Request for Consistent Moderation within the P&R Forum

[^_^ 5,021]

The fact that the Political Cartoons thread was started by someone who is a member of the moderation team is a red herring. It is irrelevant to the discussion. The thread has received no more special treatment than any others. The title is Political Cartoons. If it is not a political cartoon, then it doesn't belong in the thread. For what it is worth and in contrast to what Mr. Fancypants alleges, the non-cartoon post that was reported was not reported by the topic's creator but by someone else entirely.

The ideal solution to reducing the number of moderation-worthy events would be to get rid of the non-immigration related forums all together.. That is unlikely to happen. The second best solution to reduce the number of moderation-worthy events would be for those who chose to participate in P&R to post like responsible adults and observe the TOS by which they agreed to abide when they became members of Visa Journey in the first place. The third solution would be to remove en masse those who habitually violate the TOS - who interestingly enough, are the same ones who generally require 90% of the moderation teams efforts. For various reasons, that is also unlikely to happen.

The 90% moderation rate for non-immigration related forums has been that way from the time I first joined the moderation team. It is also a handful of individuals who also account for the 90% of moderator-intervention activity.

My preference would be for individuals to post like responsible adults and not treat Visa Journey as some sort of a public school playground where anything goes if you can get away with it and everyone tries to get away with it.

While we're on the subject of red herrings... the continued effort to imply that "going off topic" in threads has always been subject to the level of moderation activity seen in the political cartoon thread is the real red herring here. That has simply not been the case despite all efforts to pretend otherwise.

Edited January 31, 2012 by \

[SMOKE 1,426]

I see nothing wrong with having a reasonable discussion. If you feel our moderators have let you down, then that means I have too -- and I want to listen and see if there is anything we can do. While some rules and enforcement will never be accepted by everyone all the time; I think critique is a good tool if done in good faith. I can't promise this means I will over turn any past decisions (probably not), but what I can do is if there are good suggestions made, we can help shape future decisions as appropriate.

I am not online all the time during all hours so please excuse my delayed responses -- but you will get them !

ok i got a question. why is it that blatantly insulting religion & other beliefs in multiple threads daily is given a pass 99.9% of the time? i would think that would definitley be a violation of the TOS.

[^_^ 5,021]

ok i got a question. why is it that blatantly insulting religion & other beliefs in multiple threads daily is given a pass 99.9% of the time? i would think that would definitley be a violation of the TOS.

i imagine because it's sometimes difficult to draw the line between reasonable skepticism and outright insult. Sometimes the difference is obvious but more often it isn't.

[SMOKE 1,426]

i imagine because it's sometimes difficult to draw the line between reasonable skepticism and outright insult. Sometimes the difference is obvious but more often it isn't.

more often's azz. when a pattern has been well established, there is no doubt of the intent. repeatedly referring to one's deity as their imaginary friend....etc. is absolutley intended to offend people.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Perhaps we can get some of the members to weigh in. . There were no new rules created for the Political Cartoon thread, just the ones that have always existed - post on the topic stated in the title/post. This is the post that I removed from the Political Cartoons thread. Mr. Fancypants says it is a political cartoon. I say it is political commentary but is not a political cartoon. So, cartoon? Yes or no.

Kathryn - the part in bold is the larger argument I'm making here. If deleting such a post because, according to you, doesn't fall within your definition of a political cartoon, then this level of moderating should be afforded to any thread where sufficient reporting has been made, yet that isn't happening in P&R. The absurdity of the above example is that it's not like Charles started a thread on guns and I came into the thread and wanted to talk about lawnmowers.

So, I'd like for you to address the issue of deleting posts which do not address the topic or title. Gary coming into a thread about supermarket meat coming from sick cows and talking about PETA is an obvious deflection, derailment or trolling of a thread. He does this often and he does it because one, he gets away with it, and it is effective. All he needs is a handful of willing participants who will respond to his post rather than address the OP, and Charles, ironically, was a willing participant. These members know exactly what they are doing and it's been going on for years here. The only difference is that I've always figured that it was par for the course of participating in P&R where it has less moderating. So for all the usual haters who try to pin this as me just whining here, should know that I've been used to this for a long time. It wasn't until I saw how Charles' thread was moderated that I thought then I and any other member will get the same kind of treatment by the Mods.

I'd like to hear your thought process for that. Can all threads in P&R have that level of moderating provided that the OP reports posts that don't follow the topic or are you making a special case for only certain threads?

Edited January 31, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The fact that the Political Cartoons thread was started by someone who is a member of the moderation team is a red herring. It is irrelevant to the discussion. The thread has received no more special treatment than any others. The title is Political Cartoons. If it is not a political cartoon, then it doesn't belong in the thread. For what it is worth and in contrast to what Mr. Fancypants alleges, the non-cartoon post that was reported was not reported by the topic's creator but by someone else entirely.

The ideal solution to reducing the number of moderation-worthy events would be to get rid of the non-immigration related forums all together.. That is unlikely to happen. The second best solution to reduce the number of moderation-worthy events would be for those who chose to participate in P&R to post like responsible adults and observe the TOS by which they agreed to abide when they became members of Visa Journey in the first place. The third solution would be to remove en masse those who habitually violate the TOS - who interestingly enough, are the same ones who generally require 90% of the moderation teams efforts. For various reasons, that is also unlikely to happen.

The 90% moderation rate for non-immigration related forums has been that way from the time I first joined the moderation team. It is also a handful of individuals who also account for the 90% of moderator-intervention activity.

My preference would be for individuals to post like responsible adults and not treat Visa Journey as some sort of a public school playground where anything goes if you can get away with it and everyone tries to get away with it.

The fact that the thread was created by a Moderator is relevant, Kathryn, because there isn't any consistency for you or any other Mod to simply go and delete posts in that thread, but not do it for other threads. Why this thread? Because it's easier for you visually to judge when a post is not on topic? Honestly, that sounds not only ridiculously lazy, but rather indifferent to the whole purpose of having Moderators.

I think it is viable solution to stand by the rule which you said earlier already existed (even though never enforced to the level it has been until Charles' thread came along) and be willing to take the same kind of action for any thread where there is sufficient reporting made. That may sound like more work for the Mods, and probably so in the beginning, but eventually habitual trollers will be less inclined to type up something if they know that it will be deleted. Part of the problem within P&R behavior is that from the get go, it has been understood as being tolerated. If you and I agree that that hasn't worked out too well, then lets go for forum-wide enforcement of the rule of addressing the topic and delete posts which don't follow that rule.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[^_^ 5,021]

Part of the problem within P&R behavior is that from the get go, it has been understood as being tolerated. If you and I agree that that hasn't worked out too well, then lets go for forum-wide enforcement of the rule of addressing the topic and delete posts which don't follow that rule.

That sounds great but this mod team isn't up to it. It requires a lot of time and a lot of effort and I don't get the sense that they have either the time or the energy.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That sounds great but this mod team isn't up to it. It requires a lot of time and a lot of effort and I don't get the sense that they have either the time or the energy.

Just an idea, but what if the OP were granted some limited editing powers just for that particular thread in that they would be able to delete posts which they felt didn't follow the rules, however, such action would automatically send a report to the real Mods who can review. If an OP is being abusive with this privilege, they could be effectively locked out (thread banned) from their own thread. This would relieve the burden from the Mods while allowing OP's who are sincerely trying to initiate a discussion or present an argument that deserves to be addressed. The worst then, is members would just simply ignore the thread. The drive-by trolling would effectively end and Captain Ewok could experiment by only having this feature in P&R to see how it can work.

[SMOKE 1,426]

So, cartoon? Yes or no.

no.

That sounds great but this mod team isn't up to it. It requires a lot of time and a lot of effort and I don't get the sense that they have either the time or the energy.

+ its asking a lot of the mod team, once you consider.....1: there isn't enough moderators to do it. 2: they're volunteering their time. & 3:(personal opinion) it would cut down on overall entertainment of the forum.

[^_^ 5,021]

... it would cut down on overall entertainment of the forum.

you mean it would inhibit our enjoyment of the Forums?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Why not create another website for all the folks that just want to troll each other, and not contribute to the stated purpose for the site, which is to assist folks in finding a path to obtaining permanent legal status in the US for themselves and/or family members?

Oh wait, that was tried, and the same folks ruined that site as well.

[^_^ 5,021]

Why not create another website for all the folks that just want to troll each other, and not contribute to the stated purpose for the site, which is to assist folks in finding a path to obtaining permanent legal status in the US for themselves and/or family members?

Oh wait, that was tried, and the same folks ruined that site as well.

That site was mismanaged. If I was a fan of hyperbole (I am), I'd say to the point of criminal negligence.

[SMOKE 1,426]

you mean it would inhibit our enjoyment of the Forums?

of course i do. its all about us brother.

[TBoneTX 45,866]

what if the OP were granted some limited editing powers just for that particular thread in that they would be able to delete posts which they felt didn't follow the rules

Oh, right -- just see how that would work in ONE Palestine/Israel thread.

[TBoneTX 45,866]

The second best solution to reduce the number of moderation-worthy events would be for those who chose to participate in P&R to post like responsible adults and observe the TOS by which they agreed to abide when they became members of Visa Journey in the first place.

Unlikely to happen, sigh man.

The third solution would be to remove en masse those who habitually violate the TOS - who interestingly enough, are the same ones who generally require 90% of the moderation teams efforts. For various reasons, that is also unlikely to happen.

This needs to happen. Pick any five (or four, or three) and make examples of them, and then watch how the others fall into formation. Nothing will substantially or permanently change until this happens, no man.