TOS Violations and Moderator Responses

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I'm not falling for your shaming tactic. You are required to acknowledge that you read it and will comply.

If your attempt at shaming me worked here, then I would be testifying to not reading/complying. I am also pretty open minded and like this site. It is one thing to cite a rule, but another thing entirely to be writing diatribes that a poster is forced to agree with.

I would not have mentioned it even, thinking it was just personal animosity until I saw other lapses of judgement that make me wonder if there is something else going on.

Errrr, I don't think that was a shaming tactic. I'd say that sounds like mockery of the length of some of these disciplinary notes and how their length probably makes them read like the written version of the Peanuts parents vocal stylings, but I think that might be dismissed as a shaming tactic.

[Boiler 44,971]

What did you gain from reading it. How has it changed your life?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This week, for the first time in 11 years on this site, I am of the firm opinion that a lot of mod decisions here are the result of vain and self important people bent on a power trip.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This is interesting. If you look at the piece of content with the highest reputation rating, its actually a direct personal attack on another member - a post from february 2014 involving circumvention of the word filter. 70+ people liked it.

On the general forums you're lucky if 5-6 people like a post, but these seems to represent maybe 70-80% of mod activity?

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/478984-marriage-mess-and-cr-1/#entry6802419

Edited March 13, 2015 by For Ffolkes Sake

[rlogan 2,036]

This is interesting. If you look at the piece of content with the highest reputation rating, its actually a direct personal attack on another member - a post from february 2014 involving circumvention of the word filter. 70+ people liked it.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/478984-marriage-mess-and-cr-1/#entry6802419

A moderator has to fight two things here - the popularity of the personal attack, and then the urge to punish the person for responding to it. That is exactly the source of my question about how moderators are instructed to issue warnings, because it claims to be a warning about responding to personal attacks.

So why isn't the moderator editing the personal attacks? Because he likes them, obviously. If they offended him, he would be all over them. There are certain personal attacks you can guarantee 100% are going to be clobbered by the mods:

Can you imagine a black person being called by racial epithets, those epithets being allowed to stand, and the black person getting a long screed about how he responds inappropriately to personal attacks? Of course not. Because that is a politically protected class, just like gays. If you are not a member of a protected class like that, or a member of a class it is politically correct to hate - then the personal attack gets to stand.

But the function of the mods is to protect people from the mob, not to protect the mob just because it is popular. That post you quoted above speaks volumes: the highest rated post on the entire forum is a TOS violation that has stood for more than a year. Another personal attack I see ad nauseum on the Effects of Major Changes page is made against victims of green card scammers. The law says they are here illegally and have no right to stay. But when the victim asks how they can have the con artist sent back to their country of origin you can count on a personal attack that is going to get huge support. The attack is going to say how dare the victim think of a human being as a mere commodity you can just send back to the factory. The irony of that personal attack is that the con man is the one who thinks people are just things, using them as a means to a green card, whereas the victim is the one who is being accused of it.

So here you have a victim who has come for support and instead they get accused of the very thing they are a victim of! These personal attacks are always allowed to stand. Age difference is another one. It should be automatic editing. Bigotry against age differences is no different from bigotry against inter-racial marriages. But one is a politically protected class and the other is not.

Moderators are human beings and subject to these popularity and politically correct forces. It takes more guts to edit the personal attack like the post you just quoted than it does to join the mob and sanction the person for responding to it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think it's simpler than that - it's about personalities. Different people are held to different standards based on the personal biases of individual moderators.

There's no consistency in how the TOS is applied - it's driven entirely by reports by people in the off topic forums, most of whom are trolls playing a game. When you point that out and show the inconsistencies in moderation decisions and how you are more likely to get away with being racist (which is covered by the TOS) than with trying to get around the word filter (which isn't) you don't get a human response - you get an imperious self important decree.

Edited March 13, 2015 by For Ffolkes Sake

[rlogan 2,036]

The evasion of the word censor above was to conceal a personal attack, which is a TOS violation. So don't pretend the crime is merely evasion of the word filter.

I was just explaining how personality matters, so agreeing with me does not make it a "simpler" explanation. I said the moderator liked the personal attacks. So he doesn't moderate them.

But this is not an either/or situation. The fact you have politically protected classes makes it easy for the bully to come out of the moderator. That also depends on their personality, but as I said in another thread, the fact blacks were not protected in the past meant participation in lynchings spanned nearly every personality.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well I don't know what situation you were referring to but the situation I'm talking about involved calling Jim Morrison (the late Jim Morrison) a three letter word with an @ symbol instead of an 'a'.

There was no personal attack involved, unless we're worried about the feelings of Mr Morrison, and somehow I doubt he would have much to say about it.

The moderation arose because several posters were poking fun at VJ moderation - in a collective sense (not singling out any individual) because a moderator removed a post because they felt it was 'interpretable as a personal attack'. The conversation went along the lines that a personal attack on a celebrity or even a fictional character would be enough for someone to wheel out the nuclear option. Which is exactly what happened.

The irony is breathtaking.

Of course no doubt there is a caveat somewhere in the bowels of the VJ law library of rules in the mod forums that even relating this story is itself a TOS violation. Personally I think it's hilarious.

We've arrived at a situation where the site moderation is actually using the TOS and arbitrary unwritten rules to browbeat people that it sees as being troublemakers - either to get them of the site or force them to capitulate. Hence one poster gets penalised for evading the word filter, yet others who do the same do not.

Edited March 14, 2015 by For Ffolkes Sake

[BaronB 42]

I wish the TOS would come in extended form. I feel that certain mods are able to bend the TOS to suit their personal agendas.

Edited April 13, 2015 by BaronB

[Captain Ewok 1,871]

If the TOS is unclear I'm open to revising the language to make it more precise. It is applicable to everyone. Mods included as they are members too.

Suggestions?

[Boiler 44,971]

Begs the question how many non moderators have read the TOC in its entirety.

[Captain Ewok 1,871]

Any suggestions to clear the language up or make it more concise? We want to get it right and balanced.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Any suggestions to clear the language up or make it more concise? We want to get it right and balanced.

Post any mature or adult content including full nudity pornographic images, videos, Strategically covered nudity, Sheer or see-through clothing, Lewd or provocative poses, pornographic cartoons or anime (hentai/ecchi).

Lets start with this one. This doesn't seem to cover a woman in a bikini, yet for months moderators have been deleting such photos. I'm not sure what makes a "lewd or "provocative pose", but I've seen images where ppl are just standing being deleted. Even the cat costume image I posted a few days ago didn't have a lewd or provocative pose.

The intent of the text is stop pornography or near pornography on this board. Yet moderators are abusing this line of the TOS by deleting non pornographic images that do not meet the text above to the point where it seems VJ only tolerates woman in burqas. Surely thats not the message that VJ wants to deliver.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Sousuke

[BaronB 42]

You will not:

Post Content intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a broad demographic or group of people identified by a unifying trait or characteristic (discrimination). For instance, racist or sexist content may be considered hate speech.

This part needs clarity especially when it comes to certain posters who comment on gay rights articles. Some of their opinions are extremely homophobic yet they are allowed to voice their opinions unchecked. Times are changing and people are being given rights for the first time in US history. It would be sad if the mindset of certain moderators didn't evolve with the times. When I have questioned this behaviour my comments are deleted and I was even banned for doing so. If this site wants to cater to heterosexuals only, then do so. But state that upfront to new members so they won't be offended when they are met with homophobia.

[Penguin_ie 5,992]

Lets start with this one. This doesn't seem to cover a woman in a bikini, yet for months moderators have been deleting such photos. I'm not sure what makes a "lewd or "provocative pose", but I've seen images where ppl are just standing being deleted. Even the cat costume image I posted a few days ago didn't have a lewd or provocative pose.

The cat photo was definitely a provocative pose.

As to the bikini, we have been told to remove those, very specifically- it falls under partial/ strategically covered nudity and while yes, completely acceptable in much of the USA, we have members from all over the world, and in many countries, this would not be acceptable.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Penguin_ie