1911Forum - View Single Post - A question on Rules, Practices and Civil discourse.
View Single Post
  #1  
Old 10-13-2010, 12:08 PM
guntotin_fool guntotin_fool is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 691
A question on Rules, Practices and Civil discourse.

I have read the rules and understand them. I have recently been surprised by several threads being closed because they are airing "grievances". I do not consider stating honest facts about time frames and deliveries as grievances.

People come here to understand and promote their enjoyment of the 1911. One of the most absolutely frustrating aspects of owning one is sending it off to someone, being told X and getting Y. It seems a great many of the people who do this kind of work operate on the "Over promise, under deliver" business model. I am not saying all, nor most do this, but it happens a lot. Yet when someone posts"Hey, FYI, Smith X promised me 6 weeks turnaround, and I am looking at 6 months" This is considered bad form on here.

It is not stopped when its a manufacturer of some size, as Kimber, Para, Springer and Colt have all been dragged over the coals in some threads. Yet if someone starts talking about a small shop or even an elite name builder, they are silenced almost immediately.

I think this is disingenuous. I think this is doing a dis-service to those of us who are paying for the guns and paying for the work. The posts need not be complete rip jobs on someone, but if someone can calmly say Company W told me it would cost _____dollars and take ____ long, but in the end, it took twice as much cash and ten times as long, there is NO reason that should not be public knowledge.

The standard line has been "take it to the source" well, have you tried that? It just does not work. The only thing these shops have is reputation. We are all consumers, and without some leverage and knowledge, its hard to get the truth.

There is no smith or factory on earth who can say every job was done perfect and on time. We all know that. Stuff happens. Better shops and smiths have much fewer problems and delays. Thats what makes them better. Good business practices can be identified by how a company deals with mistakes and problems. Honest data rewards those that do a better job. Shielding problems from the public eye allows those problems to persist without fear or forcing a correction.

To those smiths on here who are moderators, do you really feel that preventing honest evaluations of shops is in your best interest? I am not suggesting opening up the rules completely, but allowing someone to come on here and say, "Hey folks, My experience with Shop x was mixed. The quality of the work was good, but the service was very slow and and at times terse." Thats a good thing. It forces Shop X to reexamine its practices, and it gives them a chance to publicly say, "yeah, sorry", or "whoa, now, The delivery was delayed, and you were informed of, by back ordered parts," or "you changed your mind every day, and I have 9 change orders here to prove it." If it devolves into a pissing match, sure close it, but open and clear discussion is not something to hide from .

People on here are reasonably intelligent. If they read that Shop A is under promising on delivery and guns are being delivered a week or two early. They will support that shop. If people are told Shop B is promising 5 weeks, but really its ten, but the work is phenomenal and right, People will just accept that, if they choose. However if the posts are ShopC is 24 weeks behind, the work is fair to middlin' and attitude sux, well, people have a right to know that too.
Reply With Quote