Q Talk

[CalminHeart]

Re: Question to Moderators
Options
a week ago

CalmInTheHeart wrote:
This isn't grade school. People on this forum need to grow thicker skin. I never could figure out why people got upset if their posts were poofed. It's just the way it is. This is Q's site and they can do anything they want with it.
_________________________________________________________

This was NOT about me and having a post "poofed". I did NOT have a post "poofed". So please, do not make assumptions.

I am wanting to know if the moderators take into account the disengenous starting of threads about controversial or political topics. I guess this is no different than trolling behavior that attempts to hide under the radar.

And, btw, calling people juvenile doesn't advance the matter either.
I Discovered That I Can Be Myself Without the Sky Falling In

-------------------------

My response stands.  I don't understand why people get so worked up about what others post.   We are adults.   I assume most people have bigger issues to worry about.  If not, I'd like to trade.

[Poodlelover]

But go read the "Kirsten, slow down" post...it is still up and there are some unkind things and bashing of her said but that post is left up..can't figure it out. 

[stevieb]

---

@Reever wrote:
Personally I think the moderators, while good intentioned, have taken the life out of these forums. One of my posts qualified as "host bashing" simply because I did not care for an outfit they were wearing!!! Free speech people!! Its scary where this once great country is heading.

---

I agree, over-moderation has resulted in less interesting forums, and while the overall tendency these days toward overtly or covertly punishing any and all instances of non-politically correct commentary has become pretty sad, I don't necessarily see the over-moderation of these forums, (as annoying, and as limiting of interesting repartee as it can be and often is...) as a free speech issue.

[dooBdoo]

I can understand the desire to know the reasons for the removal of posts or threads, and I admit sometimes I'm frustrated when it happens. 

I don't mean to imply we can't discuss it again, but the answer is always the same.

Owned and operated by a business instantly means they have to consider the things they think might be offensive to their customers or potential customers -- not only those who post here, but also those who read without ever having registered for the Community.    In their Standards they include the fact that they'll remove anything they deem unacceptable.   Add to that the fact that there are many moderators, they're human, and they're tasked with interpreting the standards...  so it always will be subjective and uneven to some degree.  And sometimes I think we forget that we agree to the standards when we create an account and use this (or any) forum.

Even though this subject was often discussed before the launch of the new platform, the fact that they used to allow more of those things than they do now might have made it easy to forget these forums never were designed to be a "no holds barred" chat site for potentially incendiary topics.  There are other social media sites for that.  So, in a way, coming here expecting this to be a political or controversial-topic chat board is like going to a shoe store and expecting to find cookware.

I've never really felt they owe me an explanation, even when I wish I understood or I wish a thread/post had been allowed to remain.   For the most part, I consider posts to be ephemeral and I don't count on this to be a place to save information permanently.  But, again, I understand the frustration.

[Moonchilde]

---

@Poodlelover wrote:

I just don't understand the logic on removal of some posts. I posted something in a reply that I did not think was unkind at all, in fact was  sympathetic I thought and it was removed, yet there is a whole thread on a host talking too fast and some unkind things said and it is still up. Don't get who decides what is fair for free speech and what isn't, but it is their website and forum so will voice my opinion elsewhere. 

---

It is largely whether a post is reported or not. If someone thought you might be being snippy to them, or someone else just doesn't like you, they may report your post. And *some* moderators take the easy way out and delete things just because someone reports them. That should not be, but it is.

[Moonchilde]

---

@Poodlelover wrote:

But go read the "Kirsten, slow down" post...it is still up and there are some unkind things and bashing of her said but that post is left up..can't figure it out. 

---

Because people read the bashing, unkind comments, think to themselves "that's not right, it should be deleted" - but they don't report it. And many posters rely on people not reporting things.

[febe1]

I think the mandated reporters cause the uneveness in what stays and what is removed. This is why you see Kirsten posts remain, Susan Graver posts remain, etc., while the protected are removed.

[Honeybunsmom]

I had a post about last nights special, it wasn't nasty or mean spirited , just a comment about it and they wouldn't post it! I was surprised, I don't even post that much!!

[febe1]

---

@bargainsgirl mom wrote:
I had a post about last nights special, it wasn't nasty or mean spirited , just a comment about it and they wouldn't post it! I was surprised, I don't even post that much!!

---

You could have unknowingly used a word that the system would not allow.