questionsdid you see the review: gadgets-n-gizmos.com?

vote-for43vote-against
vote-for20vote-against

I wish that the comments I'd posted were also still here, but one of the important things I'd posted was the following:

http://deals.woot.com/deals/users/gadgetsngizmos/votedagainst

I do not like to see Vendors downvoting random community deals. Sponsored deals are one thing; sometimes it's just one of those things. Same with Wootbot. When vendors downvote perfectly good community deals, it always gives me an uncomfortable feel, as though it's vengeance...

vote-for4vote-against

Why was it deleted? Sounds a bit fishy...

vote-for-33vote-against

This post does not fit the "questions" criteria of the deals.woot community. Tattling on the mod's repost accordingly.

vote-for23vote-against

@pinchecat: You commented on a non-question. I tattled on your comment.

vote-for9vote-against

@rogetray: Maybe you could comment here on @Thunderthighs involvement in this. IIRC She told @desynergy to pose this as a question here. You deleted the original question in error, right?

vote-for18vote-against

To reiterate: The question was deleted in error. @rogetray apologized, and did the right thing, as best he could. I'm pretty forgiving, most times (including this one). He's new, he saw tattles saying it should be deleted (and gee, I'll bet we know where they came from), and he followed his guidelines. I've added a few, and unless one of the elder staff members shows up to contradict me, I believe the following is a good metric for someone new on staff.

- If there are many positive (or supportive) comments from those of us who have been around for a while, or if the question has a lot of upvotes, unless it severely violates a policy, leave it be.
- If the tattle coming in states a reason that doesn't necessarily seem to jibe with the actual comments in the question, consider that the commenter may have ulterior motives (including behaving like a two year old).

There's more, but those two are a good start.

vote-for14vote-against

@pinchecat: In addition, while there's a strong suggestion that anything posted on the AtC/AtW side should be phrased as a question, it's NOT a codified rule. Even if it is, I've posted plenty of things that were not.

"Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these."

So it goes.

vote-for9vote-against

This is the most confusing non-question, with ensuing non-answers, that I have seen here.

Edit: @desynergy: Congrats on being published.

vote-for17vote-against

@rogetray: I hope you have a giant bottle of aspirin, if you are going to hang around on the deals side. Anyway, welcome to the neighborhood.

vote-for21vote-against

@pinchecat: "Tattling on the mod's repost accordingly."
Seriously? You have GOT to be kidding. Tattle all you want, but you are clearly in the wrong here. I hope that the mods see that, that this thread is allowed to remain (esp. since the poster of the deleted-in-error original thread was, in fact, TOLD by an experienced and highly regarded moderator to post it here in the first place), downvoted your current comment here, and fully expect you to downvote mine. (And I don't even 'know' you!)

If you do happen to have a personal agenda against someone (for whatever reason, whether valid in your mind or for real---or not), this is not the appropriate place to express it. I would hope that everyone would "deal" with such (pun intended) an issue in a mature manner, and through another venue---not here.

Kudos to @rogetray for owning up to, apologizing for, and rectifying his error in a professional and courteous manner! :-)

And LOL @capguncowboy.

vote-for11vote-against

@gmwhit: If anyone clicks the link rogetray posted in the op, they will be directed straight to the exact posts where TT told @desenergy to come here and post that review in this very section, because TT answered the review post very promptly there.

vote-for6vote-against

I always miss the good stuff while I'm mowing....I did see the original question and voted for it as well as commented on it. If I get this correctly, desynergy posted the review as a question, rogetray deleted it then reposted it in a non-question form. Did I miss anything else?

vote-for7vote-against

@reginafilangee: Knew that. Just thought it would be helpful to explain the background/what happened on this question. You must go to yet another question to see the apology, too.

Maybe I'm just too old (cranky? disinterested?) to go traipsing all over to figure out what's happening. ;-) Nevermind. Sorry.

vote-for8vote-against

@jsimsace: Yep. You've got it a bit wrong. It was originally posted as "Review: Gadgets-n-Gizmos.com" (not as a question). Someone tattled on it, twice, asking for it to be deleted. I was annoyed (as seen here, in my comment):

http://deals.woot.com/questions/comment/7cba2cb1-a84b-4fa3-9e85-ef0f430ac24c

@rogetray then reposted it, with the exact same title, and the exact same person objected, and tattled. In an effort to appease the person now known as "deserving" it was changed into a question, and still there's whining by "deserving" person.

Okay, back out to trim back roses, and do more planting...

NO MORE PROBLEMS, dammit.

vote-for7vote-against

@gmwhit: I figured you did know that, actually. Although I posted in reply to your comment (which automatically tagged you), it was mostly just a reply for anyone else reading along who might not know that. Your idea was a good one, too. No harm. No foul. :-)

vote-for8vote-against

@jsimsace: There was some bloodshed, black eyes, and a few broken bones. Otherwise, not much. ;-)

vote-for-14vote-against

@shrdlu: you're mistaking my protest as care (deserving? do you mean sense of entitlement? i'm not quite sure i understand...)

the fact that this part of the community is restricted to questions doesn't make sense, and i've always thought it to be quite silly. my complaint(s) are merely intended to call attention to the matter. it looks like you and others share my perspective. original post did not fit the silly "questions" format, so i tattled (once). that's not deserving(?), that's adhering to the community format.

vote-for6vote-against

Wait am I loosing my mind or did @desynergy post this earlier?

vote-for12vote-against

Yall sure do like to have kerfuffles while I sleep. =P

vote-for11vote-against

@thunderthighs: Frankly, I don't see how we folks function with our knickers all in a wad ;) We're a bunch of fruit loops sometimes. Thanks for steering @desynergy's review to the ATC. I never would have seen it otherwise.

Bravo Zulu for mentioning the automatic "grammar police," as you called Woot Hal. Just because one gets a prompt for their comment to be in the form of a question, does not mean it absolutely HAS to or Ken Jennings will start beating Mortimer & Monte.

Kerfluffles. Almost makes you long for the days of the Chat Tab arguments. Almost, but not quite. Thems were some dark days.

vote-for10vote-against

@thunderthighs and @lavikinga: I love you both, you know. I really do.

As was said multiple times, Bravo!!! to @rogetray for stepping up to the bar and owning his mistakes. He gets respect from me (and it's actually not easy to get that).

vote-for4vote-against

@caffeine_dude: Which of those 2 questions do you want us to answer? ;-)

If both, yes....and yes.

vote-for5vote-against

@thunderthighs: I think everyone was just trying to make a bunch of noise to see if it was possible to wake you up. Kids like to do that to their parents from time to time, ya know. ;-)

vote-for1vote-against

@reginafilangee: Nicely done!
@shrdlu: There your comment explained it, sorry I missed it. I think I made it and then hit submit but it did not submit and so I hit it again so it posted after your comment.