Originally Posted by Bob Peters
... an UNanswered customer complaint posted on an internet site as heavily traveled as this one could potentially lead a lot of Epic viewers to view Scott's shop in an unfavorable light. A bunch of us don't want that to happen and we're just making our opinions known.
I mostly agree, Bob. I certainly don't want to see great retailers such as Dawg and Sierra Jim roughed up unfairly.
But I also feel sort of strongly about how risky this kind of defense of a retailer is for Epic.
It's one thing for the Epic community as individuals
to stick up for a "sponsor." I guess I get concerned when there is an appearance of an "official" Epic line which explicitly takes a position on a particular business transaction. I'm not saying that's happened here, but things seem to be veering close to it. That crosses into uncharted waters and raises many messy issues. Personally, I think Mods need to stay out of this kind of exchange because this is very dangerous terrain.
I think the beauty of these "sponsor" relationships is that EpicSki.com functions as an informal friend of the sponsors, but not an affiliate. I could be wrong, but that's my understanding of things. If someone unfairly disses a friend, let the mob handle it, TGR-style. But no "official" positions please, and mods beware.
(Not that my opinion matters much anyway!