Feedback on Site Run Group Buys

[livingspeedbump]

I know there is this Vendor/User Feedback Thread, but that wasn't as specific of a thread as I'd like, and was also having ideas for classifieds and stuff being tossed around. I would recommend checking that thread out first though!


With all of the drama regarding group buys as of late, I thought it was a good time to start a thread for feedback specifically for how group buys can be run via site members. Please feel free to specify if a suggestion is for all users, just people with sub forums, etc. I think coming up with a revised way group buys are run in some fashion would be good for the site and for the users joining these buys.

[livingspeedbump]

I personally feel like over-moderation generally isn't a good thing, but do think some new rules should be made. I do think that at this point limiting the number of group buys a person/group can run is nothing but beneficial. (I'd love to hear opinions on why people running multiple buys at once is a good idea). Personally I think running 1 at a time is a good limit. This not only ensures that buys are actually being completed before new ones are started, and encourages the leaders to see the buys through to 100% completion, but it also ensures the funds from that buy are indeed going to that buy and not having new buys running to provide funds for past buys and creating a never ending cycle.

[DanielT]

This is something good.
I think the first rule would be only one GB at a time and the organizer ahould not be allowed to start a new one untill the other GB is completed together with shipping and eventual issues solved.
If the organizer is a minor there should be an adult also involved.
The payment to the vendor should be done within the PayPal dispute period and proof of payment should be presented and something solid not just words.
Updates must be made on regular basis, we have trusted people and that lead to nothing good

[FLFisherman]

I think we should follow in /r/MechanicalKeyboards footsteps and post a very visible PSA regarding group buys on every new GB thread. As trustworthy as some people may be, **** happens. You aren't buying from a business that has a reputation to protect or obligations to meet. You are literally giving your money to someone who is then entrusted to make an order for you, and everyone else in the group buy, and follow up with updates and delivery. No matter what rules you implement, no matter how much you vet everyone, something can always go wrong. It is up to the participants in the GB to be fully aware of this and realize that there is a very real possibility of failure (followed by a refund), or, in a worst-case-scenario, being scammed.

I know you all hate Ripster, but he posts this PSA in nearly every group buy post that goes up in /r/MechanicalKeyboards, and while almost all group buys go smoothly, there is a chance that some won't.

[livingspeedbump]

This is something good.
I think the first rule would be only one GB at a time and the organizer ahould not be allowed to start a new one untill the other GB is completed together with shipping and eventual issues solved.
If the organizer is a minor there should be an adult also involved.
The payment to the vendor should be done within the PayPal dispute period and proof of payment should be presented and something solid not just words.
Updates must be made on regular basis, we have trusted people and that lead to nothing good

Yeah, I think at this point everyone should be treated the same, regardless of past history/buys. It shouldnt be seen as a personal hit, just really monitoring things better when there is so many peoples money involved. These rules would really be to protect both the leaders and the buyers.

[byker]

I think we should follow in /r/MechanicalKeyboards footsteps and post a very visible PSA regarding group buys on every new GB thread. As trustworthy as some people may be, **** happens. You aren't buying from a business that has a reputation to protect or obligations to meet. You are literally giving your money to someone who is then entrusted to make an order for you, and everyone else in the group buy, and follow up with updates and delivery. No matter what rules you implement, no matter how much you vet everyone, something can always go wrong. It is up to the participants in the GB to be fully aware of this and realize that there is a very real possibility of failure (followed by a refund), or, in a worst-case-scenario, being scammed.

I know you all hate Ripster, but he posts this PSA in nearly every group buy post that goes up in /r/MechanicalKeyboards, and while almost all group buys go smoothly, there is a chance that some won't.

We have had that stickied in the group buy subforum since before ripster started posting it in every thread. Are you suggesting we should post it in every group buy as well? I think that is a little excessive as everyone knows the risks going into a group buy (I think).

[FLFisherman]

I think we should follow in /r/MechanicalKeyboards footsteps and post a very visible PSA regarding group buys on every new GB thread. As trustworthy as some people may be, **** happens. You aren't buying from a business that has a reputation to protect or obligations to meet. You are literally giving your money to someone who is then entrusted to make an order for you, and everyone else in the group buy, and follow up with updates and delivery. No matter what rules you implement, no matter how much you vet everyone, something can always go wrong. It is up to the participants in the GB to be fully aware of this and realize that there is a very real possibility of failure (followed by a refund), or, in a worst-case-scenario, being scammed.

I know you all hate Ripster, but he posts this PSA in nearly every group buy post that goes up in /r/MechanicalKeyboards, and while almost all group buys go smoothly, there is a chance that some won't.

We have had that stickied in the group buy subforum since before ripster started posting it in every thread. Are you suggesting we should post it in every group buy as well? I think that is a little excessive as everyone knows the risks going into a group buy (I think).

It never hurts to be redundant. Surprisingly some people don't know the risks (very recently somebody tried to bail out of a GB because of this). 

Whenever I express disbelief at something people do, my dad says "think about someone of average intelligence, then remember that half of them are dumber than that." It's extremely condescending, but true. Not only that, I am sure that there are people who don't go about reading all the information in the stickies, and I bet that even if you were to post the PSA in every thread, there would be those who still skip it and complain later.

[livingspeedbump]

Yeah I think that the stickied PSA is enough. People should be responsible enough to do their own research before joining a buy. It is pretty obvious that there are risks involved i think.

We have had that stickied in the group buy subforum since before ripster started posting it in every thread. Are you suggesting we should post it in every group buy as well? I think that is a little excessive as everyone knows the risks going into a group buy (I think).

[FLFisherman]

Yeah I think that the stickied PSA is enough. People should be responsible enough to do their own research before joining a buy. It is pretty obvious that there are risks involved i think.

We have had that stickied in the group buy subforum since before ripster started posting it in every thread. Are you suggesting we should post it in every group buy as well? I think that is a little excessive as everyone knows the risks going into a group buy (I think).

People should be responsible enough to do their own research before joining a buy, and group buy leaders should be responsible enough to follow through with their buys. Unfortunately, things work out a little differently than they should.

I really can't think of what can be done to improve the group buy experience besides raising awareness of possible complications and the inherent risks involved. One of the most trusted leaders is in hot water right now, so what's to say something similar won't happen with another trustworthy individual? Limiting the number of concurrent buys a leader can run would mitigate the amount lost should this happen again, but there's no real way to prevent it, unfortunately.

Another possible requirement is to have a minimum of two leaders for each GB. One will be the regular leader who runs the whole thing, and the other will only be contacted in case of an emergency, and will be responsible for taking over the buy or forcing the main leader into action. This is a very general idea.

[SpAmRaY]

What would happen if a group buy runner say got put in prison for say tax evasion? Or robbery, or anything else.

Or if a group buy leader got very ill or become so sick they literally couldn't respond? Or it was use group buy funds to pay bills/rent/food or be homeless due to a medical emergency?

And this is out there but what if someone did die (I'm not trying to be funny this isn't anything to joke about) and someone stole there identity?

Not saying any of this has happened just some question that come to mind since everything seems to be hitting the fan lately.

[FLFisherman]

What would happen if a group buy runner say got put in prison for say tax evasion? Or robbery, or anything else.

Or if a group buy leader got very ill or become so sick they literally couldn't respond? Or it was use group buy funds to pay bills/rent/food or be homeless due to a medical emergency?

And this is out there but what if someone did die (I'm not trying to be funny this isn't anything to joke about) and someone stole there identity?

Not saying any of this has happened just some question that come to mind since everything seems to be hitting the fan lately.

Exactly. I think there are times where a group buy may fail for reasons well beyond anyone's control. It is up to the participants of the buy to be aware of this and recognize that they may have to just write off the amount they invested. It really sucks, but there is only so much you can do. '

Another extreme example is "what if something happens on the production end?" For example, a factory burns down or the production company goes under and can't/won't refund the group buy leader. Now the leader is screwed because he sure as hell can't pay back the participants. What would happen there? Again, very extreme examples.

[ddot]

Would it be reasonable to have the group buy leader be required to update the first post with a status update at a minimum of say every 2 weeks?  Even if there's nothing new to report, they could still check in with something like: "Status update for <insert current date>.  Keycaps are still in production at the factory.  Estimated production completion is still on track for <insert whatever the future date is>."  Then edit the post 2 weeks later and update the information, even if that's just changing the current date.

Many of the group buys have participant asking for a status update and the usual group mentality is to jump all over them and accuse them of being unreasonable and not for realizing that group buys take time.  But generally I think that people aren't asking for miracles, they just want a status update.  An update could simply be restating the same information that was first provided weeks or months ago.  But at least it's an update!!  And rather that it being buried on post 547 or whatever, keep it confined to the first post (or maybe the 2nd post that was kept in reserve just for that).

I think this attitude of acceptance of long silences from the leader has to go.   Yes some group buys can legitimately take months or a year+ to complete, even if everything goes as planned.  And some of those steps can take weeks or months as they're stuck in the queue at the factory or whatever.  But that still doesn't excuse the lack of updates and communication.  If you can't check in every so often, don't run a group buy and hold on to copious amounts of other people's money.

To go along with what was said above, we need to be reasonable with extenuating circumstances.  Things happen.  Part of the attraction to the community group buys is they're typically cheaper as they're run with the intention of no profit and low overhead.  But keep in mind that what those extra costs go towards with a real company.  Things like multiple support representatives that can step in if something happens to a single individual or a contingency fund to help cover unexpected problems.  With a community group buy, you typically don't have that safety net.  It's kind of like not taking out fire insurance on your house/car.  For most people, they'll end up saving a bit of cash.  But somewhere in there there'll be an unlucky one that gets burnt.  Nothing wrong with playing the odds on that, but you need to understand what you're getting into.

[livingspeedbump]

Would it be reasonable to have the group buy leader be required to update the first post with a status update at a minimum of say every 2 weeks?  Even if there's nothing new to report, they could still check in with something like: "Status update for <insert current date>.  Keycaps are still in production at the factory.  Estimated production completion is still on track for <insert whatever the future date is>."  Then edit the post 2 weeks later and update the information, even if that's just changing the current date.

Ah this is a good point. At a very minimum I think requiring updates at a set/reasonable interval is pretty basic to maintain good standings as a GB leader. There is really no reason not to do an update every 2-3 weeks. It is a single post, and any GB leader is more than likey pretty active to begin with on here

[LeandreN]

Thanks for setting this thread up LSB.

Frequent updates is the most important in my opinion, and that the GB leader is there to answer questions as often as possible.

[byker]

I am not sure what adding a status update would help with though. Sure it would cut down on the people asking for updates, but all the group buys that go south are usually due to the leaders running with the money, or no longer logging into geekhack. For example, what if Ivan had done biweekly updates, and then it eventually still came out that he had made those up? Then we would be in the same place we are now.

[dgneo]

Would it be reasonable to have the group buy leader be required to update the first post with a status update at a minimum of say every 2 weeks?  Even if there's nothing new to report, they could still check in with something like: "Status update for <insert current date>.  Keycaps are still in production at the factory.  Estimated production completion is still on track for <insert whatever the future date is>."  Then edit the post 2 weeks later and update the information, even if that's just changing the current date.

Ah this is a good point. At a very minimum I think requiring updates at a set/reasonable interval is pretty basic to maintain good standings as a GB leader. There is really no reason not to do an update every 2-3 weeks. It is a single post, and any GB leader is more than likey pretty active to begin with on here

Second this, updates of that frequency are a must IMO.

Especially with technology the way it is today, everyone has instant communication available in the palm of their hand, thus the thinking tends to flow over to other areas (It's been x amount of days since I've heard from y, hope everything is okay type of deal).

[dgneo]

I am not sure what adding a status update would help with though. Sure it would cut down on the people asking for updates, but all the group buys that go south are usually due to the leaders running with the money, or no longer logging into geekhack. For example, what if Ivan had done biweekly updates, and then it eventually still came out that he had made those up? Then we would be in the same place we are now.

This is very true, but at least it gives you a piece of mind that the organizer isn't trying to run away with your $$$.

There's got to be a better way to handle the money side of things that doesn't involve running the GB through MassDrop.

I wonder if Square can offer anything better than PayPal can regarding a group or GH account. Something that someone with a solid reputation can manage/keep an eye on. Makes more sense to not have all your eggs in one basket in the event something DOES go belly up.

[livingspeedbump]

I am not sure what adding a status update would help with though. Sure it would cut down on the people asking for updates, but all the group buys that go south are usually due to the leaders running with the money, or no longer logging into geekhack. For example, what if Ivan had done biweekly updates, and then it eventually still came out that he had made those up? Then we would be in the same place we are now.

This is very true, but at least it gives you a piece of mind that the organizer isn't trying to run away with your $$$.

There's got to be a better way to handle the money side of things that doesn't involve running the GB through MassDrop.

I wonder if Square can offer anything better than PayPal can regarding a group or GH account. Something that someone with a solid reputation can manage/keep an eye on. Makes more sense to not have all your eggs in one basket in the event something DOES go belly up.

I don't quite agree. I think a HUGE problem with many GB's, even some that get sketchy for a bit, then end up okay is a simple lack of communication. Having someone that has $$$$$$ money from the community be required to simply communicate with them at a set interval in the very least would help that. There isn't a downside to making this a requirement that I can see.

If you want to start handling money better, communication is a good first step imo.

[livingspeedbump]

I am not sure what adding a status update would help with though. Sure it would cut down on the people asking for updates, but all the group buys that go south are usually due to the leaders running with the money, or no longer logging into geekhack. For example, what if Ivan had done biweekly updates, and then it eventually still came out that he had made those up? Then we would be in the same place we are now.

Yeah, you can't prevent everything. End of the day there is NO guarantee that a buy will happen, regardless of what rules are in place. But leaders going dark can also cause its fair share of problems. A simple rule like that would only benefit the GB leader (so people don't assume something is wrong if they don't respond for a bit, helping them receive less generic "whats up with the buy?" email) and the buyers, hopefully giving them honest updates on status of the money/products/schedule.

Yeah, sure a leader can lie. But this will also help them get caught in the act the first time around hopefully and not let a problem leader continue on having buys. Plus if this was implemented in conjuction with the "1 buy at a time rule" the fallout would be kept to a minimum.

Again, you cant prevent things from happening, but more preventative damage control can be done I think

[dgneo]

I am not sure what adding a status update would help with though. Sure it would cut down on the people asking for updates, but all the group buys that go south are usually due to the leaders running with the money, or no longer logging into geekhack. For example, what if Ivan had done biweekly updates, and then it eventually still came out that he had made those up? Then we would be in the same place we are now.

This is very true, but at least it gives you a piece of mind that the organizer isn't trying to run away with your $$$.

There's got to be a better way to handle the money side of things that doesn't involve running the GB through MassDrop.

I wonder if Square can offer anything better than PayPal can regarding a group or GH account. Something that someone with a solid reputation can manage/keep an eye on. Makes more sense to not have all your eggs in one basket in the event something DOES go belly up.

I don't quite agree. I think a HUGE problem with many GB's, even some that get sketchy for a bit, then end up okay is a simple lack of communication. Having someone that has $$$$$$ money from the community be required to simply communicate with them at a set interval in the very least would help that. There isn't a downside to making this a requirement that I can see.

If you want to start handling money better, communication is a good first step imo.

Not sure what part of my post you were disagreeing with, but I absolutely agree with everything you said

[livingspeedbump]

I am not sure what adding a status update would help with though. Sure it would cut down on the people asking for updates, but all the group buys that go south are usually due to the leaders running with the money, or no longer logging into geekhack. For example, what if Ivan had done biweekly updates, and then it eventually still came out that he had made those up? Then we would be in the same place we are now.

This is very true, but at least it gives you a piece of mind that the organizer isn't trying to run away with your $$$.

There's got to be a better way to handle the money side of things that doesn't involve running the GB through MassDrop.

I wonder if Square can offer anything better than PayPal can regarding a group or GH account. Something that someone with a solid reputation can manage/keep an eye on. Makes more sense to not have all your eggs in one basket in the event something DOES go belly up.

I don't quite agree. I think a HUGE problem with many GB's, even some that get sketchy for a bit, then end up okay is a simple lack of communication. Having someone that has $$$$$$ money from the community be required to simply communicate with them at a set interval in the very least would help that. There isn't a downside to making this a requirement that I can see.

If you want to start handling money better, communication is a good first step imo.

Not sure what part of my post you were disagreeing with, but I absolutely agree with everything you said

Ah sorry was responding to byker again 

[byker]

Fair enough. I guess I am trying to think of ways to better address the issue of leaders running with the money. I do agree that more communication is nice, my point was that it doesn't stop someone running with the money.

Any ideas that are brought up here, I will bring up with the modteam

[ddot]

I am not sure what adding a status update would help with though. Sure it would cut down on the people asking for updates, but all the group buys that go south are usually due to the leaders running with the money, or no longer logging into geekhack. For example, what if Ivan had done biweekly updates, and then it eventually still came out that he had made those up? Then we would be in the same place we are now.

I don't think we could ever stop a concerted effort by someone to defraud.  My guess is most of the group buys that have gone south started with good intentions.  Then life circumstances changed, maybe they decided to bend the rules a little but intended to fix things in the end and then somehow they just give up trying to fulfil their obligations.  The problem is while things are slowly going south for them over a period of weeks or months, the participants are left in the dark as to the status. Most just stay silent, a few members hesitantly raise some doubts and a few others angrily berate them for not being patient.  Then 6 months later, we all find out things started going south a long time ago and we all wonder how things could have gone on this long.

If we can keep lines of communication open better, maybe some of the issues can be caught far earlier in the process.  If the leader stops posting 2 months after the close of the buy, the community can start looking into things then, not months later when the chorus of those with doubts finally drowns out those who staunchly defend the leader through blind faith.  Sure it's possible that the leader could continue to deceive, but keeping them involved with the participants of the buy may help to keep their conscience in check.

On a slightly different note though, Geekhack is a community that exists because of its members.  Most of the group buys are a product of one member (or a small group) who feel they can get a unique product in the hands of fellow members of the community better than the average person can do on their own.  They unselfishly take on responsibility and volunteer their time to try and make the community a better place.  Here we are ready to lynch someone because things went south on them, they didn't fulfil their obligations and we didn't find out about it until months later.  My guess is most of us want the best for each other and given the opportunity would be willing to assist each other in a small way if we could.  If a long standing member who has a track record of contributing to the community is in a tough spot, as a community maybe we could have helped out months ago and found a more amicable solution for everyone.

[livingspeedbump]

Fair enough. I guess I am trying to think of ways to better address the issue of leaders running with the money. I do agree that more communication is nice, my point was that it doesn't stop someone running with the money.

Any ideas that are brought up here, I will bring up with the modteam

Yeah, I mean no idea should be taken without thinking of the pros/cons for sure 

I can see limiting the # of group buys being a much larger issue to really weigh in on, but as far as making a requirement for GB leaders to make an update every 2-3 weeks, I think the pros far outweigh any cons there may be.

I think these rules should especially apply to vendors and people with sub forums as they represent GH as an entity due to their "official" recognition much more than the average joe running a buy. Those guys basically will get much more trust from buyers due to that status, so making a few more rules for them to follow as well isn't a bad thing I don't think.

[ddot]

Any ideas that are brought up here, I will bring up with the modteam

Slightly off the topic at hand, but I'd also like to see a guideline requiring the group buy leader confirm the order back to the participant before payment.  For example, with the PBT Dark Second Wave order, you submitted a form for one of several options, but when the invoice came in, it just had a generic line item.  There was no way to confirm what the leader had actually received as an order.  When one person asked for clarification, the response was "I have the order sheet for that."  Assuming everything goes smoothly, that should be enough.  But things happen.  Maybe the participant accidentally clicked the wrong button in the form.  Maybe the leader's script messed up and recorded the wrong thing.  Who knows.  Again, communication is key.  Correcting a mistake at the time of order and before payment is way way way easier on everyone than someone complaining they got the wrong set when it's on their doorstep.

[mobbo]

Are there any Terms of Reference, or Terms and Conditions for current groupbuys?

To me there is currently a lot of freedom in how you want to run Groubuys, and each one operates under it's own set of rules, timelines, formats, etc.

As paternalistic as it seems, when you are entertaining this type of activity on your site, I think you need to draft some official terms, and future Groupbuy runners need to formally agree to them, so there is some level of accountability. Most people are good people trying to help everyone else - often out of there own pocket. Sometimes things happen for reasons we may never know. There are probably scammers out there too. It doesn't matter what the reason is. You need a consistent process that is reliable, that sets out expectations for runners and holds them accountable, and ultimately one that people believe in.

[livingspeedbump]

As paternalistic as it seems, when you are entertaining this type of activity on your site, I think you need to draft some official terms, and future Groupbuy runners need to formally agree to them, so there is some level of accountability.

I think this is especially important for Mods/people with sub forums because they represent the site even more. I mean a mod doing what Ivan did really just makes the site look kind of bad. Other people in the same group really aren't great about running efficient buys either. Some good ideas thus far were:

1. Require an update every 3 weeks minimum.
2. Allow no more than 1 buy to be run at a time, encouraging wise/correct use of community funds and getting buy leaders to 100% complete a project before getting tied up in another.
3. Some way to confirm the payment has gone to the manufacturer. This could even be the Leader giving the mods prof, and they can give an update.

[jdcarpe]

I understand where you guys are coming from, I do, but I think the way things are handled now on a case by case basis is still the best way to judge whether someone should be allowed to run a group buy on the site. Some of us are perfectly capable of stacking group buys to have some overlap between them. I mean me, obviously. But I have done enough group buys to know my limits. I've been here, have many, many interactions with people here, and I'm not going away. But you never can tell when someone will break bad, for sure. It's the risk we all take when we choose to participate in a group buy. My feeling is that any time I send someone money for a group buy, there is a 50-50 chance whether I will actually get the goods in return. I don't spend any money that I'm not comfortable losing if it happens to disappear. That doesn't mean I'm okay with it, but I accept that there is very little we can do to recover it when things go south.

[effectiveduck]

Fair enough. I guess I am trying to think of ways to better address the issue of leaders running with the money. I do agree that more communication is nice, my point was that it doesn't stop someone running with the money.

Any ideas that are brought up here, I will bring up with the modteam

Would it be reasonable to ask for organisers to provide some amount of personal information to the mod team? Obvious things like name, address, phone number and maybe more, depending on what everyone is comfortable. At the very least this could help contact an organiser even if just to ask for an update, and it would also make it harder for an organiser to pocket the money and run.

[redskull]

every groupbuy must have compulsory dates at every stage of the gb, where if the groupbuy organizer fails to update with something concrete like pictures/proof of payment/etc. then everyone will simultaneously charge a refund claim from paypal.

[azhdar]

This is something good.
I think the first rule would be only one GB at a time and the organizer ahould not be allowed to start a new one untill the other GB is completed together with shipping and eventual issues solved.

Most important rule imo.

[ddot]

only one GB at a time and the organizer ahould not be allowed to start a new one untill the other GB is completed together with shipping and eventual issues solved

I'm not sure I'm 100% in agreement with this.  For sure it would have helped with the particular situation at hand, but here's a couple other thoughts:

-The extent of the damage wasn't directly a result of the number of group buys a single leader had going but rather the collective value of those group buys.  Several smaller group buys could be running simultaneously and still not create the fallout from a single large group buy going south.  If you're concerned with a single leader being able to handle the logistics of multiple buys, that's a slightly different issue than being concerned with a single leader going rogue and taking all the outstanding cash with them.

-We have to keep in mind the potential downside to the community as well.  For every group buy that's gone bad, there's been several simultaneous ones by capable leaders that have gone well.  A single simultaneous group buy rule may help out in the odd situation, but have the side effect of preventing multiple other products from getting into the community's hands.  If you add up and the pluses and minus, the community may be worse off.

-In this case, the actual problem wasn't that a single person who was the leader of several group buys went rogue, but rather it was that they were also the treasurer of each group buy.  For most buys this is one in the same, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.  You could have one experienced member leading the logistics of several buys while delegating the treasurer responsibility to a different lieutenant for each buy.  Keep in mind that keeping things coordinated between several individuals may make more chaos that it solves.

[riotonthebay]

I don't believe that any of the suggestions laid out so far do anything to either prevent scams nor mitigate the effect of one should it happen. Let's scrutinize, shall we?

Organizers should be limited to 1 group buy at any given time, and required to complete it before moving on to another.

ddot makes good points about this rule above. I'll make some of my own and reinforce some of his.

First, the rule isn't enforceable. Just because overlapping group buys might not be conducted on geekhack, they can still be conducted elsewhere: Reddit, DT, etc. Sure, you can prevent multiple active group buys from the same organizer in the Group Buys subforum, but you can't prevent someone from posting about other buys in a different subforum – this happens all the time already (Chinese buys as an example). Sufficiently accessible group buys run not on geekhack will still be joined by members of our community.

Second, this rule doesn't guarantee any mitigation of the impact of a scam. Sure, it's one buy, but we all know how huge buys can get. Someone set on taking advantage of the community still has every means to do so, and is not meaningfully limited by this rule.

Third, it has the significant drawback of limiting output from organizers willing and able to take on multiple buys simultaneously.

Require regularly scheduled updates.

Good group buy leaders already give regular updates. If anything, a lack of updates is a useful signal that something might be wrong with a buy. Whether or not people have regular updates does literally nothing to expedite the process – it just makes you feel a little better. I'd go as far as to say this rule is harmful, because it would require that organizers looking to take advantage give falsified updates to placate people. Silence is loud: use it as an indicator that something might be up.

Require posted proof of payment to the manufacturer.

This is easily falsified. Sure, we can implement this if it makes people feel better, but that's literally all it does – make naive people feel better.

---

Finally, I believe that geekhack has and should have no responsibility in how group buys are conducted. This is the responsibility of the participant. Each and every person going in on a group buy should understand that there is a chance that nothing comes to fruition, either at the fault of the organizer or for other reasons. If this is not an acceptable possibility to someone, they should not participate.

The only idea submitted thus far that I can get behind is a more prominently placed notice/warning above every group buy thread. Having a sticky in the subforum is not sufficient; people don't even read the entire OP of a buy, much less a separate thread.

[jdcarpe]

I believe that geekhack has and should have no responsibility in how group buys are conducted. This is the responsibility of the participant. Each and every person going in on a group buy should understand that there is a chance that nothing comes to fruition, either at the fault of the organizer or for other reasons. If this is not an acceptable possibility to someone, they should not participate.

QFMFT

[Dernubenfrieken]

I don't believe that any of the suggestions laid out so far do anything to either prevent scams nor mitigate the effect of one should it happen. Let's scrutinize, shall we?

Organizers should be limited to 1 group buy at any given time, and required to complete it before moving on to another.

ddot makes good points about this rule above. I'll make some of my own and reinforce some of his.

First, the rule isn't enforceable. Just because overlapping group buys might not be conducted on geekhack, they can still be conducted elsewhere: Reddit, DT, etc. Sure, you can prevent multiple active group buys from the same organizer in the Group Buys subforum, but you can't prevent someone from posting about other buys in a different subforum – this happens all the time already (Chinese buys as an example). Sufficiently accessible group buys run not on geekhack will still be joined by members of our community.

Second, this rule doesn't guarantee any mitigation of the impact of a scam. Sure, it's one buy, but we all know how huge buys can get. Someone set on taking advantage of the community still has every means to do so, and is not meaningfully limited by this rule.

Third, it has the significant drawback of limiting output from organizers willing and able to take on multiple buys simultaneously.

All of this.

The "no multiple groupbuys" thing is silly, and basically encourages contributors to pick quick and easy group buys. Someone like leandren would have to stop doing his periodic 60% buys just to be able to create a keyset or something. A good example of someone who it would kill is bunnylake, he wouldn't have been able to run sophomore JTK without settling the topre sliders. And also what is "one buy"? The JTK/topre sliders thing is a good example, or leandrens groupbuys where he's getting from multiple manufacturers. Is that one group buy, or multiple? What if leandren ran his own keyset alongside the 60% case buy for his own "Leandboard", like matteo did with the whitefox? Is that one or two, since he's doing it at the same time, but its a groupbuy for a keyboard and a keyset that might be sent out at different times.

And obviously the value thing is more of an issue than running multiple buys. running a 20 person 60% case groupbuy alongside MX lock switches is a lot easier than a huge keyset buy or something like zealios.

Proof of order, while it could be falsified from the groupbuy runner, could be verified from a third party, either a moderator or just posted directly from the manufacturer (like PMK has right now). For something thats not a keyset it gets trickier, and for something like JTK or Gateron, it might be harder to verify the company itself. Either way, it could help.

[LeandreN]

The "no multiple groupbuys" thing is silly, and basically encourages contributors to pick quick and easy group buys. Someone like leandren would have to stop doing his periodic 60% buys just to be able to create a keyset or something. A good example of someone who it would kill is bunnylake, he wouldn't have been able to run sophomore JTK without settling the topre sliders. And also what is "one buy"? The JTK/topre sliders thing is a good example, or leandrens groupbuys where he's getting from multiple manufacturers. Is that one group buy, or multiple? What if leandren ran his own keyset alongside the 60% case buy for his own "Leandboard", like matteo did with the whitefox? Is that one or two, since he's doing it at the same time, but its a groupbuy for a keyboard and a keyset that might be sent out at different times.

<3

[byker]

I believe that geekhack has and should have no responsibility in how group buys are conducted. This is the responsibility of the participant. Each and every person going in on a group buy should understand that there is a chance that nothing comes to fruition, either at the fault of the organizer or for other reasons. If this is not an acceptable possibility to someone, they should not participate.

QFMFT

As a bit of background for newer users, this has kind of always been the stance of geekhack. Originally, before rootworm, there was no moderation. Originally the moderation tried not to influence the site too much. This isn't to say that we won't make changes, however we have always come from the perspective of not being responsible for group buys, and thus not laying down many guidelines.

[ddot]

I believe that geekhack has and should have no responsibility in how group buys are conducted.

In one sense, I agree.  Geekhack is just a central meeting place for individuals and group buys are essentially transactions between individual members.  Geekhack should have no financial liability between what 2 individuals do.

But look at it this way.  Geekhack has grown over the years into one of (if not the) preeminent hubs for mechanical keyboard discussion.  This creates a long list of returning members and from that group membership a community has developed.  Without the community, Geekhack would not be what it is. 

My guess is there are people who are willing to participate in a Geekhack community group buy (vs say a group buy on some random corner of the internet) because they feel safer.  And that safety comes from the collective trust of the community to moderate, either officially or unofficially, their own members.

Personally, I'm less in favour of hard rules on limitations to group buys and more in favour of transparency rules.  By ensuring participants have access to relevant information, only then can people make informed decisions.  It's very easy for someone to dangle some shiny new object in front of everyone, set up a group buy and have hoards 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.

When we're a semi-anonymous collection of people from across the globe, it's very difficult to use any type of formal rules (ie laws) to strictly regulate anything.  About the only thing we have is the collective power of the community and the implicit trust that the Geekhack site gets from that community.

[harlw]

As paternalistic as it seems, when you are entertaining this type of activity on your site, I think you need to draft some official terms, and future Groupbuy runners need to formally agree to them, so there is some level of accountability.

I think this is especially important for Mods/people with sub forums because they represent the site even more. I mean a mod doing what Ivan did really just makes the site look kind of bad. Other people in the same group really aren't great about running efficient buys either. Some good ideas thus far were:

1. Require an update every 3 weeks minimum.
2. Allow no more than 1 buy to be run at a time, encouraging wise/correct use of community funds and getting buy leaders to 100% complete a project before getting tied up in another.
3. Some way to confirm the payment has gone to the manufacturer. This could even be the Leader giving the mods prof, and they can give an update.

1. I think it should definitely every two weeks if not every week. Even if it's a "nothing to report."
2. Absolutely agree with everyone on this, each buy should be totally buttoned up before another one goes up. Besides the problems mentioned already I think a few runners take advantage of the system as it is and run a business as a group-buy in disguise to avoid liability, hassle, and taxes - this would force them to be more spread out and push businesses into legitimacy.
3. agreed


I would add the following


4. This one is somewhat subjective and would be at the discretion of the mods in each case but but runners should be held accountable for habitually promising and failing to deliver. Some things are outside of the runners control but some just take it too far. I quoted a runner recently in a buy promising a completed shipping date (completely inside their control in this case) eight separate times (number may not be exact) in the same thread and never fulfilling those promises.
5. It may prove to be too time consuming but it would be ideal if a runner was required to apply for approval, this application would give mods access to the real identity of the person and reliable ways to contact them in extreme situations and would simply include some personal data with some sort of proof perhaps.
6. I'd also like to see a simple plan laid out for runners to follow in a situation where the manufacturer becomes an issue so that the runner can remain in good standing while providing sufficient proofs to the community of the situation.
7. It would also be helpful to have better documentation for good practices, processes, systems, and reasonable expectations so that runners can plan better if they lack experience.

[harlw]

I believe that geekhack has and should have no responsibility in how group buys are conducted.

In one sense, I agree.  Geekhack is just a central meeting place for individuals and group buys are essentially transactions between individual members.  Geekhack should have no financial liability between what 2 individuals do.

But look at it this way.  Geekhack has grown over the years into one of (if not the) preeminent hubs for mechanical keyboard discussion.  This creates a long list of returning members and from that group membership a community has developed.  Without the community, Geekhack would not be what it is. 

My guess is there are people who are willing to participate in a Geekhack community group buy (vs say a group buy on some random corner of the internet) because they feel safer.  And that safety comes from the collective trust of the community to moderate, either officially or unofficially, their own members.

Personally, I'm less in favour of hard rules on limitations to group buys and more in favour of transparency rules.  By ensuring participants have access to relevant information, only then can people make informed decisions.  It's very easy for someone to dangle some shiny new object in front of everyone, set up a group buy and have hoards 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.

When we're a semi-anonymous collection of people from across the globe, it's very difficult to use any type of formal rules (ie laws) to strictly regulate anything.  About the only thing we have is the collective power of the community and the implicit trust that the Geekhack site gets from that community.

Agreed. It may not be GH's responsibility but it does become a part of the their reputation, like it or not, so it's important to not ignore it. No matter what your personal principles are, our culture, here in the US at least, seeks to blame an authority for problems and ultimately can result in the destruction of said authority's position in the community. It may rub us the wrong way at times but it's better to flex and be uncomfortable than to cease to exist. Ultimately, I think it can create a more inviting and vibrant environment for everyone to have more structure and accountability.

[katushkin]

I am curious about the state of vendor-run group buys as there seems to be a little inconsistency about them.

I'm not sure what the exact rules are, but I think it's something along the lines of "if some stock from the GB will be left over to be sold in the vendor's store at a later date, the thread should be put in the vendor's own subforum."

I noticed this due to the UKKeycaps GMK Esc GB being moved to his Vendor sub forum, but the JTK Sophmore GB hosted by CtrlAlt is still in the GB thread? I remember Bunny distinctly saying that there would be stock left over to be sold in the CtrlAlt store after the GB was over, and UKKeycaps is one of our newer and less established members, so I think it would be good to support them with keeping them in the main GB forum, rather than push them out of the main area of the forum. If we are to keep all vendor GBs in there of course.

I dunno, I just think there should be consistency across the board, especially when "extra stock to be sold on" is the case.

[livingspeedbump]

I am curious about the state of vendor-run group buys as there seems to be a little inconsistency about them.

I'm not sure what the exact rules are, but I think it's something along the lines of "if some stock from the GB will be left over to be sold in the vendor's store at a later date, the thread should be put in the vendor's own subforum."

I noticed this due to the UKKeycaps GMK Esc GB being moved to his Vendor sub forum, but the JTK Sophmore GB hosted by CtrlAlt is still in the GB thread? I remember Bunny distinctly saying that there would be stock left over to be sold in the CtrlAlt store after the GB was over, and UKKeycaps is one of our newer and less established members, so I think it would be good to support them with keeping them in the main GB forum, rather than push them out of the main area of the forum. If we are to keep all vendor GBs in there of course.

I dunno, I just think there should be consistency across the board, especially when "extra stock to be sold on" is the case.

Yeah, that is a very good point. I did notice that but didn't think too hard about it. Consistency is definitely lacking though without question. I don't see why some people should be allowed to get around some rules, while others arent.

I would think if you are running a buy via an external site that it wouldn't be a bad idea to have it under the vendor forum anyways. That is what they are for, is it not? At that point the buy isn't being RUN on GH, its just being promoted on GH.

I believe that geekhack has and should have no responsibility in how group buys are conducted.

In one sense, I agree.  Geekhack is just a central meeting place for individuals and group buys are essentially transactions between individual members.  Geekhack should have no financial liability between what 2 individuals do.

But look at it this way.  Geekhack has grown over the years into one of (if not the) preeminent hubs for mechanical keyboard discussion.  This creates a long list of returning members and from that group membership a community has developed.  Without the community, Geekhack would not be what it is. 

My guess is there are people who are willing to participate in a Geekhack community group buy (vs say a group buy on some random corner of the internet) because they feel safer.  And that safety comes from the collective trust of the community to moderate, either officially or unofficially, their own members.

Personally, I'm less in favour of hard rules on limitations to group buys and more in favour of transparency rules.  By ensuring participants have access to relevant information, only then can people make informed decisions.  It's very easy for someone to dangle some shiny new object in front of everyone, set up a group buy and have hoards 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.

When we're a semi-anonymous collection of people from across the globe, it's very difficult to use any type of formal rules (ie laws) to strictly regulate anything.  About the only thing we have is the collective power of the community and the implicit trust that the Geekhack site gets from that community.

Agreed. It may not be GH's responsibility but it does become a part of the their reputation, like it or not, so it's important to not ignore it. No matter what your personal principles are, our culture, here in the US at least, seeks to blame an authority for problems and ultimately can result in the destruction of said authority's position in the community. It may rub us the wrong way at times but it's better to flex and be uncomfortable than to cease to exist. Ultimately, I think it can create a more inviting and vibrant environment for everyone to have more structure and accountability.

Yeah, I agree as well. While I may be a fan of having a few more of the policing rules being discussed, I dont think there is any reason at all NOT to implement rules for more transparency.  Things like mandatory updates every 2 weeks seem like a total no-brainer. i think it would also be a good idea for buy leaders to give the mods proof that the order was actually placed.

At the end of the day though these buys do represent the GeekHack community, like it or not. If no changes are made and these botched buys keep happening it will make our community as a whole look bad. It will give people ammo why not to join buys run by our community, in turn really hurting our community. I do think community run buys are an integral part of this community and want to see them keep happening and succeeding, but a few changes could really improve the state of GB's on GH i believe.  I simply don't think doing nothing is an option at this point.

[livingspeedbump]

We have had examples being set in the past. Go and read up on the history of Sherraton from Originative. He lost mod status and his subforum.
But he seems to have redeemed himself lately. Give Ivan a chance to make this right.

Same thing happened to Redline, yet the person who royally screwed the GH60 buy still has an artisan forum and there's no indication that that will change.  Mods have remained silent on that issue when asked.  There's not always consistency on those issues.

It definitely is a situation where some input is needed given the reliable history of Ivan.  I have a hard time believing that he would disappear absent something outside of his control, especially everything he's done for the community as a whole and individuals in it in the past.  Hopefully he didn't do a runner and hopefully there is an answer soon for what is going on.  If he did do a runner, it would be a huge blow.

Things like this, the unfulfilled orders with some ancient CtrlAlt buys, and other GB issues really do reinforce the notion that you should only be able to run a single group buy at a time and that we need to figure out some sort of escrow situation for group buys.

I thought this was a very relevant quote from the Miami Nights thread that prompted this thread. 

[SpAmRaY]

I am curious about the state of vendor-run group buys as there seems to be a little inconsistency about them.

I'm not sure what the exact rules are, but I think it's something along the lines of "if some stock from the GB will be left over to be sold in the vendor's store at a later date, the thread should be put in the vendor's own subforum."

I noticed this due to the UKKeycaps GMK Esc GB being moved to his Vendor sub forum, but the JTK Sophmore GB hosted by CtrlAlt is still in the GB thread? I remember Bunny distinctly saying that there would be stock left over to be sold in the CtrlAlt store after the GB was over, and UKKeycaps is one of our newer and less established members, so I think it would be good to support them with keeping them in the main GB forum, rather than push them out of the main area of the forum. If we are to keep all vendor GBs in there of course.

I dunno, I just think there should be consistency across the board, especially when "extra stock to be sold on" is the case.

Is one a vendor and the other under artisan?
 Or one an actual business versus just members running buys?

 I know you can argue ctrlalt is a business with the volume they do but that isn't their goal. Whereas UKKeycaps is actually having a storefront to sell things to make money with or without us here and that's what pays the bills.

Also in the case of the escape pack I think UKKeycaps was buying caps to sell anyway and just offered them here to help get them paid for to put in their store.

And sometimes it seems like it depends on how involved people actually are in the community. As in do they only come here to sell things or are they actually part of the community and is the community involved in helping with set decisions or at least discussing sets etc.

[livingspeedbump]

I know you can argue ctrlalt is a business with the volume they do but that isn't their goal.

Lots of valid points, but does the point above really matter? What does the "goal" of an entity really have to do with it? They still have to be making some money off the buys (which can be deduced just by knowing what items cost, shipping costs, etc), and often have quite a lot of community money tied up in multiple group buys at any given time (some very old ones are still not 100%). Now, live I've said before, I am totally FOR GB runners to get a well deserved cut for the hard work, but also think that you should basically be a vendor at that point as well. Obviously nobody expects you to do all the work for free. This simply would increase the level of transparency and accountability by claiming to be a vendor.

[SpAmRaY]

I know you can argue ctrlalt is a business with the volume they do but that isn't their goal.

Lots of valid points, but does the point above really matter? What does the "goal" of an entity really have to do with it? They still have to be making some money off the buys (which can be deduced just by knowing what items cost, shipping costs, etc), and often have quite a lot of community money tied up in multiple group buys at any given time (some very old ones are still not 100%). Now, live I've said before, I am totally FOR GB runners to get a well deserved cut for the hard work, but also think that you should basically be a vendor at that point as well. Obviously nobody expects you to do all the work for free. This simply would increase the level of transparency and accountability by claiming to be a vendor.

My point with that is some people have an actual registered commercial business versus some being hobbyist regardless of our opinion on what that entails.

 I though that was the distinction between having artisan status versus vendor status.

[livingspeedbump]

I know you can argue ctrlalt is a business with the volume they do but that isn't their goal.

Lots of valid points, but does the point above really matter? What does the "goal" of an entity really have to do with it? They still have to be making some money off the buys (which can be deduced just by knowing what items cost, shipping costs, etc), and often have quite a lot of community money tied up in multiple group buys at any given time (some very old ones are still not 100%). Now, live I've said before, I am totally FOR GB runners to get a well deserved cut for the hard work, but also think that you should basically be a vendor at that point as well. Obviously nobody expects you to do all the work for free. This simply would increase the level of transparency and accountability by claiming to be a vendor.

My point with that is some people have an actual registered commercial business versus some being hobbyist regardless of our opinion on what that entails.

 I though that was the distinction between having artisan status versus vendor status.

It very well might be, like I said, I'm pretty unclear on the difference.

My point was just registered or not/intentions or not, they essentially run exactly the same way. In many cases in hobbyist communities the lines are very blurred between running a business/providing a "service" to the community, and often only differ by label alone.

[henz]

id be interested to help create some kind of geekhack platform which would act as a financial vault for GBs. Have some ideas. Anyone intersted in helping out, please feel free to pm me.

[jbondeson]

So one thing I haven't heard mentioned is a bit of a legal matter: age.

Allowing minors to run group buys is a bit problematic since there will be no possible recourse should it go south: a minor cannot enter into a legally binding agreement (IANAL but I believe most gb's would fall under a verbal contract in the US). Additionally all payment processors require the account holder to be over the age of 18.

I know we have a few responsible teenagers on the forum, but the reality is that there would be zero protection for any participant and could carry a much higher risk due to frozen funds.

[byker]

Just to clarify a few questions that were raised:

- A vendor is someone who is usually registered as a business, and has the intention of making profit
- Vendors will host their group buys in their subforums, exceptions can be made if there is significant community input during the IC phase
- Selling additional stock after does not really affect the subforum it goes into


We have been in the process of clarifying and modifying the differences between artisans and vendors for the past few weeks, and will let you guys know once we come to a conclusion. 

id be interested to help create some kind of geekhack platform which would act as a financial vault for GBs. Have some ideas. Anyone intersted in helping out, please feel free to pm me.

I really don't think that is a great idea. You would be opening yourself up to liabilities, and I don't think the GH admins would be willing to take this on, as it opens them up to liability.