Ok, this is quite enough. You have posted the same thing several times, basically spamming to remove other members posts, a violation of Rule 7.
I've tried to be objective about this, but this has manifested into nothing more then an attempt to destroy a business.
You are in violation of Rule 10 as you have absolutely no proof that members are not posting PIB dolls because of damages.
Perhaps the reason members are not posting pics is because they do not want to get involved in this thread. Based on social behavior, that would be the most likely. Occam's razor.
You insist on a signed/dated picture. We have trouble getting that from members for their
own friggin' Sales posts; probably 50% of Sales pictures are wrong or absent.
Why not ask members to submit pics of
damaged dolls. Wouldn't that better prove your point? How can you assume no photos must mean damaged dolls?
There are several pictures of other dolls on the forum because those makers sell more. It is as simple as that.
As I said before, I felt you had the right to post, but you can't make generalizations.
You are generalizing about PIBs when this thread proves the majority of dolls apparently don't have problems. You cannot condemn the entire line.
Did you even think about how this could affect members who's dolls are fine; who may want to sell them at some point, and have to deal with the stigma you're applying to all PIBS.
When staff members warned you about following the rules; you say you're just looking out for the members; What? like we're not? - you seem to be insinuating that manufacturers get preferential treatment which is patently false.
We don't get an-y-thing from the forum, or any manufacturer or vendor, for doing or saying anything. We are volunteers, and the only reason I'm here is because I care about this forum.
As a moderator I have to be objective; I've seen
both sellers and buyers be dishonest, so I can't assume that the seller is at fault. I have work with what I'm presented.
You spammed the same pics to make it harder for members to see other's pictures. And you've spammed the same text numerous times, hammering each of your points over and over.
I've tried to be objective in all of this, but IMO these tactics make you look calculating, and are working against you.
You suggested that I was lying when I provided pictures of a 5 year old doll with pristine skin.
After I proved the pics were from the same day, then you say the model type doesn't apply because of the size.
OK, so if I grant you that, what about the delamination issue? Regardless of the size of the doll, it's the same skin. My doll has no delamination.
Besides, delamination is not unique to PIBs.
Additionally, your doll has the super-soft breast addition, where a separate softer section of silicone was attached to the firmer torso. I've read that the whole doll is super-soft now so why would this still be an issue?
But anyway, I'm not convinced that size matters (in this case). Have you seen a GND close up? They're not that different. The arms are thinner but the legs are nearly the same. So you're telling me my doll is lighter doesn't convince me that my pics should be disqualified, because I've seen both and I disagree with you.
If a doll's joint breaks, it is imperative they are repaired immediately, not after they've torn through the skin. This applies to all dolls, not just PIBS.
There is no way to tell what you did once the damage occurred, the repairs look poorly done. You want to be believed, but you don't believe others.
ric1853 wrote:several members that used to have pibs have contacted me and said they had the same problems but didn't come forward for fear of hurting Patrick business
Please forward the PMs that you received, or ask these members to contact me or any staff member and we'll look into it.
I've said this before and this applies to all: before a member trashes a seller on the forum, it is highly advisable to first set up a meeting between yourself, the seller, and
a forum manager in the Dispute section to try to resolve the issue.
This is not to hide a problem. Think about it; what motivation does a seller have to help you if you've already damaged their rep on the forum; none, the damage is done.
Flaming a seller should be a last resort; a threat to be used to bring the seller to the negotiating table.
So, please, PM us if you have proof.
You questioned my honesty and that of other members who posted pics. What about you being honest with us?
Here is the proof that your own doll lasted longer then two years without a problem:
https://www.dollforum.com/forum/viewtop ... 34#p525434
Here is the proof that you weren't honest with me when I said your doll had a special skeleton:
https://www.dollforum.com/forum/viewtop ... 00#p339600
https://www.dollforum.com/forum/viewtop ... 26#p339826
I could post links to all dozens of posts of praise and love posts for your doll and Patrick, but I don't have too; it's well known; your posts inspired lots of us to buy PIBs.
And I'm happy you did; I got a great doll.
So as a Moderator, how am I supposed to determine if this is a badly made doll, or just that things went way south in a negotiation with Patrick and this is the result, using the forum as a bludgeon.
As usual, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
What is also bothering me is that for as long as I've been a member, PIBs were lovers, and other dolls were models; in essence, PIBs couldn't hold a post but were great for sex while other dolls were much better for photography.
That's the way it's always been. Why are people acting like this is news?
So, no more spamming the same pics and text. No more rule violations.
ric1853 wrote:Ps I agree with sextypething if the pics or posts aren't relevant to this thread they should be removed so not to distract from the original post.
First off, we don't remove posts unless they violate rules. sextypething's claims have not been backed up by any evidence and are not compliant with Rule 10. If any posts go, ALL posts in violation of the rules will also go, including yours.
Just saying "Im sorry" after the fact doesn't inviolate the rule.