Thanks to the Moderation Team

[rlogan 2,036]

You're entitled to your opinions. I have my own. I've seen moderation on this site prove capricious, arbitrary and ineffective at keeping the tone civil and the discussions useful. I've seen threads locked and discussions shut down and members booted, for no apparently good reason. No thanks from me.

There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism over moderation.

You have asserted extreme arbitrary and capricious moderation with members "booted" for no good apparent reason.

Cite the evidence.

When you make such an exceptional claim without evidence, and especially if you cite none when asked - then it tells us something about you, not the moderation.

It is one thing for reasonable people to disagree on a close call.

But your claim is extreme. I have an open mind. So I am willing to have you show me the members that have been booted off the forum, threads locked and discussions shut down for no apparent good reason.

You imply there is numerous cases of this so it should be trivial for you to find them.

[rlogan 2,036]

If you ventured outside of a regional forum, you'd see how arbitrary the TOS enforcement is in Off Topic and the new Politics and Religion Forum.

I've been to the off-topic and have found it abundant with insults. I have not been to Politics and Religion but generally speaking these are topics that bring out the worst in us as posters.

It seems your complaint is arbitrary enforcement. Enforcement is a function of two variables. Posts come to the attention of moderators in one of two ways: the first is by someone reporting. The second is when a moderator happens to be reading a thread and sees an offensive post themselves. Let's call these "Reported Posts" vs. "Moderator Initiated".

In such an environment there will of course be uneven moderatioon because many posts are not reported and the moderators do not read every post in every thread.

The way to test for arbitrary enforcement is to compare moderation under the same circumstances:

1) Reported posts compared to reported posts.

2) Moderator initiated compared to moderator initiated

Posts that are not reported and are not read by moderators cannot be used in such a test.

Obviously we don't have access to what posts are reported and what posts are not. But if you have cases where you reported two posts and only one got a TOS enforcement or if you have examples where it is clear a moderator is following a thread closely and one poster is picked on arbitrarily and another is not, I'd sure have an open mind about looking at it.

A case here or there is imperfect moderation, which is understandable. A pattern of abusive moderation practices can be demonstrated, but it takes some work to put a case together.

I can't in good faith demand that out of you because your claim allows for the natural differences I have pointed out above. But in the interest of improving forum moderation practices, I would not at all be opposed to looking at something specific you noticed.

Cheers.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I've been to the off-topic and have found it abundant with insults. I have not been to Politics and Religion but generally speaking these are topics that bring out the worst in us as posters.

It seems your complaint is arbitrary enforcement. Enforcement is a function of two variables. Posts come to the attention of moderators in one of two ways: the first is by someone reporting. The second is when a moderator happens to be reading a thread and sees an offensive post themselves. Let's call these "Reported Posts" vs. "Moderator Initiated".

In such an environment there will of course be uneven moderatioon because many posts are not reported and the moderators do not read every post in every thread.

The way to test for arbitrary enforcement is to compare moderation under the same circumstances:

1) Reported posts compared to reported posts.

2) Moderator initiated compared to moderator initiated

Posts that are not reported and are not read by moderators cannot be used in such a test.

Obviously we don't have access to what posts are reported and what posts are not. But if you have cases where you reported two posts and only one got a TOS enforcement or if you have examples where it is clear a moderator is following a thread closely and one poster is picked on arbitrarily and another is not, I'd sure have an open mind about looking at it.

A case here or there is imperfect moderation, which is understandable. A pattern of abusive moderation practices can be demonstrated, but it takes some work to put a case together.

I can't in good faith demand that out of you because your claim allows for the natural differences I have pointed out above. But in the interest of improving forum moderation practices, I would not at all be opposed to looking at something specific you noticed.

Cheers.

I understand how the report initiated versus moderator initiated actions work. I am solely responding to the report initiated ones. A vast majority of the times, the moderators will do absolutely nothing. It seems that if you don't use one of the keyword racial slurs, it's not racism in their mind. I have seen Kathryn crack down on context, theme and tone as it pertains to racism, but that is not consistent. At. All. Then there was my last suspension. A poster posted some fairly racist remarks about mexicans. I made the remark that it as racist and that he was ignorant for posting something that had been checked and absolutely refuted. I get suspended for calling him ignorant, yet the racist poster didn't even get a warning. Yeah, arbitrary. I think the moderators have good intentions, and their job is a thankless one, but they are not doing a good job. They have no consistency to their enforcement of the TOS. It seems to be subject to their mood or whims of the day.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Since we do not publish any moderator decisions or actions, I will just say that Rob has no knowledge about actions that affected anyone other than himself. His portrayal of the circumstances surrounding his last suspension are 'interesting' to say the least. They are not, however, factual. I issued both public and private warnings for the thread in question, clearly advising those involved what would happen if they continued. Rob has already told you his 'result'.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Since we do not publish any moderator decisions or actions, I will just say that Rob has no knowledge about actions that affected anyone other than himself. His portrayal of the circumstances surrounding his last suspension are 'interesting' to say the least. They are not, however, factual. I issued both public and private warnings for the thread in question, clearly advising those involved what would happen if they continued. Rob has already told you his 'result'.

Bullsh!t Kathryn. No, you didn't announce what was said, but when the racist poster is still posting to his heart's content 3 hours later, It's fairly obvious that no administrative action was taken. This isn't the first, or even the first dozen times that he's posted racist #######. Yet you merely give out warnings. Yeah, that seems appropriate. I don't doubt that I deserved the suspension as calling someone ignorant is a personal attack, even if it is factually correct. But you regularly let racist ####### go, merely because they didn't use one of the golden racial slurs. You don't need to use a racial epithet for the post to be racist......

[scandal 951]

There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism over moderation.

You have asserted extreme arbitrary and capricious moderation with members "booted" for no good apparent reason.

Cite the evidence.

When you make such an exceptional claim without evidence, and especially if you cite none when asked - then it tells us something about you, not the moderation.

It is one thing for reasonable people to disagree on a close call.

But your claim is extreme. I have an open mind. So I am willing to have you show me the members that have been booted off the forum, threads locked and discussions shut down for no apparent good reason.

You imply there is numerous cases of this so it should be trivial for you to find them.

1. I don't owe you any evidence. You stated your opinions regarding moderation, I stated mine. You find mine "extreme" - that's an odd choice of word, what exactly is extreme about my not appreciating the mods and not wishing to thank them? Had I attacked them and called them names, perhaps you'd have a point.

2. I long ago gave up being an active member on VJ, mainly because I couldn't stomach the arbitrary moderation. It wasn't the OT posting styles of the more outlandish members here, I can handle them perfectly well. It was the mods. I'm back now just for a visit, don't expect me to stick around to "debate" on this topic or any other.

3. In any event, there is indeed plenty of evidence of what I claim. My most favorite case, the one ripest with the ironies and absurdities of this site, is the "Censorship" thread I started last year.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/211910-censorship/

It's a thread in which in my very first opening post I attempted to highlight exactly this very issue. And, it's a thread that was locked by moderators, despite its fostering an earnest (if heated) debate about the very subject of thread locking by mods. I've seen countless other threads go on with far more flagrant abuse, and yet this one is selected for termination. Why? Because the mods said so. Whatever. This site is a community, and demands an emotional investment by members to remain a part of it. My emotional investment waned as good friends left because they could no longer tolerate the atmosphere, and was killed off completely by the mods. You like them, and the job they do? Good for you. Good for them. Not all of us agree. And we've got our reasons.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Bullsh!t Kathryn. No, you didn't announce what was said, but when the racist poster is still posting to his heart's content 3 hours later, It's fairly obvious that no administrative action was taken. This isn't the first, or even the first dozen times that he's posted racist #######. Yet you merely give out warnings. Yeah, that seems appropriate. I don't doubt that I deserved the suspension as calling someone ignorant is a personal attack, even if it is factually correct. But you regularly let racist ####### go, merely because they didn't use one of the golden racial slurs. You don't need to use a racial epithet for the post to be racist......

Suspensions are not the only type of administrative action taken, Rob. As I said, you do not know what goes on behind the scenes regardless of what you think happens. If you will recall, the comment to which you so strenuously objected then was removed when you reported it, yet you acted as if it was still visible. It was not. The individual who posted it responded to the warnings with compliance. You chose to ignore the warnings and continued your personal attacks, which led to your suspension. If you had let it go instead of escalating the situation, you would not have been suspended.

I am also going to suggest that you 'tone it down' in your responses here, as well. I have no problem with constructive criticism and don't expect everyone to agree with my decisions, but I do ask that you post and respond in a civil manner.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Suspensions are not the only type of administrative action taken, Rob. As I said, you do not know what goes on behind the scenes regardless of what you think happens. If you will recall, the comment to which you so strenuously objected then was removed when you reported it, yet you acted as if it was still visible. It was not. The individual who posted it responded to the warnings with compliance. You chose to ignore the warnings and continued your personal attacks, which led to your suspension. If you had let it go instead of escalating the situation, you would not have been suspended.

I am also going to suggest that you 'tone it down' in your responses here, as well. I have no problem with constructive criticism and don't expect everyone to agree with my decisions, but I do ask that you post and respond in a civil manner.

No Kathryn, I wasn't reacting as if it were still visible. My problem was that it was allowed to stay up as long as it did, and secondly that it didn't merit a suspension itself. This user has a fairly long and hefty history of posting racist material, yet he gets warnings. I'm sorry, but I find racism to be more repugnant than calling someone ignorant. Maybe that's just me. Plain and simple, you allow racist material, that is unless there is a blue light special epithet used.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

No Kathryn, I wasn't reacting as if it were still visible. My problem was that it was allowed to stay up as long as it did, and secondly that it didn't merit a suspension itself. This user has a fairly long and hefty history of posting racist material, yet he gets warnings. I'm sorry, but I find racism to be more repugnant than calling someone ignorant. Maybe that's just me. Plain and simple, you allow racist material, that is unless there is a blue light special epithet used.

Rob, the comment remained up only as long as it took me to Google the word and find out that it was insulting. The reference was somewhat obscure, and it was a word I suspect few people would have seen as insulting. In fact, it took looking at several Googled links to determine why it upset you so. The post was then removed right away. It would have only been a matter of a few minutes in total.

If you are complaining that a moderator was not available to address the report before it was actually attended to, well I am sorry, but we do not live on line 24 hours a day and there are times when a moderator is not available. While I realize you disagree, in my opinion the comment did not deserve a suspension without issuing a warning first. If the warning had not been observed, then a suspension would follow. The warning was observed. You were given exactly the same consideration.

I realize that the comment has more specific relevance to you and you are sensitive to certain topics, but racism is a difficult concept to moderate - the line of what is and isn't racist varies considerably between individuals - and no, I don't just go after the actual 'words' or 'labels', I do take a look at the context and intent as well. This seems to be something on which we are going to have to disagree. When I see something that is meant to be racist, I respond. It may not be to your liking, but then none of our decisions are ever to everyone's satisfaction. For some people we do too much and for others, on the same issue, we do too little. It is a lose/lose proposition for us, but still, we continue to do the best we can.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Kathryn41

[^_^ 5,021]

... the line of what is and isn't racist varies considerably between individuals ...

What is or isn't racist is quite clear. Yes, the opinions vary between individuals but that's because lots of individuals are racist and tend to be "ok" with their own racism and not see it as racism.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Legacy member

[Kathryn41 3,205]

What is or isn't racist is quite clear. Yes, the opinions vary between individuals but that's because lots of individuals are racist and tend to be "ok" with their own racism and not see it as racism.

Sometimes what is racist is very clear and easy to see. Sometimes it is a lot more subtle and hidden in the way things are phrased and coached. That is also what I mean. The labels are the easiest things to identify as racist. Trying to determine if the comment itself contains an additional layer of racism is not always as clear cut as it requires an awareness of viewpoints, or situations or phrases that may have more than one meaning or lie more in 'subtext' than actual spoken words. That is when it is difficult to determine whether the comments were meant to be racist or are been taken as racist when racism was not apparent. Sometimes it even depends on what one's own background experiences are: when one has been raised or involved in an environment with a strong focus on racial issues, one can maybe see the racism more clearly than if it has never been part of ones background or experience. It sometimes requires stepping outside of one's own experiences to try and step into someone else's and see the situation from where they stand.

Here's an example for you: in Canada, calling someone an Indian is considered a racist term. Here in the US, it is not. In Canada, the acceptable 'label' is First Nations - a name chosen by the various First Nations themselves. Is the intent of a post using the word Indian meant to denigrate - as it would be seen in Canada - or is it meant to identify as it is used in the US? Responding from my own background I see the use of the word 'Indian' to describe the inhabitants of North America who were here before the Europeans arrived as racist but Americans, including American Indians, do not view it that way, so here I am, having to step outside of my zone of familiarity to try and determine the 'subtext' involved. Many of the posts reported as 'racist' require the same sort of examination.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Kathryn41

[Darnell 8,479]

Why would anyone hijaak this thread to go over prior grievances?

[Flames9_RN 359]

Why would anyone hijaak this thread to go over prior grievances?

lol--doesn't pretty much every topic get hijacked, and not in a good way!! Here is a thread that was saying thanks to the mod team, but yet it goes downhill!!

[rlogan 2,036]

1. I don't owe you any evidence.

So far, you've come out not with civil disagreement but with hostility and arrogance. A person can disagree without taking on that attitude.

I cited facts. It is a fact moderators work without pay. We also need go no further than this thread do demonstrate the hostility moderators take with the cursing and all. Common courtesy seems too much to expect I guess.

2. I long ago gave up being an active member on VJ, mainly because I couldn't stomach the arbitrary moderation. It wasn't the OT posting styles of the more outlandish members here, I can handle them perfectly well. It was the mods. I'm back now just for a visit, don't expect me to stick around to "debate" on this topic or any other.

I see. So to sum up, hit-and-run hostility, eh? Just popped in for a quick insult or two? Run away when someone asks for evidence backing your claims?

This is exactly why I appreciate the moderators. I suspect there are plenty of sites where you can go to engage in mutually insulting behavior.

But this is a visa forum. I have a wife who immigrated. My priorities are in line with those of the forum.

In such a case, where the site is privately owned and the purpose is for visa discussion, then sure you can have your opinion it should be run for contrary purposes.

But getting so hostile about it demonstrates a "me first" attitude that doesn't make any logical sense - no more than if I were to complain that I wanted to see XXX pornography here.

There are plenty of sites where you can see pornography or act like two-year-olds. Demanding so for this one and getting so rude about it suggests you don't belong here.

Please, by all means - if you are so unhappy here then carry out your threat to leave. Nobody is forcing you to be here.

3. In any event, there is indeed plenty of evidence of what I claim. My most favorite case, the one ripest with the ironies and absurdities of this site, is the "Censorship" thread I started last year.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/211910-censorship/

It's a thread in which in my very first opening post I attempted to highlight exactly this very issue. And, it's a thread that was locked by moderators, despite its fostering an earnest (if heated) debate about the very subject of thread locking by mods. I've seen countless other threads go on with far more flagrant abuse, and yet this one is selected for termination. Why? Because the mods said so. Whatever. This site is a community, and demands an emotional investment by members to remain a part of it. My emotional investment waned as good friends left because they could no longer tolerate the atmosphere, and was killed off completely by the mods. You like them, and the job they do? Good for you. Good for them. Not all of us agree. And we've got our reasons.

So far you's shown me a thread that deserved to be shut down. Geez, what remained was hostile enough. I can't imagine what it was like in the unvarnished version.

You have asserted, however, that you saw threads locked and people booted off for no apparent reason.

What I can conclude is that you make wild assertions, do not supply evidence backing them, and are outright hostile to requests that you supply it.

I can only rise again in thanks to the moderators who have to put up with this kind of behavior. These are decent people that have value to their time: their work, their families, their hobbies - they don't deserve the kind of scorn you are heaping on them.

Yet they have remained civil to you, right here in this thread. That demonstrates commendable character. It demonstrates a level of maturity lacking in your posts here.

Just the kind of traits you need in a moderator for this kind of forum.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Sometimes what is racist is very clear and easy to see. Sometimes it is a lot more subtle and hidden in the way things are phrased and coached. That is also what I mean. The labels are the easiest things to identify as racist. Trying to determine if the comment itself contains an additional layer of racism is not always as clear cut as it requires an awareness of viewpoints, or situations or phrases that may have more than one meaning or lie more in 'subtext' than actual spoken words. That is when it is difficult to determine whether the comments were meant to be racist or are been taken as racist when racism was not apparent. Sometimes it even depends on what one's own background experiences are: when one has been raised or involved in an environment with a strong focus on racial issues, one can maybe see the racism more clearly than if it has never been part of ones background or experience. It sometimes requires stepping outside of one's own experiences to try and step into someone else's and see the situation from where they stand.

Here's an example for you: in Canada, calling someone an Indian is considered a racist term. Here in the US, it is not. In Canada, the acceptable 'label' is First Nations - a name chosen by the various First Nations themselves. Is the intent of a post using the word Indian meant to denigrate - as it would be seen in Canada - or is it meant to identify as it is used in the US? Responding from my own background I see the use of the word 'Indian' to describe the inhabitants of North America who were here before the Europeans arrived as racist but Americans, including American Indians, do not view it that way, so here I am, having to step outside of my zone of familiarity to try and determine the 'subtext' involved. Many of the posts reported as 'racist' require the same sort of examination.

Kathryn, most of the most egregious racist comments do not require any national experience, they are universal, yet you ignore them and claim some sort of national context. It's not that hard, if you don't understand the context of it, then maybe you should not be levying a decision based upon limited comprehension. I understand you are doing the best you can, but if you are making decisions based upon limited understanding and information, you should maybe recuse yourself or consult those who do.