Feedback for changes to the current group buy system

[byker]

Hello everyone,

The moderation team read through some of the ideas that people have come up with recently and came up with a list of ideas to help minimize risk for group buys. We are asking that you read through the list, and give us feedback, as ultimately these changes are for the users of geekhack, and as such we request your feedback.

- Currently we have the same requirements for posting a group buy as we do in the classifieds - 25 posts and 2 months on the forum. We could increase this to 500/1000 posts and 6/12 months on the forum. The rationale would be to have users that are familiar with the site and the users here, and are part of our community. Although this won't necessarily stop someone from scamming, it could help prevent new users feeling overwhelmed from getting over their heads. However, this could also prevent some cool projects taking place here.

- Limiting the amount of group buys that can be run to 1 or 2. Currently, we have an informal rule of 2 group buys per user, however if they are someone more established, who has experience, we allowed them to run more. Lowering the number will limit the amount of assets that someone has at a certain point in time, however it also limits the amount of group buys run by established members. For example, JD is currently running three buys I believe, two GH key buys as well as the JD45.

- Bro Caps made some good points about timing:
1. Require that the GB organizer keeps a short deadline in which orders can be placed , lets say 30 days tops. After that, they must close orders and submit to GMK (or whichever manufacturer)
2. Require a timeframe in which the organizer has to submit funds to the manufacturer (assuming they met MOQ), maybe another 30 days. They must submit proof of the transaction in the OP of the buy thread
3. If #2 isn't met, and the organizer flakes, people should be advised to open a dispute in PayPal to retrieve their funds safely within the 180 day time period in which they are able to do so.

- Putting down a rule regarding updates every 2 weeks. Although this is not exactly enforceable by us, it could be made a guideline. Even an update of "no news" could be an update.

- Have a second person accountable. For example, two users are involved in running the group buy, so that there are two people who can confirm payments have been made, keys have arrived, etc.


Additionally, we want to :

- Change the wording on the rules, clearly listing what we mean by CAVEAT EMPTOR.

- If we decide to create stricter requirements for group buys, we could possibly create a new subforum under groupbuys, in which threads can be created and locked, with a single link to an off-site group buy, such as a group buy being run by a well-known deskthority user, who doesn't post on geekhack enough to meet the requirements. The thread would be locked so that it only acts as an advertisement to off-site group buys.

Geekhack has always been a place of innovation, with some really cool projects coming to fruition. Our goal is to listen to the community, and create some changes to hopefully minimize the possibility of failed group buys. Please let us know what you think of these ideas, and if you have any to add.

[ideus]

To keep the payment to the manufacturer within paypal's window to open disputes should reduce the risk; in the other hand, there is no reason to think that higher posting counts may increase the safety of a group buy, Ivan, for example, had already a bunch of posting, and that did no do anything to prevent the problem.

[byker]

To keep the payment to the manufacturer within paypal's window to open disputes should reduce the risk; in the other hand, there is no reason to think that higher posting counts may increase the safety of a group buy, Ivan, for example, had already a bunch of posting, and that did no do anything to prevent the problem.

Very true. It could possibly help however with users who are new to geekhack and may get overwhelmed, not realizing how much work they are taking on. For example, kin, the user from another forum who was quite new to geekhack when he started his group buy.

[dgneo]

I'd say the 2 months/25 posts should stick around if the person decides to run the GB through Mass Drop. IIRC there's been a couple keysets that have been generated by newer members, combined with the fact that if Mass Drop is involved it's pretty hard to scam/get scammed. I do think if it's going to be run through an individual person via GH, the higher limit should absolutely apply.

I feel this would still breed creativity in new members without feeling discouraged due to the higher post count.

Also, I have no preference towards either platform, please don't think one or the other is swaying my opinion.

Just my $.02

[PunksDead]

i gotta say im relieved at how the moderation is enforcing stricter policies towards groupbuys. As GH grows its refreshing to see some long deserved policy changes

[ghostjuggernaut]

Just wanted to reiterate, we need feedback and good discussion from all you members. This will result in new rules being made and enforced for future group buys.

[27]

I personally think that such a high post requirement is a bit unfair, as I've seen plenty of members with under 500 posts around and consider them longtime members.  I'm quite active on the KeyboardCommunity slack, and post quite a bit in off-topic, but don't really participate in the other subforums.  (I do try to be more active than I used to.)  Maybe something like a 6 Month old account and a 200 post requirement would be better?

[ideus]

I suggest the GB leaders to sign and submit a document disclosing his/her personal information plus a responsibility commitment for the funds he/she has collected after the GB order's period with detailed amounts to someone whit in the moderator's team just as an insurance policy in case something does not run according with the GB's rule, he/she also should commit to refund the money paid in case something runs out of his/her control.

[jbondeson]

Not as sure about the post count requirement. As you will exclude many people such as myself who are less "chatty" but still engaged. As well as potentially well equipped people from other communities.

[ghostjuggernaut]

I suggest the GB leaders to sign and submit a document disclosing his/her personal information plus a responsibility commitment for the funds he/she has collected after the GB order's period with detailed amounts to someone whit in the moderator's team just as an insurance policy in case something does not run according with the GB's rule, he/she also should commit to refund the money paid in case something runs out of his/her control.

I understand where you are coming from, but the mod team will not be involving ourselves with the organizing and fulfillment of Group Buys. We are simply looking at establishing guidelines for the community, that the community is happy with. These will simply put in place rules for organizers that would like to start a group buy.

[flabbergast]

This is a forum. I do not think the mods should be involved any more than they are now; i.e. I do not like any of the "mods should keep insurance policy", etc... This would make GBs look more legitimate (than they really are), and would even more fuel the impression that "it's run on GH so GH should do something about this". Again, I thought this is a forum, not a new MassDrop.

I personally do not really agree with any kind of hard requirements. I would suggest that in every GB thread the second post would be the CAVEAT EMPTOR, which would explicitly state that *the expectation* is that these requirements should be followed by the GB leader, explain what options do participants have (paypal chargeback within 180 days) {and maybe a few links to the failed buys. It's hard to find these for the newcomers, speaking from experience.}

It should also say in big red letters that the GB participants are basically giving money to a private person (the GB leader), based only on what they read on an internet forum, and so that they should think long and hard about trust and risk.

If the GB leader has good reasons not to follow some/any of these *expectations* and manages to convince enough people even despite these warnings, then good for her/him.

EDIT: BTW, the caveat emptor should be even more emphasised for the GB that are linked from here which may look more "legitimate" than GBs run from here, e.g. Ellipses's GB. Just that fact that he's got a website and a checkout system there does not mean that it's any different from a GB on GH; it's still giving money to a private person on a promise. {I am participating in these things, I trust Ellipse ATM, but I do understand the risk.}

[HoffmanMyster]

I personally think that such a high post requirement is a bit unfair, as I've seen plenty of members with under 500 posts around and consider them longtime members.  I'm quite active on the KeyboardCommunity slack, and post quite a bit in off-topic, but don't really participate in the other subforums.  (I do try to be more active than I used to.)  Maybe something like a 6 Month old account and a 200 post requirement would be better?

IRC, Slack, Skype, etc are not geekhack.org and are therefore not considered when discussing rules and ToS of geekhack.org.  We do not enforce our ToS on these other chatting mediums, so why should your activity on them affect how the rules are enforced on geekhack?

[ideus]

I suggest the GB leaders to sign and submit a document disclosing his/her personal information plus a responsibility commitment for the funds he/she has collected after the GB order's period with detailed amounts to someone whit in the moderator's team just as an insurance policy in case something does not run according with the GB's rule, he/she also should commit to refund the money paid in case something runs out of his/her control.

I understand where you are coming from, but the mod team will not be involving ourselves with the organizing and fulfillment of Group Buys. We are simply looking at establishing guidelines for the community, that the community is happy with. These will simply put in place rules for organizers that would like to start a group buy.

Any third party with fair trustworthiness may work, for example, maybe, PP or a similar middle men can do that for a small fee, in any case is just an additional commitment record. Otherwise, going through MD or equivalent may solve most of the issues related with individuals running GB that may be tempted at any time to run with some tents of thousands of dollar with no risk for them.

[27]

I personally think that such a high post requirement is a bit unfair, as I've seen plenty of members with under 500 posts around and consider them longtime members.  I'm quite active on the KeyboardCommunity slack, and post quite a bit in off-topic, but don't really participate in the other subforums.  (I do try to be more active than I used to.)  Maybe something like a 6 Month old account and a 200 post requirement would be better?

IRC, Slack, Skype, etc are not geekhack.org and are therefore not considered when discussing rules and ToS of geekhack.org.  We do not enforce our ToS on these other chatting mediums, so why should your activity on them affect how the rules are enforced on geekhack?

I'm thinking in terms of general community involvement and how that could be taken into account when deciding on a new post requirement for everyone, and as a reason why some members may have lower post counts.  I still stand by my 6 Months/ 200 posts idea.

[ghostjuggernaut]

I personally think that such a high post requirement is a bit unfair, as I've seen plenty of members with under 500 posts around and consider them longtime members.  I'm quite active on the KeyboardCommunity slack, and post quite a bit in off-topic, but don't really participate in the other subforums.  (I do try to be more active than I used to.)  Maybe something like a 6 Month old account and a 200 post requirement would be better?

IRC, Slack, Skype, etc are not geekhack.org and are therefore not considered when discussing rules and ToS of geekhack.org.  We do not enforce our ToS on these other chatting mediums, so why should your activity on them affect how the rules are enforced on geekhack?

I'm thinking in terms of general community involvement and how that could be taken into account when deciding on a new post requirement for everyone, and as a reason why some members may have lower post counts.  I still stand by my 6 Months/ 200 posts idea.

And that is all that we are asking for.  What exactly the members of this site would like to see set forth for barebone requirements to run a GB.  These rules will affect all of us, and the more thoughts and opinions that can be gathered, the better.  The items that Byker brought up in the OP were things that we came up with through brainstorming and reading the other threads that were discussing changes.

[HoffmanMyster]

I personally think that such a high post requirement is a bit unfair, as I've seen plenty of members with under 500 posts around and consider them longtime members.  I'm quite active on the KeyboardCommunity slack, and post quite a bit in off-topic, but don't really participate in the other subforums.  (I do try to be more active than I used to.)  Maybe something like a 6 Month old account and a 200 post requirement would be better?

IRC, Slack, Skype, etc are not geekhack.org and are therefore not considered when discussing rules and ToS of geekhack.org.  We do not enforce our ToS on these other chatting mediums, so why should your activity on them affect how the rules are enforced on geekhack?

I'm thinking in terms of general community involvement and how that could be taken into account when deciding on a new post requirement for everyone, and as a reason why some members may have lower post counts.  I still stand by my 6 Months/ 200 posts idea.

I understand where you're coming from.  What you're describing is actually fairly in line with the current "informal" system.  If a user is far more active in another community and has shown that they can handle large tasks such as this, I've approved the thread despite the user being a bit newer on geekhack.  I think that's what you're getting at?

I apologize for my misinterpretation of your comment.

[geniekid]

I don't think raising the barrier to be a GB leader will have that much impact.  Thinking through some of the GBs that have failed (or at least required serious bail out), some of the biggest catastrophes have come from well respected community members whom I believe launched their GBs with good intentions.

I definitely like limiting the number of GBs a person can run simultaneously.  Maybe we could require more accountability (proof of purchase, real life identify information) if the scale of a GB crosses a certain line.  I don't want to discourage minor, less established members from running a small scale GBs (e.g. an Esc pack or a small novelty pack).

[jdcarpe]

I understand the desire to bring more legitimacy to group buys here on Geekhack, but beyond a PSA stickied in each group buy thread, I guess I don't really see the problem. Sure, group buys are best run by more experienced members, who know better what they are dealing with in terms of fulfillment and logistics. A new member might not even know what they are getting themselves into, but they want to bring something to the forum that doesn't currently exist. I definitely feel like a longer relationship and higher post count requirement might help with some of that.

I also think that anyone under the age of 18 who wants to run a group buy should have a large disclaimer attached to their thread stating that the member is under the age of responsibility for entering into a legal contract, and that therefore there may be little to no legal recourse available should things go awry.

Making the organizers personal info available to one or more responsible parties connected to the site would also be a great idea, as it would help participants in the event of wrongdoing.

As for recourse in the event of fraud, as in the case of Ivan's group buys, that should be taken to the legal authorities in their jurisdiction. The police in his area should be investigating the incident as possible felony fraud. PayPal can freeze funds, but facing a possible prison sentence might be a better deterrent to those who might commit fraud.

[27]

I personally think that such a high post requirement is a bit unfair, as I've seen plenty of members with under 500 posts around and consider them longtime members.  I'm quite active on the KeyboardCommunity slack, and post quite a bit in off-topic, but don't really participate in the other subforums.  (I do try to be more active than I used to.)  Maybe something like a 6 Month old account and a 200 post requirement would be better?

IRC, Slack, Skype, etc are not geekhack.org and are therefore not considered when discussing rules and ToS of geekhack.org.  We do not enforce our ToS on these other chatting mediums, so why should your activity on them affect how the rules are enforced on geekhack?

I'm thinking in terms of general community involvement and how that could be taken into account when deciding on a new post requirement for everyone, and as a reason why some members may have lower post counts.  I still stand by my 6 Months/ 200 posts idea.

I understand where you're coming from.  What you're describing is actually fairly in line with the current "informal" system.  If a user is far more active in another community and has shown that they can handle large tasks such as this, I've approved the thread despite the user being a bit newer on geekhack.  I think that's what you're getting at?

I apologize for my misinterpretation of your comment.

No worries, that's what clarification is for!

[SpAmRaY]

he/she also should commit to refund the money paid in case something runs out of his/her control.

The only way a group buy leader could refund money is if it wasn't spent on the goods already and even then there are PayPal fees etc. that may take away from the funds collected.

If someone paid a manufacturer for caps that didn't come out right and the manufacturer wouldn't fix them that is not the fault of the group buy organizer.

Or if a PCB is prototyped and doesn't work right you can't expect someone to pay you back when no money is left.

There will always be risk when someone runs a group buy.

On a side note.

I think people need to step back and remind themselves what a group buy is.

To me it is a group of people partnering together to get something they otherwise could not get or perhaps get something at a discounted price by leveraging their combined buying power.

Again my opinion, many group buys lately have blurred the line by someone just buying something to sell, to me this is more closely related to a vendor selling things than an actual group buy. Perhaps this can be addressed as well.

Ultimately people need to understand what they are getting into and have realistic expectations BUT those running buys/sales should also be realistic with the information they put out as well.

I'm tired of buying into things and the organizer deciding to change direction or turn the buy into something it didn't start out as without informing the participants.

[Melvang]

Just want to throw in my two caps worth here. A touch of background, i have run two group buys. Both were fairly small, one was for the Enablers and the other was for smoked cheese. The enabler buy was just over a $2,000 invoice across 4 different pieces. My smoked cheese buy was something i made myself and total orders was around $300 iirc. I was going to do another cheese run, but the weather got to warm.

Now i would like to say, the logistics can get overwhelming very quickly if the buy is open to international orders as my Enabler order was. Now this order really didnt have that many international orders, but there was a lot of different countries to try and decode address formats.

On this note, i would have to endorse a ban on anyone under 18 being able to conduct GBs with the possible exception of PMK, MD, or another similar service. Not that i dont trust peiple on the forums, but because of the lack of legal responsibility.

For the rest of us, i feel that the 200 posts/6 months old account should be a requirement with a couple exceptions. If said member can show similar credentials from another forum such as DT, korean forums (not sure in these as i dont follow them), or possibly reddit, then that should qualify them here as well.

For PMK/MD/other similar GBs, I feel that the same as classifieds is sufficient.

However, before any personally ran GB is approved, personal real life contact info should be providd to GH mods/admin team and verified. This info could be shared with members in the event of legal action needing to be taken. This would also conclude any and all mods/admin involvement.

In the event of something going wrong any and all classifieds/GBs will be suspended. If said drama actually comea to a close, their account is permanantly banned.

[ddot]

In addition to limitations on the number of simultaneous group buys being run, would it be worth taking into account total size of the group buy, both in number of participants and estimated total value?  Something going wrong with an leader who has several simultaneous novelty buys with a  few dozen participants going on would still result in less fallout than someone with hundreds of participants on a full keycap set.  I get the feeling that this was kind of implied in a few of the other posts, but never really stated.

I'm tired of buying into things and the organizer deciding to change direction or turn the buy into something it didn't start out as without informing the participants.

I'd also like to see some guidelines on clarity of what's being offered and how to update the participants if things change.  In the PBT Dark second wave opening post, Ivan stated: "I will get around to fixing up the mock ups later, to be used as layout reference only!"  Here we are 10 months later and it never got updated.  Sure we can all just say caveat emptor, but that's easier said than done.  Quoting myself from an earlier thread this same topic:

It's very easy for someone to dangle some shiny new object in front of everyone, set up a group buy and have hordes of starry eyed participants throw money at them.  And while we can easily just say buyer beware and let Geekhack wash its hands of any liability, it does little to allow the community to flourish and in turn build the trust required to continue having the support for group buys.

[user 18]

In addition to limitations on the number of simultaneous group buys being run, would it be worth taking into account total size of the group buy, both in number of participants and estimated total value?  Something going wrong with an leader who has several simultaneous novelty buys with a  few dozen participants going on would still result in less fallout than someone with hundreds of participants on a full keycap set.  I get the feeling that this was kind of implied in a few of the other posts, but never really stated.

That's in there, although it perhaps isn't as clear as it could be. The limit the mod team has currently proposed is not a hard limit, and we will allow more than 2 simultaneous buys under some circumstances. The size and proposed turnaround time of the buys is part of what we take into account when making those decisions.

[Fire Brand]

My opinion I don't see the point of you making stricker rules at all, if theirs is no punishment if something where to go wrong.
I personally think GBs should be done completely outside of GH on massdrop and PMK so the buyer is covered if anything goes wrong, even eBay would be better than what we currently have I personally don't like massdrop but it's better than nothing.

[xiaodian317]

Oh, It's too hard to reach the post quantity.
I am the sample that can not meets the requirements.
The IC"GMK Classic Retro" and "GMK GEEKHACK pack" is close to over and wait to start the GB at here.

I don't know what should I can do.
But I want to share some what I have done in past times and to show that I am a man to be trusted.

1. 2013 CHERRY Carnival China

More

That was the fist time to organize the launch event to me in Changsha China.
I had meet some Chinese Mr.Big here, they did a lot help to me in these years.
IMSTO(主任), Hammer(榔头), Chaos village(村长), ququfeijian(蛐蛐), Xiren(鼷人) and so one.

2. 2013 WCG China Grand Final

More

That was on 2013 World Cyber Game China Grand Final.
I took some photos from the partner's(Colorfy and Nivida) help.

3. 2014 CHERRY Germany factory Tour

More

Related links: http://tieba.baidu.com/p/3190685834



That was the cool factory tour from Cherry support.
The 4th from right side is me on both of the 2 photos.
And we were on the local newspaper of Auerbach Germany
The middle lovely man is Manfred on the last photo, the CEO of Cherry.

4. 2015 CHERRY Carnival China

More

That was the crazy carnival in Qiandao Lake, Hangzhou, China in 2015.
We had invited more than 100 people to here.
The 2nd photo was our team, distributor of Cherry China.
The 3rd photo was ready for riding along the lake side.

5. 2015 CHERRY Germany factory Tour

More

Related links:http://bbs.wstx.com/thread-659825-1-1.html
That was the 2nd factory tour by me.



At the gate of Cherry Auerbach, the rightmost one is me in the 1st photo.
The Cherry colleague was begining to introduce Cherry story to us.
The 3rd we were in the factory.

6. CHERRY new Logo keycap
Related links https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=78534.0

More

That was my idea and Cherry Zhuhai and Auerbach helped me to come true.
Base color CR and legend color V1.
We just did the marketing job with this keycap and not selled it yet.

7. GMK Valentine(CHERRY KC 520)

More

That was the first GMK sets from my company.
Goods in stock, not Group buy, we placed the 520 pcs order.
And It was the hard work to sort the keycaps because we made the new packing for buyers.
It was a high price than the common GB, but already out of stock.

[evangs]

Group Buys can be fixed by the buyers.  Demand status updates.  As a buyer you should be able to request proof that the order has been placed for the goods.  If the organizer doesn't want to give proof, then file a dispute on paypal or whatever the payment avenue is.  If we as a community put up with the lack of communication I have seen in the failed group buys, then we are the problem.  If an organizer doesn't want to communicate, pull your money.  I bet they will start showing up.  There is no excuse for disappearing after starting a GB.  We as buyers have power, vote with your money.  Any indications that the Group Buy isn't going to plan, pull your money.

I am getting ready to launch my first group buy.  I have done all the legwork behind the scenes so that when I run, I am ready to go with as few surprises as possible.  I will be updating regularly (at least weekly, probably more).  I will be posting invoices and pictures.  I have no idea why some organizers insist on never updating, but that's not how I will do things.  I work a full time job, have a wife, etc, but I also realize that when running a group buy you are making a commitment to collect money, place orders, received completed parts, sort and ship them.  Even if running the buy with no personal gain, you are making a commitment to everyone involved that you are going to do what you said you will in a timely fashion.  This attitude of "real life got hard, can't deliver or give updates" is garbage.

Anyways, we choose who we allow to run group buys.  We need to be a little more discerning and not believe everything we hear.  Cell phone pictures are easy to take and upload.  Organizers unwilling to provide these assurances shouldn't be trusted.  PULL YOUR MONEY.

[begemotz]

So we are talking risk management here -- risk cannot be eradicated but I think a few of the suggestions lend themselves to a significant reduction in risk..

One of the 'risk bottlenecks' seems to be a singular reliance on the GB leader for information. Requiring a second leader as a check-and-balance seems like a good idea. There should be a reasonable indication that the second person is not working in the interest of the GB leader.

Another risk bottleneck is the delay between purchase (payment) and receiving the items -- part of this risk is inherent in the GB process in that GBs generally take a long time since they tend to include the manufacture process. This timeline is generally outside of the protection offered by the buyer's CC or Ebay. But you could reduce the risk of each step -- such as insuring that the money has been sent to the manufacturer and its slated for production before the purchase-protection window has closed.

I realize that versions of the above have already been suggested. But here are a few other observations:

GBs tend to ostracize individuals who initiate disputes within the buyer-protection period especially through Ebay because they will result in the GBL being out-of-pocket until the order comes in. I do not think it is wise to blame the buyer here. The GBL should recognize that by doing a GB and using services such as Ebay means that they have accepted this risk.

All the solutions so far have treated all GBs the same. But, if you have a GB that generates $100,000+, the incentive to walk away with the money is going to be greater than if the GB generates $1,000 - so, greater risk. Maybe there are further restrictions (such as using an escrow service) placed on GBs of a certain size . This would reduce risk between the purchase and payment to manufacturer time period.

[ddot]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment.  There's been a lot of discussion about guidelines and responsibilities for the group buy leader.  Has anyone given any thought to a set of guidelines for the participants?  Let's just refresh ourselves of how a traditional storefront and a group buy work.

In a traditional vendor business approach, a vendor will begin with an educated guess as to what and how much product will sell.  An order is placed with a manufacture and the product is made with some sort of credit filling the temporary financial void.  The product is then manufactured, with any delays generally silently disappearing into the background.  Once the product is delivered to the vendor, the vendor can advertise the product as immediately available and attempt to sell.  A risk the vendor always takes is their educated guess being off and the product not selling.  The price the vendor sets will need to at least cover the cost of the product, the cost of that credit, the cost of the overhead and a profit margin to cover the risk of it not selling.

With a group buy, the process begins with the leader collecting the funds, essentially pre-selling the product.  This eliminates the risk of the product being manufactured and not selling.  Those funds are also transfered to the manufacture before production and used to cover the cost of production.  This eliminates the cost of the credit.  However since this method operates on a manufacture on demand type system, any delays in the manufacturing process is apparent to the end consumer.   Once production is completed, the product is distributed to the end consumer.  The final price only needs to cover the cost of the product and any overhead as the credit and failure to sell risk costs don't apply.

As participants in the group buys, we're more than happy to take advantage of the lower cost model (even more so if it's a community group buy and the overhead is kept really low due to volunteer labour), but as part and parcel with that, the participants have to accept the trade offs.  For one, we have to be reasonable on manufacturing delays.  On most products, we have no idea what the delays are, but with group buys they can be very obvious.  Secondly, we have to remember that we've already pre-bought the product.  As consumers, we're generally very spoiled when it comes to stores accepting returns on products (at least in my part of the world).  In today's world there's huge pressure for the customer to always be right and that a customer's future business is worth more than the loss they'll take on a returned item that they can't sell and have to right off.  It doesn't mean it's always been that way or is that way everywhere.

If we begin to encourage and condone participants doing PayPal dispute every time someone has a nervous twitch, you have the potential to create real problems for a legitimate leader.  Remember, assuming everything is going well, the money has already been transfered to the manufacture and there's no money to do refunds.  We're setting out guidelines of what a leader needs to do and strategies for the participants if the  leader fails to adhere to them.  But what if the leader has met all the requirements?  Should participants have the right to ask for their money back any time they want?  If we they do, we'll either end up with less leaders or expect group buy prices to go up to cover the risk.  Maybe we need guidelines that if you decided to participate and the leader is fulfilling their obligations, then issuing a dispute and requesting a refund is not acceptable.  If you need the cash, sell your spot to someone else.  (Certainly this is already practised by most people out of unwritten common courtesy, but since we're in the mode of turning unwritten rules into written ones...)

Someone's going to ask how do we enforce this, and the answer is it's going to be pretty hard.  About the only thing we have is the power of the community.  Collectively as a community we have guidelines and only those who follow them are allowed to play.  Break the rules and you're out of the club.  Or maybe more specifically in this case, it could be something along the lines of break the group buy rules (doesn't matter if you're a leader or a participant) and you make it onto the black list of people who can't start / participate in group buys in the future.

Don't forget the objective of all this is to have a welcoming place where like minded people can come and feel confident about working with others to get obscure things into the hands of those who want it.  For group buys to work, we need both leaders and participants.  And for us to have both, we need a system that protects everyone (as best we can given the nature of us being a semi-anonymous collection of people from across the globe).

[evangs]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment.  There's been a lot of discussion about guidelines and responsibilities for the group buy leader.  Has anyone given any thought to a set of guidelines for the participants?  Let's just refresh ourselves of how a traditional storefront and a group buy work.

In a traditional vendor business approach, a vendor will begin with an educated guess as to what and how much product will sell.  An order is placed with a manufacture and the product is made with some sort of credit filling the temporary financial void.  The product is then manufactured, with any delays generally silently disappearing into the background.  Once the product is delivered to the vendor, the vendor can advertise the product as immediately available and attempt to sell.  A risk the vendor always takes is their educated guess being off and the product not selling.  The price the vendor sets will need to at least cover the cost of the product, the cost of that credit, the cost of the overhead and a profit margin to cover the risk of it not selling.

With a group buy, the process begins with the leader collecting the funds, essentially pre-selling the product.  This eliminates the risk of the product being manufactured and not selling.  Those funds are also transfered to the manufacture before production and used to cover the cost of production.  This eliminates the cost of the credit.  However since this method operates on a manufacture on demand type system, any delays in the manufacturing process is apparent to the end consumer.   Once production is completed, the product is distributed to the end consumer.  The final price only needs to cover the cost of the product and any overhead as the credit and failure to sell risk costs don't apply.

As participants in the group buys, we're more than happy to take advantage of the lower cost model (even more so if it's a community group buy and the overhead is kept really low due to volunteer labour), but as part and parcel with that, the participants have to accept the trade offs.  For one, we have to be reasonable on manufacturing delays.  On most products, we have no idea what the delays are, but with group buys they can be very obvious.  Secondly, we have to remember that we've already pre-bought the product.  As consumers, we're generally very spoiled when it comes to stores accepting returns on products (at least in my part of the world).  In today's world there's huge pressure for the customer to always be right and that a customer's future business is worth more than the loss they'll take on a returned item that they can't sell and have to right off.  It doesn't mean it's always been that way or is that way everywhere.

If we begin to encourage and condone participants doing PayPal dispute every time someone has a nervous twitch, you have the potential to create real problems for a legitimate leader.  Remember, assuming everything is going well, the money has already been transfered to the manufacture and there's no money to do refunds.  We're setting out guidelines of what a leader needs to do and strategies for the participants if the  leader fails to adhere to them.  But what if the leader has met all the requirements?  Should participants have the right to ask for their money back any time they want?  If we they do, we'll either end up with less leaders or expect group buy prices to go up to cover the risk.  Maybe we need guidelines that if you decided to participate and the leader is fulfilling their obligations, then issuing a dispute and requesting a refund is not acceptable.  If you need the cash, sell your spot to someone else.  (Certainly this is already practised by most people out of unwritten common courtesy, but since we're in the mode of turning unwritten rules into written ones...)

Someone's going to ask how do we enforce this, and the answer is it's going to be pretty hard.  About the only thing we have is the power of the community.  Collectively as a community we have guidelines and only those who follow them are allowed to play.  Break the rules and you're out of the club.  Or maybe more specifically in this case, it could be something along the lines of break the group buy rules (doesn't matter if you're a leader or a participant) and you make it onto the black list of people who can't start / participate in group buys in the future.

Don't forget the objective of all this is to have a welcoming place where like minded people can come and feel confident about working with others to get obscure things into the hands of those who want it.  For group buys to work, we need both leaders and participants.  And for us to have both, we need a system that protects everyone (as best we can given the nature of us being a semi-anonymous collection of people from across the globe).

Very well written.  I agree that we need both the organizers and participants working together.  Group buys exist to make our niche projects available to each other, let's not forget that.

[piemancoder]

I think all of the rules you stated are pretty fair. The only one I disagree with is the post count limitation. I don't think it should be the same as the classifieds, but 500/1000 posts and 6/12 months I think is kind of not the best solution for a few reasons.

• There are many trustworthy people here that don't have 500 posts, that would be able to run a group buy.
• It would limit smaller group buys, such as buys for a single keycap, or a spacebar, or other small things like that.
• It might encourage spamming, so that people can get more posts.

I think that a 100-250 post count and 3-4 months would be a better limit in my opinion, since you would still have to be a community member, and it would be open to more group buys.

[begemotz]

If we begin to encourage and condone participants doing PayPal dispute every time someone has a nervous twitch, you have the potential to create real problems for a legitimate leader.  Remember, assuming everything is going well, the money has already been transfered to the manufacture and there's no money to do refunds.  We're setting out guidelines of what a leader needs to do and strategies for the participants if the  leader fails to adhere to them.  But what if the leader has met all the requirements?  Should participants have the right to ask for their money back any time they want? If we they do, we'll either end up with less leaders or expect group buy prices to go up to cover the risk.  Maybe we need guidelines that if you decided to participate and the leader is fulfilling their obligations, then issuing a dispute and requesting a refund is not acceptable.  If you need the cash, sell your spot to someone else.  (Certainly this is already practised by most people out of unwritten common courtesy, but since we're in the mode of turning unwritten rules into written ones...)

Well, I would argue that by virtue of accepting PayPal payments the GBL is implicitly saying yes to this question when it is within the guidelines of PayPal. I would argue that it makes little sense to use a service like Ebay and then expect that buyers will not make use of the 'protections' PayPal has in place. Perhaps the point is that Ebay is not the appropriate mechanism for GBs (regardless of its convenience).

I agree with your larger point that GBs require both leaders and buyers -- but I still see that the overwhelming majority of the risk involved in a GB is carried by the buyers rather than the GBL. Maybe that is inherent in the nature of GBs but that doesn't mean that there can't be steps taken to reduce that risk and done in a way that doesn't seem to place an unreasonable burden on the GBLs. Especially given the impact that (even a very small number of) negative GBs can have on the community.

[Jixr]

i'd be down to see a required statement be put in the first page ( or whichever page has the order information ) about buyer beware.

Or possibly a pop-up that prevents you from getting to the GB page without first accepting and understanding the rules.


My main beef isn't people running or taking too long, but buyers who try to pull money out because they think its amazon.com with 2 day shipping, who end up slowing the process down for everyone.

[Jixr]

The problem is people requesting refunds once the money is already out of the GBL's pocket and with the manufactuer, a paypal claim can lock their account, and the GBL will have to put out money out of their own pocket to refund the person or risk dealing with locked accounts and stuff. So they are stuck shelling out personal money, and having to find a new buyer for an item someone bailed on.
Thats not fair.

GB's should not have any expectation of returns, refunds, exchanges, warranty's, etc. All that stuff is how we are able to get our items cheaply as we do.

[MaNiFeX]

One of the 'risk bottlenecks' seems to be a singular reliance on the GB leader for information. Requiring a second leader as a check-and-balance seems like a good idea. There should be a reasonable indication that the second person is not working in the interest of the GB leader.

I second the buddy system.  It, at least, provides redundancy.  Something that could have mitigated what happened recently.

GBs tend to ostracize individuals who initiate disputes within the buyer-protection period especially through Ebay because they will result in the GBL being out-of-pocket until the order comes in. I do not think it is wise to blame the buyer here. The GBL should recognize that by doing a GB and using services such as Ebay means that they have accepted this risk.

This risk can also be mitigated by the buddy system, which I think could really work in a group buy's favor.  There are plenty of 'shell' group buy websites out there organizing group buys, both in the US and UK, so I don't think setting up a new GeekHack Group Buy, LLC would benefit the community.  As well, the group buys that I would be interested in running would not fit into MassDrop or PMK's infrastructure.  GMK via MassDrop becomes too expensive.

Just my two cents.

M

[LeandreN]

They must submit proof of the transaction in the OP of the buy thread.

What kind of proof would be needed? As a person who run GBs with profit, I would rather not have to explain the expenses and budget of the entire GB and how the import regulations/fees work in Norway. I would like to keep that private. Understandable for non-profit GBs with a known manufacturer(GMK). 

Limiting the amount of group buys that can be run to 1 or 2.

Good point. It will quickly become a mess if someone runs multiple GBs.

- Putting down a rule regarding updates every 2 weeks. Although this is not exactly enforceable by us, it could be made a guideline. Even an update of "no news" could be an update.

Good point again, updates are very important.

[evangs]

They must submit proof of the transaction in the OP of the buy thread.

What kind of proof would be needed? As a person who run GBs with profit, I would rather not have to explain the expenses and budget of the entire GB and how the import regulations/fees work in Norway. I would like to keep that private. Understandable for non-profit GBs with a known manufacturer(GMK). 

I would think you could blur out that information.  It's more just for the confirmation that an order was placed with the manufacturer.

[LeandreN]

They must submit proof of the transaction in the OP of the buy thread.

What kind of proof would be needed? As a person who run GBs with profit, I would rather not have to explain the expenses and budget of the entire GB and how the import regulations/fees work in Norway. I would like to keep that private. Understandable for non-profit GBs with a known manufacturer(GMK). 

I would think you could blur out that information.  It's more just for the confirmation that an order was placed with the manufacturer.

If that is the case, I think it is possible for me.

[yinzer]

New-ish user here. So, I can understand if my opinions and observations seem less valuable, however, I've really come to prefer Geekhack as my forum for interacting with other enthusiasts and sharing ideas.

I'd like to echo some of the opinions already given.

This needs to be a conversation about users on how to make their group buys more safe for other users. We don't need a single Geekhack LLC, but maybe a bunch of small teams like CTRL.ALT. Maybe group buys shouldn't just be group buying power, but an actual group effort. Plenty of established folks on here have friends, I don't think it would be an undue burden.

And for newer users, maybe it's not a bad idea that you have to try a bit harder to get your idea from interest check to GB. Lone-wolf GBs should be taken with a grain of salt. Alternatively, maybe we need a step between IC and GB where newer users can pitch their ideas to more established teams before taking on the burden of a GB on their own. Give other members the chance to step up and get involved with the planning, logistics and shipping of those orders. Make it an actual group effort instead of placing all of the work and responsibility on one person.

I like the sounds of a buddy system rule, but it needs to be on users to come together and create those partnerships, not for Geekhack to make them a rule. Once again, it being a rule just makes the process seem safer. I can't help but to imagine that this will more or less just be an agreement for another user to stake their reputation on a GB while they carry on as before. Same with a post count, someone could just go on a posting spree to get themselves up to a minimum post count.

I don't think a lack of rules are the problem here. It's that users, perhaps through the legitimacy of services like Massdrop and very dedicated and professional GB leaders, look at group buys if they are a simple transaction. I give you money, you send me keys. More rules would just enforce that this is a transaction and not a community effort.

[byker]

For anyone who has been reading this thread, I encourage you to comment on what you want to see happen. We are only going to make changes based on user feedback. This thread has over 1300 views, but only 37 replies.. 

They must submit proof of the transaction in the OP of the buy thread.

What kind of proof would be needed? As a person who run GBs with profit, I would rather not have to explain the expenses and budget of the entire GB and how the import regulations/fees work in Norway. I would like to keep that private. Understandable for non-profit GBs with a known manufacturer(GMK). 

I would think you could blur out that information.  It's more just for the confirmation that an order was placed with the manufacturer.

If that is the case, I think it is possible for me.

Yeah, some other vendors voiced this concern with me too. I think if we were to use this guideline, perhaps after payment, you could just ask for an email confirming? So then you can screenshot an email from GMK/whoever that says "Hey LeandreN, your payment has been recieved." or whatever.

[lishi]

As someone who was a participant on Ivan's RS84 buy who did file a paypal dispute after what I suspected was a reasonable amount of time for a reply in the original thread, I think part of the blame is also on the buyers to use common sense to see if a situation is super fishy.


Note: I had both emailed Ivan myself (using the email that was used during the paypal transaction) and looked in the thread and Ivan's profile for an update. I waited as long as I could during the paypal dispute window to make one. I didn't do it because I wanted my money back, I did it because I did not trust that the Group Buy was going to go through.


During all of this, I saw numerous posts in the original thread about people saying that Ivan was a good guy, that he had run buys before, that you should just trust him, etc. In my opinion, this is the largest failing by the geekhack community- assuring others that everything was OK when they had obviously no idea what was going on.


What the mods need to do to ensure this shouldn't happen again is this:


1. Do not allow users that are not connected to the group buy itself to issue statements about the validity of the gb's progress in the thread. Yes, there are senior members in gh that I personally trust. However, I don't think it's fair for those that are disconnected from the actual logistics of the buy to post things like "don't worry, he's trustworthy" or "He/She will pull through, just give it time". Being unavailable through the forum and unresponsive IS cause for concern, especially when handling over $10,000 worth of gh members' money.


2. Do not base Group Buy Leader eligibility over post count, rather keep the current requirements: 25 posts/2 months. High post count/Seniority make no difference in whether or not the person is a scammer. I had purchased my GMK Hyperfuse set off of sethk_ and at the time, he seemed like he was a reputable member of gh. He had a high post count and was a member for a long time. Obviously, his group buy fell through as well. In fact, of the recent issues with group buys they've mostly been caused by members that had high post count/seniority.


3. Require images of paid invoices and independent confirmation from the manufacturer that the order has been placed. In the case of Miami Nights, the payment to GMK was never made. If an invoice isn't made within 60 days (which is a reasonable amount of time for the GB leader to collect funds and transfer funds to their personal bank account and make an invoice), people are still able to file paypal disputes in that time. An image can also be doctored, so to ensure that the order is actually placed, the GB leader should notify the manufacturer to allow an outside party (perhaps an admin@geekhack.org) email to get confirmation that the order had been placed and to put that confirmation in the OP.


4. Allow mods access to a list of group buy participants. This way, if an invoice isn't made in the required time periods, group buy participants can be sent an email telling them that the leader has not abided by the Group Buy rules and to check the original thread for more information. Note: I don't think this email should include advisement to file a paypal dispute- that is the point of Caveat Emptor. Rather, this just provides information for the buyer to make a better decision.


5. Suggest new members to use PMK/MD during the IC phase if it applies.


6. Do not involve yourselves as some sort of intermediary other than the checking the paid invoice phase- I do believe that there shouldn't be any sort of warranty, refund, etc. attached to a group buy. However, ensuring that the group buy get off of its feet is not any of those things.


7. While I like the idea of posting 2 week updates, making sure this happens is beyond the control of the mods. The group buy could be running smoothly and have no updates until the product arrives at your doorstep. Furthermore, how are you going to force people to post updates anyways? Would failure to update result in a ban? In this case, scammers wouldn't not care- collect money and gtfo. Why would they stick around and use time to make up stories about their fake gb?


8. Having a secondary person is also a good idea but one that I have no clue how it would work effectively. If the GB leader doesnt respond to the second person, you're still out of luck.


Finally, as a community as a whole: don't antagonize people that are nervous about where their money is. It's perfectly reasonable to want to know where in the process the group buy is. Not all people have a large amount of discretionary income to spend on this hobby. I've seen numerous posts around the idea of "when you join a group buy you should forget about where your money is and one day you'll have a nice surprise". If we have that type of attitude towards group buys, more scams are going to happen because we're basically asking for it. Being distrustful of group buy leaders should be expected: at some point everyone participates in their first group buy. It can be scary and daunting knowing that your money is somewhere and you don't know whether or not what you receive will be what you want or if you'll even receive it at all.

[ddot]

7. While I like the idea of posting 2 week updates, making sure this happens is beyond the control of the mods. The group buy could be running smoothly and have no updates until the product arrives at your doorstep. Furthermore, how are you going to force people to post updates anyways? Would failure to update result in a ban? In this case, scammers wouldn't not care- collect money and gtfo. Why would they stick around and use time to make up stories about their fake gb?

I don't think the request for regular updates will ever prevent a determined scammer from succeeding.  I think the verification of payment transfer to the manufacture within the PayPal dispute window is about the best option for that.  However the regular updates should help with the concerns you brought up in your point #1.  Rather than hordes of jittery people asking about the status and equally clueless people posting responses, everyone can just be steered to the opening post and the regular update.  It may also help in the situations where a leader starts off with the best of intentions, but due to bad decisions or life circumstances or whatever, things start to slowly go bad.  While it's perfectly possible they could transition into intentionally deceiving and keep posting false updates, it still may give clues that things are slowing heading downhill.  With the current tolerance of lack of updates, everyone is just cruising along thinking everything is ok, then months later they're blindsided when they realize things had really fallen off a cliff weeks before that.  Either way, confirmation that the money got transfered to the manufacture should mitigate most of the problems.  The worst they could do at that point is run with the completed product and the shipping fees. Probably most scammers would rather have cold hard cash than 100s of PCBs or keycap sets that are probably pretty hard to liquidate.

Side question: Has anyone ever tried to pawn a keycap set?

[Norman_the_Owl]

I think we're all getting a little too hung up on making sure the people running group buys are trustworthy, but that's not going to stop anything from happening

Ivan would have met all those requirements and still taken all our money

There needs to be more of a focus on legal responsibility for failed group buys, as opposed to making it harder to run group buys. The only thing we'd gain from making it harder to run a group buy is less group buys, potentially.

Edit: As an afterthought there needs to be some requirement for updating. If you make an update saying something is in production, show us the email or w/e from the manufacturer telling you they're being made. Similarly when payment is sent, etc, shipped to GB manager, etc etc.

[phosphoric]

I don't think raising the barrier to be a GB leader will have that much impact.  Thinking through some of the GBs that have failed (or at least required serious bail out), some of the biggest catastrophes have come from well respected community members whom I believe launched their GBs with good intentions.

I definitely like limiting the number of GBs a person can run simultaneously.  Maybe we could require more accountability (proof of purchase, real life identify information) if the scale of a GB crosses a certain line.  I don't want to discourage minor, less established members from running a small scale GBs (e.g. an Esc pack or a small novelty pack).

definitely agree that raising barriers would be ineffectual, but this makes limiting the number of simultaneous gbs a moot point. while it is against gh tos to create multiple accounts, it'd be much more work for a potential scammer to seem active on both accounts before running a gb. as humans on the internet, the only real tool we have is those of deterrents. so i guess raising barriers would be one of the better courses of action.

- Have a second person accountable. For example, two users are involved in running the group buy, so that there are two people who can confirm payments have been made, keys have arrived, etc.

i think something similar to this would be best in order to ensure that gb leaders are held accountable. rather than having moderators be appointed users to consult for this, however, gbs should have to run through a separate interest check thread that has reputable members that volunteer to help facilitate group buys - this would also make it a bit easier for first-time gb runners to make sure everything goes smoothly, as they would have somebody to consult.

the responsibilities of this member should include retrieving updates from the gb leader, ensuring the leader is able to be reached, and taking responsibility for action should things go awry. i realize that this would be a fairly complex system to implement, but there's really no other way that we can ensure 100% safety. perhaps we could add a small gb fee that would be paid to this correspondent, to help ensure that have some sort of incentive for participating in this system. this fee could also easily be passed on to the end-consumer of the gb; dispersed among the numbers of people that participate in gbs, it'd be fairly easy for the leader to pay a small fee up front and recoup that fee after the gb has been run and everybody has been paid.

i still believe, even with this facilitator, that we should have some sort of middleman to ensure 100% safety. perhaps the moderation team of geekhack could act as the middleman - this wouldn't place responsibility on their shoulders for anything outside of payment.

Anyways, we choose who we allow to run group buys.  We need to be a little more discerning and not believe everything we hear.  Cell phone pictures are easy to take and upload.  Organizers unwilling to provide these assurances shouldn't be trusted.  PULL YOUR MONEY.

i agree; the lax and trusting attitude of the community required of niche hobbyists of any kind is often too lax and trusting, allowing people handling their money to act rather carelessly. mandatory updates to a representative (above) would be even easier than logging into gh and posting a photo, and if they are unable to do it, the correspondent could.

[LeandreN]

Yeah, some other vendors voiced this concern with me too. I think if we were to use this guideline, perhaps after payment, you could just ask for an email confirming? So then you can screenshot an email from GMK/whoever that says "Hey LeandreN, your payment has been recieved." or whatever.

That should be no problem. Thanks 

[HoffmanMyster]

One of the 'risk bottlenecks' seems to be a singular reliance on the GB leader for information. Requiring a second leader as a check-and-balance seems like a good idea. There should be a reasonable indication that the second person is not working in the interest of the GB leader.

Can you explain how this would work in practice?  Isn't the second individual still relying on the first to provide them with updates?  What happens when the first leader goes dark - how do they provide anything more beneficial than saying "well, I don't know what's going on"?

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your suggestion.

[LeandreN]

Just throwing this out there, I run GBs with profit mostly to be able to reach MOQ for items and having an insurance if something happens. I had a incident where the postal fees changed in round 3 and I just used money from the profit fund. At the end of the day, I went in 0$ profit, but was able to have a fairly smooth experience for my customers. I personally encourage a small profit in GBs in case something happens, leftovers can be used to feed your addiction, refund the buyers or donate to Geekhack or a charity.

[evangs]

Just throwing this out there, I run GBs with profit mostly to be able to reach MOQ for items and having an insurance if something happens. I had a incident where the postal fees changed in round 3 and I just used money from the profit fund. At the end of the day, I went in 0$ profit, but was able to have a fairly smooth experience for my customers. I personally encourage a small profit in GBs in case something happens, leftovers can be used to feed your addiction, refund the buyers or donate to Geekhack or a charity.

I agree.  Trouble should be planned for.  Giving yourself breathing room as the organizer is more than fair, it's necessary.

[pr0ximity]

+1 to making people more aware of the PayPal window and setting an expectation among the community that GB leaders shouldn't be ****ing around with money for longer than ~2 months. As to the issue of "trigger-happy" disputes: it's just as risky to run a GB as it is to participate, seller beware.

-1 to Geekhack or the mod team in any way becoming part of enforcement or regulating things. That's just silly and asking for way more trouble.

Personally I'd prefer if more people took a normal approach to selling goods: buy the keys/PCBs/etc. up front after an interest check and sell after. It's a big investment, but you can charge a legitimately profitable markup for a) substantially less risk and b) faster, more reliable service. Guess what, that's how businesses work. If you want to run a GB, you should practically be running it like a business anyway, to me this doesn't seem like all that crazy of an issue. If you need start-up capital, ask for investors separately. Get a few people you're close with to go in with you. Borrow money from your mom and pay her back with interest.

To put it differently, I don't think group-buys should be run by just anyone. Dealing with that much money with hundreds on anonymous people isn't something to take lightly. I also think that it should be on the community to grow up and participate in what you feel is appropriate. I think a substantial number of people learned the hard way that you can't trust strangers with thousands of dollars dozens of times each year. It's up to everyone to choose with our wallets the model that we want things to be run in. Far fewer buys would happen with a more traditional model, but responsibility and forethought would be two great qualities to see more of in a hobby composed essentially entirely of upper-middle class millennials with wallets bigger than their brains.

[SpAmRaY]

+1 to making people more aware of the PayPal window and setting an expectation among the community that GB leaders shouldn't be ****ing around with money for longer than ~2 months. As to the issue of "trigger-happy" disputes: it's just as risky to run a GB as it is to participate, seller beware.

-1 to Geekhack or the mod team in any way becoming part of enforcement or regulating things. That's just silly and asking for way more trouble.

Personally I'd prefer if more people took a normal approach to selling goods: buy the keys/PCBs/etc. up front after an interest check and sell after. It's a big investment, but you can charge a legitimately profitable markup for a) substantially less risk and b) faster, more reliable service. Guess what, that's how businesses work. If you want to run a GB, you should practically be running it like a business anyway, to me this doesn't seem like all that crazy of an issue. If you need start-up capital, ask for investors separately. Get a few people you're close with to go in with you. Borrow money from your mom and pay her back with interest.

To put it differently, I don't think group-buys should be run by just anyone. Dealing with that much money with hundreds on anonymous people isn't something to take lightly. I also think that it should be on the community to grow up and participate in what you feel is appropriate. I think a substantial number of people learned the hard way that you can't trust strangers with thousands of dollars dozens of times each year. It's up to everyone to choose with our wallets the model that we want things to be run in. Far fewer buys would happen with a more traditional model, but responsibility and forethought would be two great qualities to see more of in a hobby composed essentially entirely of upper-middle class millennials with wallets bigger than their brains.

People already complain about price, doing what you're suggesting would add to that.

And nobody wants to get stuck with product that may or may not sell as interest checks are known to not always be a good representation of how orders will come in.

I considered doing this with GMK WoB before I bought a new house because I had extra money but again the risk was just too big.
 

[pr0ximity]

People already complain about price, doing what you're suggesting would add to that.

And nobody wants to get stuck with product that may or may not sell as interest checks are known to not always be a good representation of how orders will come in.

I considered doing this with GMK WoB before I bought a new house because I had extra money but again the risk was just too big.

I don't disagree, but clearly KeyPop and Originative do okay, and there are others. They don't bear the brunt of a full GMK buy, but I have to imagine there's a model where that could work. Something like preorders done through a registered company. Credibility and legal accountability are a bit better perhaps.

It's not a complete solution, but I think some part of that direction ends of solving some of these problems. CtrlAlt is doing it an interesting way. I mean really they're like a side-step from Massdrop's model, or at least how Massdrop started.

[exitfire401]

One of the 'risk bottlenecks' seems to be a singular reliance on the GB leader for information. Requiring a second leader as a check-and-balance seems like a good idea. There should be a reasonable indication that the second person is not working in the interest of the GB leader.

Can you explain how this would work in practice?  Isn't the second individual still relying on the first to provide them with updates?  What happens when the first leader goes dark - how do they provide anything more beneficial than saying "well, I don't know what's going on"?

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your suggestion.

My interpretation of the multiple buy runners assumes that both would have access to the vendor. It would obviously still limit who has access to the funds (unless somebody wanted to create a "group" paypal for that buy) but would help insure if something came up for one person Injury, sickness, family, etc.), there would either A) still be an open line of communication with the vendor and B) have somebody to hold accountable.

[ddot]

Personally I'd prefer if more people took a normal approach to selling goods: buy the keys/PCBs/etc. up front after an interest check and sell after.

At some point things cross over from being a group buy to being a vender.  I view them as 2 different models, with 2 different sets of pros and cons and probably should have 2 different sets of rules to govern. Nothing wrong with preferring or supporting that approach, but I do think the "traditional" group buy has its advantages. The question is how to keep those advantages while minimizing the possible downsides.

[exitfire401]

Personally I'd prefer if more people took a normal approach to selling goods: buy the keys/PCBs/etc. up front after an interest check and sell after.

At some point things cross over from being a group buy to being a vender.  I view them as 2 different models, with 2 different sets of pros and cons and probably should have 2 different sets of rules to govern. Nothing wrong with preferring or supporting that approach, but I do think the "traditional" group buy has its advantages. The question is how to keep those advantages while minimizing the possible downsides.

Agreed. Not everybody has a couple thousand dollars lying around to have something manufactured. Group buys are essentially what make 90% of the things we have here feasible.

[HoffmanMyster]

One of the 'risk bottlenecks' seems to be a singular reliance on the GB leader for information. Requiring a second leader as a check-and-balance seems like a good idea. There should be a reasonable indication that the second person is not working in the interest of the GB leader.

Can you explain how this would work in practice?  Isn't the second individual still relying on the first to provide them with updates?  What happens when the first leader goes dark - how do they provide anything more beneficial than saying "well, I don't know what's going on"?

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your suggestion.

My interpretation of the multiple buy runners assumes that both would have access to the vendor. It would obviously still limit who has access to the funds (unless somebody wanted to create a "group" paypal for that buy) but would help insure if something came up for one person Injury, sickness, family, etc.), there would either A) still be an open line of communication with the vendor and B) have somebody to hold accountable.

That makes sense, thanks for explaining.

[Puddsy]

i didn't read the rest of the thread

also i lurk (and lurk only) on another account so forgive the seeming absence

more communication would be good, from both vendors and distributors (such as GMK and sig. plastics)

more accountability for vendors especially, don't want another MOZ on our hands

if **** is taking a while i want screenshots of emails, even with names blurred would be fine

some sort of verification before someone starts a GB that a final product will be delivered, no more of that korean PBT keycaps getting stolen bull****

none of that "it's coming just wait" bull****, i want clear updates even if they just say "we haven't heard from the distributor in x amount of time"

delete posts that provide information of the GB status that are not from people who are running it

no more of that buddy buddy **** in GBs. none of that "on skype they said..." **** because not everyone has been on this forum since it was spawned, and more importantly some of us are stupid and nobody likes us so we can't get those updates.

[HoffmanMyster]

also i lurk (and lurk only) on another account so forgive the seeming absence

...

You know the rules.

There is no functional reason for you to create another account.

[CPTBadAss]

more communication would be good, from both vendors and distributors (such as GMK and sig. plastics). if **** is taking a while i want screenshots of emails, even with names blurred would be fine. some sort of verification before someone starts a GB that a final product will be delivered, no more of that korean PBT keycaps getting stolen bull****. none of that "it's coming just wait" bull****, i want clear updates even if they just say "we haven't heard from the distributor in x amount of time"

delete posts that provide information of the GB status that are not from people who are running it. no more of that buddy buddy **** in GBs. none of that "on skype they said..." ****

I agree with this. If you're running a GB for say keycaps, it would be nice to see an email saying you submitted the order. A blurred out invoice, something that is a little more official than "pls wait".

Definitely no more backseat updates. Updates straight from the organizer(s) and not their friends or rumors someone heard.

Anyways, we choose who we allow to run group buys.  We need to be a little more discerning and not believe everything we hear.  Cell phone pictures are easy to take and upload.  Organizers unwilling to provide these assurances shouldn't be trusted.  PULL YOUR MONEY.

i agree; the lax and trusting attitude of the community required of niche hobbyists of any kind is often too lax and trusting, allowing people handling their money to act rather carelessly. mandatory updates to a representative (above) would be even easier than logging into gh and posting a photo, and if they are unable to do it, the correspondent could.

This so much. I find people are far too trusting and never bother to do any research as to who's running the buy. And no one seems to speak out while the GB is running, only when things go bad. If you're unsure whether you should participate in a GB, find someone you trust on the forum and ask them if they'd join the buy. Maybe you can live without the thing right now and have it pop up in the classifieds where you've got a little more trust.

Get a bad feeling about your money 2 months into the buy? ****ing pull it. Don't let sheep mentality affect how you act.


I think GBs are in serious need of a shake up. I don't participate in many anymore because I don't trust more GB runners. Ivan ****ed me over during the Cherry stabilizer buy (never shipped my order) and it sucked because he was one of the last runners I thought I could rely on. CTRL ALT has a systemic problem with shipping late and lack of updates until you call them out; and so many ****ing excuses. So even the people who seem reliable may not be.

I generally wait until the item I want shows up in the classifieds so I know I've got a quicker turnaround and better help from PayPal. Or I only buy from the short list of trusted GB runners I have left.

Some ideas for making me trust GBs again:
1) The previously mentioned tag team idea is great. I also like the proof of submitted work idea. Constant updates are good as well as limiting the number of GBs a person/team can run at once.

2) I think that the screening process should be MORE intense. Time on GH and postcount both have flaws. Let's create a Google Form and setup a registry of GB runners WITH THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION. The mods can then step in and call/text them if things aren't going well. And the Form can help screen for things such as financial stability, age, etc.

3) A long shot would be having a third party hold the money until the buy is "certified" and the money can be released. I don't think we have such a reliable 3rd party though.

4) IF YOU HAVE ****ED UP A GB IN THE PAST, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RUN ONE AGAIN. So going with my example before, Ivan should be banned. And I don't think Moz should be running them either...through MD or otherwise.

5) Pausing GBs altogether and letting the hype die down around them. Maybe we need to step back as a community and re-evaluate whether or not this is Geekhack or BestBuy.com. A pause would help everyone kinda sit back and think about that. Is this a place to blindly throw money at the screen or to come together about customizing keyboards and meeting like minded people?

[HoffmanMyster]

4) IF YOU HAVE ****ED UP A GB IN THE PAST, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RUN ONE AGAIN. So going with my example before, Ivan should be banned. And I don't think Moz should be running them either...through MD or otherwise.

I've commented on this a lot.  Such a list exists, and both names you mention are on it. 

Good points though.

[CPTBadAss]

4) IF YOU HAVE ****ED UP A GB IN THE PAST, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RUN ONE AGAIN. So going with my example before, Ivan should be banned. And I don't think Moz should be running them either...through MD or otherwise.

I've commented on this a lot.  Such a list exists, and both names you mention are on it. 

But Moz still has this thread up. If he's on the list, that thread shouldn't be up IMO.

[HoffmanMyster]

4) IF YOU HAVE ****ED UP A GB IN THE PAST, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RUN ONE AGAIN. So going with my example before, Ivan should be banned. And I don't think Moz should be running them either...through MD or otherwise.

I've commented on this a lot.  Such a list exists, and both names you mention are on it. 

But Moz still has this thread up. If he's on the list, that thread shouldn't be up IMO.

So it's not about risk mitigation, but rather about punishing him?  Those are all running through Massdrop...  I fail to see how the fact that he came up with the design is of relevance here.

[CPTBadAss]

If we're going with the either risk mitigation or punishment, why not both. Yes, I think the team should punish this kinda stuff. It looks like you can drop your end on GBs, do something with the money, disappear, then come back and continue advertising GBs on GH with no issue. Sure it's running through Massdrop so it's hopefully much safer but that doesn't mean that the team should continue legitimizing his actions associated with GBs. Of course you can't stop MD's actions but you can at least block the thread. Maybe punishing actions will steer GB running in a more positive direction.

[ideus]

The thread should change the focus from the group buy leaders to the group buyers, GH rules should enforce safety measures to avoid potential buyers risks, from this perspective, the thread and feedback is no more about punishment, it is about protection measures, and safe buys.

Again, everything that prevents current or future members to run with a bunch of others' money will be in the best interest of GH members, and that should be the focus of the thread, if someone that already scammed GH, the important thing is that he/she cannot do that again, with the same or any other identity.

[digi]

This so much. I find people are far too trusting and never bother to do any research as to who's running the buy. And no one seems to speak out while the GB is running, only when things go bad. If you're unsure whether you should participate in a GB, find someone you trust on the forum and ask them if they'd join the buy. Maybe you can live without the thing right now and have it pop up in the classifieds where you've got a little more trust.

Get a bad feeling about your money 2 months into the buy? ****ing pull it. Don't let sheep mentality affect how you act.


I think GBs are in serious need of a shake up. I don't participate in many anymore because I don't trust more GB runners. Ivan ****ed me over during the Cherry stabilizer buy (never shipped my order) and it sucked because he was one of the last runners I thought I could rely on. CTRL ALT has a systemic problem with shipping late and lack of updates until you call them out; and so many ****ing excuses. So even the people who seem reliable may not be.

I generally wait until the item I want shows up in the classifieds so I know I've got a quicker turnaround and better help from PayPal. Or I only buy from the short list of trusted GB runners I have left.

Some ideas for making me trust GBs again:
1) The previously mentioned tag team idea is great. I also like the proof of submitted work idea. Constant updates are good as well as limiting the number of GBs a person/team can run at once.

2) I think that the screening process should be MORE intense. Time on GH and postcount both have flaws. Let's create a Google Form and setup a registry of GB runners WITH THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION. The mods can then step in and call/text them if things aren't going well. And the Form can help screen for things such as financial stability, age, etc.

3) A long shot would be having a third party hold the money until the buy is "certified" and the money can be released. I don't think we have such a reliable 3rd party though.

4) IF YOU HAVE ****ED UP A GB IN THE PAST, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RUN ONE AGAIN. So going with my example before, Ivan should be banned. And I don't think Moz should be running them either...through MD or otherwise.

5) Pausing GBs altogether and letting the hype die down around them. Maybe we need to step back as a community and re-evaluate whether or not this is Geekhack or BestBuy.com. A pause would help everyone kinda sit back and think about that. Is this a place to blindly throw money at the screen or to come together about customizing keyboards and meeting like minded people?

Capt knows what's up!

[demik]

Welcome back digi. We missed you. Maybe not bunny, but I did.

[digi]

Welcome back digi. We missed you. Maybe not bunny, but I did.

<3 one love brutha! I got a Model F while I was muted, life is good.

[jdcarpe]

* Throughout my response I will use the generic 'you,' not addressing CPTBadAss directly.

Maybe you can live without the thing right now and have it pop up in the classifieds where you've got a little more trust.

The problem with this type of thinking, as you know, is this: if fewer people place orders in the group buy, the cost will be higher for everyone, OR the MOQ might not be met to make the buy possible at all. Sure, it's ultimately your own decision as to whether or not to participate in a group buy, and you should ALWAYS research the leader/organizer and decide whether or not that person has built up trust within the community. But having a blanket policy not to participate in group buys because you can always wait and pick up the item in Classifeds isn't the right attitude, either. I guess it all depends on the level of trust you place in the leader/organizer. Some people choose to build trust in the community by participating in it; while others are just out to make a quick buck, or get something made that they personally want, but don't have the money to fund themselves.

Get a bad feeling about your money 2 months into the buy? ****ing pull it. Don't let sheep mentality affect how you act.

Again, we need to clarify this 'bad feeling.' Should you pull your money (request a refund or file a PayPal dispute) because of buyer's remorse, or because you have a personal financial crisis after the fact? ABSOLUTELY NOT. You agreed to participate, and paid into the buy, and your funds are being used to have the items fabricated or produced. The leader/organizer most likely doesn't have your funds to send you a refund, because they already paid the manufacturer to have them make the item you ordered.

Should you initiate a dispute because the leader/organizer hasn't responded to repeated requests to post a status update, or because they refuse to contact you after multiple attempts have been made to establish contact? OF COURSE! There is no excuse for this type of behavior from a GB leader, and it shouldn't be tolerated. If things get this far, there is definitely a problem.

[evangs]

* Throughout my response I will use the generic 'you,' not addressing CPTBadAss directly.

Maybe you can live without the thing right now and have it pop up in the classifieds where you've got a little more trust.

The problem with this type of thinking, as you know, is this: if fewer people place orders in the group buy, the cost will be higher for everyone, OR the MOQ might not be met to make the buy possible at all. Sure, it's ultimately your own decision as to whether or not to participate in a group buy, and you should ALWAYS research the leader/organizer and decide whether or not that person has built up trust within the community. But having a blanket policy not to participate in group buys because you can always wait and pick up the item in Classifeds isn't the right attitude, either. I guess it all depends on the level of trust you place in the leader/organizer. Some people choose to build trust in the community by participating in it; while others are just out to make a quick buck, or get something made that they personally want, but don't have the money to fund themselves.

Get a bad feeling about your money 2 months into the buy? ****ing pull it. Don't let sheep mentality affect how you act.

Again, we need to clarify this 'bad feeling.' Should you pull your money (request a refund or file a PayPal dispute) because of buyer's remorse, or because you have a personal financial crisis after the fact? ABSOLUTELY NOT. You agreed to participate, and paid into the buy, and your funds are being used to have the items fabricated or produced. The leader/organizer most likely doesn't have your funds to send you a refund, because they already paid the manufacturer to have them make the item you ordered.

Should you initiate a dispute because the leader/organizer hasn't responded to repeated requests to post a status update, or because they refuse to contact you after multiple attempts have been made to establish contact? OF COURSE! There is no excuse for this type of behavior from a GB leader, and it shouldn't be tolerated. If things get this far, there is definitely a problem.

Spot on

[begemotz]

One of the 'risk bottlenecks' seems to be a singular reliance on the GB leader for information. Requiring a second leader as a check-and-balance seems like a good idea. There should be a reasonable indication that the second person is not working in the interest of the GB leader.

Can you explain how this would work in practice?  Isn't the second individual still relying on the first to provide them with updates?  What happens when the first leader goes dark - how do they provide anything more beneficial than saying "well, I don't know what's going on"?

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your suggestion.

I was thinking specifically about the stages in the GB that could be verified - for instance, independent verification that 1) the GBL/manufacturer relationship exists (quote/order phase) 2) that the manufacturer has received payment (pre-production/production phase) 3) that the manufacturer has sent the product to the GBL (pre-shipping phase). All this information would come directly from the manufacturer rather than the GBL. And, especially in the earlier stages, minimizes risk for the buyer because the warning signs would allow them to dispute the charge within the protection window. I also think that there is less risk as the GB proceeds- its more likely that a GBL takes the money and doesn't send it along to the manufacturer than it is that the GBL receives the shipment and then doesn't ship things out. Even if not more likely, in the latter case, it is more easily salvaged (e.g. someone else offers to take the bulk shipment and then doing the individual shipping) whereas in the former, that money would probably be long gone.

To your point though -- maybe it is also the case that the secondary person has enough personal information about the GBL so that they can contact them IRL. There probably be some transparency about who the GBL is -- even if it is information only held by the second person.

[HoffmanMyster]

One of the 'risk bottlenecks' seems to be a singular reliance on the GB leader for information. Requiring a second leader as a check-and-balance seems like a good idea. There should be a reasonable indication that the second person is not working in the interest of the GB leader.

Can you explain how this would work in practice?  Isn't the second individual still relying on the first to provide them with updates?  What happens when the first leader goes dark - how do they provide anything more beneficial than saying "well, I don't know what's going on"?

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your suggestion.

I was thinking specifically about the stages in the GB that could be verified - for instance, independent verification that 1) the GBL/manufacturer relationship exists (quote/order phase) 2) that the manufacturer has received payment (pre-production/production phase) 3) that the manufacturer has sent the product to the GBL (pre-shipping phase). All this information would come directly from the manufacturer rather than the GBL. And, especially in the earlier stages, minimizes risk for the buyer because the warning signs would allow them to dispute the charge within the protection window. I also think that there is less risk as the GB proceeds- its more likely that a GBL takes the money and doesn't send it along to the manufacturer than it is that the GBL receives the shipment and then doesn't ship things out. Even if not more likely, in the latter case, it is more easily salvaged (e.g. someone else offers to take the bulk shipment and then doing the individual shipping) whereas in the former, that money would probably be long gone.

To your point though -- maybe it is also the case that the secondary person has enough personal information about the GBL so that they can contact them IRL. There probably be some transparency about who the GBL is -- even if it is information only held by the second person.

Ahh, great point.  In the past it has always been standard that only one person is in communication with the manufacturer, but if it was a joint communication/purchase from the get-go we'd have a backup line of communication.  (I know I'm just restating what you said xD but to me that point specifically is the big winner)  That would be a really great thing to implement, IMO.

[demik]

Get a bad feeling about your money 2 months into the buy? ****ing pull it. Don't let sheep mentality affect how you act.

been saying this since clackvent went sour. and it's extremely selfish of people to tell others otherwise.

[ddot]

Get a bad feeling about your money 2 months into the buy? ****ing pull it. Don't let sheep mentality affect how you act.

been saying this since clackvent went sour. and it's extremely selfish of people to tell others otherwise.

It's also extremely selfish to be pulling committed money from a legitimate group buy just because you have a funny feeling.  You have to make sure that funny feeling is justified and not just indigestion.

[billnye]

I think most of the stuff that has been proposed in the OP is very reasonable.

When running my group buys I just tried to post an update at least once a week, even if it wasn't much, just to let everyone know what was going on. Communicating is the best way to keep everyone happy.

Having some sort of accountability system in place is a good idea, but I think it is also important to not make it too convoluted and force the group buy leader to jump through a lot of hoops to get stuff done. It is hard enough running a group buy as it is and if it becomes a bureaucratic nightmare it would deter more people.

The transition to vendors running more group buys is something I saw as inevitable. As the community continues to grow, it loses some of the personal connection between users and small community projects like group buys turn into business ventures by companies looking to make a profit, such as Massdrop. I don't think this is an entirely bad thing, but it certainly is a change. I would be pretty surprised if any individual group buys for keysets run by users not associated with a vendor/business like ctrl alt or massdrop are able to succeed after this. I hope I am wrong, but it seems doubtful.

[vivalarevolución]

Before I go on my rant, I just want to preface it by saying that I mostly agree with what flabbergast has to say here.  Geekhack is run by volunteers and any type of enforcement always will be sporadic.

This is a forum. I do not think the mods should be involved any more than they are now; i.e. I do not like any of the "mods should keep insurance policy", etc... This would make GBs look more legitimate (than they really are), and would even more fuel the impression that "it's run on GH so GH should do something about this". Again, I thought this is a forum, not a new MassDrop.

I personally do not really agree with any kind of hard requirements. I would suggest that in every GB thread the second post would be the CAVEAT EMPTOR, which would explicitly state that *the expectation* is that these requirements should be followed by the GB leader, explain what options do participants have (paypal chargeback within 180 days) {and maybe a few links to the failed buys. It's hard to find these for the newcomers, speaking from experience.}

It should also say in big red letters that the GB participants are basically giving money to a private person (the GB leader), based only on what they read on an internet forum, and so that they should think long and hard about trust and risk.

If the GB leader has good reasons not to follow some/any of these *expectations* and manages to convince enough people even despite these warnings, then good for her/him.

EDIT: BTW, the caveat emptor should be even more emphasised for the GB that are linked from here which may look more "legitimate" than GBs run from here, e.g. Ellipses's GB. Just that fact that he's got a website and a checkout system there does not mean that it's any different from a GB on GH; it's still giving money to a private person on a promise. {I am participating in these things, I trust Ellipse ATM, but I do understand the risk.}

This whole discussion reminds me of government regulation.  We have a problem, so we create more rules and requirements to attempt prevent the problem in the future.  However, in our attempts to solve the problem, we create so much burden that we may discourage group buys from every happening.  As I read all the suggestions here, I am formulating ways in which I still can scam people.  The rules will be in place, but people can still get around them.

I mentioned this in one of the other threads, and I know there has been discussion of some sort of
S-corporation, and I think that Geekhack's best long-term solution is some sort of legal entity that can be held accountable for not delivering the product as promised.  Every group buy organizer must use this legal entity to process payments from buyers and submit payments to manufacturers.  The legal entity also would hold excess group buy money from the organizer until the group buy is completed.  In the case that the group buys fails (which some will, without a doubt), the entity returns the money to the buyers.  I guess that would almost make Geekhack a company that is paying independent contractors for their work.

I'm not sure how this entity would deal with all the little expenses involved in a group buy, like shipping, packaging materials, payments for multiple small items.  Like having to contact a board directors to buy a shipping label sounds like a terrible situation.

In general, the entity would not allow the group buy organizer to collect any extra payment until the group buy is completed and customers are happy. 

This solution, however, is not easy.  It will require time, knowledge, investment, administrative work, upkeep costs, and potentially taxes and fees.  It may even need a small board of directors to oversee the whole operation.  And the more I write about what this idea entails, the more I realize how ridiculous it is to actually implement for hobby community.

In the long run, though, I feel that Geekhack needs a legal entity (besides Paypal) to run group buys that keep organizers accountable and makes buyers feel safe about where they are putting $$$.  How much money is transferred each year as a result of keyboard group buys?  Does it balloon into the millions?  More rules and requirements sound like the solution and, in theory, and may work in the short term, but I don't have faith in their efficacy in the long term.

A group buy organizer would then have a choice.  Run the group buy through the legal entity, or the traditional way without the protection of a legal entity.  Buyers decide upon the success.  For small group buys with only a few dozen buyers at most, the legal entity seems like too much of a hassle.

In my opinion, the time of trusting individuals to complete group buys to their fruition is over.  This hobby is too big, with too much money, with too much potential for easy profit and scams, that we cannot rely on trust and following a few rules alone as the surety for running and completing a group buy.

[Puddsy]

also i lurk (and lurk only) on another account so forgive the seeming absence

...

You know the rules.

There is no functional reason for you to create another account.

the only functional reason is to **** up the "last online" date

which is all that i'm doing

i like to think it gets me more PMs

[njbair]

also i lurk (and lurk only) on another account so forgive the seeming absence

...

You know the rules.

There is no functional reason for you to create another account.

the only functional reason is to **** up the "last online" date

which is all that i'm doing

i like to think it gets me more PMs

Then why do you need an account? Just log out.

[Puddsy]

also i lurk (and lurk only) on another account so forgive the seeming absence

...

You know the rules.

There is no functional reason for you to create another account.

the only functional reason is to **** up the "last online" date

which is all that i'm doing

i like to think it gets me more PMs

Then why do you need an account? Just log out.

it's more fun this way

[HoffmanMyster]

also i lurk (and lurk only) on another account so forgive the seeming absence

...

You know the rules.

There is no functional reason for you to create another account.

the only functional reason is to **** up the "last online" date

which is all that i'm doing

i like to think it gets me more PMs

Then why do you need an account? Just log out.

it's more fun this way

Breaking the rules is super fun.