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

[MelissaJulian 30]

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?

Why are you dragging Julian into this? He NEVER said anything like that. Thanks for defending me, but I'd like to see proof Julian said that.

[JulianMelissa 52]

What about "I can see why your marriage failed"? I've seen Julian make remarks like that several times to a poster here.

Bloody hell, why drag my name into all this? I have never wished another couple ill. Melissa and I have struggled through more than most here, and I have never said such a thing. I'll accept your apology now.

[MelissaJulian 30]

Bloody hell, why drag my name into all this? I have never wished another couple ill. Melissa and I have struggled through more than most here, and I have never said such a thing. I'll accept your apology now.

I guess if she can find proof, J, I would believe it. But it just doesn't seem like you.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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?

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.

To be honest, I have less of a problem with a subforum than with some arbitrary dictate that certain things not be discussed.

I thought it was a bit weird that one of the mods deleted a thread about the Ground Zero Mosque the other week (and by no means was it the worst thread on that topic - or even a particularly controversial thread) under the premise that it wasn't a topic that was compatible with the ethos of VJ. This after several weeks of threads on that topic.

The way some other forums manage political discussions is via a subforum, so this is by no means a radical idea, but that sub forum is moderated a lot more aggressively than the rest of the site and there is a code of conduct of expected behaviour that goes alongside the site TOS. For example:

All viewpoints are welcomed here, except the promotion of hate and porn.

Not all styles of debate are welcome here. Trolling and personal attacks are especially unwelcome. Posters who have the tendency to "troll" or resort to personal insults during a debate or discussion, or who drive the thread off-topic or add nothing but negativity to the conversation may find their access to this forum restricted to read-only.

Thread fracturing, which is the intentional or unintentional destruction of thesis statements, is unwelcome here. If you can't further develop a thesis statement, you should consider starting a thread where you develop your own argument. This does not mean that counter analysis is unwelcome in all threads. Trolls have the tendency to corrupt threads by driving the thread off-topic. Such tactics will lead to read-only restrictions.

There is an expectation that those who post their opinions, support their opinions with source material (links to web pages). This forum is for reasoned and intelligent arguments and statements. Trolling is unwelcome in this forum.

Members whose access has been limited to read-only will have that limitation for an unspecified duration. Members whose access is limited WILL NOT be contacted to inform them. Access restrictions may seem arbitrary and the editor of this publication acknowledges that such decision making is subjective.

Interesting idea - if you don't respect the rules, you get barred from participating in that particular part of the site. It would certainly solve certain serial problems

[Jenn! 918]

All viewpoints are welcomed here, except the promotion of hate and porn.

That's not so clear cut though. I mean, talk radio and Fox News promote hate, IMO. Do we think that VJ should be more restrictive than those channels?

I've waffled on this issue myself.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's not so clear cut though. I mean, talk radio and Fox News promote hate, IMO. Do we think that VJ should be more restrictive than those channels?

Yes. Anything without scholarly merit should be thrown out. Hacks who are sensationalist headline seekers are not conducive to a reasoned debate. At the very least the use of such references should be framed in a way that clearly provides a rationale for their use.

Most of those articles that use loaded emotional language and rhetoric cannot be justified beyond closet prejudice and causing offence simply for effect (e.g. Ann Coulter).

Edited August 16, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[Gemmie 142]

Julian, I will apologise for saying that you said "I can see why your marriage failed". This is actually what you said to a poster that had told in the same thread how her marriage was ending (the following was in three different posts):

As I said before, it doesn't surprise me that no man wants to be with you.

(Which to me, hints that he can see WHY the situation occured)

By the way, I noticed this evening that there is forum for the Russian mail order bride losers. Maybe you should go muck about there and find yourself a nice Muscovite man.

Again, maybe the Russian mail order bride forum is more your style. You can get yourself some alcoholic Ivan who won't be quite the 'douche' your ex is. Hmmm, the more I think about it, the more I think your ex and I might get along swimmingly.

I might be wrong, but I think there was some more of that in another thread too, directed at the same person. It might not have been a direct attack on someone's personal problems, but referencing the situation in such a way is kind of a dcik move to me.

Anyway, before this turns into another discussion about Julian, it was an example of how VJ, and the UK forum especially, has been known to stir up a lot of language, sexual tone, and conflict. You'll notice that those topics usually went on for tens of pages, and lately there's been a huge lock-down on mild examples of the same.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Gemmie

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Julian, the comments about mail order brides were way off base.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Keep up the good work in the UK forum, girls! No wonder the moderation team can't seem to find the time to properly police OT to a few folks satisfaction.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

If true, then the many men on this forum who continue to brag about it are also 'way off base.' Go tell this Gary chap how 'off-base' he's being. It's noble that you would be offended on somebody else's behalf, but I honestly don't think the majority of these men would be offended. They love showing off their Siberian beauties and they don't mind who knows about it. Jolly good for them I say.

I'm not offended on their behalf. That you can't see why those comments are rude in the extreme speaks to your ignorance about the culture of the site.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

This has gone far enough. These last few pages provide perfect examples of some of the attitudes that create problems here on Visa Journey, As this thread has now degenerated into an exchange of personal attacks and insults, I am closing it down.

Julian, you can now add to your official credit that your comments have contributed directly to a thread being closed for TOS violations.