Absurd

[Dodi 69]

Ok, I've kept quiet until now, but since this thread was brought around based on a thread I started, and I'm the one being bad-mouthed here yet again, I feel the need to respond.

Sorry, Jill, I didn't know you didn't realize I had asked for the thread to be removed.

First off: I asked for the thread to be removed because it had gotten to such a state that it was no longer serving the intended purpose, which was to find out from someone who had recently been through this stage, how long it was taking to get an interview date, or even just forms logged in at the London Embassy.

Second: The term "tough love" doesn't exactly describe what was being doled out there. I believe the term being used by the self-labeled "legacy members" was a Smackdown. You guys took it upon yourselves to decide that I deserved a Smackdown as my "rite of passage" into VJ, and then proceeded to do so, en masse.

What you guys are calling "tough love" from people who have been through the process and are safely on the other side, looking back knowing how easy it went for you, is actually to most of us no better than cyberbullying. You use you knowledge of what you went through, and instead of just answering a question, you tell us we're obesessing over things or ridiculous, or that we need a smackdown, or whatever else. You claim we're going to start mass panic all over the forum by stating that we're calling the DOS too much (in YOUR opinion).

I've gotten PM's several times today from newer members who are afraid to post in the forum anymore because of what they've seen from you guys. They don't want to be attacked for asking questions. Is that what you want to turn this place into? If Noobs are beneath you, then don't bother reading or replying to their posts. Nobody is forcing you. However, if you do want to pass on your "expertise" from the viewpoint of someone who has been there, think about what you felt like when you were in our shoes. We're not asking to be molly-coddled or wrapped in cotton wool. (Got enough of my own there, thanks.) We are simply looking for information. That's kinda the point of this forum in the first place.

Yes, I agree with Darnell. (gasp!) There are too many people getting out of hand. There are too many people who feel entitled to run roughshod over the newer members, and that is counterproductive to VJ's purpose.

This response is probably going to go unheeded, because you all feel that you are above me, having been here so long, and that it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. That's fine. I'm not here just to defend myself. I'm here because as a newer member (I've only been here a couple of months) I want to know that all newer members feel free to post without threat of ridicule. I'm not asking for a pat on the back or hugs and flowers. I just want the bullying (cos that's what it is) to stop.

Thanks.

[^_^ 5,021]

I read through some of those threads recently. That's your idea of bullying? You've clearly never been bullied.

[TBoneTX 45,777]

I read through some of those threads recently. That's your idea of bullying? You've clearly never been bullied.

Well, just past the "cyberbullying" term, she says: "You use you[r] knowledge of what you went through, and instead of just answering a question, you tell us we're obsessing over things or ridiculous, or that we need a smackdown, or whatever else. You claim we're going to start mass panic all over the forum by stating that we're calling the DOS too much (in YOUR opinion)."

In respect for the reality that mere words in print can't convey TONE (as might vocal inflection, body language, eye contact, etc.), and in consideration that new people ARE facing the largely unknown and have their entire futures riding on their every action or inaction during this very uncertain immigration process when absolutely anything disastrous can happen, how is Dodi's viewpoint that unreasonable? I believe that she expressed the situation and her frame of reference very well, actually. The overwhelming majority of VJ members and UK forum-dwellers are decent, caring people -- but, without a physical presence, how can a message be distinguished as an attack versus kindly advice from an older brother or sister who has a supportive arm around our shoulder? Because of the drawbacks of print-only communication, we need to be doubly sure of how our words might be interpreted, because words MEAN things.

Here's an example of a stark difference in frames of reference. The chief reason that *I* remain on VJ is to remain vigilant for upcoming Ecuador interviewees and to warn them in the strongest possible terms of the devious, infernal tactics of the evil, ####### Guayaquil consulate, which has raped and screwed and chewed up and spat out far more couples than just the half-dozen or so who have reported same on VJ. Those petitioners' beliefs remain vehement, months and years afterwards, that the consular personnel need to be hauled back to the U.S. in chains. Very specific techniques and actions are necessary in order to procure a visa in Guayaquil. When these later interviewees follow the crucial instruction and manage to be granted the visa on the first interview, I expel my held breath in relief. However, if they post a positive embassy review with a score of 4 or 5 -- and perhaps even neglect to say how important it is that others follow the advice from those of us who were hosed and know the reality at that consulate! -- part of me want to throttle these interviewees, because their rankings and reviews (in a vacuum) create a false picture of that hellhole that could indeed harm others who follow. How justified or correct would I be to barbecue the reviewers/posters for this? Not very, I conclude, because THEY had a decent experience that THEY posted honestly about -- from THEIR frame of reference. I did my part by waving the hurricane flags, which they heeded and accordingly achieved their goal without experiencing much trauma. Out of respect for their opinions, all that I can do is to point to the bigger picture, in hopes that others will comprehend it. And that, to me, IS the goal of what VJ is all about -- showing respect and regard to other members who have conscious concerns, and alerting them to other concerns that they're perhaps unaware that they should have.

I believe that we'd be better off if posters on VJ bore in mind that we are here to HELP, and that it's completely counterproductive and objectively perilous to issue dismissive comments such as the robotic "you do not need a lawyer!" or the blase "you have nothing to worry about!" unless these statements are verifiably 100% TRUE or GUARANTEED. Just as in medicine, almost nothing in the immigration process is 100% guaranteed. (Lightning does strike: someone recently interviewed alone in Guayaquil and WAS granted a visa! It should not be counted on to happen again, however.)

I vividly remember being on "the other side" where Dodi is now. It was uncertain and not at all pleasant. I also distinctly remember who was gentle with me and who was not. Because there is a frame-of-reference difference between newbies and "grizzled veterans," we need to be gentle and supportive in almost every circumstance, to be aware that this immigration process is emotionally charged, and to recognize (before we hit "add reply") that the very nature of "words in print only" courts misinterpretation.

[TBoneTX 45,777]

...we need to be gentle and supportive in almost every circumstance, to be aware that this immigration process is emotionally charged, and to recognize (before we hit "add reply") that the very nature of "words in print only" courts misinterpretation.

I add that this is precisely why I respect brother Darnell so highly and why I consider him a major asset as an actively contributing member of VJ.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

I miss a lot around here when I'm busy doing other things.

Dodi, I agree with you that forum courtesy is important. There have always been knuckleheads around Vj. There are knuckleheads on every forum. Bad behavior is tolerated more in some communities; less in others.

I didn't see your thread while it was happening. So it's hard for me to know who was being ugly and who wasn't.

I do recall though having an interaction with you recently where YOU weren't very courteous to me. I've linked it up here in case you've forgotten about it, although there's not a lot of point in the link. A mod had to go in and clean up the bits where you got wound up at me for correcting your bad information; where you asked me if I was just someone who likes to come in and stir things up; and the post where you called me a troll.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/267094-i-134-affidavit-of-support/page__view__findpost__p__4090944

So given some of your past behaviors around VisaJourney, perhaps you should consider your more recent interactions with Vj members to be a lesson TO YOURSELF in forum etiquette.

[Dodi 69]

Yes, Johnny. I did call you a troll, when you'd jumped to a second thread on the same day and were being just as rude to me as you were in the first one. That is what a troll is, by definition - someone in a forum who looks for the next place to pounce and antagonize. And I was the one who ASKED the moderators to step in on that thread. I have no problem admitting that I use the reporting features. It's what they're there for. The majority of the comments that were removed were from you and boiler, so let's not act like it was all me in that fray. I had no problem with someone disproving something I said. What I did have a problem with was your arrogant attitude, and the lack of proof, simply rude and snide remarks. I was quoting directly from the I-134 instruction sheet, and asking you to back up what you were saying, which you couldn't do. In the end, Jim offered a courteous reply with some good information, and I ceded my point.

The point here is that many of the older members have taken it upon themselves to decide that they are judge, jury and lord of this forum and dole out whatever punishment or smackdown they deem necessary and deserving to the newer members here for daring to ask a question. That's completely against the purpose of VJ, and as I stated before, it's making many of the newer members feel unwelcome or unwanted here, and at best, just afraid to post. If you want a place to go hang out and be snarky to people who aren't members of your clique, and to train others on how to bash and flame people, by all means START YOUR OWN FORUM, then you can be legacy members in your own right, and mould it into the haven of bitchiness you desire. But don't try to turn VJ into that. There is still a lot of useful information here and a lot of people who still need help and want to give back.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

As the moderator who responded to Dodi's request to remove her thread, I agree with what she posted above about the tone of that thread. I have mentioned many times in my warnings that it is not necessarily 'what' you are saying - but 'how' you are saying it that is the problem.

From almost the very beginning the OP was 'ganged up' on by a number of established VJ members, who instead of being sensitive to her situation and remembering what it was like going through their own visa journeys, chose to 'play with her' like cats tossing around a mouse, and when challenged about their aggressive attitude said that the OP needed some 'tough love' and they were giving it to her. Well, they were definitely 'giving it to her' and there was nothing loving about it. When the topic came up in this thread, those same posters now say:

Serioulsy, you just need to lighten up on all this! We (in the now-invisible thread) were really trying to make light of the situation. It is so refreshing to encounter a new member who isn't freaking out about every little detail. Again, it was all very much tongue in cheek. You really need to stop taking all this stuff so seriously. If you could just lighten up, you'd enjoy yourself so much more. Let it go...let it go...this is smaller than you know.... , members responded - oh, we were just being light-hearted - people are too serious here - she shouldn't take any of this so seriously!

Well, it wasn't 'lighthearted fun for the OP and it did not come across as light-hearted fun to me.

Seriously, VJ members are not playthings. They are real people with real feelings in real situations that are causing them stress and concern. Do they over-react sometimes? Absolutely. Do they panic sometimes? Certainly. Does that give anyone here the right to 'dump' on them for expressing honest concerns during an emotionally fraught situation? Absolutely not. Does it give anyone the right to dismiss their concerns or 'make light of' their fears because you don't like the way they post their question - or the question? Again, absolutely not. Just because you are no longer where they are does not give anyone the right to dismiss their concerns and to disrespect them as people.

There have been a number of threads like the above recently that have been removed and posters have complained - not just because they think that they are justified for their aggressive attitudes but because they are having fun at the expense of the original op - it is a 'game' for them. Yes, they may be providing information, but they are getting much more satisfaction from the 'dumping' on the individual involved - the 'gang' mentality - than they are from sharing their experience. They aren't interested in helping the OP - they want to be able to continue to ridicule, attack, disparage and jump on the OP, trying to gain 'personal' brownie points with other members at the OP's expense.

Threads like that need to be removed, especially when the person being ganged up on requests it. This is the type of attitude that is prevalent in Off Topic and we are trying to keep it out of the Immigration forums as it has the effect of chasing away and silencing the very people who most in need of advice.

Edited August 14, 2010 by Kathryn41

[Ban Hammer 13,465]

Ok, I've kept quiet until now, but since this thread was brought around based on a thread I started, and I'm the one being bad-mouthed here yet again, I feel the need to respond.

Sorry, Jill, I didn't know you didn't realize I had asked for the thread to be removed.

First off: I asked for the thread to be removed because it had gotten to such a state that it was no longer serving the intended purpose, which was to find out from someone who had recently been through this stage, how long it was taking to get an interview date, or even just forms logged in at the London Embassy.

Second: The term "tough love" doesn't exactly describe what was being doled out there. I believe the term being used by the self-labeled "legacy members" was a Smackdown. You guys took it upon yourselves to decide that I deserved a Smackdown as my "rite of passage" into VJ, and then proceeded to do so, en masse.

What you guys are calling "tough love" from people who have been through the process and are safely on the other side, looking back knowing how easy it went for you, is actually to most of us no better than cyberbullying. You use you knowledge of what you went through, and instead of just answering a question, you tell us we're obesessing over things or ridiculous, or that we need a smackdown, or whatever else. You claim we're going to start mass panic all over the forum by stating that we're calling the DOS too much (in YOUR opinion).

I've gotten PM's several times today from newer members who are afraid to post in the forum anymore because of what they've seen from you guys. They don't want to be attacked for asking questions. Is that what you want to turn this place into? If Noobs are beneath you, then don't bother reading or replying to their posts. Nobody is forcing you. However, if you do want to pass on your "expertise" from the viewpoint of someone who has been there, think about what you felt like when you were in our shoes. We're not asking to be molly-coddled or wrapped in cotton wool. (Got enough of my own there, thanks.) We are simply looking for information. That's kinda the point of this forum in the first place.

Yes, I agree with Darnell. (gasp!) There are too many people getting out of hand. There are too many people who feel entitled to run roughshod over the newer members, and that is counterproductive to VJ's purpose.

This response is probably going to go unheeded, because you all feel that you are above me, having been here so long, and that it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. That's fine. I'm not here just to defend myself. I'm here because as a newer member (I've only been here a couple of months) I want to know that all newer members feel free to post without threat of ridicule. I'm not asking for a pat on the back or hugs and flowers. I just want the bullying (cos that's what it is) to stop.

Thanks.

+1 !!!!!

[Mags 112]

Do they over-react sometimes? Absolutely.

Agreed. Sometimes, newer members automatically assume the worst of a reply to a topic they've posted. Rather than rereading it and seeing that perhaps it wasn't intended the way they are interpreting it, they explode, attacking all who answer in a non rose petaled manner.

People like Dido come along ALL the time. They b!tch and whine about VJ, set out to make it a better place etc. Ultimately they fail and then, after a year or two, either disappear entirely or become regular posters in OT.

You can't change the nature of what VJ is. You just can't. But by all means try - it's fun to watch. It's like an online version of Groundhog Day, but with different actors.

[Rob and Jill 82]

From almost the very beginning the OP was 'ganged up' on by a number of established VJ members, who instead of being sensitive to her situation and remembering what it was like going through their own visa journeys, chose to 'play with her' like cats tossing around a mouse, and when challenged about their aggressive attitude said that the OP needed some 'tough love' and they were giving it to her. Well, they were definitely 'giving it to her' and there was nothing loving about it.

Kathryn, the whole of your post is worth the quote. Absolutely what I am talking about and thank you for backing us up on this. Charles, the same to you!

There have been a number of threads like the above recently that have been removed and posters have complained - not just because they think that they are justified for their aggressive attitudes but because they are having fun at the expense of the original op - it is a 'game' for them. Yes, they may be providing information, but they are getting much more satisfaction from the 'dumping' on the individual involved - the 'gang' mentality - than they are from sharing their experience. They aren't interested in helping the OP - they want to be able to continue to ridicule, attack, disparage and jump on the OP, trying to gain 'personal' brownie points with other members at the OP's expense.

So, from a moderator standpoint, instead of deleting what IS the good information (for the sake of argument let's say the OP had not requested the closing), why delete the whole thread instead of dolling out warnings, deleting the non-pertinent information, and leaving it open for those who could still use it? For instance, Dodi and I are nearly at the exact same stage. MelissaandJulian are in almost the exact same stage. There are SEVERAL people in those stages who were commenting and comparing to try and work through this together. It's all gone. Perhaps had the offending posts been removed earlier, it would not have degenerated to the point it needed to be removed.

Edited August 14, 2010 by Rob and Jill

[Darnell 8,479]

those two posts you quoted, describe the 'krewe mentality', to a T !

IMO, this 'krewe mentality' needs to stop. Wrong portal for 'its usage'.

[Rob and Jill 82]

Kathryn, the whole of your post is worth the quote. Absolutely what I am talking about and thank you for backing us up on this. Charles, the same to you!

And Tbone! Sorry I missed you initially!

Posted Today, 11:44 AM

Kathryn41, on 14 August 2010 - 09:44 AM, said:

Do they over-react sometimes? Absolutely.

Agreed. Sometimes, newer members automatically assume the worst of a reply to a topic they've posted. Rather than rereading it and seeing that perhaps it wasn't intended the way they are interpreting it, they explode, attacking all who answer in a non rose petaled manner.

People like Dido come along ALL the time. They b!tch and whine about VJ, set out to make it a better place etc. Ultimately they fail and then, after a year or two, either disappear entirely or become regular posters in OT.

You can't change the nature of what VJ is. You just can't. But by all means try - it's fun to watch. It's like an online version of Groundhog Day, but with different actors.

Skim, grab what's needed to attack, and proceed.

Case and point?

DIDO

Edited August 14, 2010 by Rob and Jill

[Darnell 8,479]

Darnell, with all due respect (foolishly, maybe), you have NO idea what went down in that thread that Jill at least began this thread talking about (though discussion seems to have drifted a bit to VJ at large). It's very simple: some people doled out tough love, with no mocking and no TOS violations. None. The OP didn't like that she wasn't being wrapped in cotton wool and fed back exactly what she wanted to hear so she took her ball and went home. How that fits in to your fantasies of "krewes" (really?) I have no idea. You bandy about that nasty little word (such as it is) every time someone doesn't act exactly as you would have them. When people violate TOS, fine, report them. But when people merely say things which you personally find are merely indecorous and somehow not befitting of VJ, you really need to cool it. Being cruel in the upper fora is another matter altogether compared to OT, and we all know that.

Hey, wanna report this as a violation? Go ahead, report me and my "krewe" -- I'd love to know the nail on which you intend to hang "us."

I'm sorry to say, you and I have a totally different perspective.

[Darnell 8,479]

You can't change the nature of what VJ is. You just can't.

I disagree, in Toto.

Sure, there are established patterns - you know them just as well as I do -

I say one CAN change the nature of VJ.

OK - granted, not just 'one' - but IMO, SEVERAL, or a GROUP, can.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Kathryn, the whole of your post is worth the quote. Absolutely what I am talking about and thank you for backing us up on this. Charles, the same to you!

So, from a moderator standpoint, instead of deleting what IS the good information (for the sake of argument let's say the OP had not requested the closing), why delete the whole thread instead of dolling out warnings, deleting the non-pertinent information, and leaving it open for those who could still use it? For instance, Dodi and I are nearly at the exact same stage. MelissaandJulian are in almost the exact same stage. There are SEVERAL people in those stages who were commenting and comparing to try and work through this together. It's all gone. Perhaps had the offending posts been removed earlier, it would not have degenerated to the point it needed to be removed.

Thanks. That is a valid question and generally it is what I do try to do. I try to keep a thread going as long as it is useful, removing the offending posts and returning the useful information through 'cut and paste' back to the thread. It takes some time but for a good and useful thread, it is worth making that effort. Sometimes, however - and in this particular thread - it is not necessarily 'what' has been said that is only the problem but 'how' it has been said. For the majority of the posts it was virtually impossible to remove the 'tone' of the posts in order to retain the useful information. It would have required several hours work of cutting and pasting and editing to return any of the useful material to that thread in such a way that the tone was not apparent. When a thread is like that, there are other avenues of useful information available that do not require such intensive surgery that it really becomes an unnecessary exercise.

Sometimes, if we are able to intercede early enough, yes, a thread can be salvaged through warnings and removal of offending posts. Unfortunately, we don't always get notified of the thread when a problem is just starting. Often - and in this case - the problem is already full blown by the time it is reported to us. In this case, it was the request from the OP to remove the thread that brought it to our attention. It is one of the liabilities of VJ moderation that we are not paid, full time moderators who spend our working hours patrolling the forum for offending posts and TOS violations, but are part time volunteers who respond to reported violations and the occasional problems that we stumble across during out own use of VJ as members. We would be better able to intervene in a more timely way and perhaps enable a thread to recover if we were able to patrol and find problems earlier but that just isn't feasible under the current set-up.

While it is possible that if we had been able to intervene earlier the thread would not have degenerated as it did, I am not really sure that it would have made a difference in this case. The posters responded to the poster and not to the question, and the first 'attack' came almost immediately. The question was not, in fact, answered for quite a few posts as the posters were more concerned about telling the OP what they thought of her for asking the question than of providing her with the requested information.

If people wish to have their useful information remain in a thread it is an easy enough matter - they just need to take the time to word their post in such a way that it is helpful, rather than a hurtful - regardless what they think of the poster.