Smoke, mirrors, innuendo and rumours
I?ve been thinking about this for a few weeks so that I could present a more objective post on the subject.
Occasionally we see a post which starts "I've heard that", or "Somebody told me", followed by a statement which is usually less than flattering towards a company, product or individual. I'm happy to let these posts stand if the case is presented with some verifiable facts; sadly, not all such posts contain facts.
The ?Unofficial Doxa Forum? appeared following many complaints that posts on the Official Doxa Forum which the moderators considered unsuitable, i.e., anything critical of the company or the product or posing questions they didn?t want to answer, were being killed and posters banned. It?s patently wrong that companies won?t answer customer questions, so the UDF was born.
Many people asked reasonable questions or related their own experiences but there were a few people who appeared to have an agenda and it is these people who concern me. We were promised dynamite revelations with proof but got damp squibs without proof, only innuendo and ?wait and see?.
If there is proof, we should have been presented with it and if there is no proof, the allegations should not have been made. The absence of a satisfactory answer from a company does not automatically mean that they are guilty of the allegations being made against them.
On several occasions it was alleged that Doxa watches are assembled in China, using Chinese manufactured components. No definitive proof was produced to support this, the only thing I could see was that they source straps and baseball caps from China, something which Doxa themselves readily admit. I don?t see any malpractice or deception here.
It is not my intention to stifle debate which may be unwanted or embarrassing to manufacturers if the case presented is accurate and truthful but it is my intention to prevent this forum being used as a platform by anybody attempting to cause damage to any company or individual posting misleading or false information because of a personal grudge. Knowingly publishing false allegations leaves the individual poster and myself liable to civil action and potentially, the closure of TZ-UK Forum.
The only ?facts? which came out of the 2263 posts in 125 threads on the UDF showed that the Official Doxa Forum is a marketing tool for Doxa and that at worst, they are guilty of poor customer communication. In short, we didn?t learn anything we didn?t already know.
I?m using the Doxa incident as an example to illustrate a point, not to encourage any further discussion of specifics. Feel free to comment on my motives for making this post or to seek clarification but please do NOT try to resurrect the Doxa discussion or I?ll have to find the ?delete? button. :wink:
Eddie
Re: Smoke, mirrors, innuendo and rumours
Quote:
Originally Posted by swanbourne
I?ve been thinking about this for a few weeks so that I could present a more objective post on the subject.
Occasionally we see a post which starts "I've heard that", or "Somebody told me", followed by a statement which is usually less than flattering towards a company, product or individual. I'm happy to let these posts stand if the case is presented with some verifiable facts; sadly, not all such posts contain facts.....................................
.............Many people asked reasonable questions or related their own experiences but there were a few people who appeared to have an agenda and it is these people who concern me........................
................It is not my intention to stifle debate which may be unwanted or embarrassing to manufacturers if the case presented is accurate and truthful but it is my intention to prevent this forum being used as a platform by anybody attempting to cause damage to any company or individual posting misleading or false information because of a personal grudge. Knowingly publishing false allegations leaves the individual poster and myself liable to civil action and potentially, the closure of TZ-UK Forum.
Feel free to comment on my motives for making this post or to seek clarification .......................................
Eddie
Most of those responding have only really re-hashed the UDF points, but I'm really trying to get a clearer idea of what Eddie wanted/expected from raising this now, so yes, I would like some clarification from Eddie as to what the main question for debate is here.
If I read Eddie's post correctly, then I see two separate issues from the post title. Smoke & Mirrors and Innuendo & Rumours. So are we just talking about individuals abusing the forum or is the smoke & mirrors bit a reference to how some brands may set out to mislead?
As far as individual abuse of the forum goes, trolling and flaming will probably never go away completely. But from what I've seen here since I joined, posts that fall into that category seem to be picked up on fairly quickly and members here do not seem to hesitate in ensuring that blatantly unfair or trolling threads are quickly described as such; thereby redressing the balance of information.
Lively debates however still get a full airing where there is felt to be some merit (dare I mention Rolex bracelets as an example? :twisted: )
Whether the best policy is to totally ignore inflammatory posts and so let them quickly die (Don't feed the Troll) or, as is more often the case here, to have a number of respondents pointing out the lack of credibility in a post, is a matter for debate in itself, and perhaps Eddie's views on that point would be helpful.
The "Smoke & Mirrors" bit, if applied to suppliers/manufacturers, is something that the D*x* issue definitely brought to our attention. (I'm here referring to the Internet WIS community.)
Marketing obviously sets out to portray a product or service in the best possible light and manufacturers/suppliers are under no compulsion to voluntarily also highlight any areas where their product or service does not compare well to its competition.
However, they are not allowed to deliberately mislead or to give incorrect information in response to a direct question.
I would guess that many of those who frequent this forum can think of examples where a brands marketing is, if not breaking those rules, then certainly using clever wording to bend them as far as possible. Some of the so called "Special Op's" watch brands spring to my mind.
So where does all this get us?
If Eddie's point was, "do we have a problem with posts deliberately setting out to cause defamation"? then I think the answer is no. We have them, but any intended fires are quickly sorted, by either of the two self-policing resources discussed earlier.
"Are we at risk from misleading advertising"? Yes, everyone is, everyday of our lives, and this forum can provide a good service in allowing debate as to the relative merits of some brands claims.
A great many of our acquisitions are made without having the ability to physically examine the watch prior to purchase. We are therefore often relying on images, descriptions and other owners impressions gleaned on-line. Any information highlighting where such information may be inaccurate or deliberately filtered to the point of bias and therefore misrepresentation should be discussed and either proved or dismissed.
Any feedback we can get from sources known to us (i.e. other members whose opinions and personal biases we have had time to get know) is invaluable and one of the greatest functions of a forum like this. Long may it be so.