[Tri-motor]

Only with rubber bullets!

Originally Posted by admin

So, are you saying I can be shot at but can't shoot back. :}

[VMF 214]

Originally Posted by admin

So, are you saying I can be shot at but can't shoot back. :}

Not if you are in the UN of today! Have you seen some of the pictures of them arming themselves? No more M1's for them!!

[JC Woodman]

Watching the news over the last month, it seems the shooters are supposed to be near you or behind you while firing over or around you...

Wow that sentance is a piece of work!

[Cardinal]

The issue of negative vendor/retailer feedback is one that needs to be approached with the utmost circumspection, especially with this new forum which is still in its infancy (also keeping in mind the fate of MH I).

In my opinion, the simple rule of thumb should be that if you “don’t have something positive to say about someone, rather say nothing at all” – an old, yet wise adage. Placing the onus on the moderators to sanitise or edit comments of such a nature is clearly not a viable option given the legal liability issues as well as the simple fact that the moderators are there to moderate, not edit. Simply put, passing the buck is not an approach that will solve this particular issue.

Although I fully support and am a strong advocate of the freedom of speech, this should not include comments that are injurious, libellous or slanderous and which may have the intent (perceived or otherwise) to damage the individual reputations of other members or retailers/vendors. The audi alterum partum rule which deals with listening to both sides of a story is often not particularly effective in an open public forum where emotion can often fuel the flames, giving rise to a mob mentality with often severe negative consequences. Concentrating on the issues at hand and not the respective personalities involved, is usually crucial in this regard i.e. play the ball and not the person.

In contrast, rigorous and critical debate on the merits (or demerits) of die-cast and associated issues (e.g. history) should be encouraged and given relatively free reign to assist members with their collecting decisions. This is not to say that venting about poor service should not be condoned as it is indeed cathartic and most collectors have experienced it to one degree or another, but it should not mention specific individuals or retailers who have the potential to be litigious, thereby posing a ‘clear and present danger’ to the continued survival of the forum. In this regard, I for one would support a zero tolerance policy and aggressive enforcement of such an approach in the forum and don’t believe that it will impact at all on the enjoyment of forum members or the invaluable free flow of debate and discussion (also members are free to use their PM facilities to discuss such matters amongst themselves, without posing a serious liability to the forum itself).

I think that ultimately the market will be the final arbiter of good/bad behaviour of vendors/retailers. Collectors are wily enough to support those that have received consistent positive feedback while avoiding those that tend to get nary a mention.

[jim]

Give it time old boy, Time heals most things.

Originally Posted by Spinnaker

Hi Flaps - I can sympathise with you, my marriage fell about horribly just after I turned 40. But don't write off women altogether - believe it or not, there are some good ones out there. I can promise you that - I met one - and she's absolutely the best thing that ever happened to me.

And it was her that introduced me to collecting diecast .

[DADoser]

This may be THE most schizophrantic discussion I've ever read (Don't read me wrong - I'm fine with it - just commenting.)

Its like the Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde thread. I just can't figure out which is which. Is "bad vendor" Mr. Hyde? Or is "marriage" Mr. Hyde?

Maybe the Jekyl/Hyde is a bad analogy. Maybe BOTH are "Hyde" areas?

On the marriage thing - hang in there. My wife (of 16+ years) have our issues, but it works for us - I'm very happy.

On the vendor stuff - my thoughts/continuation is here:
http://forum.themodelhangar.com/showthread.php?t=237

[Celtic]

MVHO:

I think most of us see the danger of using the forum to vent about a blown trade, an irresponsible trader, or a dishonest vendor.

It would be nice to know whom we can't trust, but we can never know all the details of the buy/sell relationship between a forum member and the vendor. The member may have one perspective, the vendor another.

I've had a few problems with mostly reputable dealers, and we settle our differences over the phone or through email. I still trade with all but two of them: those I still trade with finally made things right; the other two didn't and lost my business. And, yes, I've lost money on more than one deal. One vendor sent my order to a guy in Nevada, and that guy's order to me. The vendor asked us to mail our orders to the other party, and promised to give us a $10 credit on our next orders--he never followed through. I told that story on MH I, but never named the vendor. Why? Because other customers may never have had a problem, and may be perfectly happy with his service.

Another vendor had me send a loused up Corgi Spit directly to Corgi USA for a refund. THAT was a great idea! I not only lost the model, but the price of shipping! However, I didn't blast the vendor on the forum (though I don't mind giving Corgi a blast, or any other manufacturer, for a poor job or a poor model). To my mind, it just isn't politic, nor good public relations, or ultimately polite to rag someone with whom we have done business. I consider the details of a business relationship private.

I know that in some cases that leaves other potential customers vulnerable, but when trading on the Internet, I think the buyer must do the research, make his own decisions, and learn from his own experiences.

The approval system suggested by Gort would probably work if we had a large enough database of vendors; however, I would suggest that the graders on the forum be anonymous so that the system will not become a backdoor method of taking shots at vendors.

Enough said, and I hope I haven't said too much.

[timbo]

I don't think Gort's approval system will work. The vendors don't have a vested interest as they are not doing business in here and customers (appart from us) won't see that they stink. Ebay works as you see it before you commit on every one of their auctions.

Forum's to discuss problems and issues are good, and I think nessasary. We can sugest solutions or courses of action to an issue, but to keep it polite I would suggest that we leave vendors names off ALLWAYS - This will protect the innocent as well as the guilty.

There is currenlty a case running though the CA courts on this very issue. They are trying to make ISP's etc resposible for slanderous unproven comments posted on boards like this. At the moment they are not but the risk is there and very real (as we saw with MH-1).

Do the admins have the ability to moderate posts before they become visible? Not sure this will be sustainable though

[Obi Wan]

It sometimes happens that deals go wrong and for all sorts of reasons. These are often outside the vendors control and by no means the fault of the buyer. I would strongly suggest to you all that where something goes apparently pear shaped then do all you can to resolve the matter with your trading partner. Feel the Force and believe me the good will shine through and those from the Dark Side will make themselves well and truly evident!...........

It can all take a little time but have faith. Truth and honesty will prevail .............

[jjckfc]

A small rant removed. I'll wait to repost until the Forum determines what approach to implement.