Q Talk

[NAES1]

    ''..and NO, I am NOT THE AUTHOR''...I am replying to another poster..

[debic]

---

@KatieB wrote:

---

@ChynnaBlue wrote:

I can't believe people need to have this explained to them.

---

Here's what I can't believe  ------   I can't believe that you felt the need to post this comment......

---

LOL, I'm speechless.

[febe1]

I saw a post removed by one of the moderators. I can't remember where or when, but very recently, like a few days ago. 

The message at the removal by the moderator was that this post was removed because it might lead to disagreement. 

Does not an opinion forum have those who agree and those who disagree? What do you call a forum where everybody agrees and nobody disagrees? 

[terrier3]

---

@GinaV24 wrote:

@Krimpette ha, rolling on the floor laughing at the thought that QVC would care enough about what its customers think to remove a host because of letters written.

---

They would fire a host in a NANO-second if viewers disliked them enough not to buy when they are on.

It's easy to guage too - since the same products are presented by different hosts each day.

Sales are simple to monitor - just check the bottom line!

[qvcaddition]

Yet they keep a thread about ISIS, BUT NOT CUDDLE DUDS AND KOHL,S. GO FIGURE.  THAT IS COMPETITION AND MONEY.  

[MoJoV]

I see a thread was removed about Albanys helmet, why?  This forum is about opinions, I thought.  I understand cutting out the nasty ones but why does the entire topic get wizzed?  Just bleep out the personal attacks for pete sake

[Pearlee]

---

@MoJoV wrote:

I see a thread was removed about Albanys helmet, why?  This forum is about opinions, I thought.  I understand cutting out the nasty ones but why does the entire topic get wizzed?  Just bleep out the personal attacks for pete sake

---

The first post was a personal attack - on a QVC host who was doing her job.  I thought the first post itself was nasty.  Good for the Moderator to zap the thread, although no doubt the OP felt "scolded."

[glamwitch]

I don't mind if QVC deletes posts or threads that are personal attacks on hosts or vendors. But I do think they should allow posts that report host/vendor behavior that is offensive or that is obnoxious enough to cause viewers to want to change the channel. 

I realize that different people have different definitions of what's offensive or obnoxious. But successful businesses don't support employee behavior that causes customers to go elsewhere. So if a post includes CONSTRUCTIVE criticism about a host or vendor's on-air remarks or actions, I think that at least, QVC should provide that feedback to the host or vendor. Most people care about how others see them and want to be the best they can be, and would appreciate knowing there's room for improvement.

[KYToby]

I am curious.  Do you thik it acceptable to post information about competitor's sales here on QVC boards?

Would it be appropriate for someone to come into your business, post notices about the employees and encourage people to shop elsewhere?  Would those people be welcomed with open arms?

The fact of the matter is that there are clear rules for posting on these boards.  Every single person  here agreed to follow these rules in order to participate.  If one is not following the rules, their posts may be removed. 

Complaining about the rules --- again, rules which we agreed to follow -- is silly. 

[Pearlee]

---

@KYToby wrote:

I am curious.  Do you thik it acceptable to post information about competitor's sales here on QVC boards?  Apparently this isn't against the rules because QVC allows that on this board to a great extent. So, this isn't a real good example of whatever point you are trying to make.

Would it be appropriate for someone to come into your business, post notices about the employees and encourage people to shop elsewhere?  Again, QVC allows this here. There are posts about HSN and Evine and elsewhere routinely.  

The fact of the matter is that there are clear rules for posting on these boards.  Every single person  here agreed to follow these rules in order to participate.  If one is not following the rules, their posts may be removed. 

Complaining about the rules --- again, rules which we agreed to follow -- is silly.   You know darn well that a person will not be allowed to post without agreeing to the rules. So the "agreement" is "coerced"  or involuntary.  Perhaps that's why it's violated so often, because people didn't really agree to it.

Responses in red.

---