Re: What is with the censorship?

Moonchilde · ‎05-23-2010

@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.

What is your alternative suggestion? Non-human software deciding if something is inappropriate?

Why assume a moderator is "biased" if they delete a post or thread? They are the most UNbiased viewers of threads - they aren't into posters' personalities and who is dissing who and why - they're simply following the QVC standards.

They MAY interpret something differently than I do, and they have, but in general not very often.

UNmoderated is not an option, nor is being totally in synch with each individual's definition of "fair." Making a decision I personally do not agree with does not necessarily make them biased just because (1) they have the authority to make the decision) and (I didn't like the decision).

Life without Mexican food is no life at all

tansy · ‎01-02-2011

@Marp -- I get how to call up my posting history but not how to have the most recent posts first.

Moonchilde · ‎05-23-2010

@SusieQ_2 wrote:
@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.

That does not make sense. There is no single definition of the word. There is your view of whether something is censorship and there is my view, and there are the individual views of everyone in the world. Your view, or my view, or anyone's individual view is not "the" view for everyone.

Life without Mexican food is no life at all

Cakers3 · ‎06-17-2015

Life is short. It's a beautiful day. Go outside and plant a flower; hug a tree, buy an ice cream for somebody you don't know; breathe some fresh air.

All this constant yammering about posts and threads and reporting to the mods and how the mods are biased or not - geeze Louise already.

I have grandchildren to see today; hope y'all have something nice to do instead of whining about the mods.

"" Compassion is a verb."-Thich Nhat Hanh

SusieQ_2 · ‎03-27-2012

@Moonchilde wrote:
@SusieQ_2 wrote:
@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.

That does not make sense. There is no single definition of the word. There is your view of whether something is censorship and there is my view, and there are the individual views of everyone in the world. Your view, or my view, or anyone's individual view is not "the" view for everyone.

Yes it does make sense. Saying that the word has no single definition is what doesn't make sense.

I can post the definition if that would help but it's easily found online.

Moonchilde · ‎05-23-2010

@newziesuzie wrote:
@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.

I'm sure the 4-letter software is still in place, tweaked a bit. But I believe there are posters who look at everything some others post in anticipation of being able to report them for something, if they're in the same threads or on the forums at the same time. I've watched it happen.

Life without Mexican food is no life at all

Marp · ‎03-09-2010

@tansy wrote:
@Marp -- I get how to call up my posting history but not how to have the most recent posts first.

@tansy

If you always want the newest post first go to your settings, preferences, linear layout and select newest first in the first setting option.

If you only want the newest first for a particular thread click on Topic Options at the top of the first page above the OP and select sort topics newest to oldest.

The eyes through which you see others may be the same as how they see you.

lovescats · ‎03-10-2010

@Cakers3 wrote:
Life is short. It's a beautiful day. Go outside and plant a flower; hug a tree, buy an ice cream for somebody you don't know; breathe some fresh air.

All this constant yammering about posts and threads and reporting to the mods and how the mods are biased or not - geeze Louise already.

I have grandchildren to see today; hope y'all have something nice to do instead of whining about the mods.

People aren't yammering or whining they are just giving their opinions and will spend their day during other things just like you.

Moonchilde · ‎05-23-2010

@SusieQ_2 wrote:
@Moonchilde wrote:
@SusieQ_2 wrote:
@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.

That does not make sense. There is no single definition of the word. There is your view of whether something is censorship and there is my view, and there are the individual views of everyone in the world. Your view, or my view, or anyone's individual view is not "the" view for everyone.

Yes it does make sense. Saying that the word has no single definition is what doesn't make sense.
I can post the definition if that would help but it's easily found online.

No thanks. I have zero problem with my take on it.

Life without Mexican food is no life at all

tansy · ‎01-02-2011

@Marp wrote:
@tansy wrote:
@Marp -- I get how to call up my posting history but not how to have the most recent posts first.
@tansy

If you always want the newest post first go to your settings, preferences, linear layout and select newest first in the first setting option.

If you only want the newest first for a particular thread click on Topic Options at the top of the first page above the OP and select sort topics newest to oldest.

******

Thanks, Marp. Your second paragraph is what I needed