Subject:
|
Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:37:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1564 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> > Heh, that's a bit more literal interpretation of the phrase than I obviously
> > intended :)
>
> But do you agree that the statment "The customer is always right" is a good
> theme to strive for, but not law? Anybody (IMHO) that thinks that that
> statment is true must have never worked with customers IRL.
Oh, I totally agree-- I just don't think Dan tried as hard as he should have in
this case.
> Who is to say what the right way is? You? Me? Dan? The only correct answer
> there is Dan.
Nobody, really. If Dan thinks the "right way" is to ban everyone whose name gets
drawn out of a hat, who's to say that's the "wrong way"? I think we'd all agree
it's wrong, but proving it is neigh on impossible until you start using some
measurable metrics.
> Dan did what he thought the right thing was. You can fault him
> for it all you want (thats your right) - but you need to understand and
> accept the fact Dan did what he saw as being the correct thing to do. And
> with that, people need to accept that and live with it.
Uh, I accept that it was what was done, but not that it was the right thing to
do. And until I hear further information leading me to a different opinion, I'll
have a lower opinion of BL, and really of Dan for what actions were done. If
this becomes a repeated thing, who knows? Maybe I'll swear of BL forever, and
maybe other people will too. It's true, Dan doesn't owe me squat-- but then
again, Dan's customers similarly don't owe Dan squat.
> > I would have expected Dan to reply to Larry saying something along the lines
> > of
>
> I understand that you expected Dan's reply to be different. I am sure many
> different people expected many different things. But that is not the point -
> Dan did what he did for reasons he thought were correct. Going back and sayng
> 'Dan should have done this' or 'Larry should have done that' is just a pure
> waste of time. We have zero control over Dan, and we have zero control over
> Larry. They did what they did.
!
Hardly! If we left the matter alone, I would expect that Dan would feel little
to no regret for his actions, and might do similarly in the future. And what we
say might very well NOT change his mind anyway, but suffice to say that I'm
hopeful that if Dan sees that maybe he shouldn't have acted quite so rashly,
maybe he won't do so in the future, and that's completely worth it.
> > But worse, as Larry pointed out, by shutting down the store, he wasn't even
> > *able* to change it, further making Dan's case worse, since it would appear
> > that he was asking Larry to do the impossible.
>
> Honestly - I do not know why Dan suspended him BEFORE giving him a chance.
> MAYBE he forgot that while suspended you could not make changes? I have no
> idea - that is a guess. But I do know Larry WAS given the chance. But it is
> not lke he was not given a chance.
I'm not saying it couldn't have been worse-- quite clearly Dan could've banned
him without so much as a peep, and that *would* have been worse. And yes, I'm
glad at least he gave Larry a chance-- but it doesn't seem (to me) like he gave
Larry *enough* of a chance, and worse, no useful reason of why Larry's entire BL
account should have been removed.
> Maybe totally unrelated in your views - but you have to understand there is
> much behind the scenes we do not know. So for all we know it is totally
> related. I do nto think anybody has the ability to make the call of being
> related or not being related other than Dan.
Pefectly true-- and I'll admit maybe there's throngs of pages of history here,
and maybe Dan was completely in the right. But the point is that I don't know
that. From what I've seen? Dan's in the wrong. And as a potential BL customer,
that's a dangerous perception to allow. If Dan really isn't in the wrong, he has
the opportunity to show that by posting his side more in depth. But meanwhile,
I'm going to continue thinking that Dan acted rashly, and so may other BL
customers.
> Larry could have emailed Dan. His posting that (IMHO) was only to draw
> attention and heat to what was going on, and to give him the upperhand by
> manupilating the situation. There is no reason Larry could not have emailed
> Dan saying 'hey, I can't fix it while suspended!' From what I understand Dan
> emailed Larry to tell him to fix it -- what was so hard to hit 'reply' on his
> email rather than hitting 'post' on the BL public forum?
Darn straight. But Larry's not my problem, and not the point. Plus, Larry
clearly wasn't acting in 'the best intrests of BL' so to speak. Larry did
exactly what I would've expected him to, and probably exactly as he should have
done considering his aims. However, Dan's aims were (or should have been) to
keep this quiet, and as such, it's Dan's responsibility to try and keep Larry
happy so as not to provoke an outburst, until such point as the cost of trying
no longer outweighs the cost of an outburst.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
| (...) But do you agree that the statment "The customer is always right" is a good theme to strive for, but not law? Anybody (IMHO) that thinks that that statment is true must have never worked with customers IRL. (...) Who is to say what the right (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
131 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
