At the Risk of Sounding Like A Broken Record

[Fandango 1,439]

tmma, we aren't talking about what happens on FBI or FBI's Forum Rules.

We are talking about what happens on VJ and the VJ TOS.

It doesn't matter whether it's 'fair' or not. They are two separate issues.

"Doesn't matter what's fair or unfair..."????? Rebecca that's a completely different attitude from what alot were saying afew days ago.

Well, I don't have time to flog this to death. I was just curious as to why Ewok is expected to advertise that site when advertising is prohibited there....That's all.

Sep from that...I do wish AW and that site well...I really do. This is not personal to me at all...( especially if it really "does not matter what's fair or unfair")....and it's sad that there seems to be lines drawn when we are all really in this together....but me, personally, I still have questions about the whole fiasco a week or so ago.

gtg to a conf now....

have a nice day.

Agreed, Shele...I get what you're sayin...reciprocity!

And if it doesn't matter if it's fair or not, then Ewok can just say 'I don't want to' and then that'll be that...or will it?

[rebeccajo 14]

The reciprocity is already there. VJ is not censored on FBI.

[Fandango 1,439]

The reciprocity is already there. VJ is not censored on FBI.

But isn't putting VJ in a siggy against the TOS as Shele pointed out?

I ask because I'm curious, I'm not being snarky here. I honestly don't know.

[rebeccajo 14]

The reciprocity is already there. VJ is not censored on FBI.

But isn't putting VJ in a siggy against the TOS as Shele pointed out?

I ask because I'm curious, I'm not being snarky here. I honestly don't know.

A Forum Violation or a TOS Violation is always in the eye of the beholder. In other words - Admin.

Unless a filter has been turned on.

[Fandango 1,439]

The reciprocity is already there. VJ is not censored on FBI.

But isn't putting VJ in a siggy against the TOS as Shele pointed out?

I ask because I'm curious, I'm not being snarky here. I honestly don't know.

A Forum Violation or a TOS Violation is always in the eye of the beholder. In other words - Admin.

Unless a filter has been turned on.

I wonder if that's part of the issue that E and AW are working out.

If one is banned here, the other should be banned there, but vice versa for them being allowed.

[ceriserose 1]

I am having trouble understanding the uproar over their link being "blocked" here, especially when the website in question is also BUSINESS selling a research e-book and within IT'S own rules for members has this...

"Advertising - Threads/posts/signatures etc blatantly advertising a business website outside of the designated 'Members Businesses' Forum is not permitted and shall be removed. Abuse of this rule will result in the account being banned....."

Aside from that and the whole " did she say to Ewok she was affiliated with the site or not" discussion-which I believe Ewok was trying to open lines of communication about with her-I personally don't care how many immigration boards are out there-and honestly, sincere KUDOS to AW for that site.

There is a designated forum for member advertising of their home business or other ventures on that site, and not in signatures or in general information threads (or even off topic). That quote reads to me exactly that...anything blatantly advertising outside of that particular forum will be moved to that forum and if a member repeatedly posts in what the admin deems inappropriate places, then it could result in a ban. Not so much different from here in that regard (organizers, threads being moved, etc.). If it helps, signatures there aren't an 'anything goes' type of deal and this is part of that.

[ceriserose 1]

Dang, tried to edit and it crashed:

ETA: As for the questioning around the 'business' aspect of these two sites, then I guess what would need to be looked at is how each handles every other site out there. As has been mentioned, posting links to pertinent immigration information hasn't been blocked by either site until now, and one way. I'm not commenting on the right- or wrong-ness of it, just stating. And I guess some of the confusion comes from the FBI site being unblocked for a brief period of time and now back to being blocked. I don't know why...but for people sincerely trying to connect people in need with information, it's a bit frustrating.

Oh, and Uling, PM is also blocked for this website. So that's not an option. The person who may need the additional information won't get it that way either.

By the by, I believe all of the links that have been attempted to be posted are to member comments in threads which are free to use, not to the guide for purchase. For whatever that's worth to inquiring minds, bearing in mind it's speculation on my part.

[kitkat1 5]

From the VJ TOS:

"In the discussion forums you may discuss or recommend third-party Web sites, goods or services, so long as you have no financial interest in and receive no direct or indirect benefit from such Web sites, products or services, or the recommendation of such."

VJ Members...

Per the TOS, the interpretation is debatable. However, referencing another website is a form of advertising, whether it's intentional or not. I recommend that you PM other members that are in need of other sources of information that way avoiding such problems. Another recommendation is PMing Capt. Ewok prior to posting your site reference for confirmation or to receive advice. Although a member’s advertisement of a certain website may be earnest, if done without prior approval, the member runs the risk of their post being modified or deleted. It is at the discretion of those in charge of VJ. Although membership is free, there are limitations, which is why the TOS exists.

Cheers!!!

Sheriff Uling

Oh come on.

Even in PMs the link to FBI is deleted. It is not deleted for other sites. Ewok said he would correct it last week and he did not.

When I refer someone, I am not "advertising". I am helping them find the information they so are so desperately searching for. I have no financial interest and receive no direct or indirect benefit from ANY other site. I refer people who need help only because I want to help them.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

From the VJ TOS:

"In the discussion forums you may discuss or recommend third-party Web sites, goods or services, so long as you have no financial interest in and receive no direct or indirect benefit from such Web sites, products or services, or the recommendation of such."

VJ Members...

Per the TOS, the interpretation is debatable. However, referencing another website is a form of advertising, whether it's intentional or not. I recommend that you PM other members that are in need of other sources of information that way avoiding such problems. Another recommendation is PMing Capt. Ewok prior to posting your site reference for confirmation or to receive advice. Although a member's advertisement of a certain website may be earnest, if done without prior approval, the member runs the risk of their post being modified or deleted. It is at the discretion of those in charge of VJ. Although membership is free, there are limitations, which is why the TOS exists.

Cheers!!!

Sheriff Uling

VJ Members and Sheriff Uling,

This is utterly absurd. Look, all other issues aside, I don't wish for anyone, including a moderator or an administrator of ANY site to speculate as to what reason I decided to post a link to another site in my signature. It would be unadulterated speculation, first and wholly inappropriate, as well.

I could perhaps be persuaded to reconsider the excuses given here, if in my signature, where the hyperlink to F B I had been mentioned, I had declared that I thought that the F B I site was "better than VJ" or if I had mentioned that "members *should* join the F B I site", but that clearly was NOT the case! I will not tolerate anyone trying to place words in my mouth, or in my signature in this instance. If we, as members, were to tolerate this, what has this place come to, I ask?

My signature clearly said "You can catch me on ILW, F B I, BE and VJ"...and the link in each instance brought a member to my profile on each website. Not the general forum, but my profile. I did that because I concentrate my efforts to a large degree on the Effects of Family Change on Immigration (including divorce, death, VAWA etc) and this forum was added because there appeared some time ago to be an increasing number of members and visitors to VJ and other sites that had problems that were either under-emphasized or not addressed in depth, anywhere. Though I am not inclined to "toot" my own horn, in the past year or so, I have been sought out by individuals to see if I could direct them to places that might offer more information than is outwardly apparent on USCIS resources. It is for this reason that my signature indicated where I could be found.

That said, to edit, adulterate, alter or erase that from my signature is dastardly in my opinion and works totally against the very premise for a site like this or others.

Now to the issue at hand. Some days ago, it was suggested that efforts were underway to clear up a *misunderstanding* between VJ and F B I. That misunderstanding, it was declared, was focused on some proverbial spamming of this forum by someone from F B I. Well, that is for the parties involved to sort out. I'm not hear to be judge or jury on that issue. I can only, and wish only to address matters that involve me and what I do. But, and I ask that you all think very carefully before answering this, hypothetically, let's suppose that a person, any person, had violated the TOS of VJ for one reason or another. Should it be necessary to impose some sort of discipline directed at the individual in question, then so be it. Once again that is for those parties involved to hash out. But thereafter it should be a done deal. One violation ~ one individual penalised, with whatever penalty the TOS here suggests is appropriate. Once again, and I underscore, if penalties imposed are punitive towards an individual and that individual is a member, then there should be some recourse for an individual or member to request explanation, and reasonable explanation, as to why such penalty is deemed appropriate.

As I see it right now, everyone is being punished. I can't refer anyone on this site to what I write elsewhere, because of the purported actions (not yet proven, and further, actions that admin of VJ has admitted could have been misunderstood) of others. Is this what this site has come to.... that I and opthers that follow long after I am gone, are to pay the price for someone else's actions?

But, I digress. More to the point...if the matter has been cleared up, why is there no means for anyone on this site to write F B I's domain name in either apost or their signature? Why must aliens in search of answers be forbidden to even know of the existence of another source of information? And how bloomin' long does it take to make that sort of technical correction, if the matter has been resolved and Ewok hasn't got around to it yet?

Frankly, taking such a long time to remove the automatic deletion mechanism which is in place to eradicate any reference to F B I is, in my opinion, prolonging the matter and being disrespectful to the person(s) inconvenienced by this entire and ridiculous episode.

[ILIKEALLCAPS 0]

From the VJ TOS:

"In the discussion forums you may discuss or recommend third-party Web sites, goods or services, so long as you have no financial interest in and receive no direct or indirect benefit from such Web sites, products or services, or the recommendation of such."

VJ Members...

Per the TOS, the interpretation is debatable. However, referencing another website is a form of advertising, whether it's intentional or not. I recommend that you PM other members that are in need of other sources of information that way avoiding such problems. Another recommendation is PMing Capt. Ewok prior to posting your site reference for confirmation or to receive advice. Although a member’s advertisement of a certain website may be earnest, if done without prior approval, the member runs the risk of their post being modified or deleted. It is at the discretion of those in charge of VJ. Although membership is free, there are limitations, which is why the TOS exists.

Cheers!!!

Sheriff Uling

Ah, my dear self-appointed Sheriff,

If I may refer you to your own signature, where you refer to several non-VJ links, you will find you yourself 'advertising' according to your own definition. I believe the appropriate response is to remove the offending links and put "www.***removed***.com" in their place. Or at least that appears to be the official action.

It's not as if we'd know what the real discussion is, since it seems to be requested to be in non-public forums, leaving things open for interpretation any number of different ways. I personally wonder why the answer can't be discussed in some publicly accessed way, as cloak-and-dagger secrecy tends to give off an unsavory aroma of coverup.

[rebeccajo 14]

From the VJ TOS:

"In the discussion forums you may discuss or recommend third-party Web sites, goods or services, so long as you have no financial interest in and receive no direct or indirect benefit from such Web sites, products or services, or the recommendation of such."

VJ Members...

Per the TOS, the interpretation is debatable. However, referencing another website is a form of advertising, whether it's intentional or not. I recommend that you PM other members that are in need of other sources of information that way avoiding such problems. Another recommendation is PMing Capt. Ewok prior to posting your site reference for confirmation or to receive advice. Although a member’s advertisement of a certain website may be earnest, if done without prior approval, the member runs the risk of their post being modified or deleted. It is at the discretion of those in charge of VJ. Although membership is free, there are limitations, which is why the TOS exists.

Cheers!!!

Sheriff Uling

Ah, my dear self-appointed Sheriff,

If I may refer you to your own signature, where you refer to several non-VJ links, you will find you yourself 'advertising' according to your own definition. I believe the appropriate response is to remove the offending links and put "www.***removed***.com" in their place. Or at least that appears to be the official action.

It's not as if we'd know what the real discussion is, since it seems to be requested to be in non-public forums, leaving things open for interpretation any number of different ways. I personally wonder why the answer can't be discussed in some publicly accessed way, as cloak-and-dagger secrecy tends to give off an unsavory aroma of coverup.

Shame on you for applying the principles of common sense!

[no name 1]

From the VJ TOS:

"In the discussion forums you may discuss or recommend third-party Web sites, goods or services, so long as you have no financial interest in and receive no direct or indirect benefit from such Web sites, products or services, or the recommendation of such."

VJ Members...

Per the TOS, the interpretation is debatable. However, referencing another website is a form of advertising, whether it's intentional or not. I recommend that you PM other members that are in need of other sources of information that way avoiding such problems. Another recommendation is PMing Capt. Ewok prior to posting your site reference for confirmation or to receive advice. Although a member’s advertisement of a certain website may be earnest, if done without prior approval, the member runs the risk of their post being modified or deleted. It is at the discretion of those in charge of VJ. Although membership is free, there are limitations, which is why the TOS exists.

Cheers!!!

Sheriff Uling

Ah, my dear self-appointed Sheriff,

If I may refer you to your own signature, where you refer to several non-VJ links, you will find you yourself 'advertising' according to your own definition. I believe the appropriate response is to remove the offending links and put "www.***removed***.com" in their place. Or at least that appears to be the official action.

It's not as if we'd know what the real discussion is, since it seems to be requested to be in non-public forums, leaving things open for interpretation any number of different ways. I personally wonder why the answer can't be discussed in some publicly accessed way, as cloak-and-dagger secrecy tends to give off an unsavory aroma of coverup.

Shame on you for applying the principles of common sense!

[Sheriff Uling 3]

VJ Members...

Hopefully this will all be cleared up soon.

What is the overall consensus on how to move forward? Have your concerns been addressed to Capt Ewok? Has anyone received any feedback?

Cheers!!!

Sheriff Uling

[kitkat1 5]

Have your concerns been addressed to Capt Ewok? Has anyone received any feedback?

Read the title of the thread. Then read the first post:.

If all issues that cropped up in the past have now been settled, why is it that when I direct someone to another site where I am also an active member, it still shows up as ********** REMOVED ************

I offered to unblock it if the owner of that site contacted us to explain what had happened

Contact was made and an explanation was given. But the site is still blocked hence the reason for THIS thread . . .

[Sheriff Uling 3]

Have your concerns been addressed to Capt Ewok? Has anyone received any feedback?

Read the title of the thread. Then read the first post:.

If all issues that cropped up in the past have now been settled, why is it that when I direct someone to another site where I am also an active member, it still shows up as ********** REMOVED ************

I offered to unblock it if the owner of that site contacted us to explain what had happened

Contact was made and an explanation was given. But the site is still blocked hence the reason for THIS thread . . .

Thanks...