UK posts being made invisible

[Sinergy 3]

How about this everyone. Lets focus on the future and on suggestions for what you think is "fair" in your opinion given various situations. A constructive discussion on this will be valuable. I am sure that we can come up with some good suggestions to "meld" into the moderation style .

agreed

[Mags 112]

I like the mods. They have cool hats.

[no name 1]

I agree, but i also think HA took this opportunity to flame at becca and kez. It is a horrible situation she is going thru, however, now everyone will be cautious when supporting someone in a situation like thing bc no matter what, theres always some kind of war in the thread.

um, and me who was the most viciously attacked. Yet that inflammatory post was allowed to stay up!!!

That inconsistency is just wrong.

Edited June 22, 2007 by devilette

[Sinergy 3]

I agree, but i also think HA took this opportunity to flame at becca and kez. It is a horrible situation she is going thru, however, now everyone will be cautious when supporting someone in a situation like thing bc no matter what, theres always some kind of war in the thread.

um, and me who was the most visciously attacked. Yet that inflammatory post was allowed to stay up!!!

I agree, sorry i left you out, dont spank me

[Dr_LHA 3]

How about this everyone. Lets focus on the future and on suggestions for what you think is "fair" in your opinion given various situations. A constructive discussion on this will be valuable. I am sure that we can come up with some good suggestions to "meld" into the moderation style .

My only suggestion is that mods should think twice before deleting a post. As they say in Spider-man, "With great power come great responsibility". Mod power cannot be underestimated in this environment, you guys are basically gods to us mere mortals, and when the gods get angry and smite our posts, it makes us feel bad. Make us feel bad and we'll get angry and stop believing in you, and that will make our lives less contented. Treat us well and we will offer up our devotion and praise to our fair and kind mods.

I think I took that metaphor too far.

[no name 1]

Going forward, I'd like to see:

- invisibility as last result. It is big brother & unneccessary unless racist, threatening, etc.

- warnings to chill out

- consistency in which posts get censored

- less bias

-If a threadmust be name changed, say why. This thread had no business being renamed, or moved.

I do appreciate your work, mods!

Edited June 22, 2007 by devilette

[JoeCanuk 3]

The posts I made invisible today would have lead to a flaming of some kind. As a mod, it is my duty to try and avoid these issues happening where possible. If I can nip something in the bud, I will. Today's was a culmination of some issues in the UK forum that have gone on for a couple of days.

Both these topics were locked due to flaming. The same would have happened with this thread. I acted accordingly to avoid a similar thing happening again.

I'm sorry if people were offended by this, but I stand by my decision.

Why is the current post not locked then, instead of censoring? There is no consistency here.

Yesterday post was locked 'by request of the OP' - no mention was made of 'closed for violating the TOS'. Yet the vicious attack made against me was a clear violation of at least 4 points in the TOS.

Quit your whining will ya? By the way, there is no such thing as censorship on a messageboard. You don't have the right to freedom of speech on a messageboard to begin with. Cry me a river...

[Marilyn. 340]

I still struggle what to see what was so controversial about the original thread (where everyone was universally sympathetic) from yesterday until this:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...st&p=999240

I don't see any "rubbing salt in wounds" from Bex posts. I think the "outrageous behavoir" began there. I see NO ONE taking any kind of satisfaction from the OP's predicament.

I'm going to try to present how I think H_A read the posts in question WITHOUT making it seem like I'm attacking anyone. It's my sincere desire NOT to attack anyone, but rather to highlight where I think the breakdown occured (and yes, when it occured, I read the post like I think H_A did, I'm not going to pretend like I wasn't there for that):

The part that made H_A react strongly to rebeccajo came after rebeccajo agreed with another member's post that attempted to argue that there are two sides to every story (ie: we should give H_A's hubby the benefit of the doubt:

I think Helen said things very well - and she really is right you know. We don't know both sides of the story. We can still offer support to HA without feeding HA's anger. I believe as a mature woman and a thorough thinker she will be able to accept that.

I think H_A is far from ready to vent about two-sides of the story as she's dealing with her pain from her side of the story. So I think she was probably smarting from the comment that rebeccajo was replying to (indirectly) even more than rebeccajo's comment. But where H_A became more angry was from the idea that her anger itself was somehow unwarranted or should be moderated. I think she was bothered by the notion that saying "hang 'em high" or whatever about the guy who just left her was "feeding HA's anger." And because she was so angry and hurting, she read the last sentence as a slight.

Rebeccajo's position is clearly that she did not mean it as a slight - she meant it to try to preserve peace and because she felt it was the right advice to give (not trying to put words in your mouth or intent in your mind rebeccajo, but this is what I gather you meant to do from your and other people's comment).

Because there is a lengthy history between H_A, RJ, and between a bunch of us here, we all reacted in very short order, applying the meaning we were predisposed to apply and take the sides we were predisposed to apply. We all got protective of our friends, and a sh*t storm began.

I hope you'll all believe me when I say that I've written all this not to say "there for RJ is wrong and H_A is right," nor to say "H_A is wrong and RJ is right," but rather to say that I think THE WHOLE COMMUNITY would be better if we all slowed the hell down and actually read what was on the page a few times and tried to see how another party could take things in the wrong way. ESPECIALLY if we consider the party's state of mind at that time.

I'm not sure we can really get past perceived or real insults, slights, hurts, and misunderstandings at this point. But at the very least, perhaps now we can decide to hold our hands every once in awhile and just let it go.

good points....

[Kez/JWolf 6]

As I was one of the first to offer H_A my thoughts when she first posted what had happened I was not prepared for her attack on me later in the thread....

I just think if the mods are going to remove posts then the same rules should apply to all posts not just some...

But over all I think they do a good job and I thank them for their support..

Kez

[Dr_LHA 3]

Quit your whining will ya? By the way, there is no such thing as censorship on a messageboard. You don't have the right to freedom of speech on a messageboard to begin with. Cry me a river...

What are you talking about? Just because the Constitution doesn't cover VJ, doesn't mean that deleting posts isn't censorship.

[JoeCanuk 3]

Going forward, I'd like to see:

- invisibility as last result. It is big brother & unneccessary unless racist, threatening, etc.

- warnings to chill out

- consistency in which posts get censored

- less bias

-If a threadmust be name chnaged, say why. This thread had no business being renamed, or moved.

So now you're FOR "censorship" as long as you approve of the censorship in question?

[no name 1]

Why is the current post not locked then, instead of censoring? There is no consistency here.

Yesterday post was locked 'by request of the OP' - no mention was made of 'closed for violating the TOS'. Yet the vicious attack made against me was a clear violation of at least 4 points in the TOS.

Quit your whining will ya? By the way, there is no such thing as censorship on a messageboard. You don't have the right to freedom of speech on a messageboard to begin with. Cry me a river...

Going forward, I'd like to see:

- invisibility as last result. It is big brother & unneccessary unless racist, threatening, etc.

- warnings to chill out

- consistency in which posts get censored

- less bias

-If a threadmust be name chnaged, say why. This thread had no business being renamed, or moved.

So now you're FOR "censorship" as long as you approve of the censorship in question?

Now where are those mods - TOS violation anyone?

Edited June 22, 2007 by devilette

[JoeCanuk 3]

Quit your whining will ya? By the way, there is no such thing as censorship on a messageboard. You don't have the right to freedom of speech on a messageboard to begin with. Cry me a river...

What are you talking about? Just because the Constitution doesn't cover VJ, doesn't mean that deleting posts isn't censorship.

What do you mean what am I talking about? I made it clear as day. Anyways, it's my opinion (based on fact). Please don't "censor" it. lol

[SteveLaura 0]

My only suggestion is that mods should think twice before deleting a post. As they say in Spider-man, "With great power come great responsibility". Mod power cannot be underestimated in this environment, you guys are basically gods to us mere mortals, and when the gods get angry and smite our posts, it makes us feel bad. Make us feel bad and we'll get angry and stop believing in you, and that will make our lives less contented. Treat us well and we will offer up our devotion and praise to our fair and kind mods.

I think I took that metaphor too far.

Not at all. I understood it. OK, I'm to get the sacrificial goat, right?

PS. Dr LHA also has a cool hat. Don't want it thought I'm choosing favourites here.

[Dr_LHA 3]

Quit your whining will ya? By the way, there is no such thing as censorship on a messageboard. You don't have the right to freedom of speech on a messageboard to begin with. Cry me a river...

What are you talking about? Just because the Constitution doesn't cover VJ, doesn't mean that deleting posts isn't censorship.

What do you mean what am I talking about? I made it clear as day. Anyways, it's my opinion (based on fact). Please don't "censor" it. lol

Based on what fact? Look up censorship in the dictionary. Yes, VJ has every right to censor posts, but that doesn't mean it isn't censorship.

Also your pointless and inflammatory post adds nothing to this discussion. Mods!!!

Edited June 22, 2007 by Dr_LHA