Why a non spanish speaker can't use 'gringo' to address a Mexican

[Peikko 1,575]

you don't. thats why i was suprised to see you were the OP of a new 'mod complaint' thread & you hadn't just posted the concern in another current thread.

What it boils down to is that I am fed up with seeing moderators suspend people, close threads and generally make a huge fuss about name calling. The only time name calling should be flagged for more than a warning is when someone uses it continually and without any context and it become abusive or it is overtly racist, sexist or bigoted. Calling someone a ####### or wanker simply doesn't warrant the attention it receives, particularly when other, much more pernicious behaviour carries on unchecked. I know it's hard to moderate VJ OT and I also know that my reluctance to report anything at all does not help and perhaps I will have to change my stance on that - I would prefer not to have to though.

[Peikko 1,575]

A quick note - I don't visit the regional forums very often, in fact, I can't remember the last time I did before today. However, I have just read a thread in the UK forum that could make it appear as though this thread is part of some conspiracy against the VJ moderators by a group of VJ members. I was not aware of that thread until now, so this thread is totally separate from and unrelated to anything that has been posted elsewhere by other members as regards moderation.

[Darnell 8,478]

What it boils down to is that I am fed up with seeing moderators suspend people, close threads and generally make a huge fuss about name calling.

I seem to remember that all humans are capable of choice, also possess free will, yes?

If a human makes a choice to violate the TOS, what's next, in your opinion?

[Pooky 3,784]

What it boils down to is that I am fed up with seeing moderators suspend people, close threads and generally make a huge fuss about name calling.

Yet this whole thread is you making a fuss about name calling.

The irony here is hilarious, as is the fact that the offending word has its basis in the Latin for Greek.

[Darnell 8,478]

hey - what's going on in the petard thread, anyway?

[Peikko 1,575]

Yet this whole thread is you making a fuss about name calling.

The irony here is hilarious, as is the fact that the offending word has its basis in the Latin for Greek.

No, the fuss was about inconsistent moderating, it still is. I'll repeat it if that is not yet clear. Moderating must be seen to be consistent, and it would be preferable if moderators would quit getting hung up on name calling (when it is part of the normal hurly burly of a thread) and more diligent when people employ hate speech. Clear now?

[Kathryn41 3,205]

I would just like to weigh in as a moderator for a moment.

While it may appear otherwise, we almost never suspend anyone 'just' for name-calling. In many cases, suspensions follow on a pattern of TOS violations and the post that results in the suspension may be the 'straw that broke the camel's back', so to speak. This is especially true for some of our 'regulars'. Most 'name-calling' threads are just removed, if that is seen as the best option, and a warning left in the thread.

We do have, however, what I refer to as 'habitual offenders' - those who seem to view the TOS as merely a recommendation and not a requirement for their participation on VJ. We have lowered the bar for them due to their repetitive offenses, even though some of them are borderline and other posters may be allowed a pass with just a warning. For them, yes, suspensions are more likely because they have been here long enough to know better, yet still make that conscious choice to misbehave.

The thread in question - which I have permanently closed - was 24 pages long. I read it over this morning and I will say that it took reviewing the whole thread in context to try and see who was being offensive and who was merely being argumentative. I believe that the gringo comment was meant to be mildly condescending but I also suspect that Booyah did not realize that it was inappropriately used at the time, and then was unwilling to admit to that later. I may be wrong, but that was my 'take' on it. Without having the context of all that preceded it, however, I can see how someone might not view it as being meant condescendingly. It would be great if we could always have the opportunity to read over the whole thread when making a decision but sometimes, especially in threads like this, it may take a lot of time that we just don't have. Often when a thread is closed for review it is because we need that time to read over everything and see the 'patterns' involved. It may not always be apparent that this is the best option under the circumstances, so yes, this may add to the appearance of inconsistency.

I did just want to clarify our approach, however, to suspensions issued on 'name-calling'.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Kathryn41

[Peikko 1,575]

So does that mean that if you have been warned about name calling and suspended on a prior occasion you simply can not do it, not even in cases of extreme provocation? There is no toleration for genuine irritation? Calling someone a wanker or a ####### is so dire, the moderation of the TOS so strict because such names are genuinely threatening to the integrity of VJ? What about hate speech? When will that get zero tolerance?

[Kathryn41 3,205]

It means that each of us are expected not to escalate a situation when someone else is being provocative. Yes, that may be difficult, and yes, people are not going to be successful all the time. People, however, should try - and there are many cases where people do not try, but respond inappropriately to even the slightest provocation. This is why baiting is considered inappropriate - because it is someone trying to get another member to violate TOS. If someone attacks you or baits you, you are requested to report it to the moderation team so we can deal with it rather than take it upon yourself. If you take it upon yourself, you often embroil yourself in the situation and end up violating TOS yourself so instead of one person suffering the consequences, both of you do.

From the explanation of TOS as stated in the pinned topic at the top of this forum: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/322-tos-violations-and-moderator-responses/ post #1

A person may receive a one or more day suspension if:

Again, a person personally attacks another member by using profane language, verbal threats, or other forms of derogatory comments directly at a specific member. This is referring to blatantly derogatory and antagonizing threats, not one made in jest. In this case judgment may be necessary including looking at if this is a trend or just a single event that will likely not occur again.

Or

If a person repeatedly disregards requests by a moderator to curb certain behavior that is destructive to the community.

[Susita 175]

No, the fuss was about inconsistent moderating, it still is. I'll repeat it if that is not yet clear. Moderating must be seen to be consistent, and it would be preferable if moderators would quit getting hung up on name calling (when it is part of the normal hurly burly of a thread) and more diligent when people employ hate speech. Clear now?

Cleo, but that's the problem... many see things different ways. In my family and my husband's, gringo is not a derrogatory term at all. I agree with you that it was distasteful in the context in which it was used, but I don't agree that it was hate speech. I actually don't think BY thought it to be insulting. Now, another mod may totally disagree with me, but do you see how hard it is with different points of view to moderate? We would have to censor everything just to be safe and that's just not feasable, nor is it fair.

I'm very open minded and understand what you're saying but we all try very hard and I know I've even gotten 2nd opinions on quite a few occasions in order to make the right call.

I just try to do the best job I can and hope I'm being fair and I know the other mods feel the same way.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I would just like to weigh in as a moderator for a moment.

While it may appear otherwise, we almost never suspend anyone 'just' for name-calling. In many cases, suspensions follow on a pattern of TOS violations and the post that results in the suspension may be the 'straw that broke the camel's back', so to speak. This is especially true for some of our 'regulars'. Most 'name-calling' threads are just removed, if that is seen as the best option, and a warning left in the thread.

We do have, however, what I refer to as 'habitual offenders' - those who seem to view the TOS as merely a recommendation and not a requirement for their participation on VJ. We have lowered the bar for them due to their repetitive offenses, even though some of them are borderline and other posters may be allowed a pass with just a warning. For them, yes, suspensions are more likely because they have been here long enough to know better, yet still make that conscious choice to misbehave.

The thread in question - which I have permanently closed - was 24 pages long. I read it over this morning and I will say that it took reviewing the whole thread in context to try and see who was being offensive and who was merely being argumentative. I believe that the gringo comment was meant to be mildly condescending but I also suspect that Booyah did not realize that it was inappropriately used at the time, and then was unwilling to admit to that later. I may be wrong, but that was my 'take' on it. Without having the context of all that preceded it, however, I can see how someone might not view it as being meant condescendingly. It would be great if we could always have the opportunity to read over the whole thread when making a decision but sometimes, especially in threads like this, it may take a lot of time that we just don't have. Often when a thread is closed for review it is because we need that time to read over everything and see the 'patterns' involved. It may not always be apparent that this is the best option under the circumstances, so yes, this may add to the appearance of inconsistency.

I did just want to clarify our approach, however, to suspensions issued on 'name-calling'.

How are we supposed to have any respect for the integrity of moderators when you frequently allow hate and racism to run amok in OT. Recently, I got a suspension for insulting someone for racism, fair enough, I broke the TOS and deserved my sentence. However, the person who posted the racist ####### received no punishment. So how is that consistent, or even taking context into account? It's not.

[Pooky 3,784]

No, the fuss was about inconsistent moderating, it still is. I'll repeat it if that is not yet clear. Moderating must be seen to be consistent, and it would be preferable if moderators would quit getting hung up on name calling (when it is part of the normal hurly burly of a thread) and more diligent when people employ hate speech. Clear now?

Oh, I know what you wanted it to be about ... but that's not the point, is it?

The essential contradiction here is that that you started a thread to demonstrate a point by doing something you later admit you hate others doing. I think that's funny and I'll bet I'm not the only one that sees it that way.

I also think it's funny that the focus of your ire probably only knew the current meaning of the word he was using, without a clue of its origins and how it could boomerang right back to him. That part was hilarious.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

How are we supposed to have any respect for the integrity of moderators when you frequently allow hate and racism to run amok in OT. Recently, I got a suspension for insulting someone for racism, fair enough, I broke the TOS and deserved my sentence. However, the person who posted the racist ####### received no punishment. So how is that consistent, or even taking context into account? It's not.

Rob,

It's not a perfect world. We are not perfect people nor are we perfect as moderators. We do the best we can. Sometimes that best may not be 'good enough'. We try not to allow hatred and racism to 'run amok' in OT and we respond to every report. There were two moderators working on the thread you are referring to that night. I know we both handed out suspensions, and I went through the thread and removed what I felt were blatant violations of TOS. I do remember that was a very long and very busy day, and I wasn't able to sign off until almost 2 am with all of the reports that we had received and needed attention. If you would like us to review that thread again, then please send a report with the link to the post that you feel was incorrectly handled or send me the link through PM and I will review it again. I can't promise anything will be different but I am willing to take a second look at it.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Rob,

It's not a perfect world. We are not perfect people nor are we perfect as moderators. We do the best we can. Sometimes that best may not be 'good enough'. We try not to allow hatred and racism to 'run amok' in OT and we respond to every report. There were two moderators working on the thread you are referring to that night. I know we both handed out suspensions, and I went through the thread and removed what I felt were blatant violations of TOS. I do remember that was a very long and very busy day, and I wasn't able to sign off until almost 2 am with all of the reports that we had received and needed attention. If you would like us to review that thread again, then please send a report with the link to the post that you feel was incorrectly handled or send me the link through PM and I will review it again. I can't promise anything will be different but I am willing to take a second look at it.

I generally dont' report personal attacks or various insults. Racism and misogyny I report frequently as I find it beyond reproach. I find that the moderators in general give an inordinate amount of time personal attacks and not nearly enough on racism. Maybe it's just me, but I find a racist post to be far more serious than a petty insult.

[mox 298]

Once again, a lot of these problems could be avoided if OT were held to the same TOS everyone else is, instead of a nebulous "loosely interpreted" adherence that is left up to every individual's interpretation.