Unreal - Page 7

SharkE · ‎08-19-2010

Think that's a woman

Plaid Pants2 · ‎03-14-2015

@AuberriJean wrote:
@Plaid Pants2 wrote:
@proudlyfromNJ wrote:

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why if the Q is so adamant that there are no religious threads at all of any kind, whatsoever, absolutely, positively, 100% isn't allowed at all, under any circumstances, why then some prayer request threads are allowed to stay, and why Gloria Jean's daily threads in the "Friends" forum is allowed?

All I am asking is why.

It isn't wrong to want to know why QVC appears to be so hypocritical in their enforcing of that "rule".

And telling people to find other boards is a non answer.

In fact, it is evading the answer.

So, without evading the question, without telling people to post elsewhere, answer the question of why the Q allows some prayer threads to stay, and not others.

I don't think that I'm asking for a lot, just an answer to my question.

That's all.

Oh, and btw, I was 100% sincere in my Sorry thread.

As I said, I'm just asking a simple.question, and just want an answer.
If GJ and other requesting prayer threads became contentious they would be poofed also. I know they are against standards, just answering your one particular question.

But that's just it, it wasn't "contentious".

I was asking for prayers for the victims and people of France after the horrific attack.

I specifically asked that politics be kept out of the thread.

The reason that was given was that the reason for prayers was "upsetting" to some people.

How in the world can asking for prayers for the victims, their families, be "upsetting"?

I thought that I was doing something nice, and heartfelt.

If people can't handle a simple prayer request for the victims and their families after a terrorist attack, then we have become a nation of wimps.

Oh, and if I recall correctly, there was a prayer request for the victims and their families after the Orlando nightclub attack, which was allowed to stay.

@Plaid Pants2
2 posters brought arguments from another thread to your prayer request thread and then your thread was immediately closed. IMHO at that point the Mod was probably fed up with it all.

Thank-you.

That's an answer that I can accept.

:-) :-) :-)

Say Nay · ‎03-12-2010

@Mominohio wrote:

Problem is, though, that lately threads are removed BEFORE they become contentious.

There is a tendency lately to jump the gun, and shut the threads before anything even gets a chance to happen.

It seems to me that there has been a pattern as well, to let stand the mean and baiting posts, but remove people (responses) who argue the other side, or call them out for it. It often seems like the same few posters have some 'in' with the mods and get away, over and over, with baiting, insulting, and piling on.

Are you attempting to remove yourself from "mean and baiting posts"?

You made a pretty mean and baiting post yourself in reaction to someone who replied to Noel that it was good seeing her (your words, "What's that kissing sound...").

If you're tired of the baiting, insulting and piling on then *you* need to begin with *you*.

_____ ,,,^ ._. ^,,,_____

dooBdoo · ‎06-27-2010

We're here on someone else's property, and I'm not sure why we think it's up to us to tell them how to operate the forums. (And that goes back to all the etiquette talk we often see here.) Not only are the policies there for all to read, basic courtesy toward our "host" (QVC and the Q Social Team) might be missing here. The email address for the moderators is easily found, and if someone has a problem with them wouldn't it be more thoughtful to question them that way instead of these regular shout-out threads which often include personal insults?

In the end, the one sentence in the Standards for Participation should suffice to answer the ubiquitous "why was it deleted" question -- which, in my opinion, the moderators aren't obligated to answer (at least in a public shout-out thread): "We reserve the right in our discretion to delete postings or threads that we deem in violation of these guidelines or otherwise unacceptable to us."

We read a lot about personal accountability in threads here, regarding a multitude of topics. It seems to me less blame toward other posters, or other people using the report feature, or the way the Q Team does their job, and more time looking at our own patterns of posting and taking responsibility for our own actions would go a long way. Some complain about inconsistency in moderation -- how about if we take more time to be mindful of our own consistency?

Few things reveal your intellect and your generosity of spirit—the parallel powers of your heart and mind—better than how you give feedback.~Maria Popova

qualitygal · ‎10-04-2010

@dooBdoo,

Right on target! Well said.

dooBdoo · ‎06-27-2010

@proudlyfromNJ wrote:
Yes, people must have an "in" with the mods. They all must be on the "other" side of the pol fence, yes that must be it.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, @proudlyfromNJ, but I wanted to say I've seen posts/threads taken down no matter who's posting or what "side" of the issue at hand.

General comment: I think the moderators do a good job, especially considering that they're moderating a forum which is a public "face" of a huge corporation. Moderating a forum isn't an easy task, and it's a pretty thankless job.

Few things reveal your intellect and your generosity of spirit—the parallel powers of your heart and mind—better than how you give feedback.~Maria Popova

pupwhipped · ‎03-11-2010

I feel sorry for the moderators who have to referee all this nonsense.

wildcat fan · ‎03-23-2010

People have been banned for making nicer comments than some of the ones in this very thread. I agree that consistency is the issue here. Yes, they have the right to moderate how they want, but when you delete the same type of comment here, yet allow it there, it causes confusion and appears biased. Obviously, QVC is okay with that, so it's just something we have to get used to if we want to post here.

proudlyfromNJ · ‎05-01-2010

@dooBdoo

@dooBdoo wrote:
@proudlyfromNJ wrote:
Yes, people must have an "in" with the mods. They all must be on the "other" side of the pol fence, yes that must be it.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, @proudlyfromNJ, but I wanted to say I've seen posts/threads taken down no matter who's posting or what "side" of the issue at hand.

General comment: I think the moderators do a good job, especially considering that they're moderating a forum which is a public "face" of a huge corporation. Moderating a forum isn't an easy task, and it's a pretty thankless job.