Originally Posted by
gaybucks_chip
Lee, with qualification, I agree with what you've stated.
I think (for me at least) the right answer is somewhere in the middle. I think we owe it to the people we work in this industry with to make an honest attempt to resolve a situation privately, wait a reasonable amount of time for them to respond and make things right, and then, if that doesn't happen, post a neutral (or, as neutral as possible) statement about the negative experience (as in, "I'm hoping they're just busy, but so-and-so hasn't done the galleries I paid them for" or "Perhaps there was a bank problem, but so-and-so's check was returned").
Even if it's a little disingenuous -- if CCBill gets an $11,000 chargeback on a sponsorship for Gay Phoenix Forum, for example, that's most likely NOT a "minor bank problem" -- it still leaves an opportunity for the other side to save face and, if there genuinely was an intent to make good, they can do so, but at the same time, there's a public record of what went wrong, so that people can be aware and judge for themselves if they want to do business.
I would be horrified if, for example, we screwed up and issued a check for the wrong amount, and the affiliate emailed us on a day we were out of town, then, getting no response, made a bunch of big, ugly postings accusing us of scamming them. I've seen it happen with others.
And, of course, I've also seen people caught with their pants down on GFY, falling all over themselves to act totally innocent when they were clearly not. But I think most webmasters are smart enough to read the situation and judge for themselves.
The situation with Pulz wasn't that unpredictable to me. Several individuals from that organization had posted for quite a while with some very argumentative, non-conciliatory statements about various things, sometimes with little or no provocation. Rarely was there a genuine tone to the messages indicating a desire to work together in a friendly and cooperative manner.
Even if everything Reese has said is true (and that seems unlikely), he could immediately have addressed the issues with the individuals and companies first. If I knew that checks were bouncing or charges being denied to my vendors/employees, the very first thing that would be happening is I'd be calling them BEFORE their banks called them, letting them know what was happening, and getting a quick resolution. If that had happened, NONE of this would have come about. The fact that it didn't speaks volumes not just about the situation, but about the people behind it.
Bookmarks