'twould be hard to find amongst the thousands of posts:
Is there a definite C&F policy regarding posting about ‘pipemakers’ who make practically worthless instruments?
I mean, wouldnt the community as a whole (especially newbies) be better served by knowing which ‘pipemakers’ consistently produce rubbish?
OR should all such statements be, once and for all, communicated ONLY in private messages? yes or no?
I’m always perfectly ok with people expressing their opinions on the board. I have objected, however, to overly global language like “these are rubbish.” Better to say, even, “These are rubbish and here’s why…” and then follow with some specifics.
The familiar Pepsi illustration, posted in Announcements.
“I do not like Pepsi. It think the bubbles are disagreeable and there is a slightly sharp sensation at the back of one’s palate. I prefer the taste of Diet Coke, and this is what I encourage my friends to buy.”
vs.
“Pepsi is complete crap, clearly made by drunkards and con men. Anyone who would pay 75 cents for a can of it would have to be a fool. And anyone who would try to sell the crap on ebay is either a thief or is trying to unload a vile elixer that no one in their right mind would want.”
First example: Ok
Second: Not Ok.
One more thought.
I’d also have no objection to a series of polls.
Like this:
If you own, have owned, or have sufficient experience playing, or attempting to play pipes made by the following maker, please indicate your opinion about the quality of the instrument.
Very favorable
Somewhat favorable
So-So
Somewhat unfavorable
Very unfavorable
If folks want to do that kind of thing, let me know and I’ll work with some of you to work on the process.
I’d insist, though, on moderator assistance in creating those polls so they’ll be uniform and fairly worded.
thanks Dale
I love that avatar D.
At first glance it sounds like a good idea, BUT some opinion may be from maker’s early efforts.
Someone struggling with a makers chanter from twenty years ago may have a very different experience to someone with his/her latest efforts.
Other opinion may be from work incorrectly attributed to a particular maker.
I suspect a poll such as this could have unforeseen and unfair negative effects.
Interesting example though, I preferred the ‘Not OK’ one who, whilst stating his case robustly, seemed to have a better grasp of grammar. 
their is a slightly sharp sensation at the back of one’s palate
OK Chas ye have the floor 
Who ye gonna wipe wi it?
"…Aaand step forward please the 1st Contender for the Plook on the Plinth Award " 
Does this include reedmakers? for if it be so then I would like to nominate me, consistantly making rubbish reeds…Aff to make a few more for the fire.
Slán Go Foill
Uilliam
As I get older, I fairly routinely accidentally substitute “their,” “there,” and “they’re,” even though I’m completely clear about the rules for each. But, not to worry, I never tire of people pointing out that error to me.
Define “practically worthless”, and does it coincide with other’s definitions?
Semantics, perhaps. But IMO, taking the time to really think about such posts and their effect and then constructing them appropriately is at the heart of the matter. Simply bashing someone or their work because it does not meet someone’s personal standards of quality is not acceptable by my reckoning.
I also think it is time to review this policy: http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?t=10315 as it has recently been brought up.
At the top of the C&F index page there is a solitary bar entitled “Announcements”. Board policies are outlined here and they should help us in how we approach posting topics and what to avoid.
I agree 100%, and it’s not my intention to bash people…
(although Uilliam, I have to admit its tempting)
BUT STILL:
imo the benefits far outweigh the consequences, if consistent shoddy workmanship is exposed.
I’m aware of the ramifications, and of the fact that there are many different cases /levels/ situations of discontent and rebuttal.
to elaborate on Dale’s idea, open a poll, (one poll per maker? one post per maker with a poll inside?,) and lock it for responses.
that way, in an anonymous fashion, pipemakers can be ‘rated’ fairly, by pipers themselves? or is this open for too much abuse?
I don’t believe you can have an open poll without people being able to write to the thread as well.
You will always have subjective comments, as everyone here has different tastes, expectations, and experience with UPs. It is this wide variance that will always bring out comments that Joseph does not want to hear.
I think it is a case of all or none, and the moderators have chosen none.
djm
right, then! that settles it…Let’s continue to slather consistently inept ‘pipemakers’ in private, and leave it to the sheer luck of the would-be-piper to ask around the thin global film of uilleann experts to find a skilled, reputable craftsman that can produce the goods.
thanks djm 
Of course, you’re absolutely right…but when a (non-south asian)pipemaker consistently turns out instruments that are incapable of playing a simple scale ( no matter what reed/rush/tape/wax/carving/ combination of remedies are tried, by someone who has sucessfully sovled such problems before),
..dontcha think that goes beyond a simple matter of subjective tastes? 
It isn’t a case of all or none, it’s a case of posting about such things fairly and in a constructive manner. Dale’s post above sums it up pretty much dead on…
These two examples seem pretty cut and clear to me.
If anyone needs help or advice in constructing such posts, there’s no reason that we (the Mod Squad) cannot be approached. Contrary to recent mythology, I am pretty approachable as are the other Mods and the “Oppressor” himself (Dale) is very approachable.
It isn’t about censorship, it’s about posting things the correct way.
There are ways to conduct polls that wouldn’t involve leaving comments. If interest in that approach builds, I’ll describe in more detail.
I feel like I keep saying this over and over, but let me give it another shot. I think it is appropriate to post about bad merchandise or bad workmanship, bad customer service and so on. But I ask people to describe what they see and hear, describe the experiences they’ve had with makers, and so on. And I ask people to refrain from moving beyond this to making comments about the character of the maker. In this case, simply putting the facts out there, along with well supported opinions, will be enough to warn people. No need to add “and so therefore he’s a crook” or a thief or a con artist. Focus on the products and the behavior and not the individual.
I think some people really don’t want to be deprived of the right to call someone a crook. But, I think it’s just a mistake to express a complaint that way. If someone writes on the board “John Smith is a crook” my response is, sort of, what’s his beef? If someone writes, “John Smith took my deposit in January 2006, promised delivery by January 2007, still hasn’t delivered, has refused to refund my money and has stopped returning my calls and emails”…that really MEANS something. That’s useful.
Hi Dale
This scenario is full of opportunities for abuse as pipes are vastly different to whistles. This is a minefield that could put you in Court as you are messing with peoples livelihoods
Note that there have been a couple of recent posts where the writer as given misleading information about makers
Back to the proposed poll
How many sets by the maker concerned has the person posting tried ?
Were the sets ‘as new’ direct from the maker ?
Were they set up as by the maker ?
Have they been ‘adjusted’ by the owner / another maker ?
Are the pipes being tried in an environment the same as the Makers ?
Are they fitted with the original makers own reeds ?
It would need some qualifying notes as well such as what steps have been taken to sort out the problems
Pipers are human too and subject to the same problems (health issues / family etc.) as everyone else.
Are you aware that there are makers out there that will happily say another makers pipes are wrong just to try to win an order. I know as it happened to me but luckily I had followed my makers advice and gone to the tutor suggested (he did not know my maker) and he verrified that my set was a good one that played easily and in tune. I then met another maker at pipers club who told me that although my set looked pretty I should take it back and order one of his.
John
Chas I don’t know why ye thank David ?The moderators are saying quite the opposite to “None”.
They are saying as long as it is 1st hand experience put in non emotional language and it is true then why not?
I think it is of no advantage whatsoever to have a poll of all pipers as ye suggest as probably 99% are doing nothing wrang and is wide open to abuse.
If’n ye know of sharp practice then name, I have said this afore ,if’n ye are telling the truth then whit are ye worrying aboot?Presumably afore ye fire awa then ye would have had dialogue with the individual concerned.
Secret Squirrel PM’s are not very helpful in the bigger picture and again can be abused.At least if its in the open then it has to be accurate and is open to defence.
Strange methinks that ye all seem quite happy to slag aff the whole of the Pakistani Industry and possibly deny entire families of a pittance, because, on the face of whit they produce, it is deserved critique, but when it comes closer to hame then there is a deathly silence…think aboot it.
Slán Agat
Uilliam
Ouch! Cutting sarcasm..
right, then! that settles it…Let’s continue to slather consistently inept ‘pipemakers’ in private, and leave it to the sheer luck of the would-be-piper to ask around the thin global film of uilleann experts to find a skilled, reputable craftsman that can produce the goods.
thanks djm thumbs up
OK my opinion isn’t yours, obviously.
(But yours is far more important )
I think to sum mine up in a few words -
If someone is willing to pay a kings ransom for a set of pipes and isn’t willing to ask a few questions of other pipers or if none are available, a public board such as this. Then they deserve the fate you describe. i.e. the one suffered by practically everyone who started in piping when I did.
My feeling is that a project such as this would make this board descend to the level seen on other boards, cause lots of moderator work and generally cause ill feeling throughout the piping community. Some of this, as I pointed out, would be unfounded.
For example.
My own experiences involving a well-known pipe maker are very different from others with the same maker, so who’s experiences are more valid?
If a maker is consistantly turning out rubbish, as it is suggested do our friends from the Indian sub-continent, then word does get around.
IMHO.
When you think about it, it’s a very strange discussion. The web, magazines, and newspapers are filled with reviews, consumer response, and ratings of virtually all products. Restaurants, TV sets, books people have written, etc. etc. For the most part, of course, none of these include personal attacks or characterization of the people behind those products. But, we all know that the future of a business (and someone’s livelihood) can be positively and negatively moved by public reviews and commentaries. Furthermore, increasingly, websites allow public comments on reviews. Anyone who is registered can post and are more or less free to say what they think.
I understand the complications involved with pipes. It’s a highly specialized product with relatively few people making them, few consumers, and large amounts of money changing hands. I don’t know how many sets of pipes a maker builds in a year, and so individual reviews are much more powerful than, say, a rottentomatoes.com review of a movie which would involve large numbers of consumers. As suggested, a poll might not be a useful approach because of the small n involved for each product.
So, we’re probably left to insist that people provide their reactions to products using clear language, no personal attacks, and enough descriptive information to be useful to the reader.