Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ILW Is Predgudice!

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Aroha
    replied
    A personal vendetta? That ones news to me. We may disagree on certain things, but a vendetta?

    As I said before, when I read the first post that was deleted, I did a double take because he was actually making sense and while I wasn't sure it was the reason for the OP's problem, it was something I hadn't thought of. That's not to say I don't think some of his other posts shouldn't have been moderated, or even that I think the rules need changing. I don't think they do - they just need to be applied to everyone equally.

    Leave a comment:


  • ProudUSC
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hudson:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProudUSC:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The moderator here has stated repeatedly not to question the authority of the moderator. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Show me. I have never seen him or her state this. It is against the forum rules to pose as a moderator, but not to question the moderator. Clearly, MIR was singled out on this one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    I think it was in the beginning. I do recall that Boardwizard has deleted several posts in the "welcome the new moderator" thread. Also, in the forum rules section, the phrase, " taking actions that interfere with site operations" can be interpreted, loosely I might add, to questioning the moderator. This could mean that if Boardwizard interpreted MIR's post to encourage other posters to not follow the rules or interfere with the actions of this site as to being an internet troll, it falls iwthin those same guidelinse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Hudson, BoardWizard jumped the gun on this one. He was deleting all of MIR's post that night and included the one in this thread without bothering to interpret the rules - that's my opinion, anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aroha:
    You've interpreted plenty already, Hudson, so why pass the buck now? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    It was not passing the buck Aroha. You and some others think that the response was legitimate, Boardwizard thought otherwise. Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? Not matter what the answer may be, it still goes to a problem between MIR and Boardwizard, not the forum and Boardwizard or a personal vendetta between you and me.

    BTW, I have already sent a PM to the moderator to suggest a revision of the rules so that this sort of thing does not happen again.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aroha
    replied
    You've interpreted plenty already, Hudson, so why pass the buck now?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aroha:
    Hudson, that is a very loose interpretation. It still doesn't explain why a legitimate response was moderated though, or why other posters are allowed to get away with breaking the rules on an almost daily basis. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This situation is really between Boardwizard and MIR to discuss privately, not your or my or anyone other poster's intepretation of the response. If the site needs improvedment, then one should send Boardwizard a PM suggesting more explicit forum rules so that this would not happen in the future.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aroha
    replied
    Yes, Davdah, in between the nastiness, they do get a decent answer. There are still one or two people here who are interested in helping who make sure of that. So what if they choose to ask the question on a forum instead of to an immigration attorney? It doesn't mean they deserve the treatment they get from some members ... and it most definitely is not only certain questions that earn it. You know that as well as I do.

    Hudson, that is a very loose interpretation. It still doesn't explain why a legitimate response was moderated though, or why other posters are allowed to get away with breaking the rules on an almost daily basis.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProudUSC:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The moderator here has stated repeatedly not to question the authority of the moderator. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Show me. I have never seen him or her state this. It is against the forum rules to pose as a moderator, but not to question the moderator. Clearly, MIR was singled out on this one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    I think it was in the beginning. I do recall that Boardwizard has deleted several posts in the "welcome the new moderator" thread. Also, in the forum rules section, the phrase, " taking actions that interfere with site operations" can be interpreted, loosely I might add, to questioning the moderator. This could mean that if Boardwizard interpreted MIR's post to encourage other posters to not follow the rules or interfere with the actions of this site as to being an internet troll, it falls iwthin those same guidelinse.

    Leave a comment:


  • davdah
    replied
    It may seem like one but it's the truth. Most people who come here with a legitimate question get a decent answer. It's those questions on how to skirt the intent of the law that get a shellacking.

    Besides, in most cases they need an attorney. Relying on an anonymous web site to unravel complex legal questions is a recipe for disaster. You do get what you pay for. From my own experience with lawyers, immigration attorneys are on the low end price wise as compared to many others.

    PUSC, when fall guys are brought into the picture, it's usually an indication something nefarious is going on. At least, that's what past experience has taught me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aroha
    replied
    Thats a cop out if ever I heard one. Everyone else does it, so I may as well do it too. As my Mum says, if everyone flushed their heads down the toilet, would you?

    Besides, they do move on, Davdah. Which is why this forum has so much difficulty in attracting or keeping members. People with questions don't hang around to find out the answers because they're abused from the time they first ask the question. Although the forum was lawless for a long time, there were still rules. The question here is whether they're being applied fairly and consistently.

    Leave a comment:


  • davdah
    replied
    True, insults and antagonism abounds. That's part of being on-line. If it weren't an inherent quality in all of us, it wouldn't happen. Intolerance to intolerance is itself intolerance. No one is innocent. If it were too objectionable, those opposed would move on. Would anyone continue to eat something bitter if they didn't like it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Aroha
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    Maybe it wasn't in this post Aroha. But, in another he put up something about the would be fiance moving to the immigrants country for a while to see how that would be taken. We know the idea behind it. If it's mentioned and flat out rejected true intent is revealed. The alternative, based on the fact whiffs of fraud were already in the making, was a perfectly legitimate response. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I don't think we're talking about the same poster as the one in which MIR's perfectly legitimate response was removed, Davdah, though I do believe I know what one you are talking about, and in that thread he was told he could not bring his new wife back to the US on a tourist visa. The only answers that were moderated were those that included abuse and insults. In fact, in that thread, although S12's response was moderated, the relevant and correct portion of his answer (that a tourist visa is for tourists) was left intact.

    The fact is that it's quite possible to advise someone against committing fraud, or to help them figure out the right way to do things, without immediately jumping on the fraud bandwagon and calling them trailer-trash, scumbags, scammers and all the other names that are so prevalent on this forum.

    Leave a comment:


  • ProudUSC
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    Maybe it wasn't in this post Aroha. But, in another he put up something about the would be fiance moving to the immigrants country for a while to see how that would be taken. We know the idea behind it. If it's mentioned and flat out rejected true intent is revealed. The alternative, based on the fact whiffs of fraud were already in the making, was a perfectly legitimate response. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I agree. Selective censorship is being practiced here with MIR being the fall guy.

    Leave a comment:


  • davdah
    replied
    Maybe it wasn't in this post Aroha. But, in another he put up something about the would be fiance moving to the immigrants country for a while to see how that would be taken. We know the idea behind it. If it's mentioned and flat out rejected true intent is revealed. The alternative, based on the fact whiffs of fraud were already in the making, was a perfectly legitimate response.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aroha
    replied
    There are two problems with that, Hudson. First of all, along with Proud, I can't recall seeing anything that states you can't question BoardWizard's integrity. Secondly, MIR's posts, even a legitimate one, were removed before he went on his bender against the practice.

    Even if what you say was the reason for BoardWizard's actions, MIR is not the first person who's questioned being moderated, or commented on the one-sided nature of it, yet he's been singled out. While most forums state that a moderators decision is final, they're still expected to apply the rules fairly and evenly regardless of their personal opinion of any given poster.

    Leave a comment:


  • ProudUSC
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The moderator here has stated repeatedly not to question the authority of the moderator. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Show me. I have never seen him or her state this. It is against the forum rules to pose as a moderator, but not to question the moderator. Clearly, MIR was singled out on this one.

    Leave a comment:

Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

Home Page

Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Questions/Comments

SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily



Working...
X