That was my point, but I think it is beyond some people to discuss this. If we bring this up we are "trolling" rather than seeking clarification on the rules.
rules?
- Thread starter Murray
- Start date
- Status
That was my point, but I think it is beyond some people to discuss this. If we bring this up we are "trolling" rather than seeking clarification on the rules.
Soldato
So, I've just come back from watching some TV, to find the old thread gone, Neil banned for something, Neil unbanned due to popular demand and still no clear indication on the rules regarding "competitor" shizzle.
Have I missed anything else?
Have I missed anything else?
Caporegime
Murray you are pushing it, I thought he would ban you for posting it in the other thread tbh, especially as he had just stated that was why Neil had been banned!
Fair play is them accepting their are other companies out there that sell the same products, and users of this forum may shop around instead of buying here simply because they don't know *item* can be found cheaper elsewhere.
Now I'm not the one suggesting people aren't aware of other stores, but OcUK's thinking by having this rule implies it. Fair play is giving as many good reasons to buy from them over others instead of banning people from mentioning other places.
Plus, look at the trust messaging system, really, do you think there aren't hundreds of people using that to circumvent the rule anyway?
Soldato
You agreed to the rules when you signed up guys. No competitor mention and yes the rainforest is deemed a competitor. that should clear it up for you all!
Indeed, time to shtum Murray. I'd edit your posts if I were you.
Everyone else is mentioning it. I won't mention it outside this threads but whats the point in saying Rainforest when its the exact same?
Associate
Associate
Inconsistency then, as you mentioned.
Thanks for that. I really had no idea they were considered a competitor.
You're welcome.
Caporegime
Yep it's stupid, but it's the rule of the angry tigers who own the forest, why poke them?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 46,269
Probably best to do this for now, until we get a common sense reply to all of this.
So I will stop asking pointless questions now.
Caporegime
a) As it stands if I want to upgrade any part of my PC or even order a whole new system I will without exception come here, even if there maybe a slightly better deal elsewhere. I have never had a bad buying experience in many years.
b) If I want software, there are other options. If "here" starts competing then I will reconsider.
Why risk a when b is obviously, at this point, not competitive?
b) If I want software, there are other options. If "here" starts competing then I will reconsider.
Why risk a when b is obviously, at this point, not competitive?
And the Apple forum stays because I am a clever boy.
Personally what is grinding my goat is that the No Competitor rule was pretty well understood and a little give and take was given with some reason applied.
People know not to directly link competitors or name them. We now know, after much mess, know we cannot directly link to a certain somewhere which was previously deemed reasonably acceptable in another context.
It's not been handled well, you evolved the rule without a clear explanation then nuked us all from a great height on the premise of "This rule has always existed" which could not of been farther from the truth.
You clarified it now. Please nuke every single thread which mentions or alludes to the newly deemed competition. All of them, unless you want this uncertainty to remain?
People know not to directly link competitors or name them. We now know, after much mess, know we cannot directly link to a certain somewhere which was previously deemed reasonably acceptable in another context.
It's not been handled well, you evolved the rule without a clear explanation then nuked us all from a great height on the premise of "This rule has always existed" which could not of been farther from the truth.
You clarified it now. Please nuke every single thread which mentions or alludes to the newly deemed competition. All of them, unless you want this uncertainty to remain?
Soldato
This is a serious post.
Regarding the company we are no longer allowed to speak of, is this because they now have a digital distribution arm or is it the "straw that broke the camels back" regarding them being a "competitor"?
Are they now considered to fall under the "direct competition to OcUK" under the "rules"?
LOLs
Spent nearly £200 with this company in the last 2 days and just placed another order this evening. I do so because I find those whom I deal with are very helpfull and I like the company and the forum.
The acts of some of its employees tonight really will make me think twice about where to shop in the future which is a shame.
The only reason I started shopping here was because of the forum, it seemed a nice place, especially this sub forum. Sure, we don't always get along but on the whole, it is a great community.
I will vote with my wallet.
The way this as all been handled is beyond belief.
Thank you.
Regarding the company we are no longer allowed to speak of, is this because they now have a digital distribution arm or is it the "straw that broke the camels back" regarding them being a "competitor"?
Are they now considered to fall under the "direct competition to OcUK" under the "rules"?
LOLs
Spent nearly £200 with this company in the last 2 days and just placed another order this evening. I do so because I find those whom I deal with are very helpfull and I like the company and the forum.
The acts of some of its employees tonight really will make me think twice about where to shop in the future which is a shame.
The only reason I started shopping here was because of the forum, it seemed a nice place, especially this sub forum. Sure, we don't always get along but on the whole, it is a great community.
I will vote with my wallet.
The way this as all been handled is beyond belief.
Thank you.
Last edited:
Caporegime
I like reading?!
- Status