Kootenay Tonewood

[Daniel_M]

With out wanting to start a wildfire, I am grateful that martin (or mutant, as my phone's spellcheck wanted to call him) made the offer. I see it the same as if I recommended a mechanic to a mate (and recommended him alot), if he wasn't doing the right I would want to know so I could either stop recommending him or so I could tell him to lift his game. If the vendor is right well and good, it just means that the customer will know what is right or fair next time. Liam you are right mate it is not a 'paid for' position, and that is exactly what makes it so valuable.

[kiwigeo]

There's something a little bit strange about this. I don't know if I'd feel comfortable involving the admin in a transaction between myself and a vendor.

If you don't feel comfortable involving an admin in a transaction between yourself and a vendor then that's your call. If you feel you’re going to have better luck resolving your problems by not getting the forum administration involved then by all means go down that route.

Can the admin really provide leverage to a private transaction?

In most cases I would say yes. As well as having the power to remove preferred vendor status most of the forum admins also do alot of business with the preferred vendors so collectively we have more leverage than an individual member. My three primary tonewood suppliers are all preferred suppliers.

Does the admin have a prerogative to do anything, after all the preferred vendors aren't paying for their position.

The forum admins have the prerogative to decide which vendors are awarded preferred vendor status and by the same token they have the prerogative to remove same status. A vendor who has paid for preferred vendor status is less likely to care about protecting that status than one who has had to earn that status by building up a track record over a period of time. [/quote]

Furthermore what if the admin team then deem the customer/forum member who contacted them in the first place to be in the wrong and back the vendor. It's one of those moves that once done can't be taken back. Where's that picture of the can of worms.

If the forum admins back the vendor and customer feels he's still in the right then there’s nothing stopping him/her from pursuing than matter further

[Kim]

Liam you are right mate it is not a 'paid for' position, and that is exactly what makes it so valuable.

Indeed Daniel, given there is no charge the preferred vendor has everything to loose by not doing the right thing by our members. The ANZLF always has the option to disassociate if we think they are dropping the ball because we don't owe anybody anything and that is made clear in the rules. As you also point out, should a member raise an issue with this forums admin which they had been unable to resolve to their satisfaction with the vendor themselves, and it was then found upon review that their complaint was unrealistic, then yes, we 'would' side with the vendor and would hope that the member involved would be humble enough to accept that they may have erred in their initial assessment of the situation.

This is not something we want to be involved in by the way, but if it comes to the push the options are there and thank you for your support and ability to identify the obvious.

Cheers

Kim

[liam_fnq]

With out wanting to start a wildfire, I am grateful that martin (or mutant, as my phone's spellcheck wanted to call him) made the offer. I see it the same as if I recommended a mechanic to a mate (and recommended him alot), if he wasn't doing the right I would want to know so I could either stop recommending him or so I could tell him to lift his game. If the vendor is right well and good, it just means that the customer will know what is right or fair next time. Liam you are right mate it is not a 'paid for' position, and that is exactly what makes it so valuable.

I agree with all you've said however we're not exactly on the same page. My comments were intended to highlight what can happen if a 3rd party is dragged into a private transaction. My post was also made from the perspective of the customer while yours is from the perspective of the 3rd party.

To use your analogy from the perspective of the customer. If my mate recommended a mechanic to me and he turned out to be shit, the last thing I would want to do is drag him in. It would make him the meat in the sandwich, that is, put him in a very difficult situation. Relationships can be put to the test this way. Mixing business and pleasure etc etc.

[liam_fnq]

Does the admin have a prerogative to do anything, after all the preferred vendors aren't paying for their position.

The forum admins have the prerogative to decide which vendors are awarded preferred vendor status and by the same token they have the prerogative to remove same status. A vendor who has paid for preferred vendor status is less likely to care about protecting that status than one who has had to earn that status by building up a track record over a period of time.

Does the admin have a prerogative (to help the customer/forum member), after all the vendors aren't paying for their position.

This was not intended to question whether or not the admin could/should/would alter their relationship with the vendor. It was intended to ask whether the admin has the prerogative to have a say in a private transaction. By all means alter your buying patterns or what ever in response to hearing both sides of a transaction that has gone pear shaped. I don't see why anyone out side of the buyer/seller should get involved other than those agencies with legitimicy to do so (consumers groups, goverment agencies, law courts etc).

Once again my comments were about whether 3rd parties should get a say in private transactions rather than a comment on the ANZLF's relationship with PVs

[kiwigeo]

To use your analogy from the perspective of the customer. If my mate recommended a mechanic to me and he turned out to be shit, the last thing I would want to do is drag him in. It would make him the meat in the sandwich, that is, put him in a very difficult situation. Relationships can be put to the test this way. Mixing business and pleasure etc etc.

This a poor analogy. Getting the admins involved in a dispute between a preferred vendor and one of our members doesn't put the admins in a "difficult situation" or make them the "meat in the sandwich" at all and it doesn't change their relationship with the member concerned in any way. IMO to work properly, the preferred vendor system needs ongoing monitoring and this can't happen if the admins aren't aware of problems a member is having with a preferred vendor. The way I see it if you don't make the admins aware of problems you're having with a preferred vendor then you are in fact letting down other members of the forum who may end up having similar problems with the same vendor.

As I've stated already if you want to go down the path of not having the admins involved in trying to resolve a dispute with a preferred vendor and potentially end up further out of pocket and still at square one then to do so is your prerogative.

[kiwigeo]

[ I don't see why anyone out side of the buyer/seller should get involved other than those agencies with legitimicy to do so (consumers groups, government agencies, law courts etc).

Members are free to go down the route of pursuing a vendor via a government agency, consumer group or law court....but why end up spending money and time on same when you have a better chance of reaching a much quicker resolution by getting the admins involved and it won't cost you a cent.

Once again my comments were about whether 3rd parties should get a say in private transactions rather than a comment on the ANZLF's relationship with PVs

In your posts to date you specifically refer to the ANZLF admins and disputes between ANZLF members and ANZLF preferred vendors.

[liam_fnq]

It's about the anzlf admin acting as a 3rd party mediator in a private transaction between a vendor and customer. It's about the relationship between a customer and a vendor. I am not commenting on the relationship between the admin and PVs but rather between a forum member/customer and vendor as well as the relationship between the member/customer and the admin.

I'm quite clear that I can choose to take up your offer or not. I don't think anyone is silly enough to think that is the point.

The crux of the matter is whether or not the admin consider to have legitimacy to act as a 3rd party mediator and if so where that legitimacy comes from. Usually a 3rd party mediator is independantly appointed so as to be impartial. The idea of a 3rd party mediator appointing themselves goes against the point of impartiality.

[matthew]

Yes, and irrespective of what the reality is, or how useful and genuine the offer is, I think that how such an arrangement looks from the outside is actually quite important.

[Bob Connor]

Wouldn't you blokes be better off getting in to your workshops and building some instruments or taking your dog for walk or something else useful?

[Daniel_M]

The crux of the matter is whether or not the admin consider to have legitimacy to act as a 3rd party mediator and if so where that legitimacy comes from.

Liam, I think that 'legitimacy' is largely a result of vendors accepting 'preferred status'.

In 99.99% of cases I am sure that if there was a problem the preferred vendor will bend over backwards to fix the problem.

I have only purchased tonewood from preferred supplies because of this forum - otherwise they wouldn't have even been on my radar. On this basis the forum has provided them with business (and in many cases signficiant business) - it is only fair that to achieve this status that they maintain the requirements for 'membership' of this elite club.

[peter.coombe]

Wouldn't you blokes be better off getting in to your workshops and building some instruments or taking your dog for walk or something else useful?

Here , here!