OT Rules of pissy behaviour...

[*julez* 124]

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".

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Do you really not comprehend the concerns that have been raised repeatedly with regard to Charles?

[Captain Ewok 1,900]

- 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.

You asked for an example... If you recall, I suspended the husband of a moderator in the past. More than once (a spouse) if I recall. If a person pushes the limits of the TOS it does not matter who they are.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Do you really not comprehend the concerns that have been raised repeatedly with regard to Charles?

I do understand your concerns, but to be fair, every topic gets side tracked to him. This topic has nothing to do with Charles. See the original post.

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.

What abuse did they do? They did not make any admin/mod actions against them. None as is 0.

[*julez* 124]

You asked for an example... If you recall, I suspended the husband of a moderator in the past. More than once (a spouse) if I recall. If a person pushes the limits of the TOS it does not matter who they are.

I do understand your concerns, but to be fair, every topic gets side tracked to him. This topic has nothing to do with Charles. See the original post.

But given the recent OT incident involving Charles, Nessa and a ridiculous suspension for Ovaltine Jenkins, this topic is pertinent to Charles. The rules clearly aren't the same for him.

[SuperDuper! 230]

Charles heart is in the right place, and he seems to be a good human being. But I must admit, that his wife can throw down some very pointed and challenging opinions that beg and bait provocation. So now it seems she has a special shield against any and all criticisms and unfavorable responses? (Dish it out, but can't take it?). To me, this has a nepotistic flavor to it, and an air of having an "immunity shield" and special privileges that are not available to others. My .02

[Captain Ewok 1,900]

I wanted to add. I have even taken admin action against moderators in the past.. It does happen.

But given the recent OT incident involving Charles, Nessa and a ridiculous suspension for Ovaltine Jenkins, this topic is pertinent to Charles. The rules clearly aren't the same for him.

I was the one who put their account on review. I did such because of member complaints and after an initial review found some disturbing comments and trends. Will and Charles had nothing to do with this.

[Captain Ewok 1,900]

But given the recent OT incident involving Charles, Nessa and a ridiculous suspension for Ovaltine Jenkins, this topic is pertinent to Charles. The rules clearly aren't the same for him.

I understand, but every time someone sees something as unfair Charles is brought up. The original issue is lost and Charles becomes the center of conversation.

[Captain Ewok 1,900]

Charles heart is in the right place, and he seems to be a good human being. But I must admit, that his wife can throw down some very pointed and challenging opinions that beg and bait provocation. So now it seems she has a special shield against any and all criticisms and unfavorable responses? (Dish it out, but can't take it?). To me, this has a nepotistic flavor to it, and an air of having an "immunity shield" and special privileges that are not available to others. My .02

I will re-iterate that if any spouse or family mmeber of a mod is reported and violates the TOS I will take admin actions (and the mods should too). Spouse or not, they are under the TOS. You can ask several present and former mods who I actually did suspend their spouses (I am sure it was not the best of moods in their house that night but it was the right and fair thing to do). Actually in hind site, the suspensions did help to clear up boundaries. I am not saying anything about this situation or drawing parallels, only that I am not beyond doing this if needed.

[mox 298]

What abuse did they do? They did not make any admin/mod actions against them. None as is 0.

Ovaltine: No, you wake up. Not giving a damn about what's happening around the world (you gave the example of the tragic events in Haiti that you don't think are tragic) isn't just insensitive. It's way, way, way worse. And so typical of you

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3663522

Nessa: yeah i was insensitive, but i didn't say it wasn't tragic. the beef smell was making me hungry and i still had to work until 830 and all i had to eat was tv dinner.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3664043

This is where it should have ended. Nessa said she didn't care about the Haitian crisis, Ovaltine berated her, and Nessa replied.

But it didn't end there.

Charles: are you just here to annoy people?

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3666082

Charles: your recent post history speaks for itself. you can have all the problems/issues you want with me. there's no reason for you to include nessa in your agenda.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3666108

Charles: don't play dumb. you know she's my wife. and i'm sure your opinion will mean the world to her

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3666244

William33: Why are you antagonizing people here? Do you have something to contribute?

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3666318

William33: Trying to understand the purpose of this account's resurrection. Read the posts since then..........That should say it all.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3666398

William33: It's called the process of investigation...In an effort to get to the core of the truth. Let's leave it at that.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3666422

So W33 has taken quite an interest in Ovaltine's account. And why? What is it that Ovaltine said that warranted W33 taking the time out of his very busy schedule to investigate a fairly innocuous (for OT) comment about another member. Why is she being investigated so deeply? Why not just post "attacks against another member will not be tolerated" as is the norm, and move on?

Willaim33: STP is not at issue here, someone else is. Balance your comments carefully here.....

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3666821

Now THIS is interesting. STP is also a member who hasn't posted in awhile, and just shows up in this thread out of the blue. But HER account isn't to be investigated. Huh. Say something bad about Nessa, and your account gets investigated because it just showed up out of the blue. But show up just out of the blue without "attacking" Nessa, and she's given a pass.

I don't know who suspended who, or what was said, but I do know that action was taken against Ovaltine because she had the audacity to say something against Nessa. Nobody else was subjected to this kind of treatment.

[Captain Ewok 1,900]

Ovaltine: No, you wake up. Not giving a damn about what's happening around the world (you gave the example of the tragic events in Haiti that you don't think are tragic) isn't just insensitive. It's way, way, way worse. And so typical of you

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3663522

Nessa: yeah i was insensitive, but i didn't say it wasn't tragic. the beef smell was making me hungry and i still had to work until 830 and all i had to eat was tv dinner.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3664043

This is where it should have ended. Nessa said she didn't care about the Haitian crisis, Ovaltine berated her, and Nessa replied.

But it didn't end there.

Charles: are you just here to annoy people?

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3666082

Charles: your recent post history speaks for itself. you can have all the problems/issues you want with me. there's no reason for you to include nessa in your agenda.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3666108

Charles: don't play dumb. you know she's my wife. and i'm sure your opinion will mean the world to her

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3666244

William33: Why are you antagonizing people here? Do you have something to contribute?

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3666318

William33: Trying to understand the purpose of this account's resurrection. Read the posts since then..........That should say it all.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3666398

William33: It's called the process of investigation...In an effort to get to the core of the truth. Let's leave it at that.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3666422

So W33 has taken quite an interest in Ovaltine's account. And why? What is it that Ovaltine said that warranted W33 taking the time out of his very busy schedule to investigate a fairly innocuous (for OT) comment about another member. Why is she being investigated so deeply? Why not just post "attacks against another member will not be tolerated" as is the norm, and move on?

Willaim33: STP is not at issue here, someone else is. Balance your comments carefully here.....

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3666821

Now THIS is interesting. STP is also a member who hasn't posted in awhile, and just shows up in this thread out of the blue. But HER account isn't to be investigated. Huh. Say something bad about Nessa, and your account gets investigated because it just showed up out of the blue. But show up just out of the blue without "attacking" Nessa, and she's given a pass.

I don't know who suspended who, or what was said, but I do know that action was taken against Ovaltine because she had the audacity to say something against Nessa. Nobody else was subjected to this kind of treatment.

err. Mox. Neither of them took any mod action. I put their account on review independently after looking into the members account. If you like I can review the accounts above that concern you -- I was not aware of issues there. BRB, I am reviewing them to play fair. I can not investigate everyone all the time if they do something. Only those accounts that people raise concern to me on and those that I spot myself.

[Captain Ewok 1,900]

@mox. I have no issue with any of the members involved per their post history that I see. Even Ovaltene I had under review but once I looked at their account I was ok with things. They are not on my ####### list.

I don't know who suspended who, or what was said, but I do know that action was taken against Ovaltine because she had the audacity to say something against Nessa. Nobody else was subjected to this kind of treatment.

I put at least one or two accounts on a review every week when I look into their posts. I admit a lot of time this is for more clear reasons such as potential spam or troll account (dupes) but this is not anything extraordinary (reviewing an account). In this case I found nothing to warrant any further admin action or digging. I asked them to reiterate their understanding of the TOS and that was that.

[*julez* 124]

Dude, you seriously do not get the point! Which is amazing, given how clearly mox spelled it all out for you. This is not about whether or not Charles or W33 took mod action. The issue is that they both got over-involved in what was, for OT, not a big deal. I've seen way worse. But because the OT crowd, including dear ol' chuck and Billy-o, can't handle any feedback from OT outsiders who are, in fact, legitimate VJ members, you are called in to save the day! Nasty old Ovaltine Jenkins is suspended and the real bullies move on to the next victims. Asnd depite being told again and again why Charles is relevant to this discussion youy simply cannot comprehend it. Uh-mazing!

[Captain Ewok 1,900]

Jules, I did look at their account yes. My initial inspection showed some trends of attacks. I placed their account on review and discovered that any further action was not needed. I asked them to reaffirm their understanding of the TOS. That was the end of it. They were not suspended. I emailed them and said I needed some time (less than 24 hours) to review their account. Due to bad time management I got stuck on a plane without internet and I was unable to get to it as timely as I needed to. I told them I was going to get it cleared up shortly after. In about 12 more hours it was all cleared up and their account cleared to go.

None of this was Charles or Williams issue. The issue in delaying their return was purely my inability to review the account faster. Had I not been on travel the review may have only been several hours. I can not be more clear. This had/has nothing to do with who they were or what they said it simply has to do with the speed at which I reviewed the account and the fact that wifi was not available where I anticipated it would be (and not on the plane for sure).

Conclusions are being drawn by assumptions that simply are not valid. Blame my turn around time on this one if anything. I take the fault for not knowing the airport I was transiting through would not have wifi.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Captain Ewok
updated

[Captain Ewok 1,900]

err, I feel compelled to add this last thought.

Given I was the SOLE reason their account took more than an hour to review, I am not sure how Charles nor William can take any blame here. Lets assume they took the issue to me and said, "I think there is a problem -- can you look into their history and review". Now the issue is mine. I took a quick peak via the wifi at airport #1. I saw a few issues that raised my alert meter. I placed the account on hold and got on the plane. They were notified that their account was under review and to expect to hear back in roughly 24 hours. I assumed in the course of he next few hours I would have time at the next location to review it. I was wrong -- no wifi. Queue the 15 hours extra flying and need for sleep. I got to this asap afterwards, alerted the member of the delay and need for additional time. They also had emailed and said, "when will your review be done". I was able to finish my review and it indicated "no issue". I asked the member to verbally via email agree to the TOS and that they understood it and I closed the matter. None of this timeline was the fault of any mod.

[StillThePrettiest 3]

and I feel compelled to add this question - though as NONE of my questions have yet been answered I doubt this one will be either -

why was the issue brought to you in the first place? what was there to indicate a 'problem'?

as so many people have said until they are blue in the face - there was NOTHING out of the ordinary in the original comment made by Ovaltine Jenkins; it was - and Charles has stated as much - seen as more significant than it was because it was said to Nessa, not someone else

[ValerieA 350]

It doesn't matter that it was said to Nessa, it was a direct personal attack on a VJ member, which is against the TOS. Nessa made a general comment, and while it may have been in poor taste, it was not directed against anyone specific, and certainly no VJ member. Ovaltine responded by attacking her, and continued attacking her.