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

[Kathryn41 3,205]

That's fine, but there IS a social element to this site - people have formed relationships with other members here and so you're going to get some candid lewd talk every once in a while.

Meanwhile, VJ OT has and continues to tolerate thread topics about divisive political subjects that are the primary reason for the vast majority of the personal attacks and long-running personal vendettas on this site. I think unless you're prepared to say outright that topics X,Y,Z are proscribed and shall never be discussed on VJ - it's simply laughable to take issue with scatterings of alleged "obscenity" and to imply that this is somehow making VJ a less welcoming place.

For example, a thread that makes out that Islam is responsible for 9/11 isn't welcoming in any way whatsoever - it defames muslims and alienates muslim VJers who participate in this site.

I can understand that moderating a site like this isn't an easy job and a thankless one at best - but when the application of moderation can't see the wood for the trees you end up with much the same situation that that has people laughing at film and TV censors for tolerating violence and racist content, but coming down like a tonne of bricks on swearing and sexual content. It's ridiculous!

I agree with much of what you write. You make good sense. I also agree that there is a very strong social element to this site - and that is also part of what makes it welcoming. It is when the social aspect becomes clique-ish or gang-like that we run into problems. There are also subjects that are much more appropriate for another site that is set up specifically as a social network site than on Visa Journey. One thing that is easy to overlook - surprisingly - is the cultural diversity of Visa Journey. There is a large diversity of what is 'acceptable' and what is not acceptable, which is why the Regional Forums can offer an even more supportive environment for those who share immigration concerns. These forums are set up in support of those on the immigration journey, though, and not necessarily as substitutes for those looking for a purely social venue. 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.

Regarding the political threads, while I don't recall stating so before publicly, my personal preference would be to remove them from Off Topic. The problem with that is that sometimes they do impact upon the immigration journey and immigration matters so are relevant to VJ. A 'compromise' I have suggested and supported is setting up a separate "Political Discussions" sub-forum for Off Topic so that those who really feel compelled to involve themselves in endless political discussions, campaigning, rhetoric, whatever - can do so there. Yes, TOS would still apply but I think it would be easier to define the limits of what is acceptable and what is not in this type of forum.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

this would be an enormous job, and would need the full backing of the admin, and quite frankly - I am surprised this conversation has taken this turn.

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.

[^_^ 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 13,337]

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 13,337]

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 13,337]

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.