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

[^_^ 5,021]

... a separate "Political Discussions" sub-forum for Off Topic ... it would be easier to define the limits of what is acceptable and what is not in this type of forum.

Why do you think that? Just curious.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why do you think that? Just curious.

I would imagine you could set up a separate code of conduct for a politics subforum, easier than relying on a less stringent application of the site TOS, which creates confusion for people not knowing what is tolerated and which allows moderators and members to interpret

"violations" any way they wish.

Of course that would mean that the subforum would require heavy moderation.

[LaL 418]

Oh I'm not endorsing it or even suggesting it would be practical - merely pointing out that the political topics in OT are the primary reason for the majority of the personal issues that play out across VJ and make it a less welcoming place for new VJers.

Oh I know you didn't mean that - it just seems (maybe I am wrong) that Kathryn is suggesting such, or at least musing over it .

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Why do you think that? Just curious.

The way things are now, political threads are interspersed with all sorts of other threads on VJ. As has been mentioned, the political threads are the main culprits in most TOS violations such as personal attacks, racist or sexist comments, and such. Often there will be a 'run' of 4 or 5 threads and it will be the same individuals slipping back and forth between different threads continuing their various discussions.

Isolating these types of threads into their own forum would concentrate them in a single area that would be more easily monitored, to find out about 'cross threading' insults and attacks, to keep the 'context' of the various arguments and discussions straight so that an appropriate understanding of the situation can be gained and hopefully, the best decision made. It would also mean that the regular Off Topic area - which wouldn't have these divisive and sometimes outright aggressive - threads involved, would be less threatening to those who enjoy discussing other non-immigration related items but are overwhelmed by the variety of political and similar threads. It would also be easier if Administration then wanted to have a dedicated moderator just for the Political Forum to stay on top of things, thus freeing up the other moderators to address issues elsewhere in the forums. That is how I see it, at any rate.

[^_^ 5,021]

Isolating these types of threads into their own forum would concentrate them in a single area that would be more easily monitored, to find out about 'cross threading' insults and attacks, to keep the 'context' of the various arguments and discussions straight so that an appropriate understanding of the situation can be gained and hopefully, the best decision made.

Ok. That makes sense.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Kathryn, dress it up however you want to, but we all know that Charles crossed the line with that one. If it was merely inappropriate content, then why is it no longer visible to Joe Public?

Fact is, Charles owes Maven an apology.

Elmcitymaven was complaining about a post where she was accused of doing oral sex. It was an unprovoked personal attack and was thus removed. When Elmcitymaven complained that she had been maligned by this accusation and the person wasn't dealt with to her satisfaction, Charles linked to another post on VJ where she is quoted by someone else, describing in very explicit sexual details, what she did on a recent date. That post is now removed as well. While Charles didn't phrase it well he was trying to show the inconsistency of her complaint in light of that linked post. The poster of that topic wasn't suspended either and I doubt Elmcitymaven would want her to be - but I may be wrong on that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Elmcitymaven was complaining about a post where she was accused of doing oral sex. It was an unprovoked personal attack and was thus removed. When Elmcitymaven complained that she had been maligned by this accusation and the person wasn't dealt with to her satisfaction, Charles linked to another post on VJ where she is quoted by someone else, describing in very explicit sexual details, what she did on a recent date. That post is now removed as well. While Charles didn't phrase it well he was trying to show the inconsistency of her complaint in light of that linked post. The poster of that topic wasn't suspended either and I doubt Elmcitymaven would want her to be - but I may be wrong on that.

There's only inconsistency there if you ignore the context of the two posts.

The fact is Marc's post wasn't based on anything other than his desire to offend in the most explicit way he could.

The post in the UK forum thread involves a group of posters talking as friends.

It is really quite different.

Regardless, the original point was why posting a poem merits an account suspension for TOS violation, but referring to a female poster as a cocksucker apparently does not.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[Mags 112]

Elmcitymaven was complaining about a post where she was accused of doing oral sex. It was an unprovoked personal attack and was thus removed. When Elmcitymaven complained that she had been maligned by this accusation and the person wasn't dealt with to her satisfaction, Charles linked to another post on VJ where she is quoted by someone else, describing in very explicit sexual details, what she did on a recent date. That post is now removed as well. While Charles didn't phrase it well he was trying to show the inconsistency of her complaint in light of that linked post. The poster of that topic wasn't suspended either and I doubt Elmcitymaven would want her to be - but I may be wrong on that.

It's all about context, Kathryn. Talking about one's sex life is completely up to the person doing the talking. To have someone else post (or insinuate) that you are offering it up on a plate like a wh0re is something completely different.

If Charles' comment was merely "misunderstood" then the post should have remained and Charles himself should be here telling us exactly what he meant and how it had been misconstrued.

[Ban Hammer 14,481]

if anyone interpreted my posting of that link to be that maven was a "ho" that was not the intent, nor did i say that about her. it was only to show an inconsistency in what is and isn't accepted based on who posted it.

if i, for example, has posted that poem that maven had posted, how many would have been screaming for my head? i'd be willing to bet it would include quite a few of those defending her posting it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again, its only inconsistent if you ignore what are clearly different contexts.

[Ban Hammer 14,481]

Again, its only inconsistent if you ignore what are clearly different contexts.

not saying it's in the same context, nor should my posts regarding this matter be taken to give marc a free pass on his posts (which you alleged earlier).

the fact remains, whether something is reported depends on who posted it. just food for thought.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

not saying it's in the same context, nor should my posts regarding this matter be taken to give marc a free pass on his posts (which you alleged earlier).

the fact remains, whether something is reported depends on who posted it. just food for thought.

If you ignore the context then you miss the point why one post is reportable and one isn't.

[Ban Hammer 14,481]

If you ignore the context then you miss the point why one post is reportable and one isn't.

you're still missing my point. nevermind.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Maven's anecdote was not imparted in confidence and was intended for people's amusement (and, for its duration, I think it succeeded). The content was racy, certainly, but I've seen many, many posts on VJ considerably more explicit than that, which no one seemed to react to.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I didn't miss it, on the evidence of the example you used, I don't buy it. It simply doesn't say what you want it to.