Bjcc From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2689 times:
Sadly, I had to complain against Mr Watt, one of teh Head screeners earlier thsi week, for his rude & sarcastic behaviour.
You may all recall, this very person,last week, starting a thread about rudness, and how the person who was rude to him was banned for 2 weeks.
I felt after his behaviour towards me, that his was being a hypocite, and therefore complained.
Strangly, since then, our independent screeners, who are supposed to screen irrespctive of thier opinions of the person submitting, have removed photos from the in screening queue, and left them in the not screened.
Is this what airliners is for? Is it right that Head Screeners can abuse thier position?
Should it be whats good for one, ie a ban, should also apply when screeners are rude?
I expect this thread will be closed almost instantly, as any form of critical comment is always stamped out.....
Oh and gary, no, I wont be threatening to remove my photos, but may well be contacting advertisers regarding the true ethos behind screening.
Monteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2684 times:
Dude, its pretty easy to sit back and fire off salvo's of abuse at the screeners when you're not happy about a rejection, but have you ever tried to put yourself in their position?
Its not like they do it for the money... They are helping the site out, and its a very successful site because of their efforts. Perhaps you should take the conspiracy theory hat off and give them a bit of a break.
Who knows how much abuse they cop on a daily basis. Just remember that its only a website. There are worse things that can happen in life.
Bjcc From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2673 times:
First, I am not a dude.....
But your point is well made regarding rudness, but it has to work both ways.
I worked in a job for most of my adult life where abuse was seen as part of the job, rightly or wrongly, so I do understand where they are coming from.
What should not be happening is the rudness in the first instance, and a simple appology would have solved the issue. That was not fothcoming. What has, however is a cynical and vindictive series of actions, ie removing photos in screening and then leaving them unscreened.
I think you would agree, while rudeness should not be tolerated on either side, deliberatly withdrawing photos from screening, because a complaint has been made, is in fact an abuse of position.
I have sat on this for a few days now, hoping that Gary would see sense, however, as things have become progresively more vindicitve, this subject has to be raised.
Linco22 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1381 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2631 times:
Any particulare reason you brought it to the attention of the rest of us? Did you feel like you wanted to 'voice' your opinion to the rest of us or could you not just resolve the issue with Gary like an adult and not include the rest of us?
AirKas1 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 4074 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2624 times:
Quoting Bjcc (Thread starter): Strangly, since then, our independent screeners, who are supposed to screen irrespctive of thier opinions of the person submitting, have removed photos from the in screening queue, and left them in the not screened.
That's not unusual.
Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 1): Just remember that its only a website. There are worse things that can happen in life.
Bjcc From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2550 times:
Yes, I did, however, as explained, I have sat on this for a few days, and had no response from her.
No, the idea is to bring to the attention of everyone, that there is a double standard at work. Not only is rudness from a screener allowed, which would have passed with an appology from him, but he is then allowed to conduct a personal vendetta, as I said, that is an abuse of his position, and far more serious than the original 'crime'.
In answer to your question, yes, I would rather have discussed it man to man with him, however he has declined that option, and gone for the attempt to make life difficult, that was his decision, and hence this post.
TimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 63
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2503 times:
Let's get our facts together.
You appealed an image stating 'screener is incorrect'. gary rejected the appeal saying 'screener is correct'. This is not a rude comment.
You have since got the idea into your head that we have been acting vindictively against you. Nothing could be further from the truth. Gary has not even screened a single image of yours since. You emails with accusations and further appeal comments were based on nothing, your images were simply not up to our required standards.
And liek TZ said if you want to take this further take it up with our customer support. We did not do anything wrong and for you to suggest that we did crosses a line. It is pure slander.