No, No, No!!! I’m being Trent the Cuemaker; you’re the customer in the parody, for goodness sakes! How can you be Trent when you’re the disgruntled customer? Except for the Ginacue I made--Kevin was the customer for that cue. Trent’s apology thread is just the template I used to write the original posting with. Alright, alright, it’s not exactly the most successful humorous piece I’ve ever posted on AZ, but you can’t hit a homerun in every at-bat. I’m just baffled by how many people didn’t see through it; I thought I put enough red flags in it for everyone to know I wasn’t a real cuemaker.
I, like others, assumed you were attempting to “stir the pot” regarding customer/cuemaker relations on AZ. I, by the way, have absolutely no problem with that—if no one stirred the pot, this would be one deadly boring forum to hang out in. Take, for instance, the Cuemaker Trent apology thread—a truly successful stirring of the pot thread—a real classic. But after a dozen Customer/Cuemaker threads in which both parties are clearly identified, it’s a little late to do that with anonymous “Deals Gone Wrong” threads. That’s simply stirring an empty pot.
That’s why the cue enthusiasts hijacked the thread and turned what they saw as a thread of dubious value into a thread with positive value by talking up their good experiences with cuemakers.
We all know bad deals go down, sometimes one party is at fault and sometimes the other party is, but there are also deals which should never have been agreed to in the first place and neither party ends up satisfied and neither party is entirely to blame. Bad decisions can be made on both ends.
But without all the facts laid out with, not much of value can be decided upon by the casual outside observer (AZ’ers in this case) without adequate and balanced information being presented from both parties. And both parties pretty much have to be identified because they carry baggage and reputations into the observer’s decision making process.
So now let’s assume I believe you had this “Deal Gone Wrong” with an actual cuemaker (which I do now indeed believe). You expose every significant detail you can think of to your readers without identifying the cuemaker—what reactions do expect from your readers? Even though you may not be trying to stir the pot, it’s the easy and obvious conclusion to draw.
So here’s my question to you: Even if 20 AZ’ers related their “Deals Gone Wrong” with various anonymous cuemakers, what would you expect to get out of it, and how would you benefit from it? I don’t get it. Other than reaffirming something you already know, which is that you’re all in the same boat, how does this in any way help you from getting out of the boat?