Strat-O-Matic Baseball 365

In these discussions about the forum policy (and, yes, thankfully there is at least some discussion happening amongst us, and it hasn't been completely shut down yet), a common point raised in favor of SOM-censorship is that a restaurant or business wouldn't want a bunch of folks standing outside acting like picketers, and chasing away all these potential customers. The argument goes that the restaurant ownership should have the right to move those nonpaying folks someplace else, because those picketers are destructive of the company. And the company has a right to survival.

Perhaps, I could be persuaded about the appropriateness of that analogy for discussions about SOM, on the SOM facebook page, because that is a relatively public venue. But the analogy does not apply to discussions here in the SOM forums.

The correct way to conceptualize the restaurant analogy for these forums is that we are inside the restaurant, commenting about the quality of food and service provided by that restaurant. And not only are we inside the restaurant, but we've prepaid for our pizzas. I ordered, and paid for, a pizza with sausage and pepperoni, but it came with just the sausage. I ask, "Where is the pepperoni?", and I'm told by the restaurant staff that I am not allowed to discuss the food or service, because it would be destructive of the company and the eating environment for the other customers. "But where is the pepperoni?" No response. "WHERE IS MY PEPPERONI?" No response. "WHERE IS MY **** PEPPERONI!?!?!?! Nothing, except a letter saying that the policy of this restaurant is to not allow such discussions to take place.

The correct application of the restaurant analogy, for our situation here, is that we were served only part of our meal, a meal that we have already paid for, but we are not allowed to discuss the problems in the meal or in the service.

Why should I continue to buy meals at that restaurant? This is why I've decided that I'm done with SOM once my credits run out. They have my email address, and when they change their policy, and come up with a legitimate sale offer, I might come back. It is a fun game, and I've enjoyed the camaraderie within the community. But there is no reason to continue buying meals at a restaurant that doesn't serve what it said it would serve, and then doesn't allow any discussion about the issue.

Very good analogy...and I'm hungry

Couldnt have said it better.
Its become a Ramsay kitchen nightmare.
A tale of good food gone bad.
Im hungry too.

Restaurant analogy seems to apply very well except one part. With the restaurant you tell management you will never eat there again, then you are gone. You don't go back every day, for a couple months, to tell them you will never eat there again like here.

This has gone on so long that there is no way they will "make things right" as mentioned a while back. It's like a little kid asking for ice cream about twenty or thirty times. You had planned on giving him ice cream all along but he bugged you so much by asking over and over to the point of starting to piss you off that now he won't get that ice cream.

I think Bernie may have had the intention of giving us the ice cream- but apparently just decided to let it melt instead;
either by choice or forced to, because I
Dont think SoM had any working freezers for it.
By the way-
most upstanding ice cream vendors would have replaced it with another ice cream- specially when they saw the kids crying- unless they would take candy from a child (aka, consumers).

But yeah- we are coming back still- but thats because our credits havent completely expired yet.

Does John Taffer do Online Strat rescues?

Where am I missing all these posts? an entire thread on a restaurant analogy? Glad I missed what prompted it.

macnole wrote:

Badjam wrote:Restaurant analogy seems to apply very well except one part. With the restaurant you tell management you will never eat there again, then you are gone. You don't go back every day, for a couple months, to tell them you will never eat there again like here.

This has gone on so long that there is no way they will "make things right" as mentioned a while back. It's like a little kid asking for ice cream about twenty or thirty times. You had planned on giving him ice cream all along but he bugged you so much by asking over and over to the point of starting to piss you off that now he won't get that ice cream.

What a great way to run a business.

You train your customer that "I said I'll give it to you, and I'll give it to you when I want to give it to you, or maybe I won't even do that".....Priceless.

btw you know that little kid asking the adult for ice cream? The back story is, the kid doesn't want to have to ask over and over again, but you see the kid has paid for his ice cream already, and this particular ice cream owner (who only offered the ice cream in the first place because he had already given the kid the wrong flavor sooo many times)...has a "no refund policy".. I wonder if this is what envelopes most of this kids childhood how he'll turn out?

Maybe he'll grow up and sell his own ice cream.
Maybe he'll grow up and just learn to keep his adult mouth shut and his tail between his legs.
Maybe he'll grow up and punch that adult right in his nose.

Now that latter statement would be an instance where the boy is being destructive and might even lead to his arrest. Because it is certainly true that the bullying, spiteful, promise breaking, ice cream holding adult was well within his rights to set such a poor example of reciprocity.

I can conceptualize my analogies any way I wish. And in my analogy, I am Captain Nemo. And Nev is Moby Dick.