Moderator Inconsistency and Duplicity

[rebeccajo 14]

So today I had a post deleted at the end of this thread:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=229824

wherein I called pushbrk "grumpy.

Yet look at what he says to me in posts #32 and #34.

Thank you, Tay Rivers, for proving that you don't read entire threads.

And on November 10th, I "accidentally" received a PM from Kathryn wherein she said "hehehe, and she HAS to get the last word in too - always!". When I PM'd her back, I got another PM saying the message was not intended for me, but that it was "the truth".

I'm good and sick and tired of the lot of you acting like you have the right to criticize anyone around here. You clearly don't know how to do your job, and you don't have the character for it either.

[rebeccajo 14]

Go ahead - lock it.

You are going to have to ban me permanently because I will just re-post it every time the ban is up.

Edited November 28, 2009 by rebeccajo

[Nagishkaw 510]

You are outspoken, RJ. Apparentlyshe can't appreciate that.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

RJ. Please allow me to look into the above issue. I will let you know my reply andpost once I look. As for the comment you said the mod made, they apologized to you. It was obviously a vent. Everyone does it. It was meant to be private and their mistake yes. They apologized several times to me and you. I am not sure what else I can ask. I know you brought this up to stir a reaction from me. That is fine but unneccesary. I will look into your issue above and again get back toouy in an hour or so (I am on my BB phone now and is too hard remotely). Closing topic until I can look into your issue in an hour or so). Also per the TOS please consider following the policy for these disputes in the future.

[rebeccajo 14]

RJ. Please allow me to look into the above issue. I will let you know my reply andpost once I look. As for the comment you said the mod made, they apologized to you. It was obviously a vent. Everyone does it. It was meant to be private and their mistake yes. They apologized several times to me and you. I am not sure what else I can ask. I know you brought this up to stir a reaction from me. That is fine but unneccesary. I will look into your issue above and again get back toouy in an hour or so (I am on my BB phone now and is too hard remotely). Closing topic until I can look into your issue in an hour or so). Also per the TOS please consider following the policy for these disputes in the future.

I have given you two weeks since the incident to take care of the problem. There was a long discussion here a week or so ago and nothing has been done. I kept quiet at the time but no longer. This last stunt with Tay Rivers is the limit.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Go ahead - lock it.

You are going to have to ban me permanently because I will just re-post it every time the ban is up.

Rj. Seriously I am just asking for time to look at this. I will reply and unlock the topic. I do not understanbd why this is too much to ask. I never said I was going to ignore you. In fact, as you know, I told you above that I was not home, on my blackberry, etc. I simply want to focus on answering youestion and concern fully and not have this thread get off topic. Why is that bad or too much to ask? I do not know what else I can do for you. I know you want me to fire this mod. You have made it very clear. Now allow me to please be responsible and weigh everything. Pretty please?

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

RJ we already talked via PM but for the sake of record and because this was posted publicly I will reply here too. Here are my follow up point of action per your request(s):

1) You get the 'ewok button' priority for all your moderation related items. This means all your TOS complaints go to me and only me to address; it means any complaints (from others or spotted by a mod) about your posts or activity regarding the TOS go to me to address. You are out of the "moderator" loop and get to deal with me directly on both ends of the stick. Clearly you have both professional and personal issues with at least some of the mods -- this will fix that since you will no longer deal with them at all directly (just me).

2) The topic contains a dispute with you and pushbrk. As myself and many other people know, you both have a long standing 'tic for tic' "i hate you" relationship. Sometimes that is hidden behind simply looking to "correct" someone if they are wrong, but ultimately both parties have admitted a personal strong disliking to each other. I even remember a point at which you were both asked to put each other on ignore because it got so bad (the back and forth arguing). Here is my assessment on the topic and what happened:

post 17. pushbrk says, "Also, there appears to be pretty recent new guidance to Consulates to be more diligent in evaluating the public charge concerns."

post 20. you say, "A link to this "new guidance" would be helpful. I am unable to locate anything here:" and then you post links to three websites to show that that info is not there. Honestly the "quotes" in your statement were most likely meant to be a "poke".

post 21. pushbrk says, "I agree a link would be helpful. Unfortunately, not all guidance given to Consulates is available at a public URL. Are you suggesting the OP simply skip sending the evidence of citizenship or LPR status in the absense of such a link? "

post 24. you say, "Not at all. I'm suggesting that peculiarities from one consulate to another do not equate to 'recent new guidance'. And I'm suggesting that your allusion to having information the rest of us don't have is an illusion. " My impression is the choice of words "illusion" is another little poke. At this point though it is noth too bad.

post 24. pushbrk says, "So then, all knowledge that can't be proved to you with an internet link is "illusion". Maybe look up the word "delusion". As usual, if you have nothing to add...." This is obviously a poke back for the above two pokes. I can see a personal online brawl coming.

post 25. another member posts, "See this post for comments from a recent Naples Consulate interviewee regarding the CO's being more diligent regarding the affidavit of support: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...p=3519272" This is where another member tries to provide information as a back up for pushbrk on their statement that you said was an illusion.

post 26. you say, "You claim to possess knowledge that has potential value to the membership here. Now it's either out there in official written policy or it is not. You know that as well as I do. Please don't try to convince us that you have an inroad to some sort of "official" rules that the rest of us are not privy too. That is mere bluster." I don't have an issue with your statement.

post 27. You reply to the other member and say, "Very good. We should note that that information pertains to the I-864, for which the State Department does issue more official guidance. Consulates continue to operate under random and widely differing variances of financial proof for the hybrid K1 (which is the OP's query)." No issue here. You validate their info was at least useful and point out a possible difference in a polite way.

post 30. pushbrk says, "Yes, there are wide variances as to how things are handled at Consulates and the to best of my information, even within Consulates from one officer to another. This may or may not BE random but I can understand how they may seem so. I guess I'm still missing your point unless it's just to bust my chops per your usual routine. Maybe we should ask Tay if this interchange qualifies as an attack on a member. It think I'll report my own post and see. " pushbrk is talking to you. They are annoyed and feel like you are just trying to "get at them" whether you are right or wrong.

post 31. you say to pushbrk, "I think it's better if we stick to what we know by actual anecdotal evidence and what we can prove by written guidance. I think it's unhelpful to those navigating this part of the process if they are led to think there are mysteries out there that only some of us know. It's the immigration equivalent of the monster in the closet. And it's unfair."

post 32. pushbrk says, "Then I suggest you follow that advice and leave the verification of what others have actual anecdotal evidence of, for them to decide. Unless I've missed something, you haven't been assigned by the Captain to verify all claims made by other members. And whether you have been or not, please go ###### at somebody else for a while." Not sure what the ##'s were but maybe the word that sounds like "witch with a b". They seem pretty tired of you in this comment and basically say "####### off and bother someone else". Not very polite but at this point neither of you are being that way.

post 33. another member talks about her husband actually seeing official guidance at an interview (the one that you said was an illustion when pushbrk said it). They say, "

It was not exactly a secret document, but it was in a big binder that the CO referred to and was dated from August." They then say, "Not sure how many consulates are following this advice but better to be safe then sorry." This post the member has provided good info that seems to at least in part back up pushbrk.

post 34. you say, "Thank you, Christeen, for further explaining what happened in regards to your case. This is a lot less mysterious than "there appears to be pretty recent new guidance to Consulates to be more diligent in evaluating the public charge concerns"." The way you said it is legit, but you went out of your way to bring up pushbrk having said things poorly versus this member. This comparison was a poke -- nothing too much -- but still in all honestly a poke.

post 35. you say, "Poor grumpy push. For someone who espouses 'straight talk', you certainly can be touchy when asked to stop speaking in circles and make it easy for readers to learn." This is another poke at pushprk. You mocked them.

post 36. A moderator steps in and says "Inappropriate posts have been removed. If you can not have a discussion without it ending up with personal attacks. Then please do not post." At this point your post #35 was hidden. That was the last poke made by you.

Post 38. You say to the mod, "#### You." I am pretty sure the ##'s are "suck with an F". This is just uncalled for RJ. I am not sure how this helps you. I was reading at this point and going to even say both parties escalated evenly (maybe a little more on one side or the other) but then you do this. You could simply have PM'd me and asked me to review the decision to hide post 35.

All and all I counted 5 pokes by you to 2 pokes by pushbrk. I also counted one post where you told the mod to "f" off after they removed (hid) post 35 (the last largest poke in the conversation).

ANYHOW, long story. I hope I clearly went over your case and your complaint. Honestly 99% of members would have gotten a suspension for telling the mod to "f" off. I will simply in this case give you a free pass (ONE time). I will now take over all moderation when it comes to you. Please also note. You and pushbrk please work it out. I am sure you guys can be more contstructive? Anyhow I feel I have more than fairly assessed this concern of yours and honestly that last comment was uncalled for (post 38).

>> Topic reopened per my promise once I reviewed the complaint in detail. ...see above.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

I have given you two weeks since the incident to take care of the problem.

I do not agree that this is a good example of "the problem". There may be mod errors but this is not a strong case if any. Additionally the plague of alleged bad moderation does not sync with the roughly 95% of people on the survey of over 1500 members that do not see this. I do think there may be bad decisions and I am willing to address them -- but this simply again is not a good example or valid of a " last stunt" or other horrid action per my interpretation. Maybe I did not read this right? If I did not I welcome being corrected.

[rebeccajo 14]

I have nothing to work out with Pushbrk. He's a flaming a$$hole and I don't 'work' with people like that. He spams this website and you tolerate it - you know what I am talking about here.

Let me explain something to you. In the thread we are talking about here, Pushbrk not only tells me that I don't know what I'm talking about, he tells another member named Adam. Adam gives anecdotal evidence contrary to what Push wants people to believe. What does Push do? Discounts it. Then when it comes to the next part of the thread (wherein I begin to interact with him) he ends up telling me we should go with anecdotal evidence.

Do you not see the problem here?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Ewok, I feel for you for having to do this over a long weekend. Your life sucks.

[rebeccajo 14]

I have given you two weeks since the incident to take care of the problem.

I do not agree that this is a good example of "the problem". There may be mod errors but this is not a strong case if any. Additionally the plague of alleged bad moderation does not sync with the roughly 95% of people on the survey of over 1500 members that do not see this. I do think there may be bad decisions and I am willing to address them -- but this simply again is not a good example or valid of a " last stunt" or other horrid action per my interpretation. Maybe I did not read this right? If I did not I welcome being corrected.

Oh well maybe everybody is so flippin' satisfied because they don't realize they are being talked about behind their backs?

Kathryn's 'apology' to me was too late. The cat was out of the bag and she had already inadvertently told me how she felt about me. Again - I don't deal with phonies.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Oh well maybe everybody is so flippin' satisfied because they don't realize they are being talked about behind their backs?

On a forum where we've all chatted and battled each other for years, how likely is it that any of us aren't being talked about behind our backs?

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

I have nothing to work out with Pushbrk. He's a flaming a$$hole and I don't 'work' with people like that. He spams this website and you tolerate it - you know what I am talking about here.

Let me explain something to you. In the thread we are talking about here, Pushbrk not only tells me that I don't know what I'm talking about, he tells another member named Adam. Adam gives anecdotal evidence contrary to what Push wants people to believe. What does Push do? Discounts it. Then when it comes to the next part of the thread (wherein I begin to interact with him) he ends up telling me we should go with anecdotal evidence.

Do you not see the problem here?

I am addressing the TOS issues right now. If you disagree factually you could have done so without breaking the TOS and could have been more diplomatic. Amazingly like you said, facts and a steady hand will win out. People do not respond well to members that flame or get emotionally upset. I know you are a respectful and smart person and I think that your point would have come across better if you had played that card versus getting in a spitting match with pushbrk. The only thing that results when that happens is to have derailed the topic.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

ps. I'm no fan of some of the moderators. In fact I more or less wish nothing but the worst for them. But still... making Ewok read through a threadful of that over a long weekend is just wrong. Oh so wrong.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Ewok, I feel for you for having to do this over a long weekend. Your life sucks.