Festool Contractors

[monte]

Frank,

Everything Per, Forest and Poto just highlighted,

also,

by your post count and the sound of your posts it sounds as if your standing on the outside of the green line looking in.

There is a reason why most members here are passionate about the these high end tools.

And it's not because of any back room shenanigans.

It's because of the quality of the product and the company that stands behind it.

No one is telling you to go out and get half the catalog.

Try one tool and you'll start understanding why.

Ya got 30 days to run it through its hoops & get over any hesitations about your purchase.

You are the best tester & reviewer to see whether your purchase works for you.

R.

 

[Matthew Schenker]

Everyone,
I think getting this out in the open is helpful.  The FOG is an unusual forum, because of its affiity with a particular brand of tools.  Therefore, these kinds of issues are not as easy to deal with as it might be in another type of forum.

From an administrative point of view, this issue has been building up for months, and I have been quietly dealing with it offline.  But there came a point where it needed to be addressed, and hopefully resolved, publicly.

I encourage people to express their viewpoints on this in a professional manner, and help reach an understanding.  Then we can move on.

It's working!

Stay in touch,
Matthew

 

[Frank_M]

Roger,

You are dead wrong in your assumption about me "by your post count and the sound of your posts it sounds as if your standing on the outside of the green line looking in.".  I bet I have many more Festools (currently 9 tools, not including any accessories) than most people here and was one of the very early adaptors and I am happy with all the ones I kept, the ones I didn't care much about I sold/returned. 

I think even the foundation (i.e., people with low post counts don't own Festools) of your assumption is wrong.

I just don't happen to be someone who would list all their tools and brag about them. 

Frank,

Everything Per, Forest and Poto just highlighted,

also,

by your post count and the sound of your posts it sounds as if your standing on the outside of the green line looking in.

There is a reason why most members here are passionate about the these high end tools.

And it's not because of any back room shenanigans.

It's because of the quality of the product and the company that stands behind it.

No one is telling you to go out and get half the catalog.

Try one tool and you'll start understanding why.

Ya got 30 days to run it through its hoops & get over any hesitations about your purchase.

You are the best tester & reviewer to see whether your purchase works for you.

R.

 

[quijas23]

everyone likes openess and disclosure except when it involves them; its like your integrity is being questioned.
So i think to have those that were to be labeled "contractor" up in arms is to be expected.

Dont post here much (maybe two/three post), but I dont see what the harm is. I would be dieing to be labeled a "festool contractor" : I could start getting some pretty cool stuff without having to pay for it.

 

[Bob Swenson]

I would like to be listed as a Festool Contractor.
I still have a few good days left and you guys could help me
get a part time job with Festool oiling the squeaky wheels.
They could fly me out a few days a week and put me up in a decent  motel
I am partial  to good food and fussy about the wine I drink but
I don't need a medical plan or a retirement fund.
I could listen for disparaging remarks about the FOG and report back,
maybe  then members wouldn't be so paranoid.
Bob

 

[Daviddubya]

I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to point me to one Internet forum that requires a member with a relationship to a vendor to be labeled.  In the absence of that example, I'll assume that the FOG is the only forum in the universe with this issue.  Hmmm.

I do think a disclaimer in the forum rules page, that people read when they register, would be a satisfactory compromise.

 

[monte]

Whoa Frank!

My apologies for being wrong about which side, or how far in from the green line you are standing.

I was actually saying that in order to be helpful, not to diminish your toolcount.

Because my assumption/perception of you, based upon what you wrote ....was as a new Festool customer.

I was wrong.

That was all.

My apologies again.

But now, this does bring up a point about assumptions........

.......about the subject at hand, D I S C L O S U R E  &  T R A N S P E R E N C Y

To quote you earlier.....

"Calling this forum Festool Owner's Group and having many posts from people with financial relationships with Festool which
may possibly contain more bias than simply another owner to me reduces the credibility of this forum."

Well, in all polite honesty I find that extremely offensive.

And I'm not even one of those that would get the Festool "C" branding.

I'm offended, by the simple virtue of such a generic assumption,

and the fact that you said "may possibly" doesn't disway from that.

That's why jury's are often told to leave a courtroom.

So that they might not "hear" something that may alter their thinking.

By your "assumptions" about bias, your actually sending out a message

that reviewers here cannot be trusted to formulate their own opinions of the tool being reviewed.

That's a very powerful and negative assertion.

R.

 

[Frank_M]

While I respect your opinion, just because nobody else does, does not necessarily mean it should not be done here.  To me at least the real questions is "is it a good idea to do it here at FOG?".  

Just as a simple example; Festool engineers did not scrap initial ideas about a hand-held, router-based mortising tool just because nobody else had done it before.  You know the end product; Domino, which is a very nice tool.  Hope you get the idea...

I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to point me to one Internet forum that requires a member with a relationship to a vendor to be labeled.  In the absence of that example, I'll assume that the FOG is the only forum in the universe with this issue.  Hmmm.

I do think a disclaimer in the forum rules page, that people read when they register, would be a satisfactory compromise.

 

[Matthew Schenker]

David,
I'm listening to both sides here.  But to respond to your point:

I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to point me to one Internet forum that requires a member with a relationship to a vendor to be labeled.  In the absence of that example, I'll assume that the FOG is the only forum in the universe with this issue.  Hmmm.

This forum is different from almost any other woodworking forum out there, because of the unique affinity it has with the company in its title.  It is not a general woodworking forum, but rather one tailored to people interested in Festool tools.  That's at the core of the matter, really.  Because the forum name and goals are closely aligned thematically with the company itself, people want to know where there is a business (monetary) connection, and where there is clear separation.

I'm not saying it's an issue necessarily.  I'm just reporting that that's the matter that comes up when people write to me.

I think we can probably move away from the "label" issue and embrace something else as an answer.  Even better, I think a discussion like this has the potential to establish beyond any doubt the trustworthiness of the reviewers and contractors.  But the discussion was necessary.

If we treat each other's viewpoints with respect, this discussion can get us somewhere and we'll have an answer we can all be proud of.

That's my goal!

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[Frank_M]

Roger,

Your apologies are accepted, no offense taken either, I was simply trying to make a point.

About the rest of your post...  I stand behind my statement which you quoted and I think that lies at the core of the discussion here.    If you read it again you will realize I referred to a potential additional bias over a simple owner with no connection with the Festool, the company.  I did not say (nor do I really think) that people we are referring are not able to "formulate their own opinions".

There is no need to stretch the content of my posts and assign meanings/implications beyond what is obviously already stated.  I simply suggest you reread my post one more time trying to understand the point.

Whoa Frank!

My apologies for being wrong about which side, or how far in from the green line you are standing.

I was actually saying that in order to be helpful, not to diminish your toolcount.

Because my assumption/perception of you, based upon what you wrote ....was as a new Festool customer.

I was wrong.

That was all.

My apologies again.

But now, this does bring up a point about assumptions........

.......about the subject at hand, D I S C L O S U R E  &  T R A N S P E R E N C Y

To quote you earlier.....

"Calling this forum Festool Owner's Group and having many posts from people with financial relationships with Festool which
may possibly contain more bias than simply another owner to me reduces the credibility of this forum."

Well, in all polite honesty I find that extremely offensive.

And I'm not even one of those that would get the Festool "C" branding.

I'm offended, by the simple virtue of such a generic assumption,

and the fact that you said "may possibly" doesn't disway that.

That's why jury's are often told to leave a courtroom.

So that they might not "hear" something that may alter their thinking.

By your "assumptions" about bias, your actually sending out a message

that reviewers here cannot be trusted to formulate their own opinions of the tool being reviewed.

That's a very powerful and negative assertion.

R.

 

[dirtydeeds]

i have now thaught a little more on the subject

i now have a VERY BIG PROBLEM

with these so called members

who are, un nammed (so they cannot be identified)

refuse to participate in the forum and are not man enaugh to put their requests to the forum (so they cannont be identified)

having absoutly secured their annonimoty

they then write to the administrator whinging and whining

they claim that they have RIGHTS that are equal to the participating members

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG and WRONG again

they are not citizens of this forum because they do not act like citizens of this forum

if they want their views to be equal to the citizens of this forum

they they should be active citizens of the forum

 

[John Langevin]

I think I understand both sides of this issue. I agree with Per and others that generic branding is inappropriate. I also see a need for "situational transparency" when the poster's relationship with FESTOOL can be reasonably thought to have an impact or possible bias on the Topic at Hand.

I would suggest that we treat it in the same manner as a tool review. If FESTOOL gives me a tool (to keep) in order for me to review it; I should clearly state that up front so that everybody knows that I did not pay for it. After having done that anyone and everyone who reads the review must judge the quality and objectivity of the content for themselves. Being the diverse and quality-minded community that we are, I feel strongly that not much B.S. gets past us.

As others have stated I have a problem with members (new or otherwise) complaining in private to Matthew (who shouldn't have to suffer that) who then in good conscience publicly airs the issue, as he always does in the interest of transparency. Those who complained sit safely in the background while Matthew and those who choose to publicly question or disagree are in the open with a bull's eye on their back. If this is to remain an open and transparent forum it requires all of the members to be open and transparent; all of the time.

Before this "discussion" goes any further, I for one would like to see some of the complaining members openly state their position and perception of the problem; including references to specific posts. If they are not willing to do that why should the open and transparent responders have to do so. The reason I put the word discussion in quotes above is that this is not a discussion at this point because one side is essentially silent and the side that is having to defend their position have no idea what specifically led to the complaints nor who made the complaints.

It is understandable, given the recent and rapid growth of this forum that issues will arise and must be dealt with; openly. On the otherhand I do not think it is fair to the long-standing and helpful members to be assailed by newbie lurkers who may not actually know what is going on and only think they do. I have never p.m.'d Matthew on any issue I may have had here, I POSTED IT FOR ALL TO SEE AND RESPOND TO!. It is the only fair thing to do. If I have a question about someone's position or a specific post I ask them in the open and I would expect them to render me the same courtesy.

I apologize for my long-windedness but not for my position and I hope that those who read this will accept that it is well-intentioned.

John Langevin

 

[dirtydeeds]

disclosure and transparancy, now that has my blood up

please give me the answer to two very simple questions

first question

where is the DISCLOSURE and TRANSPARANCY, of these no participating citizens of this forum

we dont know who they are?

second question

why should a non participating member who deliberatly hides their views from the rest of us

have the right to DEMAND that we the participating members bow to their views

 

[dirtydeeds]

the non particpating members

deliberatly avoid transparancy, they will not gives us their names

and deliberaty give their demands via a third party

 

[dirtydeeds]

i would like to know the membership names

of those demanding disclosure and transparancy

but refuse to give it in return

 

[dirtydeeds]

pm's are private messages

they are private so the rest of the forum cant see them

mathew, quite sensibly does not allow them to be made public

so can somebody answer me another question

if the pms are private and mathew wont publish them (quite sensiby)

why should these un nammed peoples' PRIVATE views be allowed to be heard on the forum

i also believe that BECASUE these private views of these "hidden members" have been improperly disclosed that they have even less validity

 

[dirtydeeds]

furthermore, in english, scottish and american law

information incorrectly released cannot (in most cases) be used as evidence

i believe that the private views of "non particpating members" have been

1...................  improperly released

2.................... this improperly released information is being used to build a case, against the participating members

 

 

[Per Swenson]

Jeez I'm still here.

Sucked right in to controversy.

So be it.  We are going to talk about Swenson & Swenson for a moment.

S&S has invested its hard earned money to the tune of over 12 grand in Festool

products. Along the way we have received a tool for review.

That review is uncompleted because frankly we are having trouble keeping the lights on.

So at the moment I need to pursue profitable endeavors.

So by the logic of the transparency people, I should get a small green c by my name.

Fine.

The moment that small green c is next to my name, I am a defacto representative

of festool and I can no longer call you a Jackalope.

Right or wrong you have every dang thing I say as from the mouth of Festool

Festool doesn't think you are a Jackalope. I do.

But if these mysterious people are so blind to who and what I am...

They just might think that Festool calls its customers...Jackalopes.

That what you want? No more tales of the dark side, no more true stories from clancy's

that might impinge on Festool's image.

Trust me, I ain't gonna do it.

I will write some place else in a heart beat.

Have a nice day, I need to go shake down a customer so we can eat tonight.

Per

 

[waynew]

The moment that small green c is next to my name, I am a defacto representative
of festool and I can no longer call you a Jackalope.
Right or wrong you have every dang thing I say as from the mouth of Festool
Festool doesn't think you are a Jackalope. I do.
But if these mysterious people are so blind to who and what I am...
They just might think that Festool calls its customers...Jackalopes.
That what you want? No more tales of the dark side, no more true stories from clancy's
that might impinge on Festool's image.
Trust me, I ain't gonna do it.
I will write some place else in a heart beat.
Have a nice day, I need to go shake down a customer so we can eat tonight.

Per

Matthew was right, finally we have a sensible comment from the contractor/reviewer side. Per I see your point here but what happens in 6 months time when Festool decide they really like the job you did for them and want to to start doing this on a monthly basis, does that qualify you for a green 'C'?

Based on your description of the situation in this post may I suggest an alternate approach to this as it could get quite messy. Anyone (contractor or reviewer) who does any amount of paid work for Festool put a small statement in their signature to indicate what they do. i.e I'm am occasionally contracted by Festool to review their tools in exchange for that tool or something to that effect. I feel this should be required by all that fall within this group.

Thanks,
Wayne

 

[dirtydeeds]

waynew

first a comment

you are looking for molehills to turn into mountain, if per DID do a review, per's name would be on the reviews

now a second comment

you hide your email address, location and any idea of what you do

now answer us a question

why should your DEMAND for transparancy from per

when you refuse to give any in return