Your right - it is up to the community. We vote every time, we purchase from a vendor on this site.

 

Well, all I can say is if a non-paying USER posted an intentionally fraudulent "For Sale" thread, then refused to retract said ad after being challenged by it, I'd bet (hope even) that they'd be banned in a heartbeat. It does seem that paying advertisers enjoy a different status than regular users - sorry to say that, but it's the impression I'm left with. This isn't a new thing with PU, Mark - they've been pulling this utter BS on a regular basis for as long as I've been a member! I'm certainly no fan of censorship - get a drink in me and I'll tell you about the time a VFW guy punched me in the mouth then PULLED A GUN ON ME for defending free speech - but closing down a known fraudulent/shady vendor is not a free speech issue. I dunno - maybe I'm pverly sensitive about this because I work in security and I'm sick of people trying to justify theft as a "free speech" issue.

I do. Like I said before - if I were a new user, and I stumbled onto PU from a linked banner ad, then got screwed, I'd be annoyed.

If I later learned that there are threads, some 25+ pages long begging the administration to remove the vendor, I'd blame the site that facilitated their ability to do business, and even profited off it via ad sales. That's amall potatoes compared to RICO violations and whatnot that Matt brought up, I guess, but it SEEMS important. Guess it's not in the grand scheme of things.

 

I would hesitate (despite what I have seen regarding PU) to call the initial post "fraudulent" as fraud requires intent. However, the fact that they claim to have researched the legality of it and still posted a blatantly wrong ad, kind of does belie an alternative argument.

 

As I said before, make your opinions known to Internet Brands because they ultimately control the advertising agreement and relationship with the vendor. Contact them at AutoAdvertiser@InternetBrands.com.

 

I'd argue after readsing something like 200+ pages of PU threads over the past 18 months or so that everything they do is premeditated and completely intentional. Nobody could be that stupid and still be able to make change for a dollar.

 

Mark doesn't own the site anymore, if you really don't like what PU does email like he suggests. If Internet Brands gets enough emails they'll listen.

 

PU is one person, maybe two before Bryce passed. All the others are figments of Carol's imagination, so as to make it seem they're larger than they are. No such person as 'Palo Uber' - who has a last name 'Uber'? It's a german word used in US advertising to evoke the 'best'. PU = mediocre rebadged crap rolled up in hyperbole and served on a shiny silver NAM platter. Public Enemy said it best.... "Don't Believe the Hype"

 

Done! Thanks as always, Mark.

 

Wrong, they are in the business to make money and one way they do it is via vendor fees. This site doesn't stay up and running for free - it needs money to exist. I am sure there are a bunch of disclaimers, protecting NAM from vendor actions/performance.

The only recourse we have is one another via the sharing of information. There have been so many different threads highlighting the a) non-existence of PU (the main reason to buy from them) to b) rusting lugs to c) antennas not holding color to d) blatantly re-badged rims YET they get sales via this site or proabably won't continue to advertise.

Go figure

 

Mark doesn't wn the site anymore
We're all old enough to make our own decisions here..

 

So damn the new member that hasn't done any research (because he doesn't think he needs to because it is a NAM approved vendor) and he then finds out after wards that he has been deceived by said vendor. NAM doesn't have some responsibility for this?

 

no

 

I guess the beter question would be..........should NAM be responsible.

There is no problem with this statement except for the vendor that NEVER comes to the forum to defend or explain itself to the members. The only time we see anything from PU is in the form of a very deceptive vendor announcement that no one can respond to. And these posts are listed on the home page of NAM. So being suckered into buying something based on a deceptive ad is very easy the way NAM is currently set up. And that is the foundation of the problems with this vendor. And no one is willing to step up and say we don't want your kind of business on NAM.

 

I agree.

There are plenty or worthy vendors who don't actively sell through NAM (VIP Garage for example), yet we have a shady one who'll pay and it's ok. Problem is, that offers a slippery slope where NAM moderates and must vet a vendor. This is an issue for most any forum owner and honestly, there isn't enough bandwidth to do it vs. the severity of the issue.

I kind of look at it like used car dealers placing ads on cars.com. You don't blame cars.com for that and most all used car dealers are little better than PU.

 

But when a vendor has so blatantly been deceptive with their products and business dealings as PU has, I think it would be easy to just say no......

I don't believe NAM should investigate or moderate vendors, but when one has been shown and proven to be a genuine liability it should be acted upon.

 

..

 

I do agree that its a slippery slope for NAM to approve or disapprove vendors - at least initially. But no one can deny that over time, complaints have built about PU while kudos and accolades have built up about others. I agree with Matt that when there are literally hundreds of pages of complaints about a vendor, it would be very easy for whoever owns the forum to simply say "Hey, our membership has a lot of complaints about your business. We're choosing not to do business with you at this time." I don't think its that difficult, especially as the number of SUPPORTING members continues to grow, to uphold at least a minimum standard for vendors.

 

Being an open forum, its a gathering place and thats all it is. The site is a business and it makes fees via vendor advertisers. Recently they introduced an upgraded membership and its fee based. The key is that vendors are advertiser nothing more. Hopefully no one interprets that NAM does due diligence on their vendors. Perhaps there should be a disclosure when you join NAM. For all I know there is ?

People come to the site for information / sharing and not for protection. If a Newbie invests time on NAM, he should be allright and make informed decisiones. Bear in mind that within this comunity you will find members that like and dislike virtually ever vendor here.

 

[quote=ScottinBend;2167631]I guess the beter question would be..........should NAM be responsible.

[\quote]

It could be if the community bucked up $$. We could go as far as have NAM perform an independent test on all products, we would simply have to cover the budget.

 

Now this is what I am talking about.

 

Guys, please don't forget about the hundreds of satisfied PU customers, doctors, lawyers, fluffers and such...........

 

Yes! In fact, it's something I beleive is expected in such a forum. Logically, why would a site, dedicated to a particular interest not seek to protect it's members from a vendor who prays on, rather than serves, that interest?

 

And again...........Mark, do you or do you not have any control or input on vendors anymore?

 

whether he does or not, we now know that our complaints should be directed to the corporate massters, for them to follow or ignore...

Matt