Community Chat

[biancardi]

---

@azgal wrote:

That's a good question.

Also why do they take down a thread that refers to one forum but I don't see them taking down threads that refer to HSN which I would think is their competition ?

Where is the fairness in that?

---

my thoughts on that. HSN and other commercial corporate run boards are moderated and have policies that should prevent a "free for all". Privately run boards are not subject to those rules and restrictions and perhaps the Q doesn't want to be held liable for a site such as that. there is a huge difference between a corporate run board and privately run board - I wrote this the other day and my post was removed without any explanation why.

[Bird mama]

---

@biancardi wrote:

my thoughts on that. HSN and other commercial corporate run boards are moderated and have policies that should prevent a "free for all". Privately run boards are not subject to those rules and restrictions and perhaps the Q doesn't want to be held liable for a site such as that. there is a huge difference between a corporate run board and privately run board - I wrote this the other day and my post was removed without any explanation why.

---

Glad I got a chance to read it this time.  I missed it last time.

[Maxine49]

I assume that it violates this standard---not particularly on point, but one could make an argument that it is "commercial" activity:

Use of these public areas for commercial purposes is prohibited. Do not use any Community features (including, but not limited to, video, forums, reviews, images, and profiles) to solicit funds, advertise, or solicit goods or services, or post third-party promotional material. Only use these public areas and Community features for non-commercial purposes.

[newziesuzie]

I think this Standard might apply as well

"• Do not post web addresses (URLs) for, or links to, outside sites that violate these guidelines."


http://www.qvc.com/QVCCommunity.content.html

[Justice4all]

I don't like that expression "the mods" ... call me sourpuss!

[stevieb]

---

@newziesuzie wrote:


Maybe it's just me but I don't see why it's hard to post without
personal digs and insults and some of the Standards aren't that
hard to understand, plus the Q pays to run these boards but we
don't pay anything to use the boards and what's on here is public
so the Q obviously has to care how it all comes across to anybody
who sees their "community".

I think posters got used to being able to slack off and trade insults
and the Q decided to crack down on it but all this is jmho.

---

First off, the threads primarily being referemced here had little to nothing to do with personal barbs, insults, host 'bashing' or attacks.  Overall, they were merely questioning the overall dull nature of the boards and how the standads are and aren't applied...  I'd also note that we very much do pay to use these boards, by virtue of the purchases most of us have made from the entity sponsoring these boards.  While there isn't a membership fee, there is very clealry a cost associated with maintaining them and those costs are at least partially passed on to us, the customers...  Yes, QVC should very clealry care about how their boards come across and they should also very definitely care how they are coming across to some of us based on their management of these boards.

@gardensla

[stevieb]

---

@Johnnyeager wrote:

This is really just amusing now.  They seem very concerned that we all will leave to go post and chat elsewhere.  That would debunk the theory that they really don't want the hassle of maintaining Boards.  And yet, they continue to frustrate many of us with the inexplicable (yes, I know, even when they give an explanation) deletions.

---

They don't want us, but they don't want anyone else to have us...  Oy...  A classic case of 'I hate you, don't leave me'...

[biancardi]

---

@stevieb wrote:

---

@newziesuzie wrote:


Maybe it's just me but I don't see why it's hard to post without
personal digs and insults and some of the Standards aren't that
hard to understand, plus the Q pays to run these boards but we
don't pay anything to use the boards and what's on here is public
so the Q obviously has to care how it all comes across to anybody
who sees their "community".

I think posters got used to being able to slack off and trade insults
and the Q decided to crack down on it but all this is jmho.

---

First off, the threads primarily being referemced here had little to nothing to do with personal barbs, insults, host 'bashing' or attacks.  Overall, they were merely questioning the overall dull nature of the boards and how the standads are and aren't applied...  I'd also note that we very much do pay to use these boards, by virtue of the purchases most of us have made from the entity sponsoring these boards.  While there isn't a membership fee, there is very clealry a cost associated with maintaining them and those costs are at least partially passed on to us, the customers...  Yes, QVC should very clealry care about how their boards come across and they should also very definitely care how they are coming across to some of us based on their management of these boards.

@gardensla

---

I doubt there is a cost passed onto us here with these boards.  Ebay runs forums and there is no cost for those boards. 

Yes, I agree - the Q should care about the boards here and they obviously do not want overtly controversial threads here as well as posts promoting other boards to go and chat, instead of here.

The Q could shut these boards and their business would still survive. 

[GinaV24]

@Johnnyeager @gardensla and then of course besides the lecturing, there is the poster who says just ban anyone who dissents. Everyne will obey!

 Happy Independence Day to all.

[Maxine49]

---

@biancardi wrote:

---

@stevieb wrote:

---

@newziesuzie wrote:


Maybe it's just me but I don't see why it's hard to post without
personal digs and insults and some of the Standards aren't that
hard to understand, plus the Q pays to run these boards but we
don't pay anything to use the boards and what's on here is public
so the Q obviously has to care how it all comes across to anybody
who sees their "community".

I think posters got used to being able to slack off and trade insults
and the Q decided to crack down on it but all this is jmho.

---

First off, the threads primarily being referemced here had little to nothing to do with personal barbs, insults, host 'bashing' or attacks.  Overall, they were merely questioning the overall dull nature of the boards and how the standads are and aren't applied...  I'd also note that we very much do pay to use these boards, by virtue of the purchases most of us have made from the entity sponsoring these boards.  While there isn't a membership fee, there is very clealry a cost associated with maintaining them and those costs are at least partially passed on to us, the customers...  Yes, QVC should very clealry care about how their boards come across and they should also very definitely care how they are coming across to some of us based on their management of these boards.

@gardensla

---

I doubt there is a cost passed onto us here with these boards.  Ebay runs forums and there is no cost for those boards. 

Yes, I agree - the Q should care about the boards here and they obviously do not want overtly controversial threads here as well as posts promoting other boards to go and chat, instead of here.

The Q could shut these boards and their business would still survive. 

Of course the costs are passed on to us, the consumers, in the Q's overhead, margin, contingency and profit that they add to their costs of a product to derive a price to the consumer. So, while there is no separate charge to us---we are paying for these Forums nonetheless. There is no such thing as a free lunch or a free forum! That being said, those that use the Forums without purchasing from the Q are getting the use for free.  And some of us "pay" more than others if we purchase more from the Q.

---