Reply
Honored Contributor
Posts: 30,259
Registered: ‎08-19-2010

Re: Question to Beth QVC Mod

Any more there's more poofed/deleted threads then they are threads.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 36,317
Registered: ‎06-11-2011

Re: Question to Beth QVC Mod


@sharkky wrote:

Any more there's more poofed/deleted threads then they are threads.


Now that's a real exaggeration. 

Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,010
Registered: ‎08-29-2010

Re: Question to Beth QVC Mod

@hckynut   Good luck in getting an explanation, John.  I recently had a post deleted for "sexual content," of which there was none. Neither Moderator Wayne nor the SocialTeam bothered to reply when I asked twice for clarity. 

Strive for respect instead of attention. It lasts longer.
Honored Contributor
Posts: 18,504
Registered: ‎05-23-2010

Re: Question to Beth QVC Mod


@sharkky wrote:

Any more there's more poofed/deleted threads then they are threads.


 

 

If I actually found that to be true in the threads where I was posting, I'd start doing a bit of self-examination as to why I continue to enter into, and make my own contributions to, threads that are consistently deleted. And then I might think about changing where I post and what I say. Quite a few posts are started with the OP knowing they are against standard and will be zapped, and quite a few posters participate in those threads knowing same. I don't feel bad for them.

Life without Mexican food is no life at all
Honored Contributor
Posts: 16,901
Registered: ‎06-27-2010

Re: Question to Beth QVC Mod

[ Edited ]

@Moonchilde wrote:

@sharkky wrote:

Any more there's more poofed/deleted threads then they are threads.


 

 

If I actually found that to be true in the threads where I was posting, I'd start doing a bit of self-examination as to why I continue to enter into, and make my own contributions to, threads that are consistently deleted. And then I might think about changing where I post and what I say. Quite a few posts are started with the OP knowing they are against standard and will be zapped, and quite a few posters participate in those threads knowing same. I don't feel bad for them.


 

 

          This is precisely what I was thinking about earlier today after posting on another thread about moderation, @Moonchilde.    For me, if my posts are vanishing the first thing I'd do is think about the way I'm posting, and I'd try to be introspective about what I'm doing that's interpreted as against the standards.  

 

          As far as the moderators not responding to inquiries here about the missing posts...  I'm not aware that they're required to do so, and the standards have the disclaimer stating they can remove anything they deem inappropriate.   

 

         I posted their email address earlier in the thread and, to repeat, I've found them to be more than willing to try and help when posters email them.

 

 

 

⭐️Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy. Howard W. Newton⭐️
Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,010
Registered: ‎08-29-2010

Re: Question to Beth QVC Mod


dooBdoo wrote, in part: "As far as the moderators not responding to inquiries here about the missing posts...  I'm not aware that they're required to do so, and the standards have the disclaimer stating they can remove anything they deem inappropriate..."  

 


It is true that there is no requirement for Moderators to respond to requests for explanation of deletions.  It would be a matter of courtesy, though--particularly when the reason for censorship is for the lack of same.  

 

As in @hckynut's case in this instance, when a poster believes he/she has been erroneously judged, he/she should be entitled to either clarification or reconsideration. Obviously, conversing anonymously on an Internet forum is not of large importance; however, some folks (myself included) do still care about being considered rude, unkind or inappropriate.  

 

The implication I've noticed throughout this thread is that all it takes to be censored is for someone to make the accusation, whether accurate or fabricated.  "Wrongly Reported" should be reason for restoration of posts. 

Strive for respect instead of attention. It lasts longer.
Honored Contributor
Posts: 29,549
Registered: ‎03-12-2010

Re: Question to Beth QVC Mod

@hckynut You have always been courteous, written intelligent posts and I think you're a good guy John.

 

When I see you've posted something I always try to be sure to read it because I know it will be interesting.

 

I think someone jumped the gun (so to speak) in zaping your post.  I never saw it because I get hives just thinking about anything physical (sports), but I know if you posted something it was in good taste.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 16,901
Registered: ‎06-27-2010

Re: Question to Beth QVC Mod

[ Edited ]

IamMrsG wrote:

dooBdoo wrote, in part: "As far as the moderators not responding to inquiries here about the missing posts...  I'm not aware that they're required to do so, and the standards have the disclaimer stating they can remove anything they deem inappropriate..."  

 


It is true that there is no requirement for Moderators to respond to requests for explanation of deletions.  It would be a matter of courtesy, though--particularly when the reason for censorship is for the lack of same.  

 

As in @hckynut's case in this instance, when a poster believes he/she has been erroneously judged, he/she should be entitled to either clarification or reconsideration. Obviously, conversing anonymously on an Internet forum is not of large importance; however, some folks (myself included) do still care about being considered rude, unkind or inappropriate.  

 

The implication I've noticed throughout this thread is that all it takes to be censored is for someone to make the accusation, whether accurate or fabricated.  "Wrongly Reported" should be reason for restoration of posts. 


 

 

          Hi, @IamMrsG  I, personally, don't believe (or imply) that all it takes is for the accusation to be made.   Also, it doesn't bother me when my posts are removed and it never occurred to me to feel judged by it.    But I understand others feel differently.    

 

          As for restoration of posts...  I've seen it done, but each time it was after the poster discussed it with the moderators via email -- which seems (from their various posts) to be their preferred method, and that's why I've suggested it.   I guess I don't understand why there seems to be an attempt to force a moderator to answer, here on a thread, almost as a demand.   Why not send them a message and find out?   I do hope everyone who wants these things clarified will provide the thread/post details to the moderators and gets clarification and, perhaps, restoration of their posts.

 

 

⭐️Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy. Howard W. Newton⭐️