I don't know where this is all coming from. I know that you, at one time had interest in becoming a vendor on NAM. Would you want me, Sam, or a group of people determine whether you were worthy of being on the site? At what point of complaining, by some predetermined number of members, would you be comfortable with deciding when you get booted off the site?

Just for yucks I ran some statistics. Since January 1, 2008 we are averaging around 2,455 registered members visiting the site at least once per day. In this thread there are 40 unique members (including myself) who have posted at least once to this thread. This equates to 1.63% of the members visiting per day complaining about Palo Uber (assuming everyone in this thread is complaining about them and not something else).

So what's the magic threshold to get booted as a vendor? Wouldn't a number be completely arbitrary depending on the situations surrounding the issues with the vendor (not just Palo Uber)?

Our feeling has always been to support a free market on the site. If people like working with a vendor then great things are posted about them on the site and that business thrives. If they don't treat people well people then not-so-great things are posted and their sales begin to drop. If we see a vendor going down the slope then we try to provide some guidance. If they don't follow our guidance then that is their decision and they run the risk of seeing whatever business they had decline further...or for new vendors never seeing the business improve.

If people don't like Palo Uber or any other vendor then its their decision on where to spend their money. NAM (ie - me) won't dictate that...they must decide on their own (hopefully researching their options beforehand). Obviously with less than 2% of the daily members visiting the site someone, somewhere is quietly buying Palo Uber's products, not complaining or posting about it, and is justifying Palo Uber spending advertising dollars to be on the site. At some point if they find it a loosing proposition to spend advertising and not be receiving a return then they are free to move on.

Again, NAM (ie - me) never intended to provide a Consumer Reports service...just the infrastructure to support community interaction. If you don't like what you received from Palo Uber then use the review system to provide a review and post something to the forums to help other users become aware of your experience...and then move on.

BTW - if you are unhappy with what you received from Palo Uber have you attempted to return it for a refund?

Mark (head ***-clown )

 

SUCCUBUS
...that's 30 years, if you must know, and I happen to have graduated Magna *** Laude, am a very successful entrepreneur, and possess a far more substantial client list that most firms twice my size - and I can say that without ego. You? The internet is such a convenient place to transform oneself into a self-righteous altar boy. What with Wikipedia and all of the online dictionaries to leach from. Nevertheless, you, Palo Uber, and every other harlequin out there can kiss my *** - and I can say that without remorse. This is the net, you pretentious panty-waste, you can become whatever you like in the eyes of others. You choose to be an ****-retentive, I choose to say precisely what I feel.

MARK
...come on, Mark, statistics. If you had even stepped foot inside an accredited institution of higher learning, you'd know that one can influence statistics to read however they like. Money is money, and - as far as PU is concerned - you are going to go on doing what you always have: selling out. Yes, at one time I had sought vendor status with you, but not having "Vendor" tied to my name hasn't made a bit of difference in the past, and I'm sure that will not change. I'll continue to make money without you, Mark, as I always have (and it won't be on my back). It wouldn't put a ripple in my pond if not one of you patronized my firm, and I mean that. In fact, it'd be a blessing. And yes, with PU's history, I would fully expect to be denied participation in the vendor program. You're getting paid, after all, and so it makes perfect sense to keep them around. Now, would you kindly delete my account?


Regards,

Nathan S. Allen, Principle
Nathan S. Allen Design
NALLEN
1211B Ginger Court
Indianapolis, Indiana 46241
(317)748-4347

 

What is obvious to me now is that there is no way to provide information to you in a way that would reshape your thinking in any way. You've made your mind up about me, the site, and the community based on your experiences with one vendor. That's unfortunate.

As for deleting your account we don't delete accounts because it orphans posts. What I will do for you, however, is disable your account so that all your posts are still present but you wont' receive any more PMs or thread notifications. It will however allow your posts and style of dealing with people to be found by Google. In fact, when Googling using your username I see that Google is already picking up your comments in this thread.

Thanks and I wish you the best in your other ventures.

Mark

 

(emphasis mine)

And I thought the writers were still out on strike. This stuff is too funny and good to be true!

If the Colts end up losing today, he's really going to blow a fuse...

 

Mark,

You have sold out. You have the obligation to end the vendor status of PU. There have been many threads and posts describing the questionable marketing, products, and customer service practices of Palo Uber. All with out any hint of bias. It has been shown that they are blatantly lying in their vendor and website announcements/descriptions. If you are only interested in protecting your vendor income, then do nothing. If on the other hand you feel you have the obligation to protect the MINI community from vendors that have PROVEN to be of questionable reputation, then do the right thing and drop Palo Uber as a vendor.

Your argument about not wanting to hold vendors to some kind of standard is laughable. You have the obligation to hold all vendors you approve to some kind of high standard. Would you accept an application from a vendor of the new MINI magnetic fuel atomizing plasma engine management cube if it was proven to be a completely bogus and non-working item?

You are the owner of this forum and can make whatever decisions you deem necessary to keep the site functioning, but I feel you have an even higher obligation to the MINI community to provide a platform for holding your vendors to a higher standard than you do now. Take the info offered here and on the many other threads and determine on your own whether or not the claims are valid. If you can determine that the claims against PU are true, then do the right thing and remove them from vendor status thereby protecting the forum members that don't read the forum on a regular basis from being subjected to the circus that is Palo Uber.

 

The writers are on strike. Otherwise, it would have read Summa *** Laude!

In any case, Nathan has a bee in his bonnet and I bet in a few days he will regret writing everyone off and how he went about it. There are obviously a few who concur with his sentiment, even if his style didn't charm all of NAM. He is passionate at least and doesn't mince words; there is something to be said for that and he didn't exactly get a warm embrace to want to do otherwise.

 

Scott,

I understand what you are saying and I agree that vendors should be held to an acceptable level of business standards. But it is a slippery slope to start banning vendors. There are a lot of questions about what constitutes behavior whereby someone should be banned. If I owned NAM I wouldnt want to play judge, jury and sentencer in making that determination. Every vendor and situation is different and making firm rules can tie ones hands and force one to make decisions that may not be the best in all situations. Personally, I wouldnt buy anything from PU, as much because they refuse to participate in this discussion to defend themselves as the complaints sure seem to have merit. So NAM is serving as a valuable resource. And as unlikely as it may seem, some people have probably bought items from PU and been satisfied. It would be best if more people used the review section of the site. That would make it much easier to see what people thought of the products that individuals were interested in purchasing. It is easy for us to say that we would make the decision to ban PU as a vendor but tougher to develop a specific policy for the process. I am not sure what Mark does for a living and if it is solely to run this site. But I cant imagine how busy he would be if he had to review submissions from members in order to continuously determine the status of vendors. I am just thankful that a site like this exists as a resource for entertainment, information and opinions. As a consumer, I would be a lot worse off without access to other MINI owners.

 

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. If I were to make a decision to boot a vendor many would see this as an arbitrary decision and ask that they be allowed to make their own decisions. Its a catch 22.

You mention that I could determine if the claims against PU are true. I'm a software developer and work on this site, MINI events, and more as a full-time job. I'm not a trained investigative reporter. As I've said countless times before NAM (ie - me) was never intended to offer a Consumer Reports type of service. It was intended for people to share information. Information and experiences relative to Palo Uber are being shared. People are reading those and making decisions on whether or not to spend their money with Palo Uber. This was the purpose of NAM...to share information so that people can make their own decisions. I believe its doing that. If you don't feel that way there is likely no way I can convince you otherwise.

Now...I need to get back to working on a new marketplace and a host of other things that will be soon rolled out to members of the site.

Mark

 

A very wise man once said: " Better for people to think you a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt." Winston Churchill

 

A lot of other folks have already done the research for you. They have proven time and again that the claims posted on their website and here are outright lies. It couldn't be more clear. Are you so unwilling to make one vendor unhappy that you would subject more of the MINI community to their obviously deceptive tactics. I am not sure who the "they" is that you refer too. This is your site. You have the authority to decide which vendors to allow to use this site. No one else has this power. So step up and take the high road you are so proud to claim to have.

Unfortunately you have proven to us all that the vendors are more important to you than NAM members are.

 

It still comes down to the fact that this is Marks site. He has the power to accept or decline any vendors application and status as he sees fit. He never did answer my question about the "MINI magnetic fuel atomizing plasma engine management cube " product. I think the word banned is a bit misleading. Mark can simply remove a vendor from being able to advertise and post on the forum. No policy is needed, he is the owner. We don't have the power to remove a vendor, but we do have the power to post as we have about the deceptive tactics used by a vendor. He wouldn't have to review all posts about a vendor, but he can see if a trend is developing and determine whether the community is being well served by said vendor or not. In a perfect world all NAM members, and all MINI owners, would have to read all of the posts about a vendor before doing business with them. But that will never happen. So if a vendor is "legitimized" by NAM it gives the impression that said vendor is endorsed by NAM. So just by being listed as a vendor gives said vendor a step up on the competitors that decide not to pay for vendor status.

 

This

Integrity is not an "almost" thing, it is not a 90% thing, it is absolute. You either have it, or you don't. By allowing a Vendor of PaloUbers ilk to advertise on NAM, it presents a lack of integrity of the site, and members faith and trust in the NAM community is diminished

 

this got ugly, i dont think there was any need to yell at Mark, hes done alot for us. I kind of side with him on this one folks...

 

So wait... people could google and find these comments, as well as other comments made by, about and to Palo Uber and their products, and their lack of quality, customer service and integrity as well, and thus have a chance of preventing a case of buyer's remorse?


Imagine that...

 

*smacks head"* damn...we should have thought of that!

 

But guys... Palo Uber is an artist.....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

A ******** artist...

 

Man have I been asleep at the keyboard! How have I missed all of this until now?

Where to begin? First off, I have been on NAM for a little over a year. Originally it was to learn about the car, then about how to mod the car (as well as how NOT to mod it!)

It took me all of 2 hours in my first day to recognize that there was something "not so good" about this Palo Uber.

Wasn't sure who/what PU was, but knew that a lot of people here had a strong opinion that the product line was overpriced junk. I didn't need a warning from NAM (Mark) to figure that out.

Now as to the Ubermeister, y'all been awful hard on poor Nallenzerozero. He was lookin' out for you all - spending that hard-earned money his fulla *** laude degree earned him. He intentionally bought the PU product so he could be victimized, cry about it, and then lead the PU revolution. The only thing he didn't do to ensure success was to throw the lugs into Boston Harbor. I quote:

"It's precisely why I bought the product and started this thread"

Rjtrout2000 hit the nail on the head - a tool....a tool made of Grade 10.3, which is Formula one track standard

 

And people still like you? Do you kiss yourself good night before you go to bed? How do you tear yourself away from the mirror in the morning? .

 

Especially when PU runs many "NAM" product discounts. It is clear that part of their marketing strategy is to be seen as a "friend oF NAM". While Mark made several good points, I happen to think that overall Scott's are actually more valid.

 

He's President of the Self Admiration Society...pay him a little respect

 

I don't see it that way at all. I belive he already said that he is not the "Vendor police". We, as consumers have to be responsible for ourselfs. Could you imagine the disclaimers that would have to posted "before and after" a vendors tag, just in what was brought up in this thread alone? IMHO, this is whats percisely wrong with our entire country, that is why we need thousands and thousands of laws that, just, lets say 10 would do . Yes we can post things that we like and dislike about a vendor or products, but I don't think this is Marks job. And just remember that all the information you are getting from other people is their opinion. I am sure that Mark realizes that the members are an important part of NAM, if it was not for us, there would be no NAM.

 

In a free society the only thing we are intitled to is the opportunity to make an informed decision, when we begin to demand others to make those decisions for us, well........

 

caveat emptor - the concept is so old, it's in LATIN!

 

best thread ever.

 

I love internet hissy fits