Need community input to make this forum successful

[Deb]

Dan is allowed to be cranky, he's got an infant at home. Cut the man some slack.

bitchfest posts are well worth skipping in any case.

You're right there. I'm beginning to wish I'd skipped this one. Sound and fury, signifying nothing, as old Spokeshafe was wont to say.

[Jon Szanto]

I bet even Jon hits the "wrong" drum on rare occasions

Ok, THAT DOES IT!! My barrister will be in touch with you. Or is it bannister? I get so confused. Now, which drum was I supposed to hit?

Dan is allowed to be cranky, he's got an infant at home. Cut the man some slack.

Yet another posting (newborn) I seemed to have missed, so cut me some slack. Sleep deprivation is a tough road (best friend had their first child 4 weeks ago). Best of everything, Dan, this too shall pass. Won't be long before the little one is asking to use the car on Friday night...

[dannzeman]

Tim, thanks for the support. Jon, no worries, I'll have to show off my little girl here in the forums.

Now, let's try to get back on topic.

Ok, please explain the jewel that was swopped out with another, explain the scratches, explain the parts returned touching and scraping each other. No Debs the poster did the correct thing and gave us feedback on the shenanigans of a dodgy shop. Passion for pens is what I like to see and read about.

This really belongs in the initial thread, but...

Just how are *we* to consider one set of "facts" over another? Do we see "before" pictures without the scratches? Etc, etc. All of these are the problems that must be addressed if this concept of a Market Feedback forum is to become a transparent and valid service to the pen community. We are, as a group, going to have to work very hard to avoid the "Are you still beating your wife?" syndrome.

I think we need to figure out a protocol that has the most potential to be the most beneficial to everyone involved, and then we'll need time to test it, and revise the rules/protocol if need be. Wash, rinse, repeat until we find a successful method.

Assuming we get to a point where this forum is successful, I think each case would still need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I think the big takeaway from these types of feedback threads is whether you agree with how the repairman/retailer/etc. handled the situation in question. Some people may find their actions reasonable and not have a problem sending them their pens or buying from them. Others may feel differently and choose not to do business with them.

I would like to use this thread to figure out this sub-forum can be successful. Our current setup clearly isn't working.

Here are some ideas that I have:

If someone's going to post here with negative feedback about a repairman, they need to let them know before posting here.

In an attempt to reduce the "noise" in these threads, people not involved in the dispute can only respond after each party involved has commented.

Only questions may be asked from those not directly involved to obtain clarity of the situation and prevent finger pointing.

These are just some quick thoughts. I fully expect lots of criticism on these points. I also expect suggestions.

[Deb]

Last night, rather foolishly as it turns out, I put some time and effort into the near-impossible task of developing a fair feedback system. That it was foolish is shown by what's going on in the parent thread. They don't want justice, they just want a bloodbath and a sacrificial victim to add some spice and excitement to the soap opera that is their lives. They remind me of nothing so much as the blood-spattered tricoteuses at the foot of the guillotine. Mr. Crook's reputation is in shatters. Whether he was any good or not we can't tell now any more than we could yesterday. I don't know Mr Crook but I do know several other restorers, fine men and women, and I suspect that even the best among them could not defend themselves against the trial by emotive assertion that goes on here. This baying mob is very bad for our hobby.

[Flounder]

I'll make this suggestion: keep it going, it's the best there is.

[Flounder]

Deb, please stop setting yourself up as an authority regarding what other people want and think.

[Jon Szanto]

I, myself, will strive mightily to stay on topic, because, after all...

Spoiler: 

1016060_597296733648206_903261603_n.jpg

[AndyT]

Here are some ideas that I have:

If someone's going to post here with negative feedback about a repairman, they need to let them know before posting here.

In an attempt to reduce the "noise" in these threads, people not involved in the dispute can only respond after each party involved has commented.

Only questions may be asked from those not directly involved to obtain clarity of the situation and prevent finger pointing.

I agree wholeheartedly on all three points. The thread which started this kerfuffle would be best made read only for the time being except for Flounder and Mr Crook should he wish to respond on this forum.

To my mind heavy handed moderation is a bad thing, and disallowing negative feedback would be a disservice to the community here. On the other hand, the kind of ad hominem attacks which were posted yesterday by uninvolved parties lowered the tone to the point of toxicity, without advancing the discussion one jot. I do not think FPG should be in the business of providing a space where tradespeople can be tried and condemned in their absence, so if the market feedback board is to be of value it needs to be more evenhanded, and calmer.

[Jon Szanto]

Spot on, Andy.

[Heliotrope]

Tim, thanks for the support. Jon, no worries, I'll have to show off my little girl here in the forums.

Now, let's try to get back on topic.

Ok, please explain the jewel that was swopped out with another, explain the scratches, explain the parts returned touching and scraping each other. No Debs the poster did the correct thing and gave us feedback on the shenanigans of a dodgy shop. Passion for pens is what I like to see and read about.

This really belongs in the initial thread, but...

Just how are *we* to consider one set of "facts" over another? Do we see "before" pictures without the scratches? Etc, etc. All of these are the problems that must be addressed if this concept of a Market Feedback forum is to become a transparent and valid service to the pen community. We are, as a group, going to have to work very hard to avoid the "Are you still beating your wife?" syndrome.

I think we need to figure out a protocol that has the most potential to be the most beneficial to everyone involved, and then we'll need time to test it, and revise the rules/protocol if need be. Wash, rinse, repeat until we find a successful method.

Assuming we get to a point where this forum is successful, I think each case would still need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I think the big takeaway from these types of feedback threads is whether you agree with how the repairman/retailer/etc. handled the situation in question. Some people may find their actions reasonable and not have a problem sending them their pens or buying from them. Others may feel differently and choose not to do business with them.

I would like to use this thread to figure out this sub-forum can be successful. Our current setup clearly isn't working.

Here are some ideas that I have:

If someone's going to post here with negative feedback about a repairman, they need to let them know before posting here.

In an attempt to reduce the "noise" in these threads, people not involved in the dispute can only respond after each party involved has commented.

Only questions may be asked from those not directly involved to obtain clarity of the situation and prevent finger pointing.

These are just some quick thoughts. I fully expect lots of criticism on these points. I also expect suggestions.

As a consumer of fountain pen services, I like the idea of a marketplace feedback forum. That being said, the only posts that I found particularly helpful in the original thread were #1 (restrained and data-rich description of the problem) and #13 (description of response from the service provider). I appreciate that the original poster disclosed what was done to resolve the dispute prior making the original post, as that is important context in considering the service provider's response. I really like that the service provider is contacted and given an opportunity to respond. Whether they do or not is up to them. Readers of the thread can make up their own minds based on both the information provided (or not provided) and how it is conveyed.

Perhaps a format for original posts can be developed that encourages relevant context to be disclosed in an original negative post (including such things as standard questions about what the service provider was asked to do and what attempt was made to resolve the problem before posting, and places for photos). Original posters could tell the story in their own words following this initial overview.

I like the first 2 rules listed above. The third one seems difficult to administer because questions can be written in a way that points fingers.

Just some initial thoughts. This is a challenging but worthwhile question.

[TSherbs]

What "community input" is being sought here? (question refers to the thread title)

[KrazyIvan]

I like the idea of a feedback forum. I also like the idea that only the parties involved would be able to post to the thread. All the extra noise is pointless and I know I have added to that noise.

I do suggest that maybe a private exchange happen first. After two private attempts at getting things resolved fail, then it should go public. The private attempts might be cc'd to an email address as a heads up to the administration here that a potential thread is going to go public. I don't think Dan or Eric have the time nor the incentive to moderate a dispute but just the heads up might benefit them, or not. Doing the private attempt first gives the servicing agent a chance to make things right. The customer still has the option to go public if things go wrong (not that they could not go public somewhere else).

[Deb]

Here are some ideas that I have:

If someone's going to post here with negative feedback about a repairman, they need to let them know before posting here.

In an attempt to reduce the "noise" in these threads, people not involved in the dispute can only respond after each party involved has commented.

Only questions may be asked from those not directly involved to obtain clarity of the situation and prevent finger pointing.

I agree wholeheartedly on all three points. The thread which started this kerfuffle would be best made read only for the time being except for Flounder and Mr Crook should he wish to respond on this forum.

To my mind heavy handed moderation is a bad thing, and disallowing negative feedback would be a disservice to the community here. On the other hand, the kind of ad hominem attacks which were posted yesterday by uninvolved parties lowered the tone to the point of toxicity, without advancing the discussion one jot. I do not think FPG should be in the business of providing a space where tradespeople can be tried and condemned in their absence, so if the market feedback board is to be of value it needs to be more evenhanded, and calmer.

This is rather better than yesterday's farrago of nonsense but I think there's still a long way to go. Unless you want to be responsible for driving the last few competent repair people into early retirement a system of absolute fairness needs to be worked out, so that the loudest voice or the best writer doesn't automatically carry the day. You will, of course, be presented with two contending statements. How do you decide who is telling the truth? Most repairers are running a business. They communicate with their customers. What incentive is there for them to present themselves before a self-appointed kangaroo court? Many repairers ( I proudly count myself one of their number) are independent and ornery and they're highly likely to tell you to go **** yourselves. If that happens you may find yourself condemning a trader just because he doesn't want to play your game. Is that fair? Is it accurate? Does it serve the interests of the pen community?

The assertion was made several times in the other thread that the customer is king, which comes pretty close to saying that the complainer is always right. Thankfully I decided when I began repairing pens that I wouldn't do so direct for the public. I've been around long enough to know that though the customer is always king, not all kings are well-intentioned or even sane. The related problem that I see here is that the repairer is the only one with anything at risk, whereas the complainer has nothing to lose. Very inequitable. I'm serious about driving repairers out of the business. I repair pens for a living, and I make a pretty bare one. I'd earn as much stacking shelves in the supermarket but I love what I do. Pens are my life and my passion. I - and I suspect many other repairers - am not here for the money but for the satisfaction. But where's the satisfaction if my reputation can be lightly dismissed by a self-appointed tribunal that doesn't even work within a legal framework?

If you're going to do this you'd better get it right, if only because you will have to live with the consequences.

[KrazyIvan]

The customer does have something to lose. Once word gets around about a system like this, I can see repairers looking up customers to see if they will take work from them or not. It might not happen on a big scale but it already happens, per some threads I have read on other forums. Sellers on eBay can already do this. A seller can block someone from buying if they so choose.

[Deb]

I can see repairers looking up customers to see if they will take work from them or not.

So you're saying a complainant has to give his/her real name? Good idea. That'll work...

[Jon Szanto]

The customer does have something to lose. Once word gets around about a system like this, I can see repairers looking up customers to see if they will take work from them or not. It might not happen on a big scale but it already happens, per some threads I have read on other forums. Sellers on eBay can already do this. A seller can block someone from buying if they so choose.

First off, I *highly* doubt this. More to the point, if it really came to pass, it would add more incentive for people to be honest and straight-forward with the descriptions of any problems they've had, instead of going off on a histrionic rant.

I just can't imagine people like Ron Zorn or Sherrell Tyree, etc, looking around at internet forums to vet their potential customers. When you open your door to the public, you are going to get a certain percentage of trouble cases, and it just wouldn't be worth their time to try and pre-empt that.

[AndyT]

So you're saying a complainant has to give his/her real name? Good idea. That'll work...

Yes, it would. If only in terms of making people have a good long think before posting something which might turn out to be actionable. There's a lot at stake here, as Googling "Carneil Pens" today demonstrates.

The customer does have something to lose. Once word gets around about a system like this, I can see repairers looking up customers to see if they will take work from them or not.

I *highly* doubt this.

I beg to differ, Jon. For a while I used to offer a highly specialised tool maintenance service to members of certain fora, and I was very selective indeed about who I worked for. Admittedly things might have been different had it been a significant source of income, but the last thing one needs is to second guessed by an awkward customer who thinks he's knowledgeable on account of reading some stuff on the internet.

[Jon Szanto]

Andy, I was thinking on a larger scale, but certainly take your experiences into account.

Also, as to Deb's point: I'm just not sure how you would enforce the requirement for people to post using Real World info (name, etc). It would certainly cut down on the volume, because people just love to rant... anonymously. See: Yelp.

[jar]

Forums like this seldom serve the purpose intended. For one reason, only one side is open and named. Second, resolution if there is to be any resolution must be between the two parties. Third, the customer should not be king. Fourth, no one other than the two primary parties are actually involved or relevant to the issue under discussion. Fifth, there is no formal or vetted method of introducing evidence in the forum.

A method of formal arbitration might work but needs to be out of the general discussion as well as not public to be effective.

[Deb]

Of course it would work, in the sense that it would reduce complaints to zilch. However, I suspect it won't happen. Turkeys voting for Christmas and all that. In the unlikely eventuality that we do go down that road, it's only fair that we start with Flounder.