Community Chat

[mistriTsquirrel]

Sometimes "prohibited" topics are allowed to be discussed for pages and pages, as long as they are largely in support of the majority opinion.  When someone who has an unpopular viewpoint starts a thread to voice their opinion, it often gets zapped pretty quickly.  Of course, that is no big deal to people who support the majority opinion, but it is offensive to those who do not.  Then the offended people react by trying to silence their opponents the way they have been silenced.  Some of them do whatever they can to get a thread shut down, and it often works.  

That--along with personal vendettas--is why some people try to get threads shut down.

[Spurt]

QVC should stick buy their own rules and if a topic is prohibited it shouldnt be allowed to stand just because everyone is playing nice....Because what happens is then someone else posts something  not the same but along the same lines, and that thread is deleted and people scratch their heads when there's a post above it thats still going on.....So its confusing on what is and what isnt allowed...........(why should one with a bible verse be deleted, but one with a condescending view on evangelicals be allowed--arent both about religion???????????)........go figure.........

And It amazes me how many carefully disguised political topics and also controversial topics (which are banned topics) are allowed to stand....yet individual comments are deleted within the same thread....and its amusing that the ones that are deleted are all of a like opinion if you get my drift...........

My take is stand by your rules .....don't make an occasional exception........or do away with that rule for good.......Be consistent!

@mistriTsquirrel

The rule about what merchandise can be discussed or would be removed was claified by the Moderators under the Cutomer Care category of the Forum, basically you can discuss other retailers as long as you don't provide a link to their website or provide any type of coupon or promotional code.  I was the one that actually brought up the topic to try to get it clarified for the same reason as you mentioned......and sometimes the moderators will take out the link and let the post stand.........One funny thing along that line was that an old thread suddenly re-appeared, someone thought that an old thread had been re-posted, but what actually happened was a moderator removed an equally old comment that contained a link, so it reappeared, and since it had recent activity it jumped to near the top of the topics.......why they didnt just delete the entire old thread no one knows.......

[Spurt]

---

@Lila4Now wrote:

There are a lot of fragile people here, and moderators who censor too much on these boards.  I wonder how some navigate the real world being so fragile.

---

@Lila4Now

There were just too many complaints by both sides to QVC---QVC conducted numerous surveys on the Forum, results tabulated and QVC came up with a final consensus and revisions to the Forum Standards & Guidelines. Believe it or not there were concessions made or the Forums would have been even stricter.......Unfortunately this is a PC world and everyone is "offended" so go the Forums............

[mistriTsquirrel]

@Spurt  I HATE that we cannot discuss important world events here and other important topics.  If it were up to me, the dissenting opinions wouldn't be deleted.  The disrespectful ones I can see being deleted, but that's not the same as having an unpopular opinion.  Anyway, I don't make the rules, so whatever.  It just bugs me when I see inconsistencies that look an awful lot like bias.

The links to other retailers causing threads to be deleted doesn't bother me, I just brought it up because people keep bringing up the issue that there is a rule against re-posting deleted threads.  So I made the point that yes, there is, but people re-post those types of threads--minus the link to the retailer--all the time, and I have never seen any of those re-posted threads deleted.  In many cases, it doesn't look like the rules are what's guiding the decisions.

ETA:  I didn't get a notification that you tagged me, I just happened to look at this thread and saw that you did.  Wonder what happened there.

[Spurt]

---

@mistriTsquirrel wrote:

@Spurt  I HATE that we cannot discuss important world events here and other important topics.  If it were up to me, the dissenting opinions wouldn't be deleted.  The disrespectful ones I can see being deleted, but that's not the same as having an unpopular opinion.  Anyway, I don't make the rules, so whatever.  It just bugs me when I see inconsistencies that look an awful lot like bias.

The links to other retailers causing threads to be deleted doesn't bother me, I just brought it up because people keep bringing up the issue that there is a rule against re-posting deleted threads.  So I made the point that yes, there is, but people re-post those types of threads--minus the link to the retailer--all the time, and I have never seen any of those re-posted threads deleted.  In many cases, it doesn't look like the rules are what's guiding the decisions.

ETA:  I didn't get a notification that you tagged me, I just happened to look at this thread and saw that you did.  Wonder what happened there.

---

@mistriTsquirrel

Sometimes there is a glitch in the notifications and they can stop working..

[Lindsays Grandma]

---

@mistriTsquirrel wrote:

@Lindsays Grandma  It is a lovely piece, and it was something I found beneficial.  It's a shame that a re-post of positive, uplifting content is not permitted.  Thank you for sharing it; I'd not heard it, but it really resonated with me and was a good reminder to find something to appreciate about each day.  

---

Thank you for your kind words.  It is one of my favorite pieces and I am sorry many of the posters did not get a chance to read it.  To me it is a perfect piece to read in this imperfect world we live in, but anyway, I am glad you read it and enjoyed it. 

[Oznell]

I've long thought that social media communication would improve markedly if there were standards of civility that were scrupulously observed, every time.

If all rude, unkind, personal remarks would immedately be removed for cause;  if calling names or referring derogatively to a poster in the third person resulted in deletion, I do believe that discussion sites would be more conducive to real communication.

"In real life", it's much more rare for people in social situations to be as unkind in comments to each other, even when they fundamentally disagree.  There's a kind of social contract that says, treat the other person like a human being, regardless.  

At first, there would probably be lots and lots of deletions, but rules of social engagement would be absorbed by most, I think.  It would take more stringent moderation-- paying attention to the way people treat each other, more than the topics they discuss.

[Cakers3]

---

@QueenDanceALot wrote:

Yeah, I think sometimes that "troublemaker" is in the eye of the beholder.

Actually, a lot of the time.

---

@QueenDanceALot  I'm on your side of the fence more often than not about who is a "troublemaker".

We can discuss world events but somebody always slips in a snide remark about a politician or pushes at a poster to answer a question that nobody asked.

Some posters considered being "challenged" if you try to dialogue in disagreement.

I TRY to say I understand your POV but this is how *I* view it. 

Usually the poster's feathers get ruffled and down we go.

Perception, perception, perception. 

[Plaid Pants2]

---

@Oznell wrote:

I've long thought that social media communication would improve markedly if there were standards of civility that were scrupulously observed, every time.

If all rude, unkind, personal remarks would immedately be removed for cause;  if calling names or referring derogatively to a poster in the third person resulted in deletion, I do believe that discussion sites would be more conducive to real communication.

"In real life", it's much more rare for people in social situations to be as unkind in comments to each other, even when they fundamentally disagree.  There's a kind of social contract that says, treat the other person like a human being, regardless.  

At first, there would probably be lots and lots of deletions, but rules of social engagement would be absorbed by most, I think.  It would take more stringent moderation-- paying attention to the way people treat each other, more than the topics they discuss.

---

And these boards would become a ghost town if that were to happen.

The mods don't have enough time to babysit every word that is written