Don't blame him for using the word "lie" when you clearly phrased it like lying
basically told them
I framed the story in this fashion for several reasons
I framed the story, is not an admission of lying there where motives beyond the initial purchase, but even if those motives did not exist I intended to purchase software for my daughter, only using a selective portion of my total intent to purchase was in no way lying and in no way disingenuous. I blame him for using the word lie because it is a charged word, that should not be used unless you are certain of the factualness of ones allegations. Calling someone a liar is pretty disingenuous and was done so in this case as a character attack to further his position in his rebuttal. Not as a legitimate response to a legitimate comment.
Man this place has become Slashdot. I mean was that sniping pop shot well though out? Or was it just a quick personal attack for karma? Seriously I want to know, I shared a pretty detailed story, like it or not, agree with my conclusions or not, it was a story that I thought long and hard about to add some conversation to HN. I mean do I really sound like a toxic customer or was that just a pop shot. In the course of one thread I have been called a lair, stupid, and now a toxic customer all on a site that state clearly in it's FAQ's to try to be civil. So I would really like to know your mind set in doing so, do you just not care about HN not being just another "mines bigger" contest. Or in all of this did you glean some insight that you can boil me down to a one liner?
It's the same phenomenon that you see in threads about hiring practices. People see what they think is an injustice ("This guy wouldn't hire me, but I'm good!" / "This guy wouldn't buy from me, but my product is good!") and react emotionally. Add to it the fact that your story seems especially capricious. I think the big question you haven't answered is: If you wanted a volume discount, why not ask for a volume discount? Why do you think that asking for a discount for your daughter is a better indicator than asking for what you want? You haven't (yet) convinced anyone that you have a special insight into the purchasing process, and instead people think you are illogical. That doesn't go over well here.
First let me say thank you, I was loosing hope there for a minute.
If you wanted a volume discount, why not ask for a volume discount?
The discount was of no consequence, I was more concerned with their ability to go above and beyond the call of duty. As I have said at multiple points they where free to say no, and well within their right. I hold nothing against them. That being said, if I had seen a good support procedure for an non-standard request, I may have selected them even if they where unwilling to negotiate on price.
For me personally and my organization we go above the call of duty, it is one of our signature marks. So when we are going to by proxy vend another developers product we look for the same. The reason I chose to approach it in the manner I did was due to the fact that I did not have a personal relationship with a developer that provides this type of solution and had no one in my network that did. That coupled with the fact that I personally was looking for a similar solution gave me the opportunity to do so. I don't think my approach was illogical but it was based on a certain level of intuition, something that I freely admitted to in another reply.
You sounds like you lied when you stated "I framed it like X". People were correct you were using deception to gain information, but were incorrect on the technicality of your statement.
I don't think your bellwether test is that good of a test. I know lots of people who turn down educational requests when not from schools out of hand.
I don't think your bellwether test is that good of a test.
Truth be told it was never intentionally a test. Both teaching my daughter and the volume license coincided. It may be that when the idea for the solution we where to provide was pitch I though hey it would be good to tech my daughter video editing. But I don't remember if that is where that spark started or not. Anyway, point is both occurred in the same time frame so I shopped the educational requirement first. I did however go into it with intention of establishing a rapport with a developer that could vend the second requirement.
> Both teaching my daughter and the volume license coincided
I think this is the first time in the thread that it came out that you actually have a daughter and were actually considering teaching her with the software. In your first telling, it sounded (to me, and I think to others) like this was entirely made up for the purpose of testing the vendor's response. So it was puzzling that you objected so vehemently to it being called a "lie". Re-reading it now, though, I don't see what part of your comment made me think that (though it's not an obviously wrong interpretation either); maybe it was the influence of other comments.
Sure, it's obviousness that I did not frame the post correctly, to gain such a response (it is what it is now though). I still take issue with being called a liar though. If that fact was remotely in doubt I would have refrain from using that word. Further even if they had admitted to lying I would let their words stand as testimony to their deceit. It is a word that detracts from one position and adds to the others without truly rebutting the position. It is therefore disingenuous to use, if the fact is in question.
That being said, I can see where the post could be construed that it was not the true reason for the initial contact. I still think there is enough ambiguity that I should have been given the benefit of the doubt.
The content of you post does not bother me if that is your intent. What does bother me is the upvotes you recive. It is sad to see the decline of a great site so enshrined in a single line post. The active approval of your post, by other members, just becase they dont agree with my position on the subject, is sadning to say the least. Your comment is devoid of quality and only serves to try and infuriate another member.its active acceptance is indicitive of the decline so many members complain about.
You wanted volume licensing, but decided to be clever about it and 'test' the vendor. You inferred from their unwillingness to give John Q Random Customer a single pro version at the basic price that they would be 'inflexible' in an enterprise purchasing context, which is where your error starts and ends: it's an absurd leap to make, and you make a lot of assumptions to get there. You also manage to conclude from this that they "do not have a competent pricing structure".
Asserting that you gained any real insight into their business acumen or their suitability for your real purchasing needs with your strange test seems deeply misguided. And your delivery makes it entirely understandable if people take away from your post a reading that you are simply self-satisfied at having wielded that purchasing power so capriciously.
Now, after some initial rounds of criticism (and the consequent derail of much of this thread), you've stooped to repeatedly decrying the decline of HN and its devolution into slashdot (although you are apparently finding posts that agree with you to be restorative of hope on that front).
unwillingness to give John Q Random Customer a single pro version at the basic price that they would be 'inflexible
I have stated on several occasions that the flexibility that I was looking for was customer service in the sales process. I also clarified that it was the tone of the developers response served as a red flag to me, the discount was of ill consequence.
Now, after some initial rounds of criticism (and the consequent derail of much of this thread), you've stooped to repeatedly decrying the decline of HN and its devolution into slashdot (although you are apparently finding posts that agree with you to be restorative of hope on that front).
I chose HN after a long stay out of all communities because I did not like the direction that most have them had taken. If you review my post history, you will find it evident that I do not make personal attacks and when I respond to someone, I try to to show them that I value their comment by providing what I think is a well thought out response.
Given my history of finding most sites pointless due to the noise to value ratio and what I feel is an investment of my time to help contribute to HN to make it what it's stated goals are, I do find it disheartening when a comment, that, if you take away the emotion, is totally devoid of value and whos only purpose was to serve as character assassination.
I mean can you honestly look at the post I complained about and defend it as being anything other than a pop shot. One thing I can say for sure, is that no matter my position on a subject, I would not support such a post. I have seen the trend other complain about, and have tried to deny it, make excused for it and ignore it.
So with it so evident in that post I decided to confront it, because I really do want to know if, when critically analyzed, do the members of HN support that kind of regard for other members, that offer a genuine post (whether you agree with it or not, my intent was to contribute to HN).
So given that I feel that I contribute value to HN, I want to know if this is how people that contribute are valued. Because if the answer is yes, then it is time for me to go.
I realized when I posted it, that it would most likely come off as that I am just sour about my message not being received, and people are free to infer what they will about my complaining about it, but if you take away the bias of my original post, go back and read that post, I think you will find it clearly evident that there was little regard for the contribution of a member and an intent to aggravate and malign for having a different view point that the majority.
I asked and would love an answer to is this now acceptable by the majority of HN. Obviously for my continuing to post, I do not believe it is, but the seed of doubt has been planted by other members that I respect so with an example of it so obvious, I felt compelled to not only highlight it but to confront the issue head on.
You posted a comment arguing that "Asking for a discount" is not a good filter, because it would have filtered out you. You even sound a bit smug like "hah they failed my test, how stupid of them to not give me a discount, now they lost me as a customer". Jonkee is just saying that that sounds like the customer you'd want to filter out, and HN seems to agree.
I never said that you outsmarted them (in fact I explicitly wrote "You even sound a bit smug"). See how you can read something that's not literally written? It seems that every single person in this thread has interpreted your comment completely differently from how you presumably intended it, but every single one of them has interpreted your comment in the same way as the others. Whether that's their fault or not, you might want to consider changing your writing to avoid this...
Right you did not, that was mentioned in another post you did however say that "how stupid of them to not give me a discount" so I carried over the outsmarted perception because they where similar. If it appeared that I put words in your mouth I apologize it was not my intent.
Whether that's their fault or not, you might want to consider changing your writing to avoid this
Point taken, I am well aware of the fact that I did not communicate the story well, that or I see the world different from other developer in either case. I think this thread chain serves as evidence to that fact. It is not in dispute.
Not that it amounts to a hill of beans, but it was already a long post, I trimmed it to shorten it, I think in doing so, I omitted some important details. Further I tried very hard to not inject the developers response, because I did not want to bias the intent of my post with charged rhetoric, I also omitted that I ended up paying full price to the alternate, which I think further slanted the perception that my decision was based merely on not getting my way for a non-standard request.
basically told them
I framed the story in this fashion for several reasons
I framed the story, is not an admission of lying there where motives beyond the initial purchase, but even if those motives did not exist I intended to purchase software for my daughter, only using a selective portion of my total intent to purchase was in no way lying and in no way disingenuous. I blame him for using the word lie because it is a charged word, that should not be used unless you are certain of the factualness of ones allegations. Calling someone a liar is pretty disingenuous and was done so in this case as a character attack to further his position in his rebuttal. Not as a legitimate response to a legitimate comment.