I find when this stuff happens with QA teams, it's almost always a case of protecting turf. When no one is looking (the first, buggy, submission is made), they

I find when this stuff happens with QA teams, it's almost always a case of protecting turf. When no one is looking (the first, buggy, submission is made), they will do the minimum necessary and approve it, often quickly. Then, when everything goes to hell, all eyes are on them. The developers submit a fix with the note "this needs to be approved ASAP to put out fires"... the QA person resents being told what to do, and suddenly feels compelled to justify his job by finding anything and everything that could possibly be considered 'wrong'. There is also the issue that things like indentation are more visibly 'wrong' than obscure bugs that only show up in production environments due to the way database replication is set up. Now, I'm not saying all QA people are like this. I've worked with some downright awesome QA people before. But awesome QA people don't reject things for spite, and usually don't stay in QA long before moving up.