Approved food general discussion part deux

jaytin

cruella_de_vile wrote: »

I already have. I think whoever removed it did it for personal reasons (not as in affiliated with AF but in the 'I love AF' camp) and I think that is an abuse of power. If you are in a position to remove/edit posts or threads then I believe you should stay neutral.

I totally agree with you, it seems to me it was removed because some people seem able/allowed to throw out rude behaviour but won't stand for the same treatment back. It would have been much fairer on the rest of us if the sniping/rude posts on BOTH sides has simply been removed, but I think some people here take things much too personally and think every negative post is directed at them for some unfathomable reason.

tricki1

Sarahsaver wrote: »

People were not abiding by the site rules.
It is nothing to do with mse promoting af and everything to do with people not being nice to one another.
If you believe the old thread should be put back please contact the abuse team.
Thanks.

Deleting the whole thread was a little harsh for an argument really. I suppose it is better than censorship or banning parties, but surely a lock and a warning would have been better?

tired_mum

Shame on you all for making this a personal thing
As a rater I rated the very 1st original thread about AF I also ordered from them 3 times and recieved fabulous service and a personal call from Dan about out of stock items. I have since been following events and I can see how people are becoming unhappy as other orders made after theirs are shipped with seemingly no problem whilst they are still without the goods they have paid for I do think that maybe the monies should not be taken untill despatch. I have not ordered since the site became bogged down and deliverey erratic I have made the choice to pay full price at other stores I would use AF again once the teething problems have been ironed out which will hopefully be soon.
Please remember that this is a thread about experiences with AF good and bad for people to make informed choices please do not make this a personel vendetta

poet123

tired_mum wrote: »

Shame on you all for making this a personal thing
As a rater I rated the very 1st original thread about AF I also ordered from them 3 times and recieved fabulous service and a personal call from Dan about out of stock items. I have since been following events and I can see how people are becoming unhappy as other orders made after theirs are shipped with seemingly no problem whilst they are still without the goods they have paid for I do think that maybe the monies should not be taken untill despatch. I have not ordered since the site became bogged down and deliverey erratic I have made the choice to pay full price at other stores I would use AF again once the teething problems have been ironed out which will hopefully be soon.
Please remember that this is a thread about experiences with AF good and bad for people to make informed choices please do not make this a personel vendetta

Sorry,whom is your first comment aimed at?and what is a "rater"?

jaytin

poet123 wrote: »

Sorry,whom is your first comment aimed at?and what is a "rater"?

I was about to ask that same question! lol

mcallister1

If anyone is wondering where they have got up to, my 10th Feb order is being done- just got refund email- and the only refund is for flapjacks. Del monte, rice packs, food doctor and jam puddings ok- phew.

I think the last thread was developing into an argument between a few people which is off putting for others and I appreciate sarahsavers efforts to do the right thing- maybe it was too harsh deleting it all, but maybe the stuff about orders etc is retrievable? I don't think it is fair to criticise mods who are doing their best, sometimes they will get it wrong, but it isn't necessarily a conspiracy...

sellercheckuk

Sarahsaver wrote: »

People were not abiding by the site rules.
It is nothing to do with mse promoting af and everything to do with people not being nice to one another.
If you believe the old thread should be put back please contact the abuse team.
Thanks.

It's a pity if you can't/won't be more explicit, but I do understand the relevant rules are...

DISCUSSIONS THAT WILL BE MOVED/REMOVED

Please do not discuss subjects where you know doing so breaks the t&cs of another company/site. Also, certain topics have caused problems for the site in the past and will either be removed completely or limited to one specific discussion thread. We have no desire to stop you discussing and building the community, but we want to keep this a friendly site. Potentially volatile subjects have no real place on a MoneySaving forum and often only serve to offend. Please help us to help you.

Topics include Mercury Telecom, Pinecone Research, Sainsbury’s Discount codes, La Redoute.

Where there’s contention or the thread is not MoneySaving it will be deleted with no discussion as purely a resource issue.

Regarding none MoneySaving discussions legitimately complained about, such as sensitive racial issues, the thread will be scanned and if considered a threat to this site removed. We are not required to justify this; it is done to protect MSE.

FORUM TEAM

3) The motto “Please be nice to other MoneySavers” includes all site users.

We are not required to justify our actions externally. As long as Martin and the Web Manager are satisfied that the agreed criteria are being followed, the action taken by the forum team can be considered final and appropriate.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/faq.html?faq=new_faq_item#faq_new_rules

Do we have to 'be nice' to all suppliers, on the basis that they are classed as 'MoneySavers' if they make posts in the discussion boards? :rolleyes:

jaytin

mcallister1 wrote: »

If anyone is wondering where they have got up to, my 10th Feb order is being done- just got refund email- and the only refund is for flapjacks. Del monte, rice packs, food doctor and jam puddings ok- phew.
I think the last thread was developing into an argument between a few people which is off putting for others and I appreciate sarahsavers efforts to do the right thing- maybe it was too harsh deleting it all, but maybe the stuff about orders etc is retrievable? I don't think it is fair to criticise mods who are doing their best, sometimes they will get it wrong, but it isn't necessarily a conspiracy...

Sorry but I don't think blatantly agreeing with everyone on one side of an argument to the point of repeatedly thanking them, despite them making rude or sniping comments is fair, impartial or unbiased. If action needed to be taken then rude posters on BOTH sides should have had a warning. This FORUM will be turned into nothing more than an advertising campaign if people are not allowed to make negative fact-based comments about their own experiences.
The comments about money being taken well in advance of dispatch have already been proved to be true as Dan himself admitted earlier that it had happened.

tricki1

sellercheckuk wrote: »

It's a pity if you can't/won't be more explicit, but I do understand the relevant rules are...

DISCUSSIONS THAT WILL BE MOVED/REMOVED

Please do not discuss subjects where you know doing so breaks the t&cs of another company/site. Also, certain topics have caused problems for the site in the past and will either be removed completely or limited to one specific discussion thread. We have no desire to stop you discussing and building the community, but we want to keep this a friendly site. Potentially volatile subjects have no real place on a MoneySaving forum and often only serve to offend. Please help us to help you.

Topics include Mercury Telecom, Pinecone Research, Sainsbury’s Discount codes, La Redoute.

Where there’s contention or the thread is not MoneySaving it will be deleted with no discussion as purely a resource issue.

Regarding none MoneySaving discussions legitimately complained about, such as sensitive racial issues, the thread will be scanned and if considered a threat to this site removed. We are not required to justify this; it is done to protect MSE.

FORUM TEAM

3) The motto “Please be nice to other MoneySavers” includes all site users.

We are not required to justify our actions externally. As long as Martin and the Web Manager are satisfied that the agreed criteria are being followed, the action taken by the forum team can be considered final and appropriate.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/faq.html?faq=new_faq_item#faq_new_rules

Do we have to 'be nice' to all suppliers, on the basis that they are classed as 'MoneySavers' if they make posts in the discussion boards? :rolleyes:

Thank you for clarifying the rules I can see now why deletion was the option used rather than other methods.

[Deleted User]

mmmm, strange goings on when only people familiar and on first name terms can post their experiences