What happened to the sierra 4x4 thread from yesterday?

[Fresno]

Remember: NO freedom of speech is being violated by locking these threads down. This is a privately owned public forum. Not trying to be harsh by saying that ... is simply is the fact of the matter.

NO freedom of speech is being violated by locking these threads down - WRONG. I think you mean that because this is a privately owned forum, freedom of speech is not recognized by the forum. Is this a private policy of yours or Scott's?

Are we really here? Censorship is the card you are playing. Dendy, you have not purchased from Dickerson, but it did not stop you from posting your opinion.

I'm pulling for Chris.

I'm pulling for forums that respect freedom of speech.

 

[Woods]

I think we are mixing definitions of the term Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech as defined in terms of the U.S. Constitution is a God given right and a legal right. We have a legal right to say what ever we want.

Fresno, you're indicating that your definition is wider than that. Is he stopping you from saying what you want to say - yes. This is a private forum and he has the legal right to do this. I don't see how he's stepping on any of your legal rights in doing so. I think you're better served by using non-legalese that reflects the ethics of the matter at hand.

NO freedom of speech is being violated by locking these threads down - WRONG. I think you mean that because this is a privately owned forum, freedom of speech is not recognized by the forum. Is this a private policy of yours or Scott's?

Are we really here? Censorship is the card you are playing. Dendy, you have not purchased from Dickerson, but it did not stop you from posting your opinion.



I'm pulling for forums that respect freedom of speech.

 

[Fresno]

Yes, I agree. My previous post could have been better stated.

I am not disputing Dendy's statement - that the forum is privately owned. I understand that they have the right to set the rules including erasing or lock down treads, or anything they want.

But, I wish they wouldn't.

Nor do I think Dendy or Haven want the forum to curtail free exchange of ideas or views.

But, I do think locking the threads is a mistake. Open the threads. If a post crosses into "vituperative bear-baiting", they can deal directly with that member.

@haven: big words scare me! I had to look it up.:Wow1:

 

[KA5IVR]

I'm pulling for forums that respect freedom of speech.

Why don't you just scream "FIRE" in the middle of a Restaurant or Theater... Then make your claim Freedom of Speech to the cops! Let us know how it works out.

 

[Dendy Jarrett]

Fresno: I don't even know what that means "vituperative". <egads!>(and I'll be 50 this year).
To the point: There are places to make bad and good reviews. And to back Haven up, this simply isn't the place to do so.

We've all had bad experiences - even with people we enjoy doing business with - from time to time.

And by the way, I am not challenging you on the Freedom of Speech thing. That is a land mine walk I choose not to tread.
Thanks
D

 

[Fresno]

Why don't you just scream "FIRE" in the middle of a Restaurant or Theater... Then make your claim Freedom of Speech to the cops! Let us know how it works out.

I can't help thinking that I offended you in the earlier post. I probably shouldn't have set your van on fire. .

 

[Woods]

Not so much that you set his van on fire, but rather that you set his van on fire in the middle of an expedition.

There I go throwing gas on the flames, just to watch it burn.

I can't help thinking that I offended you in the earlier post. I probably shouldn't have set your van on fire. .

 

[McZippie]

The so-called "discussion" turned into a vituperative bear-baiting..

To quote Elwood P. Dowd.... "an element of conflict in any discussion's a very good thing. It means everybody is taking part and nobody is left out"

Lets face it! Its the members here that really sponsor this forum.

This thread already has 1810 views... compared to a few hundred views for most threads started a few days ago.

 

[cnynrat]

I think the point that Haven is making and the point I tried to make in an earlier thread is this: There are places online to place negative reviews: Google Reviews, Yelp Reviews, etc.
This forum is not the place for them. If you are not an actual customer of Sierra, then the banter is hear-say.
Remember: NO freedom of speech is being violated by locking these threads down. This is a privately owned public forum. Not trying to be harsh by saying that ... is simply is the fact of the matter.
No one here is siding with Sierra or are "handshake" friends with Chris. I would encourage those that have had experience with Sierra (both good and bad) post reviews on those appropriate places, and let the chips fall where they may.
D

It's a private forum, and the owners certainly have the right to establish that policy.

However, ExPo will be a poorer place as a result. Particularly for a major purchase such as a trailer I value the opinions of others who I may know however tangentially thru this forum much higher than some random review on Yelp. We also loose the benefit of being able to ask questions and discuss someone else's experience.

Very sorry to hear this is the policy now

 

[haven]

I took a quick look at the threads (both locked and deleted) about delays in shipment from Sierra 4x4.

There were posts from three people who, so far as I could tell, still have unfilled orders. There were posts from four others who did receive their trailers after very lengthy delays.

And there were about 350 posts from people who were not involved, but just _had_ to say something about the situation.


Anyone have ideas about how we could

1. allow people who have complaints about vendors get to post about their experiences, and
2. vendors to post responses,
3. without having those who are simply observers posting their reactions?

 

[Woods]

It's all in the OP. I can't find it, but someone recently started a thread asking for personal experiences with Sierra 4X4. I don't remember it getting a single response. The OP had started another thread at the same time, which took off with the peanut gallery.

My opinion;

If a guy asks for personal experiences, then people should honor that and know that they will get limited response.

If a guy asks for help and opinions then he's opening it up to everybody.

I took a quick look at the threads (both locked and deleted) about delays in shipment from Sierra 4x4.

There were posts from three people who, so far as I could tell, still have unfilled orders. There were posts from four others who did receive their trailers after very lengthy delays.

And there were about 350 posts from people who were not involved, but just _had_ to say something about the situation.


Anyone have ideas about how we could

1. allow people who have complaints about vendors get to post about their experiences, and
2. vendors to post responses,
3. without having those who are simply observers posting their reactions?

 

[ManleyORV]

Anyone have ideas about how we could

1. allow people who have complaints about vendors get to post about their experiences, and
2. vendors to post responses,
3. without having those who are simply observers posting their reactions?

Not sure how your forum software is setup, but once a thread is created by the purchaser could you only allow them and the vendor to post? Or if that is not possible, you could have each post be approved by a moderator before it is shown and only allow people that have purchased and the vendor get the approval? Both methods are probably more work then you guys want to put in, considering you have a large site to maintain.

Or simply just delete posts that you feel are inflammatory rather than nuking the whole thread. Probably the easiest solution.

-Josh

 

[cnynrat]

I took a quick look at the threads (both locked and deleted) about delays in shipment from Sierra 4x4.

There were posts from three people who, so far as I could tell, still have unfilled orders. There were posts from four others who did receive their trailers after very lengthy delays.

And there were about 350 posts from people who were not involved, but just _had_ to say something about the situation.


Anyone have ideas about how we could

1. allow people who have complaints about vendors get to post about their experiences, and
2. vendors to post responses,
3. without having those who are simply observers posting their reactions?

Was the problem simply that obervers were posting, or was it the content of some of their posts that was the issue? I'd guess that out of 350 posts there were many by observers which didn't inflame the discussion.

 

[Hill Bill E.]

Or simply just delete posts that you feel are inflammatory rather than nuking the whole thread. Probably the easiest solution.

-Josh

This. It's what we do on our forum, albeit, ours is a much smaller venue and easier to moderate.

 

[Dendy Jarrett]

Deleted.
Why Bother