Need community input to make this forum successful

[Deb]

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.

Common sense arrived at last.

[dannzeman]

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.

Would everyone agree that my three suggestions are a start to minimizing ad hominen attacks and improve the function of a Market Feedback forum?

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.

Bold emphasis mine. This is how I envision these types of threads working. Not every case is going to be black and white where one party is clearly in the wrong. I think it comes down to whether you feel the service provider in question has done anything unreasonable. Some people won't think so and won't have problem doing business with them. Others will disagree and not do business with them.

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.

...

I agree with you about my third suggestion of only allowing questions to be asked. I would take a lot of work to administer each thread and question being asked to make sure they're not phrased in such a way that points fingers. However, a lot of clarity can be gained by asking the right questions. What would be more beneficial, to only allow the parties involved to make their case and close the thread or to allow the parties involved to make their case and allow people to ask questions?

[dannzeman]

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

We want to hear your thoughts and ideas on the issue. What do you think?

[Flounder]

I'd accept all three proposed rules.

[Deb]

Would everyone agree that my three suggestions are a start to minimizing ad hominen attacks and improve the function of a Market Feedback forum?

I think you need to read what has been said since you made those suggestions. The debate has moved on from there.

[Flounder]

Would everyone agree that my three suggestions are a start to minimizing ad hominen attacks and improve the function of a Market Feedback forum?

I think you need to read what has been said since you made those suggestions. The debate has moved on from there.

Into presupposing other people's thoughts and motivations, putting words into other people's mouths, and hysterical pre-revolutionary analogy. You do not chair this debate Deb.

[Deb]

Steady, Flounder. You're getting upset.

[Flounder]

Once again.

[dannzeman]

Would everyone agree that my three suggestions are a start to minimizing ad hominen attacks and improve the function of a Market Feedback forum?

I think you need to read what has been said since you made those suggestions. The debate has moved on from there.

Actually, it hasn't. People are suggesting ways to make this forum work and others are suggesting why they won't work.

[Jon Szanto]

You do not chair this debate Deb.

Is there a history between you two we should know about?

[Flounder]

Nope. Nothing. Never. Certainly can't think of anything.

It's just a bit much that someone who at first doesn't read the rules of a forum, then considers a rewrite of the rules a waste of time because she considers those who participate in a forum a "baying mob" should then presume to dictate to the chair the course of debate on the topic of forum rules.

[Deb]

Would everyone agree that my three suggestions are a start to minimizing ad hominen attacks and improve the function of a Market Feedback forum?

I think you need to read what has been said since you made those suggestions. The debate has moved on from there.

Actually, it hasn't. People are suggesting ways to make this forum work and others are suggesting why they won't work.

That's one way of characterising it, I suppose, but nonetheless discussion took place that make some of your suggestions less apposite than they may have appeared at first. Of course you're entitled to ignore what other people say if it suits you. It's your play-park.

[Jon Szanto]

Nope. Nothing. Never. Certainly can't think of anything.

It's just a bit much that someone who at first doesn't read the rules of a forum, then considers a rewrite of the rules a waste of time because she considers those who participate in a forum a "baying mob" should then presume to dictate to the chair the course of debate on the topic of forum rules.

While I don't agree with your assessment, I appreciate you indicating that there isn't anything in the past that colors the conversation.

[Jon Szanto]

Of course you're entitled to ignore what other people say if it suits you. It's your play-park.

Easy, girl. We're all trying to sort this out.

[Annie]

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.

The complainer has nothing to lose??? I do hope you are joking. How about the loss of a pen? If not the whole pen, what about the loss of a jewel or a cap?

Oh and this is a legal framework - we are each accountable for what we say. The repairer is accountable to his customer and to Trading Standards. If the customer makes a false claim the law will deal with it. I'm really pleased that feedback can be given here so that the good guys receive recognition and the bad ones are outed. It's a fact of life that you can rate your electrician, your doctor or your plumber or anyone who wants to moonlight as a worrying combination of all three. Those who do a good job have naff all to worry about and probably don't have the time.

[dannzeman]

Would everyone agree that my three suggestions are a start to minimizing ad hominen attacks and improve the function of a Market Feedback forum?

I think you need to read what has been said since you made those suggestions. The debate has moved on from there.

Actually, it hasn't. People are suggesting ways to make this forum work and others are suggesting why they won't work.

That's one way of characterising it, I suppose, but nonetheless discussion took place that make some of your suggestions less apposite than they may have appeared at first. Of course you're entitled to ignore what other people say if it suits you. It's your play-park.

It appears the majority of people who've voiced their opinion seem to be for this type of forum, assuming it can be made to work. When that shifts and the majority feels we should do away with it, then we will. Until then, I'm going to continue to facilitate the discussion of ways to make it work.

...It's your play-park.

Maybe ultimately, yes, since Eric and I are the only admins. But that's never been our philosophy in the way we run things here. We created sub-forums here that haven't been created elsewhere even after hundreds of requests. We've even removed forums that the community felt weren't needed, even though I disagreed with the decision. The FPGeeks forum is your community just as much as it mine. You have just as much say as I do, which is why we're having this discussion.

[Flounder]

Dan, is there any chance of getting my reply added to the original thread?

[Jon Szanto]

The complainer has nothing to lose??? I do hope you are joking. How about the loss of a pen? If not the whole pen, what about the loss of a jewel or a cap?

Oh and this is a legal framework - we are each accountable for what we say. The repairer is accountable to his customer and to Trading Standards. If the customer makes a false claim the law will deal with it. I'm really pleased that feedback can be given here so that the good guys receive recognition and the bad ones are outed. It's a fact of life that you can rate your electrician, your doctor or your plumber or anyone who wants to moonlight as a worrying combination of all three. Those who do a good job have naff all to worry about and probably don't have the time.

To the first point: in one direction, an owner might lose a pen; in the other direction, a business person might lose their livelihood. I don't consider those equivalent.

I think one must be quite careful in discussing legalities, because this board is international, and differing business ethics and legal standards are in play. As for giving feedback, certainly that can and will be a good thing, once a mode is put in place that is as fair, transparent, and accountable as can be made. There is already a lot of documentation of the reputations of good businesses being harmed to varying degrees by the anonymity of Internet commenting. When people can hide behind the screen, they tend to say all manner of things. We need to find a way to deal with that, in both directions.

As to your very last sentence, let's take a concrete example: what if Mr. Crook has had an exemplary track record, and Mr. "Flounder" is the first person with a problem? Does Mr. Crook still have "naff all to worry about"? Is it not reasonable to expect the occasional loon (hypothetical, not Mr. "Flounder") to post a rant about an otherwise reputable business and end up with the Guilty Until Proven Innocent angle?

This shit has to be handled very carefully, if we are to really have a valuable tool to work with.

[Flounder]

"let's take a concrete example: what if Mr. Crook has had an exemplary track record, and Mr. "Flounder" is the first person with a problem?

Jon, I consider that example not concrete but hypothetical, recalling oldstoat's post. But I see what you mean, and take your point.

[dannzeman]

The intention of this forum is not to act as a court and decide one party guilty or innocent. The intent is for people to be able to share their experiences, good or bad, so that others can make an informed decision about who to buy from or send their pens to. I'm not explaining that because I don't think you understand our intent, jar, I'm doing so to make sure others understand that and to make our intent clear.

Do you think there is way to make it work?

Forums like this seldom serve the purpose intended. For one reason, only one side is open and named.

What if we required users to verify their identity with an admin and include their real name in their post so both parties are clearly named?

Second, resolution if there is to be any resolution must be between the two parties. Third, the customer should not be king.

Agreed.