OT Rules of pissy behaviour...

[Captain Ewok 1,871]

During this review period, was the poster unable to post?

Correct. I will not pull punches on this. If I get a series of serious of reports over a period of time that a member has had an ongoing trend and is escalating I will temporarily place an account on hold while I review items. The review took longer than I anticipated (24-36 hours) as I was on a plane flight for about 18 hours of that plus needing sleep. I regret that extended period of time as I tried to review items via the airport but ran short of time. Unfortunately there is no wifi over many oceans. I know you may call this a suspension, but it was not. Their account has no history to base any future actions on (meaning any offense is a first time one). Additionally they are not on my 'watch list' per say unless they break the TOS.

[Captain Ewok 1,871]

I should add, my review did show some trends of behavior that were alerting. For now I directly confirmed with the member that they will follow the TOS so their word is good enough unless they break it.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I should add, my review did show some trends of behavior that were alerting. For now I directly confirmed with the member that they will follow the TOS so their word is good enough unless they break it.

I'm actually somewhat surprised by this. You've used terms like "potentially skirting the TOS over a long period of time". If there hasn't been clear violations don't you think that placing a user under review is heavy handed? Whether "internally" being under review is not equal to a suspension, to the user it is one and the same.

[scandal 951]

Don't Exist Only in the Off Topic Forum! Venture out into the general forums and contribute when you can (especially if you have personal experience or knowledge that may help others)!

Woah. So now there's going to be a quota system of how many upper forum postings were supposed to make in order to be good VJ citizens?

I don't visit the upper forums any longer. They bore the ####### out of me. Just saying.

Spewing pointed rants against a particular race, country, religion, or political group is not allowed.

Does that include the USA? If a hypothetical poster should rag on and on endlessly about how horrible the USA is, how degraded and dysfunctional and ghettoized it has become, is that acceptable OT behavior? Or does this policy extend to and include the USA? (Rhetorical. I'm sure you mean the latter, not that former.)

When talking it is not necessary to have have every other word a four letter word. Casual and infrequent use of foul language is common in the real world and not prohibited (in context). Using foul language "just to use it" or to be a "jerk" begins to cross that gray Off-Topic line. Be sensible!

Fuсk that sнit.

Be Kind! No one here is or needs to be Mr. Rogers, but there is a difference between a disagreement and just being a jerk. Constructive criticism is expected on public forums -- try to be respectful.

Fuсk that sнit.

No nudity or sexual photos. If it is more risky (or illegal) than something you would see on a typical beach in the US then it is probably not allowed.

What about bodacious body paint on an nude woman?

[Captain Ewok 1,871]

I'm actually somewhat surprised by this. You've used terms like "potentially skirting the TOS over a long period of time". If there hasn't been clear violations don't you think that placing a user under review is heavy handed? Whether "internally" being under review is not equal to a suspension, to the user it is one and the same.

I did an initial review and saw several instances in the past that could have resulted in a suspension that were not. After that I placed the account on review to dig deeper.

[*julez* 124]

Correct. I will not pull punches on this. If I get a series of serious of reports over a period of time that a member has had an ongoing trend and is escalating I will temporarily place an account on hold while I review items. The review took longer than I anticipated (24-36 hours) as I was on a plane flight for about 18 hours of that plus needing sleep. I regret that extended period of time as I tried to review items via the airport but ran short of time. Unfortunately there is no wifi over many oceans. I know you may call this a suspension, but it was not. Their account has no history to base any future actions on (meaning any offense is a first time one). Additionally they are not on my 'watch list' per say unless they break the TOS.

If this were true, Charles' account would be under review almost constantly. Off topic supposedly has looser TOS. The Ovaltine Jenkins incident is a great example of how there is no consistency in modding OT. You take seriously complaints where one of the OT playground regs feewings got hurt, but ignore the vociferous minority who actually care about the quality of VJ as a whole when legitimate concerns are raised. Utterly pathetic. But sadly this is now the norm for VJ.

[Captain Ewok 1,871]

If this were true, Charles' account would be under review almost constantly. Off topic supposedly has looser TOS. The Ovaltine Jenkins incident is a great example of how there is no consistency in modding OT. You take seriously complaints where one of the OT playground regs feewings got hurt, but ignore the vociferous minority who actually care about the quality of VJ as a whole when legitimate concerns are raised. Utterly pathetic. But sadly this is now the norm for VJ.

The post history was assessed in all forums for this member -- not OT specifically. I found many examples of issues outside of OT.

[*julez* 124]

The post history was assessed in all forums for this member -- not OT specifically. I found many examples of issues outside of OT.

I'm sure the same would apply to charles if you performed a similar evaluation. In fact, I'm positive his offensiveness is far more egregious over a much longer period of time, and yet he was made a dep mod. Sorry, Ewok, but your judgement is really off. I'm afraid you are no longer able to be objective when it comes to Charles.

[Captain Ewok 1,871]

Right now I am actually doing some research on post histories. Turns out there may be some duplicate accounts people have been using that I was unaware of -- using them to make trouble. I am not trying to side track this, but if people are doing this then I need to get to the bottom of it. That is a major TOS no no.

[StillThePrettiest 3]

If this were true, Charles' account would be under review almost constantly. Off topic supposedly has looser TOS. The Ovaltine Jenkins incident is a great example of how there is no consistency in modding OT. You take seriously complaints where one of the OT playground regs feewings got hurt, but ignore the vociferous minority who actually care about the quality of VJ as a whole when legitimate concerns are raised. Utterly pathetic. But sadly this is now the norm for VJ.

THIS

I'm sure the same would apply to charles if you performed a similar evaluation. In fact, I'm positive his offensiveness is far more egregious over a much longer period of time, and yet he was made a dep mod. Sorry, Ewok, but your judgement is really off. I'm afraid you are no longer able to be objective when it comes to Charles.

and, dear God, THIS

[Captain Ewok 1,871]

I am curious why every conversation comes back to charles? I get that several of you do not like him. Understood. But it seems like most all topics lead to him and I know I am not doing it. Not to side track but it is hard to make headway on any topic because somehow Charles is always brought up and becomes the "issue".

[mox 298]

A moderator was angry that his wife was rebuked for an insensitive comment, and brought in another moderator friend (who happens to be a IRL friend) to help take action against a long-time poster. To justify immediate action, the fact that she wasn't a regular contributor to the thread was used against her. To justify the eventual suspension, her posting history has been dug up and used against her.

Some points I'd like to make:

- I'd like to know how many VJ members who have been here for 2 years or longer DON'T have posts in their history that could have had action taken. Heck, you probably don't have to go 2 days back in my posting history. Ovaltine Jenkins' past posting history should have had nothing to do with this, especially (if I understand correctly) she had never been warned or rebuked before. In fact, if we are going to take past posting histories into account, then we need to take everyone's involved. That includes Charles, Nessa, and W33. Are their posting histories being researched? I could help if you like.

- I think StillThePrettiest makes an excellent point: had the roles been reversed, would Nessa have been subjected to this kind of treatment?

- This is an opportunity to show that VJ isn't some "good 'ol boys club" by admitting that Ovaltine Jenkins was rail-roaded for doing nothing more than posting criticism of a moderator's wife in--IRONICALLY!!-- the "say anything" thread. As I've said before, this is your site and we are all here by de facto invite, to play by your rules or gtfo. However, you have repeatedly said that your rules are of fairness, openness, and inclusiveness, so I'm inclined to hold you to this. If these are indeed the rules you are going to play by, then stop trying to shoe-horn flimsy justifications for your team's actions. Whatever her motivations, this was clearly unfair treatment, and you need to acknowledge it.

[Captain Ewok 1,871]

A moderator was angry that his wife was rebuked for an insensitive comment, and brought in another moderator friend (who happens to be a IRL friend) to help take action against a long-time poster. To justify immediate action, the fact that she wasn't a regular contributor to the thread was used against her. To justify the eventual suspension, her posting history has been dug up and used against her.

@mox, no moderator did anything. I put the account on review. Please do not insinuate Charles or William did anything here. I had many reports and that member upon looking did have some previous posts on record that warranted a closer look.

[mox 298]

I am curious why every conversation comes back to charles? I get that several of you do not like him. Understood. But it seems like most all topics lead to him and I know I am not doing it. Not to side track but it is hard to make headway on any topic because somehow Charles is always brought up and becomes the "issue".

If I had to guess, I'd say it's because the incident in OT was instigated because Charles and W33 abused their positions as moderators to have a member harassed and suspended.

[StillThePrettiest 3]

I am curious why every conversation comes back to charles? I get that several of you do not like him. Understood. But it seems like most all topics lead to him and I know I am not doing it. Not to side track but it is hard to make headway on any topic because somehow Charles is always brought up and becomes the "issue".

Ewok, I have bolded the part of your post that most frustrates me... this is NOT about like/dislike; I have not liked Charles for ages and yet have not felt any need to comment on that fact for quite some time... it is about CONSISTENCY and FAIRNESS, both of which are lacking generally on VJ, but which are particularly lacking here, in the topic under discussion

people citing examples of gross inconsistency and people being subjective when they HAVE to be objective in order to do their job on VJ *IS* the topic, not a sidetrack from it

I feel that many many people are speaking plainly, giving you examples, asking questions - and yet you don't seem to heed it, or wish to answer... THAT is the sidetrack, as far as I'm concerned

oh, and - what mox said