Community Chat

[catwhisperer]

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@catwhisperer wrote:

You have to learn to walk away. There are certain posters who don't respond to me, and that's okay. I respect that. There are certain posters that I avoid as well.

---

Not responding is the adult thing, which most of us aspire to but don't always manage. But when you walk away and someone continues not just to disagree with you, but to deliberately poo on you, you may still walk away, but it's good to know there are options :-)

---

@Moonchilde...I have poo'd and have been poo'd on, so it's all good. No worries.

[Moonchilde]

---

@truffle wrote:

Sometimes just seeing someones nicname that we know belongs to a person who is no good - a person who has repeatedly posted ridiculous falsehoods about you or others can bring about a wave of nausea.  Of course the mods never take that into consideration.   

---

I know this is very subjective, and I don't have any clever suggestion as to how it should be accomplished, but I do wish there was some sort of record-keeping the moderators could do, not just in terms of number of times a post or poster was reported, but in, shall we say, degree of egregiousness, not just in an hour, or a day, but over TIME.

The moderators should be able to see a six month (if they choose) pattern of posts. Are 90% of them baiting, rude, insulting and/or pot-stirring, as determined by a *concensus* of the moderators, not just a single moderator? Do something about that person's ability to post. Are 90% of a "new" poster's posts deletable, argumentative, baiting? Put a "hold" on these people!

[dooBdoo]

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@truffle wrote:

Sometimes just seeing someones nicname that we know belongs to a person who is no good - a person who has repeatedly posted ridiculous falsehoods about you or others can bring about a wave of nausea.  Of course the mods never take that into consideration.   

---

I know this is very subjective, and I don't have any clever suggestion as to how it should be accomplished, but I do wish there was some sort of record-keeping the moderators could do, not just in terms of number of times a post or poster was reported, but in, shall we say, degree of egregiousness, not just in an hour, or a day, but over TIME.

The moderators should be able to see a six month (if they choose) pattern of posts. Are 90% of them baiting, rude, insulting and/or pot-stirring, as determined by a *concensus* of the moderators, not just a single moderator? Do something about that person's ability to post. Are 90% of a "new" poster's posts deletable, argumentative, baiting? Put a "hold" on these people!

---

         I think, at the least, they should have a quick and easy way to look at the list of a poster's reported-and-removed posts.   Just being reported doesn't necessarily mean anything, but having lots of posts zapped (not associated with a complete thread being deleted) can be very telling.   Patterns do matter, and it would be a helpful method of making the forums less "troll-prone."

[JustJazzmom]

I can read certain people's posts and without even looking at who wrote it, I know who wrote it before my looking confirms it.

The ignore button should be a choice offered here for those want to use it or not.

Same as the emojis are offered as a choice to us, or choosing a specific font or posting color.

[SuesCat]

---

@proudlyfromNJ wrote:

That's just the thing, it is not always so easy peasy.. This is my opinion. When I read a thread, I read straight down, one answer after another. I don't turn my eye to the left for each post to see who it is. For me, that it very annoying. Easier to have the ignore button. This is how I feel. @SuesCat

---

@proudlyfromNJ Heya! I get that some ppl get riled up easier than i do! I'm from Jersey, too! I lived on Brigantine back in my youth and swam in the ocean under the moonlight just about every night as soon as i got off from work at the Beach Bar! I respect your opinion! Take care!

[missy1]

 i enjoy reading the ridiculousness of a few posters on here.

[Moonchilde]

---

@dooBdoo wrote:

---

@truffle wrote:

Sometimes just seeing someones nicname that we know belongs to a person who is no good - a person who has repeatedly posted ridiculous falsehoods about you or others can bring about a wave of nausea.  Of course the mods never take that into consideration.   

---

          Although I understand how you feel, @truffle, the moderators might not know unless they get clear reports of the offending posts including a request that they watch the patterns of a certain poster after numerous attacks.

---

I'm sure they *have* gotten many requests over the years as far as some posters' patterns. For reasons unknown, they rarely act upon it, which is very, very frustrating. Bad apples do have the capability to nasty-up the barrel - which of course is their aim all along. I don't understand why there isn't more cross-referencing between moderators, shifts, reported posters, etc. When, for example, half a dozen people, over several days' time, request the moderators to look at a person's posts to back up their issues, it NEVER seems to happen. IMO this encourages the bad apples to keep it up - there is absolutely NO deterrent - why shouldn't they keep on?

[Nancy Drew]

I find it odd all these "shoulds" that posters want QVC to do. It is a free curtsy that they do to get traffic on their website. Might be time to step back and get a fresh perspective.

[JustJazzmom]

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@dooBdoo wrote:

---

@truffle wrote:

Sometimes just seeing someones nicname that we know belongs to a person who is no good - a person who has repeatedly posted ridiculous falsehoods about you or others can bring about a wave of nausea.  Of course the mods never take that into consideration.   

---

          Although I understand how you feel, @truffle, the moderators might not know unless they get clear reports of the offending posts including a request that they watch the patterns of a certain poster after numerous attacks.

---

I'm sure they *have* gotten many requests over the years as far as some posters' patterns. For reasons unknown, they rarely act upon it, which is very, very frustrating. Bad apples do have the capability to nasty-up the barrel - which of course is their aim all along. I don't understand why there isn't more cross-referencing between moderators, shifts, reported posters, etc. When, for example, half a dozen people, over several days' time, request the moderators to look at a person's posts to back up their issues, it NEVER seems to happen. IMO this encourages the bad apples to keep it up - there is absolutely NO deterrent - why shouldn't they keep on?

---

Exactly, some posters have a distinct 'pattern' or fingerprint' to their posts. We all know who these people are; we just wish the mods would also be able to see these 'patterns'.

[dooBdoo]

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@dooBdoo wrote:

---

@truffle wrote:

Sometimes just seeing someones nicname that we know belongs to a person who is no good - a person who has repeatedly posted ridiculous falsehoods about you or others can bring about a wave of nausea.  Of course the mods never take that into consideration.   

---

          Although I understand how you feel, @truffle, the moderators might not know unless they get clear reports of the offending posts including a request that they watch the patterns of a certain poster after numerous attacks.

---

I'm sure they *have* gotten many requests over the years as far as some posters' patterns. For reasons unknown, they rarely act upon it, which is very, very frustrating. Bad apples do have the capability to nasty-up the barrel - which of course is their aim all along. I don't understand why there isn't more cross-referencing between moderators, shifts, reported posters, etc. When, for example, half a dozen people, over several days' time, request the moderators to look at a person's posts to back up their issues, it NEVER seems to happen. IMO this encourages the bad apples to keep it up - there is absolutely NO deterrent - why shouldn't they keep on?

---

          It bothers me, too.   In the past, a lot of posters were given temporary or permanent bans.   We're supposed to be adults and know how to comport ourselves...  but we also know how internet anonymity can allow people to act sometimes.   So, there are supposed to be systems in place to show posters there are negative consequences for negative activity no matter what nickname you post under.  Where is it?  I don't know.  I'm not seeing it.  The irony is, it would make the moderators' job easier.