REINSTATE BAD_DADDY NOW!!!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Making the decision to ban, yes. Sending the courtesy message to the member, no.

So the problem is either with a single member acting out in the open, or the majority of the mod staff conspiring in secret. It is so hard to know the other half of the story.

[^_^ 5,021]

So the problem is either with a single member acting out in the open, or the majority of the mod staff conspiring in secret. It is so hard to know the other half of the story.

Moderator discussions leading up to a member ban should be made available to all posters.

[SMOKE 1,426]

[quote name=' timestamp='1357833360' post='5914185]

Moderator discussions leading up to a member ban should be made available to all posters.

especially when the decision involves influence of members outside the mod team actively pursuing that action.

Edited January 10, 2013 by SMOKE

[^_^ 5,021]

especially when the decision involves influence of members outside the mod team actively pursuing that action.

you probably believe the moon landing was faked.

[SMOKE 1,426]

[quote name=' timestamp='1357834176' post='5914212]

you probably believe the moon landing was faked.

[^_^ 5,021]

knew it!

[Kathryn41 3,205]

you know about 1/2 of that is true. big daddy was warned. big daddy did adjust his posting style months back. big daddy since has been repeatedly baited by other members. big daddy DID report the baiting to the mod team repeatedly. the mod team did nothing to curb the ongoing baiting. this suspension was personal & done hastily, by a mod that has overstepped their position before. the 'ban' was triggered by bid daddy's response to baiting comments made by a poster you yourself said was 'unofficially asked to join, due to their immigration knowledge' yet that poster mostly post in the P&R forum & baits everyone. ewok didn't perma ban his IP. its an account ban, meaning a mod did it. ewok should review this, over turn it, and instruct the mod team to actually attempt to stop targeted baiting of high profile members.

yah i know my post won't change anything. but, the entire mod team knows its spot on.

First let me correct a significant error in your post. The member that you say was invited to join Visa Journey because of their immigration knowledge was NOT invited by Visa Journey moderation, administration or anyone associated officially with Visa Journey. The invitation was issued by a private member who knows the individual and felt he could contribute to the forum. When the comments about his 'invitation' to join became personal attacks, I followed up and received confirmation that no one in Administration or on the Moderation Team had invited him. I asked the individual involved how he came to join Visa Journey. He responded that it was personal friend who is also a member invited him and no one associated with Visa Journey. I have posted this information before so, please, let's put that rumour to rest once and for all. The individual in question is not here at the invitation of anyone administratively involved with Visa Journey.

Second, the decision to ban Bad_Daddy was not made lightly, hastily or for personal reasons. The moderator in question responded to multiple reports of the same offense - not just one report - but multiple reports, and before taking action, asked in the Report Forum for a consensus of the other moderators if this violation qualified for the 'Third Strike'. There have been previous violations by Bad_Daddy where this question was asked and the decision was that this was not egregious enough for such a drastic decision. In this case, after reviewing the reports and the violations , the decision was made that this qualified for the 'third strike', and the ban put in effect based upon unanimous consensus of the Moderation team.

Bad_Daddy was well aware of the Terms of Service for participating on Visa Journey. Being a longer time member actually means he has no excuse for continually violating TOS. He was informed last summer after a long history of TOS violations and increasingly serious moderator action, that he was in danger of being banned if he did not improve his posting behaviour. He was given the choice - repeatedly - of posting responsibly or suffering the consequences.

When Bad_Daddy reported personal attacks or comments made to him, the Moderation team responded to each and every report.. His reports were not ignored, and there are members in this forum who will confirm that they themselves were on the receiving end of moderator attention in response to such reports. It is important to remember, however, that Bad_Daddy himself often instigated many of the responses that others made to him by his own baiting and incendiary comments that were designed to provoke ire and emotionally charged responses. When he reported being baited the moderation team responded. When others reported Bad_Daddy's violations - baiting, personal attacks, racism, sexism, promotion of homophobia and intolerance against certain groups of individuals - the moderation team also responded. Some members even accused us of 'favourtism' for allowing Bad_Daddy to get away with as much as he did, just as you are now saying that Bad_Daddy was the innocent victim of inappropriate comments and attacks from others. He was neither innocent nor was he a victim. Bad_Daddy gave as good as he got and then some.

The process for the final ban was developed last Winter with Captain Ewok in response to the disregard a number of habitual offenders gave to the TOS and any attempts at moderation. It was Captain Ewok's own directive that we use the '3 strikes' formula to determine when enough is enough, and that the offender be informed at the start of that process of what to expect. Bad_Daddy was informed at each step along the way, and had many, many, many opportunities to prevent this from happening. Bad_Daddy is more than welcome to request Captain Ewok to review the circumstances that led to his permanent ban, but I very much doubt that this review will change anything. Bad_Daddy could have prevented this from happening. The choice has always been his. The Bad_Daddy account is indeed permanently banned even if the IP address has not been banned. It is the same effect as if the action had been done by Captain Ewok.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Kathryn41

[^_^ 5,021]

The Bad_Daddy account is indeed permanently banned even if the IP address has not been banned.

So his account has been banned, not his IP. In other words, he is allowed to come back with another account.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

especially when the decision involves influence of members outside the mod team actively pursuing that action.

There were no outside influences from others in reaching this decision. There is a process in place that is well documented in the Report Forum. Each and every step is documented. Each and every offense is documented. This decision was not made based upon influence or emotional responses from others, but purely on the actions made by Bad_Daddy himself. This process was developed with that goal in mind - to prevent any personal or private agendas from 'tainting' the decision. The only person who is responsible for this action and who could have prevented it from happening is Bad_Daddy.

[quote name=' timestamp='1357836923' post='5914298]

So his account has been banned, not his IP. In other words, he is allowed to come back with another account.

Not necessarily. Captain Ewok may yet decide to ban the IP address as well.

[^_^ 5,021]

Not necessarily. Captain Ewok may yet decide to ban the IP address as well.

But if Kip comes back with another account before Ewok gets around to the IP ban, what grounds are there for banning that account as well (assuming it hasn't broken any rules)?

[Kathryn41 3,205]

It is the individual with the account who has been banned. They don't become a different person just because they have changed the name or the account.

[^_^ 5,021]

It is the individual with the account who has been banned. They don't become a different person just because they have changed the name or the account.

Interesting. Thanks.

[SMOKE 1,426]

First let me correct a significant error in your post. The member that you say was invited to join Visa Journey because of their immigration knowledge was NOT invited by Visa Journey moderation, administration or anyone associated officially with Visa Journey. The invitation was issued by a private member who knows the individual and felt he could contribute to the forum. When the comments about his 'invitation' to join became personal attacks, I followed up and received confirmation that no one in Administration or on the Moderation Team had invited him. I asked the individual involved how he came to join Visa Journey. He responded that it was personal friend who is also a member invited him and no one associated with Visa Journey. I have posted this information before so, please, let's put that rumour to rest once and for all. The individual in question is not here at the invitation of anyone administratively involved with Visa Journey.

Second, the decision to ban Bad_Daddy was not made lightly, hastily or for personal reasons. The moderator in question responded to multiple reports of the same offense - not just one report - but multiple reports, and before taking action, asked in the Report Forum for a consensus of the other moderators if this violation qualified for the 'Third Strike'. There have been previous violations by Bad_Daddy where this question was asked and the decision was that this was not egregious enough for such a drastic decision. In this case, after reviewing the reports and the violations , the decision was made that this qualified for the 'third strike', and the ban put in effect based upon unanimous consensus of the Moderation team.

Bad_Daddy was well aware of the Terms of Service for participating on Visa Journey. Being a longer time member actually means he has no excuse for continually violating TOS. He was informed last summer after a long history of TOS violations and increasingly serious moderator action, that he was in danger of being banned if he did not improve his posting behaviour. He was given the choice - repeatedly - of posting responsibly or suffering the consequences.

When Bad_Daddy reported personal attacks or comments made to him, the Moderation team responded to each and every report.. His reports were not ignored, and there are members in this forum who will confirm that they themselves were on the receiving end of moderator attention in response to such reports. It is important to remember, however, that Bad_Daddy himself often instigated many of the responses that others made to him by his own baiting and incendiary comments that were designed to provoke ire and emotionally charged responses. When he reported being baited the moderation team responded. When others reported Bad_Daddy's violations - baiting, personal attacks, racism, sexism, promotion of homophobia and intolerance against certain groups of individuals - the moderation team also responded. Some members even accused us of 'favourtism' for allowing Bad_Daddy to get away with as much as he did, just as you are now saying that Bad_Daddy was the innocent victim of inappropriate comments and attacks from others. He was neither innocent nor was he a victim. Bad_Daddy gave as good as he got and then some.

The process for the final ban was developed last Winter with Captain Ewok in response to the disregard a number of habitual offenders gave to the TOS and any attempts at moderation. It was Captain Ewok's own directive that we use the '3 strikes' formula to determine when enough is enough, and that the offender be informed at the start of that process of what to expect. Bad_Daddy was informed at each step along the way, and had many, many, many opportunities to prevent this from happening. Bad_Daddy is more than welcome to request Captain Ewok to review the circumstances that led to his permanent ban, but I very much doubt that this review will change anything. Bad_Daddy could have prevented this from happening. The choice has always been his. The Bad_Daddy account is indeed permanently banned even if the IP address has not been banned. It is the same effect as if the action had been done by Captain Ewok.

1st- thats what unofficially means.

2nd- the given to posters after their request was answered on matters involving big daddy says differnt

reports go unanswered everyday.

he tried to avoid it. he even engaged in direct discussion with you about it. he was blown off, no 'don't respond to each other' order was ever issued.

There were no outside influences from others in reaching this decision. There is a process in place that is well documented in the Report Forum. Each and every step is documented. Each and every offense is documented. This decision was not made based upon influence or emotional responses from others, but purely on the actions made by Bad_Daddy himself. This process was developed with that goal in mind - to prevent any personal or private agendas from 'tainting' the decision. The only person who is responsible for this action and who could have prevented it from happening is Bad_Daddy.

Not necessarily. Captain Ewok may yet decide to ban the IP address as well.

again the say different.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

he tried to avoid it. he even engaged in direct discussion with you about it. he was blown off, no 'don't respond to each other' order was ever issued.

Are you basing this on known fact, or are you taking him at his word?

How is continuing to post offensive, sexist remarks trying to avoid conflict?

Plenty of his remarks never even got deleted.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Evylin

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Are you basing this on known fact, or are you taking him at his word?

How is continuing to post offensive, sexist remarks trying to avoid conflict?

Plenty of his remarks never even got deleted.

Were you two ever instructed to put the other poster on ignore for a period of time, and not to respond either directly, or indirectly to the other's post, or not to participate in topics started by the other person? It appears that intermediate step was not utilized, as it was with other members, and even with Kip and another eventually banned member in the distant past.