British Columbia Aquariums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
748 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Time and time again I've read threads that direct criticism or an all-out flaming complaint at LFS's, most often BCA sponsors. This is rule 8 from the forum rules:

Rule 8: You may not flame any local fish stores. You may state your opinions of them, but comments such as "X sucks, don't buy from them" will not be tolerated.

Threads of this nature seem to gather lots of posts and usually don't seem as focused on a resolution as they do on bad-mouthing the business or being some kind of angry warning towards other users. The line between stating opinions and flaming seems to leave out where these criticisms and angry warnings fall. Generally, no due diligence was carried out by the angry party either, so the management or ownership had no opportunity to address the issue.

Would it be possible to get the mods opinions on what should be allowed, or if there could be any expansion on the rule that addresses this? I respect every sponsor for caring enough to be involved here, regardless of how active they are on the forum. If 'the customer's always right', and sponsors pay hundreds of dollars to help make BCA viable, I don't see why they should suffer most of these complaints. Please let me know what you think.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
514 Posts
i think the rule is good, the difference in constructive criticism and slander is simply information and i think the mods do more than a fair job of enforcing this.

there is a give and take on the sponsorship, the sponsors spend hundreds of dollars to get exposure and compete for 10's of thousands of dollars spent a year by the members of the forum. that's why there's no computer or gambling or yarn sponser's here..

i don't know what the sponsorship price is, but if its in the hundreds its definitely more than fair value for the exposure to the dollars

i think the mods are doing a great job if anything i think they feel too much pressure to address negative sponsorship feedback, let the good sponsors who address issues and concerns reap the rewards of good customer service.

the customer is not always right, it is business it comes down to money, if this forum went from a fish forum to a non-fiction readers forum, the sponsors now would dry up faster than an icecube on the sun..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
514 Posts
i agree with everything but the last thought DBAM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
748 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
No problem Prince. You know, some of the sponsors I talk to say they would do just as fine without paying the sponsorship but do it anyways to be involved.

Just to clarify, the issues I'm trying to address specifically are inflammatory remarks, prior effort (or lack thereof) by customers to seek resolution, and actions that leads to the work that mods sometimes have to do to notify businesses and mediate correspondence (I know you guys will probably say you don't mind, but it does mean more volunteer babysitting for you), and the public shaming and/or saving face sponsors go through once things go up here without them having a crack at dealing with it privately and professionally. This seems to have happened a lot more in the last couple years as the sponsors list has grown.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
514 Posts
I 100% agree with you other than sponsors not needing the forum, they pay because its in their best interest, period..

if a sponsor told me that they would do just fine and somehow are doing everyone here a favor by donating to the forum i would ask them if i just said i was born yesterday

think of the money spent by the members on the forum, then think of the cost to get exposure to that, its nonsense to say otherwise
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fire_eel

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,610 Posts
It is a fine line that we try to stay on to balance member's rights to voice opinions and still keep within the intent/spirit of Rule #8. That is why those threads are very often edited and the OPs informed as to why we edited their titles/posts.

Unfortunately, no matter what rules are posted or changed, people will be people and they will often post something inflammatory or heated when they feel wronged, even if in hindsight it is not the fault of the LFS.

We will discuss how to 'tighten up" the rules so that threads like those blaming LFS for sick fish are to be handled, such as OP must first contact LFS to try to resolve issue, post tank parameters and other relevant info (like power outages, intro of new aggressive fish, etc.).

The problem is that even if new updated rules are posted, the mod team will still have to babysit these types of threads since posters do not always read or follow the site guidelines, especially when they are angry and have access to the internet.

Anthony & the Mod Team
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,277 Posts
Maybe just a thought, if updating that rule #8 add another rule or stiffen it up so that that if someone still goes ahead with or without reading the rules and posts something inflammatory towards LFS without doing their due diligence such as actually saying something to the store/other party involved they'd be rewarded with a coveted temporary ban.

Time and time again we have seen threads where the original poster takes a large amount of time to write out something hugely negative, once questions get asked you find out quickly the first place the person complained was on forum to those who have 0 control over what happens in the store. Something goes wrong at a store, talk to the manager or someone at the store, try and get the issue resolved to your liking.

As there are many different problems that can happen at stores I guess people just have to realize certain things may not be to their liking and if it really bothers them to shop somewhere else. Some quick examples Fish dying soon after you buy them, well you should be going back to the store with water samples and so on before anything is said elsewhere, especially fresh water most stores will credit you if everything is fine with your water, who knows maybe they'll find your water isn't what it should be! Dead fish, algae and so on in tanks, well maybe something should be brought to the attention of the people in the store so they can attempt to rectify it, certain stores have hundreds of tanks, its hard to make sure everything is in pristine condition all the time. Employee's being rude, giving bad information and so on, well they are a employee, yes they represent the store, but these complaints should go right to management/owners before anything.

Remember people fish stores aren't McDonald's, just because you are always right in McDonald's doesn't mean you're always right!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,556 Posts
It's been a while, and this one slipped between the cracks.

We're looking at this right now as I type. If given the thumbs up, we'll make an amendment to Rule #8.

Cheers,
Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,138 Posts
Didn't bother to read all the wordsy posts, mostly because I wouldn't post anything to to bad out of common sense BUT this is the internet and a "flame" is someone's opinion we all have them and are all allowed to speak it, what ever it may be ignorant or trashy.

That's a side effect of selling to the public, you have to deal with it all good or bad.

But if there are continual negative responses to a bussiness of any kind, is it better to forget the complainers and step your game up if it really is just a few people who like to complain. Or do you chase after and try to silence them?


Bottom line idgaf, if someone flames and a sponsor cries there must be truth????

Edit-as for sponsors keeping the site up with paid fees, that maybe the case before but now it's ads and banners selling all sorts non aquaria related. As for no "yarn" sponsors that would be bad marketing to pay a sponsorship here lol

Anywho my public rant for the day, I'm sure I'll get flame for thinking for myself too but that's ok ill still support sponsors when buying what I need.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,764 Posts
I think the original post on this thread hit the nail on the head and couldnt have said it better myself. The rule now states:
Rule 8: You may not flame any local fish stores. You may state your opinions of them, but comments such as "X sucks, don't buy from them" will not be tolerated.

It's pretty simple. Not really in the mood to type here (go figure lol) Granted nobody likes to see a bad review of a sponsor, this is not all about the sponsors and protecting them in fear of losing them and their money. I can assure you of that. It's about ANY LFS or business. Atleast here, most of the sponsors are a PM away if a person has an issue. Sponsors can actually moderate their own sections and if they don't want to see a thread as such. They have the right and ability to remove it themselves or have it removed upon request. And I can't say that has happened much at all here to my knowledge.
Flaming , depending on whats said, could also be slander whether personal opinion or otherwise. We are not trying to silence anybody. Sharing an opinion about a place is permitted. Sharing an experience is permitted. But if it's a bad/negative one it would be preferred by most if a person makes an effort to resolve an issue with management/ownership before posting a big complaint here that usually ends with a store getting trashed at one point as opposed to finding any real resolution to a problem.

As for : "BUT this is the internet and a "flame" is someone's opinion we all have them and are all allowed to speak it, what ever it may be ignorant or trashy."

This is not the internet, this is BCAquaria! This is an Aquaria forum ...not Craigslist rants and raves section or Yelp. While most opinions are welcome, others are not and if we feel it is in anyway breaking a rule or even being "trashy" , for that matter, it clearly states in the rules we have the right to remove it.
Most of these offending threads/posts are discussed amongst the team before acted upon.
Unfortunately we even have to be very careful as to what we remove otherwise we see a thread complaining about censorship. Even though the team felt it was somehow breaking a rule or crossing a line.
We are just trying to keep this a friendly & helpful forum with as little drama as possible.
I think the new rule is not asking too much or even need to be made a big deal out of as it will only include:

If you've had a negative experience with a LFS, speak to their Supervisors\Manager\Owner prior in hopes to ease your experience into a more pleasant situation. (B)If you have not spoke with the Supervisor(s)\Manager(s) or Owner(s) of that particular store, do not post a negative review here.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, anyway.....just my 2 cents

PS: Held back the flame thrower :p:cool:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,764 Posts
lol Im sure u did. Mine caught on fire a couple years ago lol. He was going thru the prob/sug/complaint section cleaning it up a bit. Closing and deleting anything that was un-needed or resolved. It was quite messy lol. The only reason he bumped this was to give it a happy ending lol and make it known we hadn't forgot about it or blown it off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,138 Posts
PS: Held back the flame thrower :p:cool:
FYI that was a passive aggressive = unfriendly :(

And last I looked it up I needed and ISP to access a .com anything but fill me in otherwise, haha see passive aggressive

Sometimes the past is best to be learnt from and forgotten

P.S. I got a spare fire suit here if you like lol seriously flame resistant bchydro issued coveralls....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
748 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Vancitycam, the central point was about members not doing their due diligence prior to posting. Thank you for proving my point, and for doing so with nothing less than your "rant of the day".

Effox and mods, thanks for taking the time to look in to this again.

Before this thread continues any further towards discussion on how much sponsors pay or how valuable the directed marketing to members here is to them I'd like to encourage my fellow members to ask themselves if that's really the point. You wouldn't start a thread for the sole purpose of flaming a regular member without first trying to sort it out privately, so what makes it ok to do it to a sponsor? Maybe a rule amendment would be a good opportunity to encourage communication and conflict resolution as well as practicing restraint. I know how much we want to cry and stamp our feet whenever we get a chance, but resorting to that before even trying to come to a resolution with a BCA sponsor is completely avoidable.

In regards to "freedom of speech" and "rants of the day" as it relates to sponsors, my guess is most negative situations could still be avoided by the steps outlined above, hopefully negating most need to ever flame. A complaint taken up with a sponsor and not resolved after an honest effort on the part of the customer is something that could be taken more seriously if that customer were to bring it to BCA with a calm, responsible attitude.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,138 Posts
Thank you for your $.02 again dbam as clearly my point went over your head.

Ill sum it up quick for you, it was an old thread if things are going good and steady why bring any attention to it again?

I come on here to look at people setups and new fish yadda and so on then it's always rule reminders after rule reminder like without naming names multiple fs add in same section also incorrect titles and so on, it's just it's so simple I get sick of it and maybe I just don't need bca anymore and have out grown it , no loss to bca I'll save you that one, or maybe we need a simple proficiency test before members get posting privileges. It's older members that don't seen to get it or just forgot and others with excessive bumping are probably teens tethered to iPhones but its just so simple that's all. Thank you back to normal bca cruising and learning. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,556 Posts
Guess you missed the recent drama Vancity. This is not an old and dead issue that involves members, nor certainly for the mod team. I think reviews would be pointless if we couldn't see the negative experiences. I want conflict resolution, and if it's in-obtainable, post a negative review

This applies to all LFS in general. Although I would think 1 or 2 simple PM's to a sponsor would be easier to handle than facing someone in person to explain the situation to a non-sponsor after a frustrating experience.

Plain and simple as that.

- Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
356 Posts
I read this thread and it makes me quite angry!
The fact that there is even a rule needed for such a common sense thing is irritating. But not as irritating as the debate about the rule.

In most of the circles I travel in, people know that I (sometimes annoyingly) will directly confront those that wrong me. No need to drag my problem out into public view unless no other means have brought about a solution.
My great grandfather used to say "If you wrong me you'll hear about it. If you make it right, everyone will hear about it" When did this type of thinking become the exception?

If you have a problem with a retailer, take it up with that retailer. Your experience may be a one off, an anomaly which can be turned into a valuable situation for both parties.

This revisited thread should be closed in my opinion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,556 Posts
I read this thread and it makes me quite angry!
The fact that there is even a rule needed for such a common sense thing is irritating. But not as irritating as the debate about the rule.

In most of the circles I travel in, people know that I (sometimes annoyingly) will directly confront those that wrong me. No need to drag my problem out into public view unless no other means have brought about a solution.
My great grandfather used to say "If you wrong me you'll hear about it. If you make it right, everyone will hear about it" When did this type of thinking become the exception?

If you have a problem with a retailer, take it up with that retailer. Your experience may be a one off, an anomaly which can be turned into a valuable situation for both parties.

This revisited thread should be closed in my opinion
I agree, however seems to be ignored. Not everyone can confront the situation at that moment however, and I don't want them to be silenced.

Thread will be closed shortly and mods will talk about this further.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top