Community Chat

[Puzzle Piece]

Sure there are standards but, there are also the moderators who INTERPRET a post in their subjective way.  Kinda biased on the part of the moderator.

[newziesuzie]

It seems obvious they can't read every post in 

every thread so that does make sense.

😊

[Moonchilde]

I have seen moderators intervene in brand new threads with only a few responses that I would bet $$ no one has reported. So I think some moderators are proactive when it comes to touchy subjects or insult potential. The examples I have seen, I've been fine with - surprised and pleased.

I do think some moderators are better at their "ideal" than others, i.e. some strive to be professional, proactive and fair and they do as good a job as humanly possible. And some phone it in all the time or just sometimes, or only occasionally. There are issues, as there were on the old forum, of inadequate or non-existent moderation on the late night hours/graveyard shift and there are still people who exploit this, knowing their insults or other inappropriate content (political, etc) will remain for hours until seen by the day shift.

[wildcat fan]

I think it's interesting that they say they can't and won't review all posts here.  It's their website, but they don't want to take responsibility for what goes on here.  They have several moderators.  If they aren't reviewing/reading posts, I wonder what they're doing all day/night?  Sounds like the "engineers" are doing the technical work.  

I used to think QVC sponsored this Community because they wanted customers' feedback, but I've gotten the impression that's not the case.  I've had a few customer service reps tell me they've been told they aren't even supposed to read the forums. Sometimes I wonder why they continue to have this Community.

[SusieQ_2]

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

IMO it has nothing to do with ducks or quacking. "Censorship" is first of all in the eye of the beholder, and secondly - even if it IS "censorship" (however thousands of people may differently define it), well, that's okay too. Censorship is allowed and legal. Not to mention that, by posting on these forums, every poster agrees to QVC's terms or has to abide by them regardless of whether they agree with them.

---

No, not really. Censorship has a very concrete definition. The fact that we agree to it doesn't change what it is. I don't think anyone questioned the legality of the issue. 

[Moonchilde]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/definitions.html

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

IMO it has nothing to do with ducks or quacking. "Censorship" is first of all in the eye of the beholder, and secondly - even if it IS "censorship" (however thousands of people may differently define it), well, that's okay too. Censorship is allowed and legal. Not to mention that, by posting on these forums, every poster agrees to QVC's terms or has to abide by them regardless of whether they agree with them.

---

No, not really. Censorship has a very concrete definition. The fact that we agree to it doesn't change what it is. I don't think anyone questioned the legality of the issue. 

---

Not looking very singular or concrete, especially since QVC  is a private company and not the Federal govt.

[newziesuzie]

---

@Puzzle Piece wrote:

Sure there are standards but, there are also the moderators who INTERPRET a post in their subjective way.  Kinda biased on the part of the moderator.

---

How else would they do it?  They're not robots lol.

Anyway the part of the Standards I posted says 

anything they think is unacceptable is up to

them to decide.  I think it's biased on our part to 

be so demanding and to assume our posts should

stand and others should go and anyway no matter

WHAT they do somebody will be p-oed lol!

They poof my posts all the time and to me it's a waste 

of time and worry to be upset or try to dissect it all 

but to each their own.

😊

[newziesuzie]

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

I have seen moderators intervene in brand new threads with only a few responses that I would bet $$ no one has reported. So I think some moderators are proactive when it comes to touchy subjects or insult potential. The examples I have seen, I've been fine with - surprised and pleased.

I do think some moderators are better at their "ideal" than others, i.e. some strive to be professional, proactive and fair and they do as good a job as humanly possible. And some phone it in all the time or just sometimes, or only occasionally. There are issues, as there were on the old forum, of inadequate or non-existent moderation on the late night hours/graveyard shift and there are still people who exploit this, knowing their insults or other inappropriate content (political, etc) will remain for hours until seen by the day shift.

---

I've wondered if they get an alert when certain words are

posted.

[sunshine45]

---

@KingstonsMom wrote:

---

@sunshine45 wrote:

---

@ROMARY wrote:

I wouldn't even know whether or not my replies have been deleted, because I don't know how to find them.  BTW, how can we find our recent replies?  Sometimes I want to go back and edit, and/or don't even recall which discussions I've commented/replied (to). 

---

 @ROMARY

enter your user name on "search forums and blogs" box

click on the drop down box and click on users

click on the red GO button

it should take you to your name and stats

click on your number of posts

this will bring up your posting history

---

@sunshine45

Do you mean 'Total number of posts" underneath date registered, etc.?

If so, I can't click on the number of posts nor the statement 'Total number of posts'.

---

@KingstonsMom

yes, it will say "xxxx posts" right underneath date registered. it doesnt appear to be a link, but if you are signed in and scroll over it is should be clickable.

[SusieQ_2]

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/definitions.html

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

IMO it has nothing to do with ducks or quacking. "Censorship" is first of all in the eye of the beholder, and secondly - even if it IS "censorship" (however thousands of people may differently define it), well, that's okay too. Censorship is allowed and legal. Not to mention that, by posting on these forums, every poster agrees to QVC's terms or has to abide by them regardless of whether they agree with them.

---

No, not really. Censorship has a very concrete definition. The fact that we agree to it doesn't change what it is. I don't think anyone questioned the legality of the issue. 

---

Not looking very singular or concrete, especially since QVC  is a private company and not the Federal govt.

---

Doesn't matter about being private or gov't. No one has questioned the legality of censoring a private company. The point is the word is easily defined.  It is what it is regardless of the eye of the beholder.