Questionable (and personal) moderation

[Vanitas 310]

Well........everyone has a different attitude towards right and wrong. You know?

Indeed. What is right for one is wrong for another and a grey area for a third.

On VJ, "right" and "wrong" should be about giving correct and legal advise to readers to the best of ones ability. As in what is right or wrong in the eyes of the agencies involved with immigration. Moderation SHOULD step in when advise is erroneous or could cause potential harm to readers.

Oh aye, for sure.

If you are talking about "right" or "wrong" as to how the community operates....I think your efforts, while well-intentioned, are probably moot. There is nothing going on, on VJ, that hasn't been happening here for years. Years. Behaviors are difficult to moderate and I suspect that it is behaviors you are unhappy with. Many people can't separate the behavior they would like to receive from the behavior they dish out. When complaining from this angle, the well will come up empty.

I have no illusions that I'm probably howling at the moon. What I'm taking aim at specifically here is one moderator's behaviour which has lead to a conflict of interest and what I believe to be a potential abuse of authority/power stemming as a result from this conflict of interest. Thing is - I've got nothing to lose at this point, even if nothing comes of it. Worst that can happen is I get permabanned because someone doesn't like what I have to say. And if that happens? Eh, well.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Indeed. What is right for one is wrong for another and a grey area for a third.

Now we are getting warmer.

Oh aye, for sure.

Sooooooo.........if there were a discussion about say.......entering the US............and a member advised deception.....they should be corrected? Or does that go back to differing opinions on what is right or wrong?

Remember before you answer - someone's case could depend on it. It's a little more important than "####### candy".

I have no illusions that I'm probably howling at the moon. What I'm taking aim at specifically here is one moderator's behaviour which has lead to a conflict of interest and what I believe to be a potential abuse of authority/power stemming as a result from this conflict of interest. Thing is - I've got nothing to lose at this point, even if nothing comes of it. Worst that can happen is I get permabanned because someone doesn't like what I have to say. And if that happens? Eh, well.

Wellllllllllllll..................the objective of the website is to draw traffic. So no conflict there when people disagree with each other as the more refreshes, the merrier.

[Captain Ewok 1,900]

@Wheatley, to prevent any concerns we have asked for any future moderation for you to be decided by different moderators. If there is a perceived conflict of interest or other concern I hope this remedies it.

[Novembro 1,763]

What about the thread-ban and future thread bans? It's kind of ridiculous.

[SAT 9,609]

Yes how bout it Great Skipper.....let him back in? Please?

[Vanitas 310]

@Wheatley, to prevent any concerns we have asked for any future moderation for you to be decided by different moderators. If there is a perceived conflict of interest or other concern I hope this remedies it.

Okay, so that part of things is going as we discussed which is grand. That only leaves one part of the complaint remaining and that's the thread ban as Novembro/Wacko has said. As I understand it, that ban is potentially permanent across all iterations of the thread from now until whenever. Is there some way we could get a review of the thread ban - I know it would take going back through the moderation logs to do so but in our eyes a review of the ban would put this to bed at this point.

[Penguin_ie 5,995]

Okay, so that part of things is going as we discussed which is grand. That only leaves one part of the complaint remaining and that's the thread ban as Novembro/Wacko has said. As I understand it, that ban is potentially permanent across all iterations of the thread from now until whenever. Is there some way we could get a review of the thread ban - I know it would take going back through the moderation logs to do so but in our eyes a review of the ban would put this to bed at this point.

As was mentioned at the time you were thread banned, the ban is just for this version of the thread: " member thread banned from this iteration of the thread." . Once it gets closed for size, you will be able to participate in the next iteration.

[Vanitas 310]

As was mentioned at the time you were thread banned, the ban is just for this version of the thread: " member thread banned from this iteration of the thread." . Once it gets closed for size, you will be able to participate in the next iteration.

That was not mentioned to me in any way, shape or form. I never got any kind of communication regarding why the ban was in place unless it was put in the thread after I was banned in which case I cannot see that. A thread ban doesn't just stop you from posting, it stops you from seeing the thread completely.

The only way of seeing the thread after a ban is imposed is to log out and read it that way, and I've just worked that out by testing it right this second. I hadn't done so already as I was concerned that doing so would be in a similar vein to creating another account to circumvent moderation actions - which is an actionable offence.

While I am grateful for the long-term clarification, my request for this iteration of that thread holds. If people want to know the basis behind the request, I will elaborate if asked to do so.

[SAT 9,609]

Buckwheat I'm with you buddy.

But at this point, both sides have a dignified "out"

So I think it's time to let it rest brother....

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Wheatley,

I did end up reviewing the exchange as well. I realize you feel unfairly treated, but you were given the opportunity to stop pursuing the course of action that had already led to several posts being removed. You choose to continue your comments in a different thread - and the comment did come across as the nature of a personal attack rather than just a statement or opinion - which is why you were thread-banned from that thread.

Moderation actions are not meant to be punishments unless the member has become an habitual offender in which case they end up becoming punishments. Our main purpose is to try and foster appropriate posting behaviour and having posts removed usually is sufficient warning. When that does not succeed in obtaining appropriate posting behaviour, then a thread ban is invoked to prevent the continuation of that behaviour from causing problems in the thread. You are not an habitual offender but you did show some poor judgement. You chose to continue posting comments in the same way as the comments you made that were removed - and you chose to continue the 'drama' in a new thread. Since you ignored the warning, you were thread-banned from participating in that thread. The site does not send out a notice about being thread-banned as it does for being suspended, but the result is apparent when you find you can no longer participate in a thread.

In this case, the moderator clearly stated that the thread-ban was for this iteration of the thread and would not be continued across all future iterations of the thread - which is another option we have used when it is appropriate.

We would be much happier if we didn't have to take any sort of moderation 'action', that a simple warning would suffice. Hopefully, this discussion will have served the same purpose - to let our members know that there are repercussions when someone chooses to ignore a warning - and that may allow them to take more care in how they choose to respond or post in a thread.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Kathryn41