02/03/20 - 08/03/20 Big Deals

[Sazza]

In my opinion, it's somewhat spurious of you to say that you are 'keeping things legal'. In the Terms and Rules of Shopping Telly.com it states quite clearly that: 'You are entirely responsible for the content of, and any harm resulting from, that Content or your conduct.'* so saying you are removing SCW's post because it came across as him having 'inside information from Q when he does not' just doesn't seem plausible to me. (It also begs the question of just how you would know if he does, or doesn't, have insider knowledge?)


As an impartial observer, it frequently seems to me that your responses to SCW are unnecessarily harsh. In the words of Caroline Flack, 'In the world where you can be anything, be kind'.


* https://forum.shoppingtelly.com/help/terms/#

Another part of the terms state "We may remove or modify any Content submitted at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice. Requests for Content to be removed or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion."

So I could remove whatever I like anytime but I don't, I only do so when absolutely necessary.

As I said earlier, feel free to report me to @Graham

 

[grovesy]

In my opinion, it's somewhat spurious of you to say that you are 'keeping things legal'. In the Terms and Rules of Shopping Telly.com it states quite clearly that: 'You are entirely responsible for the content of, and any harm resulting from, that Content or your conduct.'* so saying you are removing SCW's post because it came across as him having 'inside information from Q when he does not' just doesn't seem plausible to me. (It also begs the question of just how you would know if he does, or doesn't, have insider knowledge?)


As an impartial observer, it frequently seems to me that your responses to SCW are unnecessarily harsh. In the words of Caroline Flack, 'In the world where you can be anything, be kind'.


* https://forum.shoppingtelly.com/help/terms/#

I think he does come across at times as he has insider information.

 

[Pinkmoon]

Another part of the terms state "We may remove or modify any Content submitted at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice. Requests for Content to be removed or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion."

So I could remove whatever I like anytime but I don't, I only do so when absolutely necessary.

As I said earlier, feel free to report me to @Graham

Of course I read that too, but I was specifically addressing your point about 'keeping things legal'. If you'll forgive me, I still think it was unnecessary to respond in the manner you did, and also disagree that it was 'absolutely necessary' to remove his earlier post regarding the TSV.


It strikes me that just because you can 'modify posts' doesn't always mean that you should. It's clear that we have very different views on this issue, so shall we just agree to disagree? There's little point in keep going over - ad infinitum - the minutiae of what it is to be a Moderator.


Best wishes, Pinkmoon

I think he does come across at times as he has insider information.

But how would you know that he doesn't?

Kind regards

 

[shopperholic]

In my opinion, it's somewhat spurious of you to say that you are 'keeping things legal'. In the Terms and Rules of Shopping Telly.com it states quite clearly that: 'You are entirely responsible for the content of, and any harm resulting from, that Content or your conduct.'* so saying you are removing SCW's post because it came across as him having 'inside information from Q when he does not' just doesn't seem plausible to me. (It also begs the question of just how you would know if he does, or doesn't, have insider knowledge?)


As an impartial observer, it frequently seems to me that your responses to SCW are unnecessarily harsh. In the words of Caroline Flack, 'In the world where you can be anything, be kind'.


* https://forum.shoppingtelly.com/help/terms/#

How crass to compare what Caroline Flack went through to a moderator doing their job?! Sazza does a great job and is absolutely correct to remove posts that aren’t factually correct. There is no way someone other than the buyer for QVC would know the sales figures for an item let alone someone who was in nappies when most of us had our first credit card and made our first purchase. SCW isn’t performing a service, the information is there if people can be interested or bothered to look. So before you start swiping at people yourself, remember SCW is quite cutting, especially when someone dares to post a OTO or TSV before him, and if he did have insider knowledge then he’d know the prices of TSVs more than a week head. I think you owe Sazza an apology, but somehow I can’t see one being issued!

I think he does come across at times as he has insider information.

Yet a lot of the time the information is wrong, less “insider” more standing at the back door.

 

[Vienna]

Can I just say that without this FREE forum which is kept going by Graham and Sazza that nobody would have a place to act like they work for Q other than on closed facebook pages because open facebook pages are subject to scrutiny. Even QVC themselves have stopped SCW from posting in his own name on their facebook page and I daresay part of their reasons for doing that is from a legal aspect as well as from stopping mis information as well as correct information getting out there.
I suspect that behind the scenes on this forum there is a lot of sh*t stirring being done on the messenger and none of us know the grief that I daresay Graham and Sazza receive from people. If a grown man wants to live life number crunching for the price of shapewear, toilet brushes and pots of face cream etc then fair enough that`s nobody`s business but his own and if it makes him happy then so be it but if Graham and Sazza want this forum to be legally clean so as to keep it running for the rest of us, then who are we to argue with that ?
Of course most of us with half a brain accept that we all reap the benefit from this forum staying up and running and just because one person believes they are the Oracle of all things QVC doesn`t make them any more important than the rest of us and I`m certain that as an adult they don`t need anybody else wooden spooning on their behalf, that is unless they deliberately set out to get people to do so ? If that`s the case then bigger fools all of you.

 

[lynnonthelake]

Can I just say that without this FREE forum which is kept going by Graham and Sazza that nobody would have a place to act like they work for Q other than on closed facebook pages because open facebook pages are subject to scrutiny. Even QVC themselves have stopped SCW from posting in his own name on their facebook page and I daresay part of their reasons for doing that is from a legal aspect as well as from stopping mis information as well as correct information getting out there.
I suspect that behind the scenes on this forum there is a lot of sh*t stirring being done on the messenger and none of us know the grief that I daresay Graham and Sazza receive from people. If a grown man wants to live life number crunching for the price of shapewear, toilet brushes and pots of face cream etc then fair enough that`s nobody`s business but his own and if it makes him happy then so be it but if Graham and Sazza want this forum to be legally clean so as to keep it running for the rest of us, then who are we to argue with that ?
Of course most of us with half a brain accept that we all reap the benefit from this forum staying up and running and just because one person believes they are the Oracle of all things QVC doesn`t make them any more important than the rest of us and I`m certain that as an adult they don`t need anybody else wooden spooning on their behalf, that is unless they deliberately set out to get people to do so ? If that`s the case then bigger fools all of you.

Thanks Vienna 100% agree.

 

[Sazza]

Of course I read that too, but I was specifically addressing your point about 'keeping things legal'. If you'll forgive me, I still think it was unnecessary to respond in the manner you did, and also disagree that it was 'absolutely necessary' to remove his earlier post regarding the TSV.


It strikes me that just because you can 'modify posts' doesn't always mean that you should. It's clear that we have very different views on this issue, so shall we just agree to disagree? There's little point in keep going over - ad infinitum - the minutiae of what it is to be a Moderator.


Best wishes, Pinkmoon



But how would you know that he doesn't?

Kind regards

I think you will find that I said we can but we don't, we only do it when necessary! Clearly you don't agree with me but your attitude has been wholly disrespectful. We have always said on this forum even if you don't agree with an admins decision the fact a decision has been made should be respected.

As for you bringing Caroline Flack into this, that was inappropriate. You have a cheek to tell me to be kind given the mud you have slung at me.

You seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about me. I did tell you that you could complain to @Graham but you have not done so.

Normally I choose not to say this but for the avoidance of doubt I think it is time to make this very clear. We know that SCW doesn't work for QVC and does not get inside information directly from them. QVC banned him from posting on their Facebook page and previous to that they closed his QVC account.

THREAD CLOSED