New K1 subforums?

[Marilyn. 340]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...sult_type=posts

that is the search results from Consolemaster's latest posts.... yeah there are a couple of congrats in thier but he posts a lot of other stuff too....

[no name 1]

Side note: So the drama with consolemaster happens - and he was supposedly scolded. Yet, HE CONTINUES TO POST CONGRATS. Not in pink letters, mind you, but still in all caps, in tons of threads. A newbie has that much of a lack of respect, and mods can't (or won't) control that? WHY?????

Can you send me a link to where he is still doing this? I warned him that while it is certainly ok to do this when it is appropriate, blindly doing this for no reason would be considered spam.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...c=61621&hl=

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...c=61573&hl=

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...c=61534&hl=

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...c=61547&hl=

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...c=61526&hl=

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...c=61546&hl=

and this one where he admits he shouldn't be doing it BUT DOES IT ANYHOW:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...c=61511&hl=

I beleive those are from before I warned them... Anything from today?

One was today but I thought you warned him earlier yesterday, nevermind.

[William33 110]

a lot of people post congrats on this site.... not sure why consolemaster is getting picked on...

I do see him contributing other comments too...

Like someone said 10-15 pages ago, congrats are ok in "your class" of USCIS/Embassy processing. Beyond that, there is not much point.

I used to congratulate many in K-1, but they were all in my "class". Now I rarely post there at all, with the exception of occasional advice.

[Marilyn. 340]

a lot of people post congrats on this site.... not sure why consolemaster is getting picked on...

I do see him contributing other comments too...

Like someone said 10-15 pages ago, congrats are ok in "your class" of USCIS/Embassy processing. Beyond that, there is not much point.

I used to congratulate many in K-1, but they were all in my "class". Now I rarely post there at all, with the exception of occasional advice.

huh?? so you are not allowed to post congrats out of your class?? does the same go with advice??

[meauxna 15]

a lot of people post congrats on this site.... not sure why consolemaster is getting picked on...

I don't think he's being "picked on". He is the current example.

[featherB 1]

a lot of people post congrats on this site.... not sure why consolemaster is getting picked on...

I do see him contributing other comments too...

Like someone said 10-15 pages ago, congrats are ok in "your class" of USCIS/Embassy processing. Beyond that, there is not much point.

I used to congratulate many in K-1, but they were all in my "class". Now I rarely post there at all, with the exception of occasional advice.

I'd say that when you go from 0 to Platinum within a month of joining, almost entirely on the back of 'congrats' posts, then... yeah, you might have gone a teensy bit overboard. Maybe that's just me, though. Imagine if everyone on here did that...

[William33 110]

a lot of people post congrats on this site.... not sure why consolemaster is getting picked on...

I do see him contributing other comments too...

Like someone said 10-15 pages ago, congrats are ok in "your class" of USCIS/Embassy processing. Beyond that, there is not much point.

I used to congratulate many in K-1, but they were all in my "class". Now I rarely post there at all, with the exception of occasional advice.

huh?? so you are not allowed to post congrats out of your class?? does the same go with advice??

Not saying that at all. I "personally" along with many others, see no point in offering congrats to people whose cases we have not followed.

Advice on the other hand, is the purpose of this site, free for everyone.

[Marilyn. 340]

a lot of people post congrats on this site.... not sure why consolemaster is getting picked on...

I do see him contributing other comments too...

Like someone said 10-15 pages ago, congrats are ok in "your class" of USCIS/Embassy processing. Beyond that, there is not much point.

I used to congratulate many in K-1, but they were all in my "class". Now I rarely post there at all, with the exception of occasional advice.

huh?? so you are not allowed to post congrats out of your class?? does the same go with advice??

Not saying that at all. I "personally" along with many others, see no point in offering congrats to people whose cases we have not followed.

Advice on the other hand, is the purpose of this site, free for everyone.

t this site is also about supporting and encouraging others...

and also consolemaster was warned by Captain Ewok and I think his congrats have tapered down since then...

[Andy 2]

Ooops! ON EDIT: To Captain Ewok!

As regards your explanation of moderating issues, I think much of these were covered in this discussion already - certainly I think anyone considering the nature of moderating roles and responsibilities would understand the inherent difficulties, but that is not to say that amongst the membership there are not a number of individuals who are capable of understanding the role and performing it within the boundaries of the site's needs, while balancing their own participation appropriately. It has happened before, and it happens elsewhere.

Your comment regarding the abuse of 'power' previously is an interesting one to me, because at no time when there were member-moderators here, was there anything but rather distantly anecdotal evidence to suggest it was happening. As one of that group, if such had been going on, I would have expected Steve to have not only resolved it but also then defined the boundaries of the role more tightly for the entire group in order to ensure it didn't recur.

That notwithstanding, and in awareness of the issues, I believe I'd proposed a way in which member-moderation could be achieved while ensuring the best possibility of success - that by your appointment of chosen individuals, you would be able to pick the people who were not only prepared to do it, but who fit the pattern of skills and competencies needed to fulfill the role. And that by appointment for a limited initial period, it would be possible to easily weed out any that were then not up to the task or who fell into any of the pitfalls you mention.

If you really need an example of how well member-moderators work, surely there is none better that Steve himself. He led this site and controlled it for all of the time it operated until he handed it over to you, and while there were some who may have had issues from time to time with his decisions, they were few and far between.

Moderating isn't a panacea for all our ills, but VJ is like any other community - there are all sorts of members with all sorts of interests and without some form of policing there are all sorts of problems. In your model, where policing is passive and based purely on TOS abuses, it's basically like saying that in the real world, policing is only necessary when a crime is committed - basically REactive, in that action only follows a violation where the problem may then be too late to resolve. The alternative is PROactive policing, that by actively participating in the discussion areas, moderators can actually head those problems off and help prevent the violations that would otherwise need action later. You, yourself can't do that, but member-moderators could.

It's also easy to suggest that senior posters could help do that anyway - and indeed they do to some extent. But it's a measure of how far the behavioural norms have slipped that for their pains there are often arguments or insults thrown in retaliation, and it's not difficult, surely, to see how dispiriting that can be after a while.

The notion of having to identify moderators and have their personal information is curious. I've never known that to be a requirement with any other internet discussion group and the explanation sounds rather curiously and legally contrived. Accountability in the real world for what is posted here, or liability for content infers a specific jurisdiction. If we are all if different locations around the world, upon which set of legal principles and liabilities are we being judged? I don't buy that, though while I have no interest in being a moderator here, I would also have no problem submitting those details if it were asked since I have no problem standing by any contribution I make.

Your social networking tools really should be considered purely in that light - mechanisms to assist the process of control and operation. You can't, for example, use a tool to bury a bad topic when the thread itself is valid but has been taken off topic by one or more participants and thus rendered it difficult for the OP to get further help. Nor if the thread has been hijacked, nor if dangerously bad or incorrect advice or information is given. Nor, in reality, where something legitimate descends into a bun fight between individuals or insults begin to get thrown. Those are situations where a member with some authority needs to step in and act before the situation gets out of hand. And those are just a quick example of why people are needed on the ground to do these things, not rely on buttons and options.

You are right in your last point - that the sense of community we had years ago will never come back simply because then there were dozens of members, now there are hundreds. That isn't the objective however. The objective is to rebuild the sense of community spirit, and stabilize the discussion areas so that they are friendly places not combative. So that every poster with a question can feel safe to ask it, and everyone with a contribution to help answer it can make that contribution. Where the site can focus on what it is good at, not have so much energy used up needlessly of things that divert attention.... like this thread itself has done!

Edited March 30, 2007 by Andy

[Marilyn. 340]

i think Captain Ewok has done a great job of running this site...

It bugs me when people say that the fighting and arguing etc is something new..... because trust me, it is not.....

When I first joined back in 2004, there was a lot of fighting etc.... name calling etc.... this stuff is going to happen but we need to be grown-ups about it and deal with it.....

(I think I joined shorty before Steve left.....)

Edited March 30, 2007 by MarilynP

[MichelleandCraig 1]

I don't think the issue was the congrats, Marilyn, but rather the size/color of his fonts...unless I'm mistaken too? I personally couldn't care less, but I can also see how it would be annoying.....could barely look at the screen when I came across one at 1 this morning.... M.

[Mags 112]

I just want to say that people seem to be forgetting that ultimately this IS Captain Ewok's site. We can bicker and argue til the cows come home, but at the end of the day he runs it and he can do whatever he wishes.

[Andy 2]

i think Captain Ewok has done a great job of running this site...

It bugs me when people say that the fighting and arguing etc is something new..... because trust me, it is not.....

When I first joined back in 2004, there was a lot of fighting etc.... name calling etc.... this stuff is going to happen but we need to be grown-ups about it and deal with it.....

(I think I joined shorty before Steve left.....)

Yes, that was about the time indeed, and much of the issue you saw on the site when you arrived was the aggravation which surrounded one particular member and the disruption caused by him. Those who joined at this time must have thought themselves in a war zone, and indeed it was all of that which caused Steve to leave. By comparison to that phase in VJ's history, what we have now is a placid pool indeed!

Let me be very clear however, that I don't think anyone is saying Captain Ewok isn't doing a good job. What we're saying is that as the site gets bigger and bigger and the content more spread out, the form of moderating the he can do isn't enough and that the results of that are beginning to show. What we're trying to say is that it's better to have help to stop problems happening or get bigger rather than waiting to see if we go off the rails and then try and get us put back on.

[meauxna 15]

And your point, if directed at me rather than in general is.... what exactly?!

Message received loud and clear.

-------------------------------------

Peer pressure was not enough in this case; "self moderating" didn't work, and clearly doesn't work, or there wouldn't be so many divided feelings (again).

We can not have site moderators to give someone a heads up when they are not in community standards. We actually don't even have community standards.

Those in the "we are grown ups" crowd (and I do feel this way myself) think we should be able to self-govern. That's all great IF there is a group ethos and we all agreed to it (joining = agreeing). But the group needs leadership. We have too many people who think they know what this site is supposed to be (self included) and in the absense of a strong agreement, we get the Wild West.

But if every request to do some background reading, or cool the posting jokes/congrats/etc becomes 'bashing' how on earth can we self-moderate AND be kittens and rainbows?

Supportive posts go only so far. I regret that I'm not as invested/interested in supporting some of the people I meet here. I have a limited amount of time, and I'd rather spend it making sure that someone doesn't totally muck up their case.

Well, that *has* been my preference. I'm feeling pretty underwhelmed about the whole thing anymore.

Edited March 30, 2007 by meauxna

[Andy 2]

Message received loud and clear.

-------------------------------------

Peer pressure was not enough in this case; "self moderating" didn't work, and clearly doesn't work, or there wouldn't be so many divided feelings (again).

We can not have site moderators to give someone a heads up when they are not in community standards. We actually don't even have community standards.

Those in the "we are grown ups" crowd (and I do feel this way myself) think we should be able to self-govern. That's all great IF there is a group ethos and we all agreed to it (joining = agreeing). But the group needs leadership. We have too many people who think they know what this site is supposed to be (self included) and in the absense of a strong agreement, we get the Wild West.

I apologize for the cheap shot with the first reply - that was not really appropriate given that your point was clear in everything other than what exactly it was I couldn't have both ways!

Actually I agree with you. There is this broad notion that because 'we' are each capable of self-moderating it means everyone is, and that if we don't admit there really isn't a broadly applicable 'community standard' then there must actually be one and we don't need to bother about it, or we don't need one in the first place. These things are not true however, and the result is as you rather interestingly paint it, the wild west.

My concern from the post you had replied to was that it ought not to be common currency amongst members to bandy epithets around - we have enough antagonisms working here in amongst the community of members already. That yes, there are problem posters, whether of the help-I-can't-be-bothered-to-read-anything-for-myself-first or 'congratualations-I-don't-really-care-but-this-helps-my-post-count-a-lot-and-I'll-say-thanks-for-the-opportunity-later-because-that'll-be-another-post-to-add-to-the-number' variety, but that is exactly what we need moderators to help deal with rather than leave the membership as a whole to have to battle, to the detriment of the membership as a whole.

It's my view that moderators are needed as much to take the heat for bringing some control as to actually do it, because the other way leads to senior members to try, and all that does is fan the flames.