At the Risk of Sounding Like A Broken Record

[William33 110]

deleted

Why?

The jury will disregard the last statement!

But how judge, they already heard it!!!

Just kidding Gupt!!!

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Anyhow Diad I would love to discuss this and it is reallly no biggie to be honest. PM me directly as it is easier to address questions that way as things get off topic easily if not. Again AW and I are at peace on the greater issues and your comment was much more specific and loosely related. Again please PM me if you need more explanations. Sorry not to see this earlier as I just woke up. That is one of the reasons as well that PM'ing me is better because asking questions publically when the person is not there to reply causes a lot of off topic chatter which just makes it harder to then clear up.

If would lovely if you could simply address publicly -- here in the open forum -- why the link is still blocked since Diad is not the only one asking.

I was more making a point that a simple PM was better and more effective. It is hard to be the beating bag so often and being called out for every tiny detail in public does take its toll. I have asked Diad to PM me in the past as well and I just would like the courtesy that a PM gives versus another lashing so to speak. I try so hard and get grief no matter what decision I make (not everyone will always be happy and I have learned to try and realize that even though I still try to (make everyone happy)).

[kitkat1 5]

But the bottom line is several people are still waiting for the answer to one simple question - why is the link to FBI still being deleted automatically from posts and PMs?

Rather than answer the question in a PM, can't you simply post a few sentences here clarifying if you ever plan to unblock the link? I do believe that's all anyone was asking, Diad included (refer to her first question in her first post).

[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."

That site is for-profit.

But I have no financial interest in it. As far as I am aware, only AW has a financial interest in it.

Regardless, the site is for-profit. Any promotion of the site is promoting a for-profit site. VJ doesn't condone promotion of commercial services, at least I don't believe it does.

Have you access to the business plan for the site? Are you a member of it's board, or one of the owners? (if not, you've just basically admitted to corporate espionage and I'll expect you to be banned for violating the TOS (lawbreaking) soon.) I'm sure what you meant to say was "I think that site is for profit because they are selling something there, however I don't know for sure as so many non-profits and not for profits actually sell goods and services to keep their programs funded. In any event, I just now remembered that the site I'm currently posting on has advertising and allows lawyers to troll the forums for which I expect they are compensated and we really don't know how much it costs to run the site and how much it makes in revenue so I'm just talking out of my azz and I'll apologize and try to see the playing field as a bit more level now."

I'm sure you see 'www dot amazon dot com' (didn't know what all might get edited as "advertising") as a wonderfully philanthropic lending library as well. Hmmm....now that I think of it....USCIS asks for money when you put in paperwork....they call it a "fee" and I'm sure it funds "people" who provide "service". We'd best ban them too, right? And, speaking of the ads on VJ, we'd best ban VJ, if we're against sites that might be making money.

I mean really. Were you even thinking?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

"that site" comes across as blatantly commercial. They smack you with their for-sale product right upfront.

Your point is taken, however, that I don't have visibility into "that sites" internal finances.

[ILIKEALLCAPS 0]

"that site" comes across as blatantly commercial. They smack you with their for-sale product right upfront.

Your point is taken, however, that I don't have visibility into "that sites" internal finances.

Well, I'm not quite so sure I'd call a single product "blatantly commercial". I'd liken being smacked by someone selling a single product as more akin to religion, but that's a kettle of fish best argued in a different forum, like off topic (which hasn't had any really good religious wars for a while....you're slacking).

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Hey guys I will clear this up as it seems to be never ending OT at this point. Basically I am working a few issues that you the members have said were most important. The main being adding mods. While I have added some mods already they can not suspend members for TOS violations. I will be adding that ability shortly and more mods with the current levels so that we can catch more of the craziness before it gets out of hand.

Next regarding this thread I will lift the block shortly once there are more mods and the site is back to normal. This issue has been a heated thing and while AW and I may be moving past it that is not totally the case all around. I know I know, it is a catch 22. Some people want it undone now and are mad so they complain and hence the issue continues. I want to see that the issue is over and not ripe for abuse as well first. If you can bear with me once the new moderators (look I said the name) are active and things are running better then the lock will be lifted. I hope with all the hard work I do that on this one issue you can cut me some slack and let me try it this way. In the end it will be all cool... the forums will be more looked after for trolls, flame baiting, etc, and even this issue will be a non debate. I am working hard and I hope you can see results soon if all works out .

[John & Annie 0]

Who are you going to use as moderators?

[ChasUK 0]

Hey guys I will clear this up as it seems to be never ending OT at this point. Basically I am working a few issues that you the members have said were most important. The main being adding mods. While I have added some mods already they can not suspend members for TOS violations. I will be adding that ability shortly and more mods with the current levels so that we can catch more of the craziness before it gets out of hand.

Next regarding this thread I will lift the block shortly once there are more mods and the site is back to normal. This issue has been a heated thing and while AW and I may be moving past it that is not totally the case all around. I know I know, it is a catch 22. Some people want it undone now and are mad so they complain and hence the issue continues. I want to see that the issue is over and not ripe for abuse as well first. If you can bear with me once the new moderators (look I said the name) are active and things are running better then the lock will be lifted. I hope with all the hard work I do that on this one issue you can cut me some slack and let me try it this way. In the end it will be all cool... the forums will be more looked after for trolls, flame baiting, etc, and even this issue will be a non debate. I am working hard and I hope you can see results soon if all works out .

E, it's good to see that finally mods are going to be part of VJ, despite the fact that you gave me legal reasons why you could not even consider such a thing. Something must have changed legally I guess. As a complex site it has needed them for some time to keep order. It's because of that lack of order that I refrained from posting much, soon after I arrived here, (I'm sure some are glad of that fact), I got fed up with the antagonistic style, and patronising "I'm better than you" hints within such style, and this could be controlled and limited by mods. I mean, just the fact that mods are ever present will give some pause for thought before hitting the Submit button.

That aside your post here has me scratching my head in disbelief.

Firstly, since the proverbial whatsit "hit the fan" here I have seen on many occasions valid questions asked of you that many would like to know the answers, but you always request that it be resolved behind closed doors in a PM. Even I had a post deleted for what I consider no good reason. You dealt with me in PM. I did and do NOT understand why it was deleted but you thanked me anyway. I do NOT understand why whenever something slightly controversial comes up it has to be dealt with in a PM. If you were truly set in improving morale and the site in general, would it not be a good thing to make big news of changes and improvements so that everyone can see the changes and appreciate the work put in, or the reasons for not putting in said changes? Point being, whether you intended it or not, your constant requests to take matters to PM makes me think that there is something to hide or there is no effective reason still standing. Sorry but that is the impression I get. I didn't choose to get that impression, it just appears that way, which is what an impression is after all.

Secondly, is it showing much faith in the posters, who by the very nature of the process we are all going through, are not children, when you say that to lift the block on "THAT SITE" as Gupt passionately calls F.B.I., because you "want to see that the issue is over and not ripe for abuse as well first.", are you saying that in the short time that you intend for such changes to be implemented that you consider the possibility of we the posters running amok, posting advertisements for all and sundry and abusing VJ?

I'm sorry but that to me is poppycock. There is no reason that I can see to not unblock F.B.I. links immediately and is what I call for. I do not wish to have such an answer in a PM, but out here on the board because there are many other people who would like this question answered too, and I think it would show good faith to trust us with that answer. Thank you for understanding.

Edited May 24, 2007 by Gone

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

My post above explains as much as I can right now. I have been busy trying to get the new mod accounts working and have (suprise) had personal issues outside of the website to tend to. I do try hard but I would ask that you realize that I am one person and not a company that can react instantly to things. Also I am sorry if you disagree with how things work. I am always trying to make them better however sometimes things will be a way that may not make everyone happy all the time. I ask that if this is one of those issues for you that you can at least respect the situation and know that I am currently working on important improvements for the site that are honestly more pressing (however I have already explained my intentions on this topic above). If you were curious the new mods will have all the Scout Member features plus the ability to suspend trolls or similar in appropriate cases. I can review a decision if needed so members can always email me. The new mods will not have access to any private data (IP addresses, emails, etc) or anything covered in the privacy policy.

[ChasUK 0]

My post above explains as much as I can right now. I have been busy trying to get the new mod accounts working and have (suprise) had personal issues outside of the website to tend to. I do try hard but I would ask that you realize that I am one person and not a company that can react instantly to things. Also I am sorry if you disagree with how things work. I am always trying to make them better however sometimes things will be a way that may not make everyone happy all the time. I ask that if this is one of those issues for you that you can at least respect the situation and know that I am currently working on important improvements for the site that are honestly more pressing (however I have already explained my intentions on this topic above). If you were curious the new mods will have all the Scout Member features plus the ability to suspend trolls or similar in appropriate cases. I can review a decision if needed so members can always email me. The new mods will not have access to any private data (IP addresses, emails, etc) or anything covered in the privacy policy.

Thanks for the rapid response E.

However, you say that you want the site to go back to normal before you lift the block. This matter as you quite rightly point out is ongoing but I put it to you, in the time you took to post the reply to me, you could have lifted the block.

That's all the "work" that is being asked for here and if that block was removed immediately, guess what would happen? The site would return to normal because there would be no issue any more. You would have removed it. Unless you are telling me that an uprising would ensue from posters complaining that F.B.I. links are now clickable!! No, without a more valid response than "I'm busy setting mods in place" I have to believe that there is an alterior motive here. I'm sorry to be like this E, but it looks like you are delaying for some reason. I cannot think why. Just lift the block and threads like this will fall away to the depths of forum pages leaving you time to put mods in place at your convenience. This is simple logic.

Whether I agree with you or not is irrelevant. I posed just 2 questions really, and one action.

1. What changed legally for you to now use mods, when you told me you could not do such a thing for legal reasons?

2. Would it not be beneficial to deal with problems out in the open, so that the posters here can agree with your reasoning to implement or not any changes? If you have time to answer in PM, you do have time to answer.

Action. Lift the F.B.I. block.

Now, I am happy to wait for the answers as they just provide information, so please only answer when you are not up to your eyeballs in it and are able. However, logic dictates that the block be lifted immediately and as a result all the grief this causes disperses and the site returns to normal, which is what you said you wanted. To leave the block in place means that there is ongoing unrest. Other sites are not all blocked by default so nothing else changes. As I said before, in the time it takes for you to reply, the block could be lifted. You're not being asked to put in hours of effort.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Gone I am not going to go in a circle on this. I am sorry you still have questions in your mind. I answered as I felt fit and if that was not enough then I apologize. If you have a personal disagreement with me then PM me. I am sorry if you feel like I am letting you down somehow.

[ChasUK 0]

Gone I am not going to go in a circle on this. I am sorry you still have questions in your mind. I answered as I felt fit and if that was not enough then I apologize. If you have a personal disagreement with me then PM me. I am sorry if you feel like I am letting you down somehow.

I'm sorry. I see no circle here. All I see is total avoidance. I see me asking 2 questions and for one simple action that will solve the problem of FBI and you give vague answers that do not actually touch on my questions nor do you acknowledge that lifting the ban would actually stop people like mermaid, myself and others asking you to do it thus solving the problem.

This simply leads me to believe that you have no intention of lifting the block and have no real answers to my 2 simple questions. That speaks volumes and kind of answers the questions by proxy.

As I said previously. In the time it took you to answer my post you could have lifted the block instead, and then later, at your convenience, answered the questions. It's sad really because VJ has been so very useful and still can be. Such a shame that the animosity regarding the block is still apparent because the block itself is still in place.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Gone. I am sorry but I am not going to be bullied. I gave my answer. You can accept it or not but please do not continue to badger me like this. It is not polite and also not productive. If you have a personal gripe then PM me.

[kitkat1 5]

Well said and I am in total agreement with you Gone. It is simply beyond my comprehension that this ban has still not been lifted. I asked the same question twice earlier in this thread and it's obvious now that this will never be answered and I assume the ban will never be lifted. I do believe I have nothing more to say here.

I thought it was all getting sorted out, anyway.

That's exactly the point and the question at hand. Again, if excellent information regarding a VJ poster's question is available on that site, why can't I direct them there by providing the link www.***removed***.com just like I can direct people www.immigrate2us.net?

If would lovely if you could simply address publicly -- here in the open forum -- why the link is still blocked since Diad is not the only one asking.

Edited May 25, 2007 by kitkat1