It’s perhaps not slander, read about another definition in another website where they had to put an end to a similar posting about a different bad experience with a sales person or company. It’s as far as I know a sort of standard for most websites - personal attacks on sales people (in this case sales people well known in the industry good and bad) and attacks on privately owned distributers as opposed to as per the Dell or
ETC example, more or less a entity where it’s less a problem with the corporate company and more a detail of what they produce. This spars debate, design changes and is for the most part fair game. Kind of like the Apple/PC debate. Also you get into the problems of Dillon coming to their defense, which was accurate and very well stated and placed in counter balance or defense of that company and now you have a problem in it perhaps not being a totally valid observation. Milage might vary and some types of sales people or in general style of tech people click with some, with others not so much. Years with purchasing with this company specific on my part - part of the reason if not the main reason I had to learn lamp specs to the extent I had. Pulled my corporate rear out of the fire at some points also in tour support going the extra mile. Lots of suppliers out there similar or just as unique, lots of suppliers that do the same or even more - lots of suppliers. And also as with other suppliers - lots of headaches at times and screwed up orders or substitutions for what I paid for.
I could go into detail on this and forwarded messages to me about me from them in relation to them but it’s not proper and should not be to post publically. Been around the
block and knocked my head against a brick wall enough that I know for instance that I’m better solving problems with
Altman, while someone else at work is better solving problems with
ETC. At times and it does take two to fight. Can at times be both the vendor, vendor rep and the customer at
play.
In as it were putting a
gag order on the slamming of the company I would think that the original message was not hurt in it’s secondary intent, to show what you don’t have to put up with if it’s not clicking with you. After the company specific which could be debated and is not fair unless both parties specific to the
call had access to respond, I would think the educational value of the rest of the message superseded the which company it really was.
Beyond this, what happens a few years or months down the
line when and if this company replaced its sales staff yet still had this warning about them publically posted forever on
line? This is real harm it could do to that company that is fairly large as distributers go. Problem was in interpersonal connection with the sales staff he talked to and it was one sided in presentation. Such a thing is not fair to provide to others as it shapes their opinion.
Instead, others in having a
blind knowledge of the vendor yet remembering how not to have good communications with any vendor in general, the message is much stronger. Should someone in the future contact this company, the end result if similar in response by than would end in no doubt a similar result. Granted as opposed to a direct warning against a specific company, it’s a general warning about someone out there in general that in his opinion is not that good at personal skills or product knowledge by way of the sales staff. Kind of a superiority complex one might infer perhaps - not that I’m her self admitted nemesis for customer or anything. Still at times I do shop there or at least at other times give the chance to supply me. Goes personal beyond that in personally attempting to get me replaced as the buyer for where I work in respect to them. Still, valid supplier and did save big money
thru them to an extent based upon the girth of my experience and ability to shop around.
“but I believe companies to be responsible for how every transaction takes place good or bad. Let the consumer decide.” - Pie4Weebl
Totally agree. Let the individual customer decide. Beyond this, instead of posting this complaint publically about his individual experience with the sales staff, why didn’t he
send his comments to the owners of that company? What is better a warning or letting them that pay their salary know why they just lost a customer? At times resolution takes place by way of enough bad mail and or conflict resolution. Warned enough times not to bog down that table saw and perhaps you might not get an ejected piece of lumber into your chest in changing your habits of using the tool. Than again, keep getting warned and you might not be using the saw any longer.
Such concepts also get you much better results. On almost a weekly basis I’m contacting some supplier directly with a problem by way of sales staff at times - and it does happen in asking for someone else to handle my account, or in general about a product. Gets me far by way of in the past free magazine subscriptions if I stick with them another year and give them a chance to hammer out the bugs, or at one
point a phone
call to my dorm room by Robert
Altman in apologizing for a problem to which he also sent not just the gear right away but also
swag and extra gear. Doesn’t matter who you are or what your position where, direct communication - especially by snail mail works wonders. Much better way of going about it, and has better results than say if one has a bad experience at the local gas station, going to a different town’s
park and getting on a soap box to scream out your injustice with them.
Successfully sued is hard to prove no doubt. On the other
hand, good taste, not sparring a debate that harms others and is not fair to all in equal opportunity to defend oneself is I hope above proved. This company would be harmed by the posting of who it was and it’s not fair to them based upon this experience with them. Even if many experiences with any company were similar, there is still a valid number or good experiences with them which keep them in business so any posting negative of them thus is slanted and invalid.
alright, this has been a pet peave with this site for a long time. Where exactly has this long held belief that you can get sued for what you post. I want examples of where this has happened in the past. Also posting a negative experience isn't slander. Saying something like "I bought a computer from dell and their customer service failed me x, y and z ways" is not slander. On the other
hand claiming "Dell came to my
house and raped my dog then stole my tv" would be slander. On the same token a company isn't going to sue a website for slander, that would bring more bad PR than any comment. Worst case scenario is dave gets a threating form letter. Consider this a far fetched idea, but I believe companies to be responsible for how every transaction takes place good or bad. Let the consumer decide.
The same goes for posting info about rigging or
pyro, I refuse to believe that the argument of "I heard this online" would stand up in court. The idea of keeping knowledge away for the sake of
safety is ridiculous. The way I see it is, I don't plan on doing
pyro anytime soon, but from reading a thread about it if I saw someone doing something stupid I could stop a bad situation from happening.
But please, prove me wrong, show me where an online forum been successfully sued for something other than copyright violations or kiddy porn and been successful.