Another bad batch of 2.0


#1

So what’s the cause this time?


#2

Interesting indeed! :cry: Time to check my lot, my latest 12 pack of 2.0 came from Amazon since it was less expensive than here. (Even with my grandfathered subscription price.)


#3

It must be really bad since no one disagrees and many confirm. Imagine if RL didn’t have two crack QA people on the team.


#4

I didn’t get that particular lot, curious to see if anymore information comes.


#5

No matter how good of quality control a product has there is going to be the rare case thats gets through once in a while that does not meet there standards.

Maybe if some people did not bother then every day, and get impatient when there questions do not get answered immediately, they would be more focused on the important stuff…like quality control and resolving shipment delays.


#6

Sounds like an entire bad lot. Also, Conor can not fix that stuff so your comment is just plain silly. I move for the moderators to continue their program of censorship by deleting your comment, closing the thread and banning you!!


#7
  1. Their quality control has already been brought into question with the recent Coffiest situation.

  2. Different people in a company deal with quality control and customer service.

  3. Even if the same people dealt with quality control and customer service, customers putting pressure on you should never affect the strength of your quality control. You can not blame consumers asking questions (some of which took days to get a proper answer to anyway) for lack of quality control - quality control should never suffer due to customer service and if it does you need to make changes to the way your company is run.


#8

To continue such a thing it would need to exist in the first place. I’ve seen no evidence of any such behavior, have I missed something?


#9

It was a joke. First and last happen on Reddit, middle happens here.


#10

I have the same batch and I can’t detect any difference from previous batches.


#11

Glad to hear that! .


#12

It’s easy to infer from that joke that Rosa Labs is censoring people, which is pretty clearly not the case. Something happening on some other website which they don’t control is not censorship by the company.

Closing of the thread here was not censorship either, the thread should have been closed, it had run its course and had nothing more to contribute to the community, it would have only continued to devolve. As it is that thread still exists, as it should, so that the future folk can come and read through.


#13

Agree to disagree. …


#14

Agreed. :slight_smile:      


#15

That’s not how it works, locking threads is censorship. So is for example deleting slurs. It’s just that in this instance you believe the censorship is justified because it serves a purpose you agree with, as I do for deleting slurs.


#16

In that case I disagree!!!


#17

Only if you use an imprecise definition of censorship (which is fine, but don’t expect people to agree with your definition; at least not me). You don’t have a right to free expression in a privately owned forum, so calling any and all moderation “censorship” is hyperbolic.

I would only call moderation censorship if it was performed by a government or because of a government’s influence. For example, Google removing links to Nazi material at the request of the French/German governments would be censorship, or the government deleting a petition on whitehouse.gov. Rosa Labs and reddit moderating their forums at their own behest? Not so much.


#18

Just because it’s not covered by the first ammendment doesn’t mean it’s not called censorship. Either way, this is my thread - so get back on topic.


#19

That’s not what I said, actually, but you’re both free to use your own special definitions of words; I wouldn’t want to be accused of “censoring” you.

Re: Bad batch, I have my first bottle here marked JUN3017 6181P7FPA JP 06:55 SLGRM2 and it definitely tastes different from the last batch. I wouldn’t call it a huge difference though. I was kind of worried as I’ve got three boxes of it the basement. :stuck_out_tongue:


#20

My use is literally the exact definition you linked me. “The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression.” The expression that’s being controlled by standard moderation, deleting slurs, is generally agreed on as acceptable. That doesn’t mean it’s not censorship. Likewise the point of locking a thread is to halt the ongoing discussion within that thread, denying that is an attempt to control expression is evidently foolish. The point of potential disagreement is not whether it’s censorship, but whether it’s justified censorship.