Complaining about companies

[shanghaikai]

Split from here, go read for the background. Roddy.

Given that businesses with motive and potential for profit often have much more resources for disseminating their "story," I would be really disheartened if David Gao manages to convince roddy and this forum to censor one of their past customer's complaints and opinions.

While the truth is often in the middle, the refusal to engage in discourse is only made worse by the active pursuit of silencing the "other side." Be that it may that boiten-valise here is only one side and as empassioned as s/he is about her negative experiences and recommendations to others, the fact that David Gao is trying to use threats and coercion to muffle his detractors is very poor form. Sure, businesses are not required to respond to complaints and many businesses do not, but if they are not willing to make good with those they have had a falling out with, the very least we should expect is that they not actively persecute.

If this is about libel or slander, David Gao would do well to pursue the matter with boiten_valise him/herself. Without taking that first recourse, David Gao has no legal nor moral standing to demand that a forum of information dissemination bend, at best, to his will and, at worst, to his shameless greed and unscrupulous whims.

[roddy]

For reference, I should probably say that if a firm contacted me to say something posted on here is incorrect and damaging their business, and on balance I found them more credible than whoever was posting, then I'd probably give consideration to removing it or at least adding some kind of note to make that clear. Google the name of the firm under discussion here and this site comes up very prominently. How much of an impact that has I don't know, but I do know having spoken to a number of people running small-scale operations that the forums can be a source of business - and therefore it can presumably cause people to lose business. That being the case, I think there's a responsibility on whoever is running the site to make sure the information on here is correct to whatever possible extent.

Credible (note, credible. "We'll sue!" isn't credible) legal threats also have an impact. That's only happened once and in that case the poster was . . . well, he might be reading. But that post got removed and I had no qualms about doing so. I've also had potential advertisers try to tie advertising to editorial control. They got told where to go.

That said, it's all academic at the moment as it isn't happening.

[shanghaikai]

"Panda" is a popular search term but "aspect" pretty easily narrows the results so I'm not surprised it figures prominently in search results. That said, SEO is irrelevant to the matter at hand: customer dissatisfaction.

Now, I certainly understand where you're coming from, roddy, but I want to (re)emphasize a major point:

If these businesses depend on these forums as a source of business, shouldn't they spend more time satisfying (or at least responding to) their customers on (and off) these forums rather than trying to silence their critics?

It seems like an underhanded (and heavy-handed) attempt to subvert dissenting opinions or unfavorable feedback that surely (even hopefully) will influence others. The problem is that more often than not, these businesses have a vested interest in dealing away with threats to their profit potential whereas the "other side" often does not. "Small-scale operations" should be using service quality as their defining factor and modus operandi when dealing with these matters. That David Gao may even be demanding that this forum remove such negative feedback of his operation or even hinting at using legal means to do so is scoffingly disgusting.

At minimum, I just hope that should you feel that a forum operator as yourself has an obligation to make sure information posted here is correct, then you also feel that in matters such as these, the truth has to be discerned by the witnessing third-party when evaluating both sides of the story. It is highly suspect if one side wants to shut the other side up, refuses to step to the plate and represent himself, and prefers to rig the system (the forum operator) to do the dirty work for him. I imagine one of the very basic premises of a "discussion forum" is that information is presented freely and readers are given the freedom to make their own conclusions rather than a moderator doing it for them. But I would be presuming that this forum is interested in such free discourse and has no agenda of its own.

[imron]

Shanghaikai, what you mention are principles that the forum administrators also believe in, the one caveat being that discussion needs to be civilised and not descend into a slanging match between parties.

One thread of a similar nature that I can think of is this one from a while back (starting from ask_weasel's post and the corresponding replies from the school involved). Both sides got their chance to put their view forward and readers are then left to make up their own mind. There have been other cases, (see this thread, including the last post on the last page) and often the forums will contact parties who have been accused of something to give them the right of reply, and also to encourage free discourse. If that company chooses not to do so, then that also speaks volumes about the company itself.

Chinese-forums tries to be a valuable resource for people interested in China and in studying Chinese, and part of that is naturally going to be providing information about companies/scams to be aware of if you come to China to study/work.

Finally, you might also want to check out this thread which touches upon editorial policy with commercial entities.

[shanghaikai]

Thanks for the links with clarifications, Imron. As you can imagine, reading threads on editorial policy is not a common interest I take with this forum when there are much more interesting things to read! I apologize for my redundancy but I do hope it lends support to the import of businesses playing fair with their target customers. Cheers, everyone.

[roddy]

Yeah, to clarify what's gone before - if it became necessary I'd consider removing something. To date it's only happened once in four years and I'll type more about it if it happens again.

What does leave me somewhat uncomfortable is language like

I seriously just want to smack the head of the company, David Gao or Gao Hai, with a big fat fucking trout.

or

shameless greed and unscrupulous whims.

In this kind of situation I think it's much better to stick calmly to the facts as you know them. Anger, as I've said, reduces credibility and people are able (and personally I prefer) to make value judgments for themselves. It also makes it a lot easier for the company in question to come forward - 'you were late at the airport' is something you can deny or apologize for, being accused of moral failure is a trickier one to handle.

Perhaps a passing admin should split off this meta-discussion about discussions. Time for my breakfast.

[shanghaikai]

I personally thought the "trout" thing was pretty funny.

In defense of what I wrote, I think it was a fair expression of the conclusion I have drawn about the situation:

1. boiten-valise, a disgruntled customer, first attempted to ameliorate the situation privately with the service-provider;

2, S/he was repeatedly ignored, avoided, and even lied to;

3, S/he was forced to give up and acceped his/her losses;

4. S/he went online to share his/her experience and story with others;

5. S/he listened to responses including those offered by the forum operator;

6. S/he actively and repeatedly encouraged David Gao to represent himself and his company;

7. The forum operator notified all that David Gao has both declined to offer his side and has demanded that boiten-valise's posts or all information unfavorable to him and his business be removed;

My conclusion is premised upon what information and reasonable assumptions I can work with: One person's detailed testimony, David Gao's refusal to defend and pursuit of censor, and David Gao's vested money-making interest as a business versus boiten-valise's interests as a customer. These are the facts as I know them and as they are presented to me. I have made no effort to restrict any side from speaking and it is not unreasonable to accuse someone of "moral failure" if the information available testifies to a pattern of questionable business practices.

Sure, I may be jumping to conclusions. David Gao may suddenly appear before me with irrefutable proof that boiten-valise is some competitor masquerading as a disgruntled customer in some concerted effort to undermine David Gao's business by spreading misinformation and lies. boiten-valise may be a world-class trout fisherman. Who knows?

But anger does not always reduce credibility. Irrationality does. As you said, people are allowed to make value judgements for themselves, which is what I've done while clearly laying out the foundation for my judgment. It doesn't mean my judgement is right, but it remains my judgement insofar as the information provided remains what it is. Opinions and judgements are, ideally, always subject to reconciliation when new facts and information are brought to bear. To even say "I reserve my judgement 'til..." only means you refuse to express thus far your judgement, not that you don't have one. To have and express an opinion or judgement does not forbid it from being changed in the future.

Don't be uncomfortable with strong language, as it is sometimes the one of the few effective recourses we have for effecting change in this country's society. While some people are motivated by carrots, others are only motivated by sticks, and to navigate any social landscape requires a bit of adaptation on our part.

[roddy]

Oh, the trout thing was funny. I even stole and embellished it.

I see where you are coming from, and I don't really have a firm opinion either way. Like I say I am uncomfortable with it and if I had to make a snap judgment I'd opt to keep it factual and leave the value judgments out.

Have split this out so the pandaaspect topic can stay focussed. This one is now about appropriate behavior when complaining or warning about companies you have had a bad experience with. Read both if you get confused

[simonlaing]

Hey people,

I am not sure if this belongs in this thread, But my friend James recently used the News expose' to get his money back from fly by night rip off firm.

Basically this was a Chinese firm that represented it was running a hotel club where all the members pay like 3000 Yuan a year and then can stay at 3 star hotels all around China and the world for free for up to a week.

It was a complete scam and they had no relation to the hotels though they knew the name of an international company that did this and used their materials to represent themselves as legitimate.

After paying the money, the next week James realized his mistake and tried to get his money back. after 4 weeks of fruitless attempts he took my advice and got the local Nanjing TV Station expose team to get involved. He brought the two journalists twice without a camera to introduce them to the company. Then after they brought a secret camera. The company named some fairly good hotels in Shanghai. THe TV station called them up and the hotel had no idea who was the company. Finally the company gave a long contract with a check looking form at the bottom and told James and his wife to go to the Bank to bank and sign it there to get the money.

(Almost no one in China uses Checks for small amounts of money so this sent up red flags. At the Bank with a lawyer they realized that the "contract" would have renounced their claim to a refund and they would have lost the money had they signed. The Bank and the Consumer Business bureau was contacted. Finally the cameras were revealed in a sting on the company. Unfortunately the big bosses weren't in the office at that time, but the managers were stunned and cooperated with the bank in finally refunding the money to James. The program aired on Nanjing TV on saturday night prime time two weeks ago. ) I think the consumer business bureau went and shut them down. They said a similar scam was done 3 years ago.

James probably is not so proud of being scammed but it is a good story and shows the power of the media these days to police unscrupulous business people. (I am pretty sure he doesn't read this forum also, so it's not such a big deal.)

Have fun,

Simon:)

P.S. there are also accounts of Internet vigilantism that can be a bit extreme sometimes I think. Espicially on flimsy circumspect evidence.

[shanghaikai]

The story simon tells comes with a happy ending. Unfortunately, it also exemplifies the sheer difference between the business and the customer.

James had to go above and beyond what most people would bother doing to simply recover his money. Ultimately, the time and frustration he went through to bring all of this together was quite costly...and all just to get his money back, to be made whole again (as much as possible). Aside from fuzzy abstract feelings of justice or vengence, he is still a man fighting to minimize his losses.

On the other hand, for businesses (including scammers), they are working towards maximizing their gains and profits.