Am I in a time warp??? - Page 4

terrier3 · ‎03-10-2010

@SydneyH wrote:
Not true, dissenters of the decision were 'invited' NOT to post on that thread. If that isn't peculiar I don't know what is..........

That wasn't true at all, SydneyH. I don't know what you mean by "invited" - if that was your personal perception - it wasn't correct.

There were plenty of dissenting posts that stayed up - only the ones who broke the rules...and continued to RE-post in the exact same manner - were removed.

There were several moderators involved in that one thread - posters who took their advice and commented within the rules were fine.

betteb · ‎03-09-2010

@biancardi wrote:
@SydneyH wrote:
Not true, dissenters of the decision were 'invited' NOT to post on that thread. If that isn't peculiar I don't know what is..........

no, that isn't true. There were people who stated that they disagreed with it Those posts stood. The ones that went on and on about the decision, bringing up politics, the Constitution, and religion - those were the posts that were not allowed on that thread, which is what the mods stated when they removed those posts.

That's the way I saw it biancardi.

It's God's job to judge the terrorists. It's our mission to arrange the meeting. U.S. Marines

Moonchilde · ‎05-23-2010

Brii, you said it, short and sweet. People will either choose to follow the rules or those who choose to continue to challenge, disrupt and nose-thumb will hopefully get the permanent boot sooner rather than later.

Life without Mexican food is no life at all

SydneyH · ‎03-10-2010

@brii wrote:
Either people are gong to learn how to post within the parameters of what the mods will allow or they won't.

Feel free to challenge them, but don't be surprised when you get the boot.

(you in the general sense, not anybody specific)

Agreed, gotta chuckle with the 'troublemaker' tag though, seems like it can apply to both sides because no one person's version of events is entirely accurate.

kittymomNC · ‎08-09-2012

moonchilde wrote:
"From what I saw those "innocents" came from both sides of the discussion. Those who voiced their disagreement and those who couldn't stand to not reply back. As is most always the case in these situations, neither side is truly without any blame."

The original celebratory thread *begged* posters, throughout, to simply express their feelings in ways that would NOT get the thread poofed. 95% of the posters enjoying the happiness in the thread adhered to that. Perhaps 5% did not. So yes, one can say there was blame on both sides, but some was due to anger at others deliberately trying to have a thread that *was staying within the rules* deleted if they could manage it. I'm not saying everyone who posted in either thread was trying for trouble, certainly not. But it was the troublemakers who prevailed, hence the deletion.

Moonchilde, you and others have tried your best to make people understand what happened on those particular threads, but apparently they just refuse to "get it" and/or let it go... which just reinforces some of the comments I made in my original post. Thanks for the efforts several of you have made to try and keep this thread from getting derailed too.

SusieQ_2 · ‎03-27-2012

@Moonchilde wrote:
"From what I saw those "innocents" came from both sides of the discussion. Those who voiced their disagreement and those who couldn't stand to not reply back. As is most always the case in these situations, neither side is truly without any blame."

The original celebratory thread *begged* posters, throughout, to simply express their feelings in ways that would NOT get the thread poofed. 95% of the posters enjoying the happiness in the thread adhered to that. Perhaps 5% did not. So yes, one can say there was blame on both sides, but some was due to anger at others deliberately trying to have a thread that *was staying within the rules* deleted if they could manage it. I'm not saying everyone who posted in either thread was trying for trouble, certainly not. But it was the troublemakers who prevailed, hence the deletion.

Exactly my point. The anger came from both sides. Your last sentence, "But it was the troublemakers who prevailed, hence the deletion" makes me question the OP's title "Am I in a time warp???" Actually it seems things haven't changed much at all.

biancardi · ‎03-10-2010

but it is false equivalency to say that both sides were equally at fault. People were trying to explain and show what the mods had instructed us to do, and it was ignored.

That is why folks got frustrated and said to start a new thread if they wished to ignore the moderator's instructions on that thread.

If you can't fix what's broken, you'll go insane ~ Max
Look, I don’t like the taste of broccoli, but it doesn’t get tastier if you call it “Broccoli!”!
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling. ~ Eames

hckynutjohn · ‎06-15-2015

@missy1 wrote:
It was strange the mods let posters congratulate the rainbow ruling, but posters couldn't say they don't agree with it,

Certain positions are ok, others? Not so much. This is not new with this crazy change, it has been like that the many double digit years I have been posting here. Moderators may change, but what is ok, and what isn't has always been a constant on this BB. Violate the Standards a certain way and threads move on. Step in with an opposing opinion and an individual post is gone, or maybe even the thread.---------When I was a hockey Ref for several decades I strived for consistancy. Sure players/coaches and fans may not agree with your calls, but as long as the calls were consistant, and for both teams playing, that was all they wanted to see from a Ref. Here? I have seen things that go on and on, while others that appeared more in compliance with The Standards, not so much.-----------Many opinionated threads/posts stand while others disappear, anc I don't expect to see ig ever change here.----------hckynut(john)

hckynut(john)

Moonchilde · ‎05-23-2010

Thanks, kittymom :-)

As is always the case, sides are taken by some based on their personal views of whatever the original issue is. Others try hard for fairness - most things are a lot of gray, not so much black or white. Still others come along after the fact with no personal knowledge and believe the posters they choose to believe for their own reasons.

No one is convincing anyone here - but that is the story of all forums ;-(

QVC's goal is to keep contentious threads and posts to an absolute minimum. I think the goal of many of us is just to see that in the new forum, bullies are dealt with up front. I speak of bullying in the sense of forcing inappropriately contentious, rude, religious or political content onto the forums.

Life without Mexican food is no life at all

SusieQ_2 · ‎03-27-2012

@biancardi wrote:
but it is false equivalency to say that both sides were equally at fault. People were trying to explain and show what the mods had instructed us to do, and it was ignored.

That is why folks got frustrated and said to start a new thread if they wished to ignore the moderator's instructions on that thread.

I mostly agree Biancardi. If everyone would have complied with the thread being only congratulatory, the thread would probably still stand. But that didn't happen, and posters began to argue back and forth, which is why it was shut down.