Er... I Spy... no violation?

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

I don't have to read your mind, I just have to read your posting history.

Ah yes, so we're all absolute complete morons and just don't "get" you. Yeah.

Again...your posting history leaves your intent very clear.

Why? Charles seems to think he's done no wrong, which would sort of imply that not only is his apology bogus but that the moderating team made a bad call to remove his post.

so you admit being biased towards anything i say. glad to get that out in the open.

as for my post being removed, sure, it's understandable due to the complaints (which wasn't a surprise either). i didn't expect anyone with an ax to grind to get it when it's so much easier to shoot the messenger.

i also get the irony in you vehemently objecting to any attempt by me to perform any moderation action on you, yet you continually complain about anything i do.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If the clarification was provided in the first place, there wouldn't have been any controversy, which suggests that it was omitted deliberately.

The interpretation of that post in the way it was posted was not clear cut. You didn't need a bias to read it in the way that it was.

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

If the clarification was provided in the first place, there wouldn't have been any controversy, which suggests that it was omitted deliberately.

The interpretation of that post in the way it was posted was not clear cut. You didn't need a bias to read it in the way that it was.

easier to shoot first, and ask questions later, isn't it?

[The_Dude 1,142]

easier to shoot first, and ask questions later, isn't it?

As a deputy moderator and as such a representative of the website, you should take care not to mince your words.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Shoot first? I don't think so.

Benefit of the doubt tends to be given when there is doubt. There wasn't any.

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

As a deputy moderator and as such a representative of the website, you should take care not to mince your words.

best to mince them, makes them easier to eat at times.

[William33 110]

Shoot first? I don't think so.

Benefit of the doubt tends to be given when there is doubt. There wasn't any.

You are reaching here. Lack of context admitted and corrected. What more do you need on this item?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You are reaching here. Lack of context admitted and corrected. What more do you need on this item?

Reaching? I don't think so. We've gone from "i made a mistake" to the idea that the intent of the post was obvious if only people weren't so biased against Charles.

The clarification doesn't make much sense either because the "point" is bogus.

Ultimately this is a small issue. The bigger one is why a poem merits a suspension but calling someone a cocksucker does not and why the VJ moderation seems to be on some sort of moral crusade to remove posts with any hint of "profanity"

[mox 298]

You are reaching here. Lack of context admitted and corrected. What more do you need on this item?

God damn but this is fecking maddening. It's like you people can read, but you have no comprehension function. If you think this is all "reaching," then you really need to just turn in your badge and walk away. You've obviously drawn a line in the sand between the admins and the peons, and the only way you know how to answer to an angry membership is to "let them eat cake."

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Post containing inappropriate language and post quoting same have been removed

[William33 110]

God damn but this is fecking maddening. It's like you people can read, but you have no comprehension function. If you think this is all "reaching," then you really need to just turn in your badge and walk away. You've obviously drawn a line in the sand between the admins and the peons, and the only way you know how to answer to an angry membership is to "let them eat cake."

Mox, once again you missed the point. This was one point reaching, not "this is all reaching".

[mox 298]

Mox, once again you missed the point. This was one point reaching, not "this is all reaching".

When it's you telling me that I've "once again...missed the point," I take it that I am right on target. So thanks for that.

[William33 110]

When it's you telling me that I've "once again...missed the point," I take it that I am right on target. So thanks for that.

Your contribution is noted.

[Gemmie 142]

Kathryn, you personally think we should have a separate forum for 'political discussions' because it often spews up a whole ton of negative conflict. I think that's ridiculous. In that case, why not make a separate forum just for 'discussions with sexual content'? Or better yet, a forum dedicated to people that want to degrade women? I've said this in another thread, but I do remember times where topics went on for pages and pages that were directly name-calling and extreme viewpoints that upset a lot of people. If I wanted to report Gary for insulting posters by insinuating that UK women are ugly because they don't show personal photos, or Alan/saywhat for talking about women as though they are another species, or Slim for posting his degrading views on prostitution, I could be here all day. But I don't, because it's expected when you have an off-topic forum for all people.

Lately there have been a mountain of things removed for little reason, mostly by you. Melissa posting a thread led to a small spat between two posters (apparently she accused someone of being fake, and they accused her of being an attention-seeker - is that really so bad?) and it was locked completely. Someone posts a paragraph about what happened on a recent date in a between-friends context and it's removed and the topic is closed. I see that several posts are removed for "language"... seriously? What can be that bad that you have to remove such language when we have full-blown arguments going on in OT? Is "you sound like a douche-bag" enough to close a topic? We don't want to hurt peoples feelings by be-littling their opinion. What about "I can see why your marriage failed"? I've seen Julian make remarks like that several times to a poster here. At what point does it become 'too personal' enough to delete?

That is why places like Facebook thrive, and quite honestly, there is nothing wrong with using Facebook instead of VJ for some of those discussions, especially ones that have no relevance to immigration.

In that case, you might as well close all of the OT forums because they all discuss things that have no relevance to immigration. The Canadian forum has a 'vent thread' where they can b!itch and moan about personal problems (which I actually love to visit), the RUB forum sometimes has threads solely to talk about how much better their wives are than other nationalities, and the UK forum likes to discuss their love of cheese and bread. Then we have the OT threads about all kinds of stuff from political events to sexual research. None of this is relevant to immigration, so you can't use that old card.

The point is, when you have a site with so many people from varying backgrounds and beliefs, you're going to get some conflict and different levels of what is 'normal' to share.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

VJ also has the cloak of anonymity, let us not forget. I think few of us would ever post on FB what we have discussed on VJ in our unguarded moments. Keep it civil, sure. I prefer civility here.