Posting grievances publicly

[Nagishkaw 510]

The times I used the report button I didn't get an answer...I didn't even know some people get answers when they report... I just stopped using it because I saw no results

Saludos,

Caro

We do see and read them. We may not reply though but that does not mean it was not read. All the mods get the reports.... there is no black hole .

I can honestly say that Mod Kathryn has ALWAYS replied back to me.

[Otto 83]

I can honestly say that Mod Kathryn has ALWAYS replied back to me.

Me too (and Krikit as well) - and my earlier post (about unanswered PM's) was not in reference to hitting the 'report' button. But that's cool - in other words, never mind.

[mox 298]

Oh, I don't think I've ever had a mod *not* reply to me either. I'm just sick to death of not being heard. I am at times direct, but always courteous, and I take pains to make myself understood. So when a mod replies with "avert your unsullied peepers if you find such and such offensive" when I'm reporting a TOS violation, or when I get some canned "your whine is very important to us" with the implied "#### off, I have real moderation to do" it's pretty insulting. And as I've said before, I understand that I'm not popular with this mod team. I get that. And I get that it's a bed I made. But when you (the moderator) signed on, you made a de facto promise to act in a certain way to the entire membership, not just your regional or OT buddies. I'm not a troll, and I can guarantee I've participated in actual immigration discussion as much if not more than every one of the current moderators. You don't have to like me or anyone else who rings you up, but you do need to be professional. To paraphrase Len, nobody's got a gun to your head. If you can't be impartial, turn in your badge. Your life will be instantly easier, and it's really not so bad down here in the muck.

Edited November 12, 2009 by mox

[rebeccajo 14]

Oh, I don't think I've ever had a mod *not* reply to me either. I'm just sick to death of not being heard. I am at times direct, but always courteous, and I take pains to make myself understood. So when a mod replies with "avert your unsullied peepers if you find such and such offensive" when I'm reporting a TOS violation, or when I get some canned "your whine is very important to us" with the implied "#### off, I have real moderation to do" it's pretty insulting. And as I've said before, I understand that I'm not popular with this mod team. I get that. And I get that it's a bed I made. But when you (the moderator) signed on, you made a de facto promise to act in a certain way to the entire membership, not just your regional or OT buddies. I'm not a troll, and I can guarantee I've participated in actual immigration discussion as much if not more than every one of the current moderators. You don't have to like me or anyone else who rings you up, but you do need to be professional. To paraphrase Len, nobody's got a gun to your head. If you can't be impartial, turn in your badge. Your life will be instantly easier, and it's really not so bad down here in the muck.

I have to say that for the most part, my dealings with moderation have been positive. Really.

My opinion - a lot of the problems the Mods encounter are because they aren't given enough latitude to REALLY put a stop to things; that apparently they feel they have to moderate by committee; and because there are not enough of them. I really don't think Captain gives them enough rope to do their job effectively. I don't know why that is. I have a suspicion as to why - but I could be wrong.

In my own personal recent trouble with moderation, I really believe the Mod involved didn't thoroughly read the topic. I also believe that person is either not permitted (or is afraid) to squelch 'discussion' because (IMO) there is SO MUCH EFFORT put into allowing a free discourse of ideas. That's all well and good. But - Moderation should be skilled enough to realize when that free discussion has ratcheted itself to a level that is not good for Vj or good for the membership. I realize this is a fine line to walk. It takes TIME to read and sift through the points parties are making. It takes INSIGHT into the previous post history of the parties involved.

Really though - it's sort of getting to the point with me where it doesn't matter much. I've been here five years. I've gotten a lot personally from the place and I know I've been able to give back. There probably does come a point when a person is past their 'sell by' date . And there's really no intellectual satisfaction either in merely trying to rise above some of the poor excuses of 'advice' lobbied out there. You can't have a battle of wits with unarmed individuals and you certainly can't expect support from Moderators that won't slow down long enough to read what's being written.

Edited November 12, 2009 by rebeccajo

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

In my own personal recent trouble with moderation, I really believe the Mod involved didn't thoroughly read the topic. I also believe that person is either not permitted (or is afraid) to squelch 'discussion' because (IMO) there is SO MUCH EFFORT put into allowing a free discourse of ideas. That's all well and good. But - Moderation should be skilled enough to realize when that free discussion has ratcheted itself to a level that is not good for Vj or good for the membership. I realize this is a fine line to walk. It takes TIME to read and sift through the points parties are making. It takes INSIGHT into the previous post history of the parties involved.

Really though - it's sort of getting to the point with me where it doesn't matter much. I've been here five years. I've gotten a lot personally from the place and I know I've been able to give back. There probably does come a point when a person is past their 'sell by' date . And there's really no intellectual satisfaction either in merely trying to rise above some of the poor excuses of 'advice' lobbied out there. You can't have a battle of wits with unarmed individuals and you certainly can't expect support from Moderators that won't slow down long enough to read what's being written.

The problem here is your assuming that moderation hasn't read an entire thread carefully. How do you know this for sure? Your not in the room with them (that I know of at least).

Edited November 12, 2009 by Sousuke

[rebeccajo 14]

In my own personal recent trouble with moderation, I really believe the Mod involved didn't thoroughly read the topic. I also believe that person is either not permitted (or is afraid) to squelch 'discussion' because (IMO) there is SO MUCH EFFORT put into allowing a free discourse of ideas. That's all well and good. But - Moderation should be skilled enough to realize when that free discussion has ratcheted itself to a level that is not good for Vj or good for the membership. I realize this is a fine line to walk. It takes TIME to read and sift through the points parties are making. It takes INSIGHT into the previous post history of the parties involved.

Really though - it's sort of getting to the point with me where it doesn't matter much. I've been here five years. I've gotten a lot personally from the place and I know I've been able to give back. There probably does come a point when a person is past their 'sell by' date . And there's really no intellectual satisfaction either in merely trying to rise above some of the poor excuses of 'advice' lobbied out there. You can't have a battle of wits with unarmed individuals and you certainly can't expect support from Moderators that won't slow down long enough to read what's being written.

The problem here is your assuming that moderation hasn't read an entire thread carefully. How do you know this for sure? Your not in the room with them (that I know of at least).

Because I've been asked (in prior reported threads) to point out SPECIFICALLY where a problem or an attack is. This indicates to to me the Mod would rather not sift through everything.

And because in the particular instance it should be clear to anyone reading that there was more going on than a disagreement. I've tried to explain my position on these types of dialougue to you before. In my opinion, there are matters where it is best not to conjecture about an issue. Conjecture can lead readers to believe a certain risk may be worth taking. It is not our place here, as laypeople, to get carried off in those types of discussions. Every case is different and what works for one person may not work for another. What your attorney may have told you, behind closed doors and with his malpractice backing him up, may not be good advice for another individual. Where there are shades of gray (and I personally don't believe there are any on the topic we discussed, but you do) this community is best served by advice plying moderately to the right.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

In my own personal recent trouble with moderation, I really believe the Mod involved didn't thoroughly read the topic. I also believe that person is either not permitted (or is afraid) to squelch 'discussion' because (IMO) there is SO MUCH EFFORT put into allowing a free discourse of ideas. That's all well and good. But - Moderation should be skilled enough to realize when that free discussion has ratcheted itself to a level that is not good for Vj or good for the membership. I realize this is a fine line to walk. It takes TIME to read and sift through the points parties are making. It takes INSIGHT into the previous post history of the parties involved.

Really though - it's sort of getting to the point with me where it doesn't matter much. I've been here five years. I've gotten a lot personally from the place and I know I've been able to give back. There probably does come a point when a person is past their 'sell by' date . And there's really no intellectual satisfaction either in merely trying to rise above some of the poor excuses of 'advice' lobbied out there. You can't have a battle of wits with unarmed individuals and you certainly can't expect support from Moderators that won't slow down long enough to read what's being written.

The problem here is your assuming that moderation hasn't read an entire thread carefully. How do you know this for sure? Your not in the room with them (that I know of at least).

Because I've been asked (in prior reported threads) to point out SPECIFICALLY where a problem or an attack is. This indicates to to me the Mod would rather not sift through everything.

And because in the particular instance it should be clear to anyone reading that there was more going on than a disagreement. I've tried to explain my position on these types of dialougue to you before. In my opinion, there are matters where it is best not to conjecture about an issue. Conjecture can lead readers to believe a certain risk may be worth taking. It is not our place here, as laypeople, to get carried off in those types of discussions. Every case is different and what works for one person may not work for another. What your attorney may have told you, behind closed doors and with his malpractice backing him up, may not be good advice for another individual. Where there are shades of gray (and I personally don't believe there are any on the topic we discussed, but you do) this community is best served by advice plying moderately to the right.

Yet conjecture about moderation is okay? (and i'm not going to argue with you regarding that specific topic as moderation has asked that we stop)

Edited November 12, 2009 by Sousuke

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Take your nose out of their butthole, boy!

[Chica Yeyé 41]

A lot of what becca is saying developed after naming a relatively new VJ member as a global moderator -I think, not putting words in RJ's mouth- action which was not well received by the membership at all. And while I agree that moderators do not have to be immigration experts; they should have a least a modicum of knowledge on the topic at hand, or on the subforum in question. Some do, some do not. They are *gasp* humans.

Like mox said, being told to ignore someone who is either a complete douchebag, or giving away WRONG information is just bad moderation. Sometimes, indeed, a lot of ####### hits the fan because the mod does not know the background of a story (i.e. a long standing estrangement or plain hostility between members). A lot of it happens when a member keeps posting same damn question in ALL forums once he/she does not get the expected answer--- which usually involves the ohai how do I hoodwink USCIS in one form of another. I have been told to back off from people like that. honestly, I will not. And not as moderator defiance; but I will not s it idle while people request information to break the law and are cuddled. Why? Because this will stay on the boards for reasonable newcomers to read and think it is ok.

Cool, now I need more coffee

p.s. I also must say that Krikit and Kathryn respond to my reports, of which there are many. I might not like what they say, but they do answer

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

cuddled? sorry len but that's a hilarious typo.

[mox 298]

In my own personal recent trouble with moderation, I really believe the Mod involved didn't thoroughly read the topic. I also believe that person is either not permitted (or is afraid) to squelch 'discussion' because (IMO) there is SO MUCH EFFORT put into allowing a free discourse of ideas. That's all well and good. But - Moderation should be skilled enough to realize when that free discussion has ratcheted itself to a level that is not good for Vj or good for the membership. I realize this is a fine line to walk. It takes TIME to read and sift through the points parties are making. It takes INSIGHT into the previous post history of the parties involved.

Really though - it's sort of getting to the point with me where it doesn't matter much. I've been here five years. I've gotten a lot personally from the place and I know I've been able to give back. There probably does come a point when a person is past their 'sell by' date . And there's really no intellectual satisfaction either in merely trying to rise above some of the poor excuses of 'advice' lobbied out there. You can't have a battle of wits with unarmed individuals and you certainly can't expect support from Moderators that won't slow down long enough to read what's being written.

I've said this before, Ewok even agreed with me, and one day I hope our moderators take it to heart: Moderators moderate discussion. Locking and/or disappearing the thread should be a last resort. Shutting down a member (temporary or otherwise) should be a last resort. Moderators should be the "forum police" as a last resort. A qualified moderator uses their ability to post clearly and concisely to either add to the discussion or help steer it in a positive direction. I see none of this anymore on VJ. I used to see it all the time, but the lock button is now the primary means of moderation, and templatized "we value your blah blah"-speak and outright snark is now the primary means of communication. The problem in MENA could have been completely avoided by a moderator who cared enough to become involved in the discussion and at least attempted to facilitate.

The moderators volunteer their valuable time to do a thankless job, but so do the rest of us.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

cuddled? sorry len but that's a hilarious typo.

what? isn't it like cuddling a baby??? I am so ESL

[TBoneTX 46,075]

I am so ESL

Better than being SOL, si man. I (for one) appreciate your aggressive reporting of people in the upper fora who post "#######" messages, si man.

[Minya's wife 25]

cuddled? sorry len but that's a hilarious typo.

what? isn't it like cuddling a baby??? I am so ESL

no, its like coddling an adult baby. But its OK, 'cuddling' works too.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Lol AJ,Len. To be fair I am neither defending moderation nor saying its wrong.

In this thread RJ has made reference to me (yes its conjecture) multiple times from saying I'm "unarmed" etc. The fact of the matter is that I am quite happy about our discussion in the thread she mentioned briefly above and i'm confident not only in my position but the way I argued it. I would have left it at her final post "I thought you were done" even if moderation had entered.

In fact, I am so confident I would link to it in the future. The reason "I was done" was because whilst I was trying to have a debate with her she was talking past me. Many of the specific points I raised were never addressed.

But I must say I am quite unhappy that she continues to attack me in this thread even if not by name. If she is not referencing me and says so in this thread I will of course believe her and bow out of thread.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Sousuke