I think that is up to the web committee how they want to handle it. My personal thoughts are to let the customer and vendor work out between themselves.

But in the end, we are not the arbitrator of RW events.

i figured since there is an ongoing issue with rsi and vipair already, it will spill over to here. just staying ahead of it

We tried to do a three strike system on the VCA towards the end. Something of the same should be implemented here. We would have to investigate when someone had a claim against a vendor that couldn’t be resolved between the two parties. Penalties would be implemented if we found wrong doing by the vendor. I would think that advertising with us should be a privilege and not a right. If the vendor isn’t a good fit for our membership then we shouldn;t have them advertise with us. Vipair would be a perfect example. While there has been some good Steve has done in the past the negative out weighs the good. I would go as far as to say we shouldn;t even allow him to advertise here. off topic though.

I like a system where a member can go in and post a review (good or bad) and the only person that could reply to the thread would be said vendor so things don’t turn into a pile on should the review be a bad one. maybe a rating system can be developed as well. Like on a scale of one to five stars. Something like that.

agreed. let the 2 sides fight it out, we keep it civil and on point.

A review system is good. It gives everyone a chance to say their view.

1 – You can only vote or rate someone once. You can change your rate but not multiple rates

Who is/are the judge/judges of the transaction?

Ultimately this is up to the BOD and the web committee… but my question is, how far *should* a forum or club go with a private transaction between two parties?

01sapphirebob said:
Penalties would be implemented if we found wrong doing by the vendor.

I think the VCA vendor model was atrocious. Have to say this part made me cringe when I read it… LOL I know you posted it for historical significance.

Viper Girl said:
Ultimately this is up to the BOD and the web committee… but my question is, how far *should* a forum or club go with a private transaction between two parties? I think the VCA vendor model was atrocious. Have to say this part made me cringe when I read it… LOL I know you posted it for historical significance.

I see it as a double edged sword. It sucks. On the one had we say that we won’t/shouldn’t get involved with a private party transaction which I understand. It’s not our business and we shouldn’t be getting involved with what goes on with a private business. On the other hand you then have the members getting upset with the national organization because it’s someone we let be a sponsor for our Assocation and they are getting burned by that vendor so they turn to national/web site for some kind of help. We tell them no help from us, sorry so then they are left feeling burned by the vendor and then have resentment towrds national.

I tend to agree with VG (and Bob who posted moments before me). I have some concerns regarding where we draw the line between our responsibility to our members and potentially damaging vendor’s ability to earn a living. The VCA method wasn’t particularly fair to either party and too often led to endless public debate and scorn.

The good news is that we’re not yet sent up for that, so for the moment, we remain prim and tidy! 😉

Yea! We can be Switzerland!

Um, Sorry for that outburst, I wasn’t really thinking no help from us… I was thinking more like ask us to intervene as a last resort…

It’s my impression VOA is a car club, who wants to help our members and vendors. Have fun with cars and get to tear up shit the manufacturer puts in front of us… Should we be so lucky…

BUT this *IS a really hard question… AND if we ever do damage a vendor’s ability to earn a living…

There better be insurance to pay for it… just sayin…