Ceearedeedriver wrote:
TURBO-DIESEL-FREAK wrote:
I found that I received no support from Heather when I had a complaint. I do not believe this forum is properly monitored and inappropriate narratives are being spun unchecked by certain members.
Hmmm, my understanding is that vendors pay to get advertising privileges on the site. It sounds like you're also expecting moderation and censorship rights in return for your payment? Fortunately this isn't how it works around here.
TURBO-DIESEL-FREAK wrote:
Unfortunately, I have absolutely no idea how to build a website... I am supposed to get some help with this, so we will soon see how it goes.
If it's any consolation, for a single SKU vendor where there is no real commercial competition, a website is much better use of your advertising dollars than here on L.O.S.T. Why? because it will be
extremely easy to position your site as #1 hit when anyone Googles "Liberty CRD thermostat". Being top of the search results is a huge plus for connecting with customers. Once you've got potential customers attention you just need to make sure you don't alienate them.
Nobody said anything about censorship, Ceearedeedriver... there is a real difference between censorship and weeding out gossip, character assassination and innuendo. Moderators are a necessary part of all legitimate online forums because - just like debates in public forums - it has been the participants' experience that discussions devolve down to petty sniping and mud-slinging without them.
Is free speech all about labeling people and smearing their character? Is it O.K. with you to have a member call me a money hungry predator, even though that member has absolutely no evidence to back that claim up? I think not, and most rational people would agree with me on this. Do you think for ONE SECOND that the "debates" in the U.S. presidential primaries and now between Don and Hillary are representative of what is called proper discourse? What we laughingly call political debates in Western Society has degenerated in to nothing more than cheap entertainment, and the media LOVES it. It is the reason why I no longer watch political debates on T.V., and focus solely on a politician's or political party's policy platform.
Take your previous comments about me... you really know absolutely nothing about me, about my product, or the history of how the Model 001 came to be. Despite this, you feel you have the knowledge and the judgement to criticize me - and my character. You ignore the legitimate feedback from my customers who have actually purchased a Model 001, and side with those members on this forum who pass judgement on the Model 001 even though they have never used one themselves.
Another example is how some of these members know full well that the O.E. thermostat will contribute to reliability and fuel consumption problems of the CRD engine; after all, with full support of members of this forum Mark Kapalczynski developed his modified thermostat over 6 years ago... why would he go to the trouble do that if there was nothing wrong with the O.E. thermostat assembly? If the only advantage to creating an aftermarket thermostat assembly was to make it possible for the customer to change out the valve inside, Mr. Kapalczynski and I likely would not have bothered. There is plenty of evidence available to show that the 176 degree thermostat valve opening temperature of the O.E. assembly was chosen to satisfy the Environmental Protection Agency's ridiculous NOx standards, and was most definitely not chosen for the maximum fuel efficiency and reliability of the CRD engine. Both Kap's modified O.E. unit and the Model 001 were created to increase engine operating temperatures because it is well known and understood that all modern engines are designed to run HOT for maximum efficiency.
Yet some of these same members who know all of the above will still ignore it and not factor the advantages of running the engine hotter when making cost comparisons between the O.E. thermostat assembly and the Model 001. Is this fair comment on their part? Probably not. Should they be allowed to post their comments? Sure, but an unbiased third party member like a monitor who is knowledgeable about the topic being discussed should point out the discrepancies.
The original intention of public debates is to examine the arguments of all sides of a controversial topic, with all participating debaters using a standardized method of arguing their points that is governed by a strict set of rules and enforced by a monitor. In this way, the audience has a chance to come to an informed conclusion on said controversial topic. Likewise, an online forum should follow roughly those same mechanisms for members posting comments on any particular controversial subject. It does not have to be as formal as a properly run political debate, but the basics should be there, with a monitor to weed out inappropriate behavior.
I am in favor of you posting your comments, and to have other members who oppose me and my product post their comments as well. I just think that it would be appropriate to have a monitor that members can trust post comments pointing out the obvious flaws in anyone's arguments - mine included. A monitor should also have the power to delete some of the more outrageous comments that have been posted on this forum from time to time.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
