Discussion of VE forum RULES

[Liam]

thanks for your understanding Chip.
As far as your question,the forum is there for you to let others now of your experiences good or bad with sponsor/non sponsor.It is unfortunate you had a bad experience and i understand thast someone may feel awkward posting negative comments about a sponsor in such a tight knit community,however the whole purpose of the forum is to benifit the membership and if you feel posting your experience would benifit another member then you should post,sponsor or not.If it was a one time deal and others have had good experiences with the vendor and others have had bad and others post ,then the information will be there to help prospective purchasers draw there conclusions before parting with there hard earned cash.
And always remember,the vendor is always invited to respond to any post about there own business.

 

[delta]

I read the rules over a couple of times and they just seem like common sense to me.
If your going to take a shot at a persons livelihood then you better make sure your in the right.
This is how these people make their money. I think if you looked at from the store owners point of view you would take serious offense to senseless attacks on your business.
That is why the rules are common sense to me because if I am going to say anything that may impact someone ability to put food on their families table you better bet I am going to make sure it is the truth and absolutely needs to be said, and in as respectful manner as possible.
If I am not respectful no matter how I have been treated then I loose all credibility.

 

[Chuck Spyropulos]

Thanks Moe

Thanks Moe, maybe now we can have some constructive discussion.

The personal stuff has been moved to The Lounge.
Please keep the personal arguments out of this thread.
Thanks.

 

[lactrain]

I read the rules over a couple of times and they just seem like common sense to me.
If your going to take a shot at a persons livelihood then you better make sure your in the right.
This is how these people make their money. I think if you looked at from the store owners point of view you would take serious offense to senseless attacks on your business.
That is why the rules are common sense to me because if I am going to say anything that may impact someone ability to put food on their families table you better bet I am going to make sure it is the truth and absolutely needs to be said, and in as respectful manner as possible.
If I am not respectful no matter how I have been treated then I loose all credibility.

This is my opinion exactly ... we are supporting a hobby ... they are supporting theyre families.... Ya Ya Ya I know we dont owe them nothing! I remember from the last 5+ page thread!!!

I just dont see the sense to any negative posting ... couldnt you get the same result with only allowing positive comments ... where the good vendors would get multiple good comments and bad vendors would get none or few..

I know if i had this many problems with anything, like we all are having with this forum, then i would be strongly considering something new or different.

Im a member at two other clubs Creativereefing and ReefCentral ... neither have this type of forum...

Time to get beyond this!!! Let the moderators moderate ...let the members bash the vendors ...let the vendors bash the members .... The forum is here to stay so lets deal with it and move on. Say what you want to say and if it dont come out right dont worry the mods will correct it!

Len

 

[JohnK]

Yes,
but some LFS's are different than others. For most of us we have been to all the stores and we know who we like. For new members, seeing who does get bashed can serve a valuable warning.

That said, on the internet, the simple expression of an opinion can turn into 30 pages of silly arguments real fast.

I guess I have no real point to make, it just bums me out everytime I see people arguing over a shared interest that they are all passionate about.

Boo

jk

 

[delta]

However you can make a positive negative post though.
You can make a strong point I means you can rip someone apart with just plain fact if it is presented correctly. So why not just say it with a little class and if someone throws mud back just smile and move on wishing them luck thats a bigger point than arguing with them.
In the end if you argue with them or attack them you look like the donkey and they look like the victim.


FWIW Len RC does have a VE thread

 

[Scuba_Dave]

The law suit doesnt need to succeed, thats the point. Just the court proceedings can put people under. Thats a common practice in corporate america at this point: Sue someone not because you have a chance of winning, but sue them because they can't afford to defend themselves.

The point is the lawsuit WAS succesful. It's purpose was to financially bankrupt the web-site & force people there to apologize.
People with a lot of money can hire enough lawyers to get away with murder.
I think I heard that from Johny somebody

People think they can post whatever they want without consequences
Remember people who thought they could download Free music without being caught & fined?

So while you can file a disclaimer that the club is NOT responsible for any posts or slanderous posts, ANY financially funded lawsuit would bankrupt the club
It's really as simple as that

And simple, concise, postive & negative posts are allowed
Negative posts are needed, with facts

I had one bad experience with a Sponsor Vendor on RC & made a stink
That person was no longor a sponsor at the end of it. I was not the only one to complain. I not only made stink on RC, I sought him out on other boards & posted there - until he made me an offer to "settle"
I spent not one cent, and kept to the facts, and I'd be willing to bet I put a dent in his sales

So Yes, you HAVE to be careful about what you post, and ALLOW to be posted

 

[lactrain]

FWIW Len RC does have a VE thread

"Thread" but do they have a forum. To me forums are motivated by the org. and threads are motivated by the mebership. Any intervention or participation by the org. will pull them into the loop.

I would hate to have to be summonsed into court ... and have to put my money up against one of the major .coms.

Anyone can sue anyone civily for any decent reason, I dont know much about case law when it comes to open forums like this in regards to slander, but I prefer to keep my name free from any case law.

Delta can you point me too the thread/forum, I would like to see it?

You can make a strong point I means you can rip someone apart with just plain fact if it is presented correctly. So why not just say it with a little class and if someone throws mud back just smile and move on wishing them luck thats a bigger point than arguing with them.
In the end if you argue with them or attack them you look like the donkey and they look like the victim.

Your absolutely correct and it can be tastefully and respectfully and the critisizm can be constructive as apposed to be destructive. By not allowing and negative opinions.

Like the Patnaudes thread ... "I have been going there since I was 2 ... they have been there forever ... their livestock has always been questionable ... but they do have the potential to have a great saltwater section."

In the three years in this hobby not once did I ever reccomend that place to anyone. Just beyond me why a thread was even posted.

Need there be a thread on Petco when we have a list of supporting sponsors.

Starting a thread on them IMO does nothing but allow people to bash their business. Me personally would not even had mentioned that place they are not even in this leauge.

Maybe I should take a vigilante approach and tip off vendors who have no knowledge of the critisicm that is going on here so they can react to it wether it be responding to the thread or via a civil suite amongst the org.

Len

 

[RichConley]

Starting a thread on them IMO does nothing but allow people to bash their business. Me personally would not even had mentioned that place they are not even in this leauge.

Maybe I should take a vigilante approach and tip off vendors who have no knowledge of the critisicm that is going on here so they can react to it wether it be responding to the thread or via a civil suite amongst the org.

Len

Len, starting a thread also gives them a chance to see the problems people have with their store, so maybe they can change some things. A forum of all positive comments is useless.

The thing is, you know better than to stop at that store, I've never seen it, never heard of it, so I dont. If I drove by, I may have stopped in and bought something. Now I'm a more educated aquarist, and that is a large part of the BRS mission statement: Education


As to RC, they basically shut down any thread that says anything even close to bad about a sponsor. People continually get burned by the same sponsors because RC protects them. We're trying to avoid that, so we need negative comments too. We just need the negative comments to be courteous, and factual.

 

[redpaulhus]

Actually, RC has a whole Vendor forum, but you have to be logged in as a RC member to see it. Heck, I think they kinda pioneered it (well, that and reefs.org with their whole Garf Files bit...)

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=8

I think negative comments are important - how many people have been saved a bad experience with an AQUAtic CON artist because of the threads in the RC forums about such Aqua Con's ?

However I would be very upset if one of my customers (as a web guy) posted that my web application made his cable tv stop working (no causality) , or that I'm too quiet/geeky and not enough of a people person - you want a working web app, see me. You want conversation, talk to my wife. Please.

I always thought that the VE forum should be like Consumer Reports for fishgeeks -- this is what we bought, this is how it worked/swam/pulsed, this is where be bought it.
When's the last time Consumer Reports only posted good info and left the bad products out of the listing ? Or bashed the vendor's personality or lack thereof ?
Until we can get CR to do an issue comparing protein skimmer models and mail-order corals ("WYSIWYG - Fact or Fiction ?" ), I think the best we can do is try to put rules in place here that work toward those ideals.

Which we have, right now. Where's the problem ?

 

[Greg Hiller]

>Len, starting a thread also gives them a chance to see the problems people have with their store, so maybe they can change some things.<

This is part of the point of the forum. Rather than burying negative stuff about vendors inside threads here and there in the general forums, the comments are better placed where vendors can SEE them, and respond. Maybe they didn't even KNOW there was a problem.

 

[Chuck Spyropulos]

Well Said

Consumer Reports has been around for a long time. How do they handle the threat of lawsuits? Again, the E-bay system comes to mind. There are all kinds of negative comments - but it does not matter since a really good vendor will have more positive comments than negative ones. E-bay members make the choice of weather to go with a vendor or not based on the number of positive and negative comments and weather or not they believe what is posted. Really simple and it works great.

Actually, RC has a whole Vendor forum, but you have to be logged in as a RC member to see it. Heck, I think they kinda pioneered it (well, that and reefs.org with their whole Garf Files bit...)

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=8

I think negative comments are important - how many people have been saved a bad experience with an AQUAtic CON artist because of the threads in the RC forums about such Aqua Con's ?

However I would be very upset if one of my customers (as a web guy) posted that my web application made his cable tv stop working (no causality) , or that I'm too quiet/geeky and not enough of a people person - you want a working web app, see me. You want conversation, talk to my wife. Please.

I always thought that the VE forum should be like Consumer Reports for fishgeeks -- this is what we bought, this is how it worked/swam/pulsed, this is where be bought it.
When's the last time Consumer Reports only posted good info and left the bad products out of the listing ? Or bashed the vendor's personality or lack thereof ?
Until we can get CR to do an issue comparing protein skimmer models and mail-order corals ("WYSIWYG - Fact or Fiction ?" ), I think the best we can do is try to put rules in place here that work toward those ideals.

Which we have, right now. Where's the problem ?

 

[Liam]

Consumer Reports has been around for a long time. How do they handle the threat of lawsuits? Again, the E-bay system comes to mind. There are all kinds of negative comments - but it does not matter since a really good vendor will have more positive comments than negative ones. E-bay members make the choice of weather to go with a vendor or not based on the number of positive and negative comments and weather or not they believe what is posted. Really simple and it works great.

My opnion of the ebay system is that is is severely flawed.Being a buyer and seller on ebay i have been it the position myself where you do not want to post negative feedback on somebody for fear of retaliation that would damage my own 100% feedback rating.

 

[KAS]

Consumer Reports has been around for a long time. How do they handle the threat of lawsuits?

I believe everything they write, both positive and negative is all first hand experience. They do the testing. Secondly, the negative is stated in a factual manner. There is no slander, personal attacks, unfounded statements.

Amazingly, those are the rules for our forum as well.

 

[NateHanson]

Yeah, I think we're taking a similar approach to CR. We want as much info as possible to get out, and in order to protect ourselves from misinformation and slander, we ask that all accounts be factual, objective, and cool-headed.

 

[redpaulhus]

Chuck - they stick to the facts. no opinions or hearsay.

They document their results and make sure that they are verifyable -- ie not "the shirt seemed cleaner when I used Tide" but "the shirt was measurably whiter using Tide" -- kinda like using a Secchi disk to measure water clarity rather than saying well, "my tank seems clearer than it was..."

Most of their articles list the testing methodology and specific results.

They don't get personal and they don't take it personal (ie they didn't get in a huff about the Ionic Breeze scoring poorly, and don't claim that the folks who make the Ionic Breeze are shysters out to screw everybody. The Ionic Breeze folks just ignore the report exists.)

 

[One Eye]

So should we change the name of the forum to the consumer report forum? Maybe it would make it easier to understand the rules that are in place?

 

[Greg Hiller]

The cool thing about Consumer Reports is that about once a year some stupid company trys to sue them. CR trots out all their scientifically collected data and CR ALWAYS wins the suit.

 

[redpaulhus]

My opnion of the ebay system is that is is severely flawed.Being a buyer and seller on ebay i have been it the position myself where you do not want to post negative feedback on somebody for fear of retaliation that would damage my own 100% feedback rating.

I agree 100%.

I've had the same happen to me, and have even been pressured to leave positive feedback "or else" !
Why else would 99% of the feedbacks be cookie-cutter copies of "great seller" over and over again ? (IME)

"ok seller" or "no problems" or "smooth transaction" I could see - but "great" ? How many people\places in the US really offer "great" service for anything nowadays ? (and those that do often charge thru the nose for it, 5-star hotels, etc). Certainly not the % of "greatness" we see in Ebay feedbacks !

 

[lactrain]

Len, starting a thread also gives them a chance to see the problems people have with their store, so maybe they can change some things. A forum of all positive comments is useless.

This to me is controversial ... I can see people posting negatively about sponsors in their own personal forums ... but starting a thread on a pet store like Patnaudes where they have no knowledge of this site is in no way beneficial unless someone tips them off of it, not that they would care anyway, same as Petco. Can you see the point here.

The thing is, you know better than to stop at that store, I've never seen it, never heard of it, so I dont. If I drove by, I may have stopped in and bought something. Now I'm a more educated aquarist, and that is a large part of the BRS mission statement: Education

To me education is describing the difference of what an ill fish looks like or what a healthy system looks as apposed to what is unhealthy, so they can determine for themselves. And besides one's common sense should dictate that if there are no postive feedback or no sponsorship then its risky business, which one should always assume when buying online.

As to RC, they basically shut down any thread that says anything even close to bad about a sponsor. People continually get burned by the same sponsors because RC protects them. We're trying to avoid that, so we need negative comments too. We just need the negative comments to be courteous, and factual.

"Sponsors" are one thing and "Vendors" are another, though some vendors are sponsors. But there is clearly a difinitive line between the two. I can see RC's plight to defend their sponsors becasue any negative feedback on a sponsor should be directed to them RC BOD, they ultimately should be the judge and if they feel that the complaints are ligit and repetitive then their sponsors forum and sponsorship should be dropped. Same with BRS I would hope that any sponsor that fails to adhere to BRS mission statement, policy, they too should be reomoved from sponsorship.

Can I ask a question to the BOD: Would Petco ever be considered/allowed to be a sponsor of this forum/organization, I should hope not.

I remember Darrens case clearly, and what he did in response to it was all good. But till incidents occur similiar to his, (My apoligies for financial loss Darren), which was first hand and based solely on facts, to me that is ligit. Would it be appropriate for me to wear a sign at a frag swap that reads dont sell SPS corals to Lactrain becasue he is trying to keep them under PC lights and has cyno algae growing. Im sure we are all guilty of this since when do we see a post in the frag swap thread asking the buyer what his tank specs are before the coral is sold. But we all would chastisize a vendor for keeping them in a system that is equivelent to it.

To open a forum to allow people to critisize ones business (bread and Butter) on the fact that they dont smile enough, and relate it to customer service is beyond me. I would rather a vendor/sponsor not smile at me and sell me an item that is healthy and works appropriately, then not smile and burn me.

IMO the intentions of the VE forum is good .... but I think its not working appropriately ... based on controversial threads like this... time to live with it cause its here to stay ... Im hoping that this thread was created to obtain ideas on how to improve on the rules of this controversial forum so improvements can be made, and not wasting our breathe.

But my wording it appears that I care which i do to a sense, I like would to see everyone get along, and animosity be elimated from a hobby I enjoy so much. But on the flip side I can very easily not give a s@#t and reamin silent like many others. Ultimately it is not me that is the recipient from the slander.