A customer is not an employee. A customer is my boss. Part of my responsibility makes the customer my boss. That is how I look at it.
When the boss decides he is going to be disruptive, and you ask him to please stop, and he does not, then you are left with little choice. Then when the boss seeks out others to join him in his disruptive binge, it has to be stopped.
This is not about people asking questions. This about people being disruptive to the entire community. Much like someone ranting and raving in a restaurant. Until you take care of that disruption, you cannot deal with anything else. If you do not take care of it, others will join in.
It is a lot easier to have a discussion when everyone is acting with a modicum of respect. That is all we have been asking for. I am really sorry there was no other way to deal with this mess, but we were given no other choice.
I am not going to get into the details of private dealings with members of the community. Please respect that.
Just think about this. Do you really think we enjoy doing these things? It was the last thing we wanted to do.
We are always open to rational, respectful communications. What has happened in the last week, or so, was anything but that. The rationalization used was, "Well, if HiTech had only responded to us.." There is no rationalizing bad behavior. Not at all.
It went from bad to worse and there seemed to be nothing we could do about it because the instigators refused to listen to any voice of reason. They were clinging to an untenable position and then they drug others into it. It was looking more like a plague or cancer than anything else.
Of course, there are those who would say, "you could have stopped it had you only made the change". Guess what? A business cannot survive by making decisions based on threats.
First, I understand your point of view on this. I do not agree with your analogy. No one bans their boss and no one is able to put a stop to what their boss does. Right to work gives the boss the ability to fire anyone who doesn't pass his muster.
Lets move on to the correct analogy: you're the bartender and the PNG guys are at your bar and they've drank too much and are getting too loud because they felt the bar was short-pouring them a little bit. The tough part for you is that they are good customers. They've been coming to your bar for YEARS. You've personally served them for years and when others got loud with them it created an environment that caused others to be loud against their loudness. Chaos could have ensued had you not stepped in and thrown them out of your bar.
My point was this: as long standing customers, taking each one aside (PM or email) and explaining the nature of your position and offering them a cab ride home would have been an exceptional course action to take with them. You chose to throw them out of the bar.
Would this option have required more time? Yes. How much goodwill would you and your bar received and how many threads and signature changes would have been avoided?
That's all I was saying.
One question though: if the riot-inciters were PNGd for gathering a herd to push for the changes, why weren't the herd-haters thrown out of the bar for acting just as bad with their anti-change behavior? Furthermore, why weren't the fence setters who felt the need to post their neutrality in an obvious attempt at flame baiting kicked out too?
As it appears, the customers who wanted to check their pours were treated worse than the guys who created their own riot to stop the first complaints. Then, you had a large group in the corner of the bar by the pool tables screaming "KICK THE PISS OUT OF HIM!!!!"
There's a bit of inequity here regarding the dispensation of corrective action.
