I had a review deleted and then IMdB reinstated it and now it's deleted again. I think it's being targeted for censorship because it talked about gender issues. It was a very popular and highly upvoted review of the 2017 Murder on the Orient Express. Can you reinstate it again, please? The IMdB person who reinstated it before is "Michelle." You can read the original thread titled "My review was deleted and it did not violate the guidelines. How do I appeal? This is targeted politicized censorship." here: https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/my-review-was-deleted-and-it-did-not-violate-the-guidelines-...
Posted 1 year ago
Will, Official Rep
Thanks Amy. Ed is correct, though we should have rejected the attempt to remove the review. I've reinstated it now and taken further internal steps to ensure that this doesn't happen again.
Regards,
Will
Regards,
Will
Thanks, Will. For what it's worth, I think that while it may be possible to review a film that addresses real life without commenting on real world events in the review, as the guidelines seem to imply would be required, the result would surely be meaningless. And I would be sorely disappointed, if for example a review of a documentary failed to identify matters that weren't addressed but should have been. Amy's review does not contain the ranting and slurring that is common in some of the worst reviews, and you're right, it never should have been rejected.
Thanks, Will. Much appreciated. I hope the steps you took solve the problem permanently.
Hey, Will. I'm troubled that "contributors" like Ed can just randomly submit reviews to be deleted (since it seems that happened to mine twice). I wonder if you would take the time to read through this comment thread in which he bullies and gaslights me with personal attacks, insists that his personal bias is objective and repeatedly changes the subject to score points. I'm wondering how and why my review was able to be deleted not once but twice, since we've determined 1) it does not violate IMDb policies and 2) It's in the top 2% (out of 736 user reviews) of reviews that users found "helpful." Perhaps Ed's troubling dynamics also exist within your staff? Possibly?
I did not have to look far to find that your review is "The" #1 Downvoted review.
224 Dislikes/Not helpful.
I only point out the obvious.
The truth is not gaslighting.
The truth is not Bullying.
And I only report reviews that don't review the title. Not ones I disagree with.
When I disagree with a review I vote on it.
Don't attempt to extrapolate what you believe to be true from your biased opinion of what constitutes truth.
If you'll recall way up above here I said "Nothing Personal"!
You are the attacker. I am replying to you with truths and facts from your own statements. Nothing more.
Cheers
224 Dislikes/Not helpful.
I only point out the obvious.
The truth is not gaslighting.
The truth is not Bullying.
And I only report reviews that don't review the title. Not ones I disagree with.
When I disagree with a review I vote on it.
Don't attempt to extrapolate what you believe to be true from your biased opinion of what constitutes truth.
If you'll recall way up above here I said "Nothing Personal"!
You are the attacker. I am replying to you with truths and facts from your own statements. Nothing more.
Cheers
Now Ed is doubling down with more bad logic, gaslighting--and now we've got false equivalencies added to the mix.
1) "I said 'nothing personal.'"
According to Ed's logic, if I rob you and say "I'm not robbing you." then I haven't robbed you. Good to know. That will help to keep my bank account flush. :)
2) Talking about a person's specific stated ideas (as they stated them) and their demonstrated behaviors (gaslighting, etc.) is fair game and is not evidence that a person needs to examine their soul. On the contrary, both are necessary to a civil, thinking society. Making global statements about a person's character (such as them needing to examine their soul) is by definition controlling, bullying and gaslighting. It's also the ad hominem fallacy of argumentation. Just bad form overall.
3) People who bully don't like boundaries and having their ideas and behaviors criticized, so they will characterize boundaries and critiques of their stated ideas and demonstrated behaviors as "attacking." People who have normalized bullying also don't hear their own attacks--because they've normalized bullying--like telling someone to examine their soul. So, they don't hear their own bullying and hear others' boundaries (and calling them out on their bullying) as bullying THEM. Hence the false equivalency "You're the attacker."
Uh...nope. :)
4) My review had the second highest overall votes. Which means, that of the 736 reviews, mine was extremely high ranking for how many people read it. My review is ranked 13th for "helpfulness" with means that a 57% upvote ratio is actually in the top 2% of all reviews--making that a darn high ratio, comparatively speaking. My review also had the most down votes, sure. But that's more a function of the popularity of the review than its value to readers. It's "helpful" "upvoted" value is in the top 2% of all reviews. Period. That's a fact, Jack. :) Ed's negative opinion of my review is clearly and firmly in the minority of all those who read my review. His incessant need to try and skew "his truth" about my review being "the truth" about my review, despite the evidence to the contrary (a literal vote tally), continues to be a troubling indication that there is more at work here, under the surface, than a good faith assessment of my review.
Btw, in case you're wondering how I've developed the ability to analyze people's words so well, you can thank Agatha Christie for that.
Which is why I felt so passionately about Branaugh's bastardization of her work. We need more critical thinkers debating ideas with solid logic and less poor reasoning, bullying and gaslighting in this world. We also need more strong, righteous, persistent voices willing to call out bullying, gaslighting--and the unethical appropriation of a revered artist's work for personal profit. <3
1) "I said 'nothing personal.'"
According to Ed's logic, if I rob you and say "I'm not robbing you." then I haven't robbed you. Good to know. That will help to keep my bank account flush. :)
2) Talking about a person's specific stated ideas (as they stated them) and their demonstrated behaviors (gaslighting, etc.) is fair game and is not evidence that a person needs to examine their soul. On the contrary, both are necessary to a civil, thinking society. Making global statements about a person's character (such as them needing to examine their soul) is by definition controlling, bullying and gaslighting. It's also the ad hominem fallacy of argumentation. Just bad form overall.
3) People who bully don't like boundaries and having their ideas and behaviors criticized, so they will characterize boundaries and critiques of their stated ideas and demonstrated behaviors as "attacking." People who have normalized bullying also don't hear their own attacks--because they've normalized bullying--like telling someone to examine their soul. So, they don't hear their own bullying and hear others' boundaries (and calling them out on their bullying) as bullying THEM. Hence the false equivalency "You're the attacker."
Uh...nope. :)
4) My review had the second highest overall votes. Which means, that of the 736 reviews, mine was extremely high ranking for how many people read it. My review is ranked 13th for "helpfulness" with means that a 57% upvote ratio is actually in the top 2% of all reviews--making that a darn high ratio, comparatively speaking. My review also had the most down votes, sure. But that's more a function of the popularity of the review than its value to readers. It's "helpful" "upvoted" value is in the top 2% of all reviews. Period. That's a fact, Jack. :) Ed's negative opinion of my review is clearly and firmly in the minority of all those who read my review. His incessant need to try and skew "his truth" about my review being "the truth" about my review, despite the evidence to the contrary (a literal vote tally), continues to be a troubling indication that there is more at work here, under the surface, than a good faith assessment of my review.
Btw, in case you're wondering how I've developed the ability to analyze people's words so well, you can thank Agatha Christie for that.
Which is why I felt so passionately about Branaugh's bastardization of her work. We need more critical thinkers debating ideas with solid logic and less poor reasoning, bullying and gaslighting in this world. We also need more strong, righteous, persistent voices willing to call out bullying, gaslighting--and the unethical appropriation of a revered artist's work for personal profit. <3
(Edited)
Ed, I have read all of Amy's movie reviews and her obsession with her rebel agenda against the "male species." It is truly sad to see her one-way thinking about women's rights and white males. Note, there's a truly sad history of course with women's rights and there still room for more improvement, but, her denying of reality is pretty demented in many ways, is like she thinks every single male soul is against her beliefs and the Hollywood's "manipulation/brainwashing." (read her IMDb reviews, to see what I mean)
Amy if you read this, I have met a lot of people like you, but please don't see this comment as if I would be an "angry white-male" trying to tear you down, see this as if I would be as anyone else than nothing, I think that would make you a more neutral thinker in the future when you don't think about the comment-writers gender and "political agenda"
Amy if you read this, I have met a lot of people like you, but please don't see this comment as if I would be an "angry white-male" trying to tear you down, see this as if I would be as anyone else than nothing, I think that would make you a more neutral thinker in the future when you don't think about the comment-writers gender and "political agenda"
Thanks
Hi, M Antonio. Your comment is important and informative, but it not does not exactly belong on this forum, especially at this late stage of the question at hand.
You read ALL my reviews?
Wow. I'm super flattered. :)
Wow. I'm super flattered. :)
Well, me and my sister and I got a lot of laughs from our readings yesterday from your radical views, but the best one got to be, "Btw, in case you're wondering how I've developed the ability to analyze people's words so well, you can thank Agatha Christie for that." Haha it fits perfectly with your character as the Miss. Narcissistic
(Edited)
