.

I think VJ threads which receive active moderation are no more informative than they would be without. Some threads are good, some svck. That has much more to do with the OP's initial questions and ongoing participation than any subsequent moderation. Besides, anybody who takes any information found online at face value deserves the ####### they are handed. It's the fvcking Internet people! Treating this as a sacrosanct resource is pathetic.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I get what your saying rebeccajo. I get easily riled up when I see censorship because of fear of interpretation. I'll definitely take to heart what you've said. I'll probably avoid bringing up that topic again that we were discussing (though I will say I never suggested illegal behavior as was mentioned in your example.) Check your mailbox i've sent an apology regarding something else.

[NArocks 13]

Scandal? thought you waz in Brazil?

had to add something here

[mox 298]

There was a thread a few years ago about wearing wedding rings to the AOS interview - whether or not NOT having rings would be bad. The poster in that case did not own a ring.

I made a rather innocuous comment about if they were worried about it, just go to a pawn shop for a set of rings which could be returned later. My thoughts (thought police reference of yours) were simply about budgeting.

Yodrak made a rather abrupt comment about my suggesting illegal behaviors. I then had to explain myself, which he accepted but still pointed out to me that I should be careful what I suggest.

In other words - you never know who is reading and what they will take from discussions. I was mildly alarmed at the tone of our discussion the other day. I realize we can't turn off peoples brains, but I see no reason to give them 'something to think about'. I feel this way because of the lesson taught to me.

Strange lesson to learn. Anyone who thought that was illegal should have their head examined, and it's incredibly unfortunate that this incident had any impact whatsoever on the advice you hand out. It's actually pretty good advice, and if I ever run across the question I'll probably suggest it myself. (I'll credit you if you like ) It's not illegal, and it is at worst a slight bit of misdirection, which--let's face it--sometimes is necessary in this process. And if the interviewer were to say "hey nice rings, where'd you get them?" then you certainly wouldn't be lying by saying that you bought them at the pawn shop.

IMHO, people shouldn't be taught on VJ. People should learn to think for themselves. Sort bad advice from good, learn the good members from the bad, get to know what works and what doesn't. To call into question something as simple as a suggestion to buy some rings from a pawn shop before AOS is just disengaging the thought process and turning one's brain off.

[daboyz 36]

There was a thread a few years ago about wearing wedding rings to the AOS interview - whether or not NOT having rings would be bad. The poster in that case did not own a ring.

I made a rather innocuous comment about if they were worried about it, just go to a pawn shop for a set of rings which could be returned later. My thoughts (thought police reference of yours) were simply about budgeting.

Yodrak made a rather abrupt comment about my suggesting illegal behaviors. I then had to explain myself, which he accepted but still pointed out to me that I should be careful what I suggest.

In other words - you never know who is reading and what they will take from discussions. I was mildly alarmed at the tone of our discussion the other day. I realize we can't turn off peoples brains, but I see no reason to give them 'something to think about'. I feel this way because of the lesson taught to me.

Strange lesson to learn. Anyone who thought that was illegal should have their head examined, and it's incredibly unfortunate that this incident had any impact whatsoever on the advice you hand out. It's actually pretty good advice, and if I ever run across the question I'll probably suggest it myself. (I'll credit you if you like ) It's not illegal, and it is at worst a slight bit of misdirection, which--let's face it--sometimes is necessary in this process. And if the interviewer were to say "hey nice rings, where'd you get them?" then you certainly wouldn't be lying by saying that you bought them at the pawn shop.

IMHO, people shouldn't be taught on VJ. People should learn to think for themselves. Sort bad advice from good, learn the good members from the bad, get to know what works and what doesn't. To call into question something as simple as a suggestion to buy some rings from a pawn shop before AOS is just disengaging the thought process and turning one's brain off.

Well put!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Pawn shop is not a bad idea for wedding bands. We got such a deal on a couple gold rings, about a quarter of what the same rings would cost from the usual sources, even with the resizing. Neither of us believe in buying blood rocks anyways.