geekhack

geekhack Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: mashby on Sun, 27 January 2013, 21:42:39

Title: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: mashby on Sun, 27 January 2013, 21:42:39
With the launch of Originative (http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=39550.0) there appears to be quite a lot of discussion regarding the launch of this new business and the impact of it to the community. As a new member, I don't have any frame of reference as to what GeekHack was like "back in the day" and how things have changed.

I don't wish to re-hash the drama of the thread referenced above. Instead, my hope is to start a new conversation and discuss the core issues -- is commercialism mutually exclusive of community?  Like any complex issue, I don't believe there is any black-and-white answer to this question, but I think there are nuances worth discussing.

Well, I suppose we'll find out, won't we?  ;D
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: mkawa on Sun, 27 January 2013, 22:25:08
please keep this civilized, people
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: funkymeeba on Sun, 27 January 2013, 22:41:23
I don't think they're mutually exclusive. After all, i3oiler's TechKeys has been running lots of cool stuff, as well as keeping everyone in the loop on promos. I haven't really dealt with any of the keycap vendors, other than SP, so I couldn't really say much more.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: SmallFry on Sun, 27 January 2013, 23:02:21
I know i3oiler is making some money. He talks to the community, give them what they want, and also isn't all about making money.  I think that his reason for success lies in the communication and still community based member. :)
/me bows his hat to the i3oilermaker.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: hashbaz on Sun, 27 January 2013, 23:32:45
Techkeys is a good example of what it means to be both a business entity and a member of the community.  Of course boiler is making money.  But he's also providing the community with interesting stuff without the risk and time commitment of group buys, so in my view that's a good trade-off.  There have been missteps, such as the Breaking Bad group buy^H^H^H^Hsale, but then boiler also distributes the GH packs and does cool stuff like work with Melissa to get center-stemmed stepped Caps Locks made.  I'm glad boiler and techkeys are part of the community.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: mkawa on Sun, 27 January 2013, 23:35:13
lest anyone be too afraid of being labeled as uncivilized to post, let me throw my preemptive 2 cents in.

first, i think both sides of this argument have extremely good points to make. personally, i have seen situations in which crass commercialism has absolutely ruined a community, as well as situations in which close interaction with commercial interests has made a community both huge and unimaginably strong.

In the former case, I think the head-fi is THE canonical example of crass commercialization ruining a great community. Many years ago, when I was young and even stupider, I spent quite a bit of time on headwize and the earliest revisions of head-fi, learning to hack, building stuff, and generally having a grand old time. In those heady days, open source designs, cooperation, civility, and support for new users were the principles by which the community lived. Fast-forward 10 years, and now head-fi is a huge mess of advertisements for obfuscated implementations of circuits that have not changed in a decade and are described not without any sense of technical specificity but only with adjectives that appeal exclusively to emotion. Further, the userbase seems to be stuck in a horrible cycle of buying and selling these heavily advertised products while arguing about exactly which appeals to emotion are best. Meanwhile, all the hackers seem to have moved on, and I can find no evidence that the forum is able to incubate or produce cool community projects anymore.

Conversely, another forum I was heavily involved in my earlier days of idiocy was neogaf.com, which had an extremely tight community that revolves large around video games but, due to the strength of the community, contains strong discussion about everything relevant to the major demographic (dudes, young ones). I am still good friends with the forum's principal, and he says that the site is now not only self-sufficient but brings in significant amounts of revenue, enough to support one of the top 10 largest (free!) forums by the numbers on the internet with a paid staff and fully-paid for hosting without a single user donation. Naturally, he has to do this with ads, and other commercial interaction but he has drawn simple lines that allow the advertisers to support and foster the community and not just pressure users into buying stupid **** they don't need.

hmm, i've taken so long to write this it may not be preemptive anymore. anyway, i would love to see this discussed on the forum, as i think the act of discussing it transparently (WITHOUT ATTACKING EACH OTHER MALICIOUSLY) itself builds community.

eta: iirc head-fi and neogaf are both members of the top 10 largest forums by numbers on the net, so i do feel like i'm comparing apples to apples here. if i had to pinpoint one thing that caused their gross divergence, it was how the community was treated and fostered by the staff and administration. on neogaf, users independently created strong traditions of social discussion with encouragement from the moderation staff. of course there is and has been baby mama drama all over the place, but the fact that this happens is embraced and bizarrely/awesomely even propagated via oral histories. on head-fi, administration spends the majority of their time looking for ways to monetize portions of the forum. this led to the ejection of the open design groups, a number of bizarre restrictions to the marketplace, and various other policies, including very harsh impersonal moderation.

ok blah blah blah, enough rambling from me. i'd love to hear what people think about the gh community, vendor and classifieds policies, etc. my only desire is that people keep from attacking each other. this is about building a stronger community, not purely about bickering (although as above, bickering can help build stronger communities, so...).
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: keymaster on Sun, 27 January 2013, 23:40:40
Any business willing to work with Geek Hack in providing products we want is beneficial in my eyes. Even if the price is a little bit more expensive than a group buy, as is the case with Originative, I'll be more than willing going directly to a quick and simple transaction with Originative. Sherryton has asked and is listening to what we want to see on his site. The products that will soon be available for purchase will show this to be true.

It's silly that we're even having this discussion. It's simple...if you don't like the price, then don't buy!

it's silly that you would join a discussion forum to dismiss legitimate discussion.

community can exist without over-commercialization. one just have to actually care about the community rather than oneself and one's collection.

Define over-commercialization. Then come to the realization that what you may see as "over-commercialization" is really just good old business to others. Then realize that your ideology on economics doesn't line up with the capitalist economy we're a part of today.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: sth on Sun, 27 January 2013, 23:50:06
It's silly that we're even having this discussion. It's simple...if you don't like the price, then don't buy!

it's silly that you would join a discussion forum to dismiss legitimate discussion.

community can exist without over-commercialization. one just have to actually care about the community rather than oneself and one's collection.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: okooko on Sun, 27 January 2013, 23:55:33
Any business willing to work with Geek Hack in providing products we want is beneficial in my eyes. Even if the price is a little bit more expensive than a group buy, as is the case with Originative, I'll be more than willing going directly to a quick and simple transaction with Originative. Sherryton has asked and is listening to what we want to see on his site. The products that will soon be available for purchase will show this to be true.

It's silly that we're even having this discussion. It's simple...if you don't like the price, then don't buy!

To add to that, in my short stay here, that most products whether its keycap sets, CC's, custom KBs are really difficult to come buy and involves a large amount of time invested either in a GB or waiting for classifieds.
I'm sure many people will be willing to pay more to receive the product in a short timespan rather than sitting in a GB for months.

You have two sides to this. One where its all about the exclusiveness (I know how long it took me to get a valentines set after missing the GB) and the other being convenience.
I think the community can accomodate for both, where there are still some GBs that are once off's and combined with vendors selling their own products.
What I liked about the GBs are that they required patience and for me, gave me time to learn alot about keyboards and what not and let me appreciate them more than if I just splashed some cash and got it the next week and played with it and then be bored.

my 2c.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: i3oilermaker on Mon, 28 January 2013, 00:01:41
Thanks for the hat tip!  I don't typically get involved in these discussions, but I'll throw in my opinion.  The reason I became a vendor is to support my hobby.  Of course I make some money, but I think people would be shocked by how little the profits are and how much time I put into it.  While I think it is important to to stay involved in the community, I don't think it should be a requirement.  I think we do a good job of protecting our own from bad deals, but I think if someone wants something bad enough, there should be no stopping them spending more than you would for something.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: sth on Mon, 28 January 2013, 00:12:22
I think we do a good job of protecting our own from bad deals, but I think if someone wants something bad enough, there should be no stopping them spending more than you would for something.
i mostly agree with that but here's my problem with that way of thinking:

CONSIDERING nearly all of us got into this hobby as a result of some community, and the greater keyboard hobbyist community at large that existed before and without us (comprised of GH, DT,  OTD, KBDM, KBT etc),
CONSIDERING those with deep pockets do not comprise the entirety of said community,
CONSIDERING profiteering/auctioneering raises expected prices for products not previously valued at specific amounts,

when somebody spends a lot of money to get something, they cause harm to the community that afforded them the knowledge, the place to post WTB/FS threads, and the continued research and reporting of keyboard related information by individuals.

you have to consider yourself part of a greater collective of people who share your interests. if, for you, your hobby boils down to "give me what I want, when I want it, for whatever price" it's no longer a hobby but a selfish collection of valuable goods. there is nothing intrinsically right or wrong about selfish behavior, but when it negatively impacts the community by putting products out of reach for reasons other than their existing rarity/demand, you better be able to own up for your behavior and not hide behind a veil of 'capitalism'/'free market'/any other econ 101 BS.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: hashbaz on Mon, 28 January 2013, 00:36:26
It's silly that we're even having this discussion. It's simple...if you don't like the price, then don't buy!

I agree with your rule, but this discussion is extremely important to have regardless.  We collectively decide what kind of community we want to be, and if we don't discuss how things are going then we relinquish that control.  Market forces are important, but we aren't slaves to them.  See mkawa's post about head-fi and neogaf.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: mkawa on Mon, 28 January 2013, 01:12:06
a concrete example of the difference between head-fi and neogaf.

on head-fi, if i want to promote my new super gizmatic most transparent in the world amplifier, i pay jude for ad-space and the right to promote my product on the discussion forum. substantially negative comments about my product are squashable; for example, a user can say that he thinks my competitor's amplifier is more transparent because he hears the cymbals on floyd's the wall more clearly, but he can't just say "this is a cheap piece of crap from china based on an open source circuit, here are the schematics". if i don't pay jude for ad-space, i generally cannot promote my product.

on neogaf, if i'm sony and i want to promote to god of war 3, i can pay for a small rotating static banner ad. if i want to use the forum itself to advertise, i can't astroturf and i can't bring in PR reps. if i want to use the forum to advertise, david jaffe better join the community, because that's what the community wants, and will itself squash anything less than that with support from the moderation staff. once jaffe is in, almost anything goes. jaffe, it turns out, was for a time (i don't know about now) a prolific poster on the forum and became quite famous for being vulgar and inserting his foot directly in his mouth multiple times a day.

now, i'm not going to say that the economics of these two situations are apples to apples, but i think it demonstrates the point that hashbaz so succinctly made. this discussion is quite important.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: tp4tissue on Mon, 28 January 2013, 01:45:10
This is a moot point to argue these days, we are very close to free energy..

 Assuming the ruling class doesn't use that to make a space based ion weapon.. World peace would be quite easy...
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: dirge on Mon, 28 January 2013, 02:04:10
This is a moot point to argue these days, we are very close to free energy..

 Assuming the ruling class doesn't use that to make a space based ion weapon.. World peace would be quite easy...

wtf?
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: tp4tissue on Mon, 28 January 2013, 02:10:05
This is a moot point to argue these days, we are very close to free energy..

 Assuming the ruling class doesn't use that to make a space based ion weapon.. World peace would be quite easy...

wtf?

With free energy, what do we have?

If you're guaranteed 3 meals a day with very very little work... The majority of the population would become quite docile... who the hell would bother working their ass off to "rule" people when they get 3 square meals...

The only people left in the ruling class, would be the crazy psychologically unstabal-ites..  They're going to want to build a space weapon, so that they can steer humanity "for no apparent reason", out of their insecurities about social order..

We organize in society to "allocate" correctly and efficiently "limited resources"..

But if we have free energy, that's a whole new game, and the new world would emerge..



I'd assume most people would spend all day having sex.. doing drugs.. and finally enjoying the "life's" cheat-code...

I'd "Hope" that most people will decide to become scientists and research space travel, because this rock is getting played out...
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: MattBuzzy on Mon, 28 January 2013, 02:13:54
lol what the hell, can I please have some of what you have been drinking?
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: tp4tissue on Mon, 28 January 2013, 02:15:41
lol what the hell, can I please have some of what you have been drinking?

what don't you get about what I've said.. it's really easy to imagine..  :D :D

I give you 3 meals a day, and tell you to f off and do whatever you want to do....  That's in the VERY near future...
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: hashbaz on Mon, 28 January 2013, 02:20:04
Stay on topic sir.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: longweight on Mon, 28 January 2013, 02:20:08
Don't feed the troll guys.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: dirge on Mon, 28 January 2013, 02:24:58
lol what the hell, can I please have some of what you have been drinking?

what don't you get about what I've said.. it's really easy to imagine..  :D :D

I give you 3 meals a day, and tell you to f off and do whatever you want to do....  That's in the VERY near future...

Well it sounds like you're pretty sure about this.  Could you start a new thread and expand in a bit more detail?  I'm looking forward to 3 meals a day, I normally skip breakfast. (joke not troll)

Can you link to anything to suggest such a thing will happen and when?  The free energy we can gather solar and wind still requires infrastructure and support and maint.  So there'll always be associated cost and people will always need to work.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: tp4tissue on Mon, 28 January 2013, 02:29:05
Stay on topic sir.

freakin'' ok... ahh....ok... Hm... ok,, I don't understand the position that the OP takes..

Behind every one production there is a whole family // community of people...

You have the family of truckers that ship the stuff, the family of oil tycoons that own the oil for the trucks, the family of truck producers that make the trucks..

So, the question makes no sense because  there is no clear stance as to "what and how big" the word "community" encompasses.

Commercialism, is merely a world view based on Monetization..  this is how we account for everything..

I suppose then the OP is assuming that "such accounting" is taking the Family Flavor out of the keyboarding "community"

THUS, I say this...  Family Flavor, is the same as bartering, inefficient and filled with emotions... I'd rather deal with Cold Hard accountants anyday of the week...
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: longweight on Mon, 28 January 2013, 02:43:29
Please stop, we all understand that this conversation isn't representative of EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: tp4tissue on Mon, 28 January 2013, 02:50:26
Please stop, we all understand that this conversation isn't representative of EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME.

what is your problem? what are you trying to preserve? are you alienated by the "reality" that is our world? there's no refuge anywhere, just self delusions.. 

my point is very on topic... because our mind ALREADY computes a "number" and assigns it to everything...

Eventually, once our technology reaches that same capacity, EVERYONE will get a number...


This is good because we'd have no more arguments like this.  :D
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: longweight on Mon, 28 January 2013, 02:52:38
This conversation is about whether people selling things for profit on the forum is good, bad or permissible. If you want to have a conversation about how everything is linked and we are all hiding from reality then start a separate thread
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: tp4tissue on Mon, 28 January 2013, 02:53:28
This conversation is about whether people selling things for profit on the forum is good, bad or permissible. If you want to have a conversation about how everything is linked and we are all hiding from reality then start a separate thread

Say waht?   where in the OP does it say "what you've just said" is the topic...

really? ok.. let me read some of the other posts.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: tp4tissue on Mon, 28 January 2013, 02:58:14
Ok I read 1/3 into Mkawa's post... I guess I am slightly off topic.. ;D

Right...

ah... so there's a problem with integration of commercial interests and "keyboard- science"...


So, the concern is, the majority of social misfits that would come to a keyboard forum "myself included" would "disband", once the commercial interests take over, and merely try to "sell" us things.... hmm.....

Ah.... is there really a difference between buying things from each other vs buying them from a company.... ultimately we all have to decide for ourselves...

The forum is already divided into vendors and chat section... I think that's as much as can be done...

This hobby in it of itself is something that "goes beyond need", it's a vanity like most other pursuits.. and vanity needs a supplier, that would be our vendors....


Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: vun on Mon, 28 January 2013, 05:22:04
I'm not against someone making money off what they're doing if that's what's needed to justify them spending their time doing it etc.
This isn't really valid for someone who just runs one group buy, but for someone like !3oiler or someone who runs group buys all the time, I don't really see a small reward for their efforts to bring the community what it wants as a bad thing.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: jeroplane on Mon, 28 January 2013, 08:27:08
I'm still relatively new compared to many members here, but I think I've been here long enough to see at least part of the shift that GH has undergone in the past few months.

I think Geekhack is first and foremost a forum for collectors/hobbyists. I miss when the focus here was more about people acquiring rare or sought-after items or new and interesting things. I miss when Geekhack was primarily a place for people to share advice and knowledge about keyboards and key caps. One of my favourite discussions here has been the latter part of the "Cherry PBT Dyesub Keyboards on eBay" (http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=36189.0) topic. I think this is one of the best examples of collectors discussing interesting finds without stepping on each other's toes to obtain them, and I think this is exactly how a hobbyist forum should run - friendly advice and discussion based upon a common interest.

Of course, a forum of collectors/hobbyist would hardly be complete without a marketplace.

I think the policy of "caveat emptor" actually adds to the sense of community, the ideal being people with a common interest happily trading and buying/selling goods in an open environment.

Yes, commercialism acts against this Utopian ideal, however you can't blame vendors for setting up businesses to provide goods that the community obviously wants. It's the communication with the community that marries together commercialism and community in a healthy way. A lot of what is bought and sold here does not necessarily have any set value (Clacks being a classic example), and hence its worth to each individual is what that particular individual is willing to pay. This is why the communication is important, so that the community can voice their opinions directly to the vendors. However, if a vendor or individual chooses to sell goods for exorbitant prices, there are only two ways to curb this - with your wallet (don't buy it) and with your words.

And a quick word on the latter point - I know it's been discussed before and I don't want to open up the can of worms again. But I think the free, open market of our marketplace combined with the "no thread-crapping" rule basically invites people to sell for rip-off prices. I think constructive "thread-crapping" should be allowed, particularly with respect to the commercial vendors. Case in point being sherryton and Originative - the community spoke up and he responded in a positive way.

TL;DR: there is a way for commercialism and community to live together in harmony.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: samwisekoi on Mon, 28 January 2013, 09:24:38
Case in point being sherryton and Originative - the community spoke up and he responded in a positive way.

TL;DR: there is a way for commercialism and community to live together in harmony.

Hmmm.  As a person who missed the window between his web pre-launch and the great hullabaloo after which it came down, I'll buy that the on-topic feedback worked for the positive.  And that this thread seems a useful discussion.  I don't think that having this discussion in the "great finds" thread about his site was helpful to the community.  As someone interested in keyboards and keycaps, I wanted to at least SEE what was up with the new site.  But what I found was this discussion instead.

I am here because I am interested in keyboards and keycaps, but mostly keyboards.  I like the aesthetics of a nice PBT or DS set of keycaps with some novelty keys tossed in for looks.  I don't have a CC key because I don't see the value, and only have a single anthropomorphic keycap because MMB had a closeout sale and I got a gasmask 'cap for under twenty bucks.  But I've bought a bunch of stuff from Techkeys, Imsto and WASD, and most of my keyboards from classifieds and great finds here.

I'm not a vendor, but I have started a few buys for items that I - personally - couldn't find anywhere else, and thought the community needed to have.  I didn't spend thirty grand on an MOQ for Cherry-mold keycaps, but I did spend more than a few bucks getting media keys custom-made so I would have something to show on a group buy.  (Sign up for those, please!)  And if any of my group buys ever makes it to the point of having leftover cash, I'll donate it to GH.  But that is because I have another job that pays my rent and keeps my kids fed and clothed.

And except for scale, I don't see a difference between putting up a few hundred bucks to make something available and putting up a few (many) thousands to make something bigger available.  Except perhaps courage.

Sherryton the person has signed up for a damn Elvish keyboard; Sherryton's enterprises have made it possible for me and others to have things we wouldn't otherwise have.  Sherryton the person posts, runs group buys, helps other people make group buys, and is generally courteous to everyone here.  Sherryton's enterprise has -- in the longest recession in recorded history -- invested significant coin in actually having something made that we can choose to buy.

Large German plastics firms don't invest in obsolete tooling unless they have a market.  Entrepreneurs don't invest in product unless they can cover their costs and maybe make a buck for the effort.  And unless we want to be a community of people who sell each other old pieces of plastic harvested from old keyboards, we need companies, entrepreneurs and individuals who are willing to take risks on our behalf.

In my personal opinion, there is room for both the slow, low-cost group buy path and the commercial path.  Both are helpful to this community.  Sherryton has paid his dues here, and continues (I hope) to comment and contribute.  And right now, at this very moment, HE has more money on the line with those keycap sets than anyone else.

Good for him.  And thanks as well.

Now I am going to go check to see if his site is back up.  I'd really like to see that Olivetti set.

Peace and harmony, y'all,

 - Ron | samwisekoi
(http://www.samwisekoi.com/pixelart/Leo.png)
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: mashby on Mon, 28 January 2013, 12:11:07
I want to thank everyone that has commented thus far and contributed to the conversation. I'm really enjoying how straightforward and even tempered everyone's contribution has been.

If I could summarize some of what I'm hearing, it sounds like everyone would like a balanced community -- not too overly commercial and not commercially exclusive either. As a new member, I feel like this community has struck that balance, but given that I'm new I might be missing something.

So let me add this question to the discussion... What specifically makes you feel that GeekHack is leaning more towards the overly commercial side of the equation?

I don't want to lead us down the road to pointing fingers at specific people necessarily, but if there's something that has left a bad taste in your mouth as being overly commercial some example should be provided.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: damorgue on Mon, 28 January 2013, 12:48:42
I'd say it is a case of mutual attempts at taking advantage of the other party. Commercial entities and forces will attempt to take advantage of the community to yield a profit from them, and the community will attempt to use the commercial entities to try and provide things for the community otherwise not available to them, as well as enlarge and improve it.

In the midst of this, we try to make mutually beneficial arrangements between the two parties. Although the interests may differ, they may sometimes be similar, especially in the cases where the people in question are part of both.

When the community manages to make things themselves by manufacturing, it causes a loss for the commercial entities who could otherwise have sold it. When the commercial entities infiltrate the community, they may take advantage of the community and profit from it at the expense of the community. There seem to be those who manage to be a part of both, and I have noted that these have previously been part of the community and maintained their position in the community, or commercial entities who have approached the community in helpful ways.

Edit:
What specifically makes you feel that GeekHack is leaning more towards the overly commercial side of the equation?
I'd even say that it is the natural progression of enthusiast forums. In the beginning, there are only the ones most interested by the topics involved, the most invested if you will. These also happen to be the people most interested by what a community has to offer, and most likely to contribute. As the community increases in size, so does the potential for profits and the amount of less devoted people who spends less time with it and generally just has a little bit of interest. Naturally, with decreasing input from the community, and increasing potential for commercial interests, there will be tendencies towards the latter.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: Krogenar on Mon, 28 January 2013, 19:52:35
I'm new to this hobby, so I don't know all the backstory of what has happened when some members of the community started commercial ventures, but I'm a small business owner myself. Whenever one of these discussions come up there's always a budding young socialist who wants to make the two concepts out to be diametrically opposed in some way, or try to shame others into bowing to their beliefs. I believe that communities and markets overlap to a very, very large degree. Communities (like markets) feature transactions. Businesses (like communities) are personal.

How does GH or DT or any other forum community feature 'transactions'? There are benefits to associating with people with similar interests. When someone posts to the 'great finds' sub-forum, or posts a lengthy, photo-journal of their latest strip down of a new (or antique) keyboard, or offers up a review -- they are making a transaction into the community fund of knowledge and information. But it would be a mistake to believe that this is completely altruistic. Sure, there are those rare few who only want to be saints -- but in reality most people who post those sort of community-building posts do it because they want to throw another brick on the wall, maybe to encourage someone else to throw another brick on top of theirs at some point (at which point they collect on their investment). Or... they want to show off their expertise! And there's nothing wrong with that impulse.

Markets are similar. Most transactions are emotional. People can buy anywhere, but they really want to buy where they are most comfortable -- for whatever reason.

Also, markets and communities are generally self-regulating -- if they are allowed to be. Screw people over with a lousy product, or poor service and they will go elsewhere and word will spread. The general axiom in business is that if a customer has a good experience, they tell two other people about it. If they have a bad experience... they tell twenty people. This is evident even here on GH, I'm sure. Likewise, if you're a nasty member of a community who does nothing but take without gratitude, then yeah, you're not going to get much out of the community once people realixe what kind of person you are.

A few observations on some statements made thus far:

I think we do a good job of protecting our own from bad deals, but I think if someone wants something bad enough, there should be no stopping them spending more than you would for something.

Boilermaker: I don't know you, never bought a thing from you -- you're absolutely right. Buyer beware. Hell, that's what communities are for in the first place. I posted a thread asking people for their advice on getting my first Cherry switch keyboard, listed my requirements, my preferences, and patiently waited. The community responded and they gave me great advice. But I have no inherent right to their advice. It's freely given, and the axiom of buyer beware still holds. Would I be right to buy a keyboard and then come back and accuse those people of giving me bad advice? No -- it was freely given, with NO WARRANTY.

Boilermaker -- charge as much as you think you can get, because that's how markets work. And I hope you make your hobby into something profitable -- because that's a beautiful thing, to do what you love to do and be able to make living at it. Take that money and roll around in it with some perky-breasted minx in a European thong bikini like a ribald Alan Greenspan, I'll cheer you all the way! The surest way to spot the genius? All the mediocrities are confederated against him (or her).

Now, sth, your response to Boilermaker was, well... let's review.

Quote
i mostly agree with that but here's my problem with that way of thinking:

CONSIDERING nearly all of us got into this hobby as a result of some community, and the greater keyboard hobbyist community at large that existed before and without us (comprised of GH, DT,  OTD, KBDM, KBT etc),
CONSIDERING those with deep pockets do not comprise the entirety of said community,
CONSIDERING profiteering/auctioneering raises expected prices for products not previously valued at specific amounts,

#1 -- You have no idea why people came to this community. People could have discovered keyboards first, and then discovered GH or DT or some other keyboard enthusiast forum. Some of the forum members could have been laboring for years on their private hobby.
#2 -- What difference does it make if not everyone in this community has the same amount of disposable income?
#3 -- Profiteering? You mean charging an excessive amount? Sounds like you wish you could purchase something, but... didn't have the lettuce. That's okay, someone just wanted the product more than you and was willing to pay more. That's upsetting, but a fact of life. Also, so what if a previous object sold for $20 and now it's selling for $200 -- that's between the seller and the buyer, not you.

The message you're sending sth is very clear: GH (and other communities) made it all possible for this marketplace to exist in the first place, so participants in that market should owe some sort of fealty to the 'community' (as you define it). And therefore buyers and sellers should ... well, they should do what you want them to do.

Quote
when somebody spends a lot of money to get something, they cause harm to the community that afforded them the knowledge, the place to post WTB/FS threads, and the continued research and reporting of keyboard related information by individuals.

You believe that buyers and sellers didn't make GH happen -- it was the 'community' that made it all possible. Sth, has it ever occurred to you that GH survives as a popular forum partly because it acts as a way for buyers and sellers to meet? That that is in fact one of the primary reasons that some people congregate here? Why buy from an anonymous eBay seller when you can buy from someone you actually know? If the geekhack 'community' rose up in a socialistic revolution against buying and selling and banished it all from the forum.... do you think it wouldn't happen? No, they would go to eBay, or start a new forum not dominated by socialists. Or they would private PM one another, and it would still happen. And you probably still would not have the green to buy what you wanted to buy. So nothing would change, but you could feel good knowing that you were at least an impedance to others with more money. Buying and selling does NOT 'harm the community' -- it helps it. If neither the buyer or seller is upset about the transaction, what's your beef? My guess is you didn't get what you wanted, so now the system is 'broken' as far as you are concerned.

Quote
you have to consider yourself part of a greater collective of people who share your interests.

No I don't! I can be a selfish, self-centered jerk with a dozen CC's to sell for $10 a piece and the geekhack community would consider me a hell of a guy! KMACs for $10, Topre RealForces for $20 (they are imported after all) and if I'm happy with the price and the seller is happy, then why are you involved? Altruism is not a requirement for a working market -- all that is needed is to allow prices to be set by the market, not by nosy people without any money, and the absence of fraud. But even fraud makes the market react to prevent it from occurring again.

Quote
if, for you, your hobby boils down to "give me what I want, when I want it, for whatever price" it's no longer a hobby but a selfish collection of valuable goods. there is nothing intrinsically right or wrong about selfish behavior, but when it negatively impacts the community by putting products out of reach for reasons other than their existing rarity/demand, you better be able to own up for your behavior and not hide behind a veil of 'capitalism'/'free market'/any other econ 101 BS.

So, in order to be a 'true' collector you can't make a profit from your collection? Sounds like something a burnt-out, failed grunge musician sitting on a street corner might say when looking up at Kurt Cobain on the Jumbotron and saying, "Stinkin' sellout, man!" (takes a toke) Being a failure is so heroic, isn't it? To know that the pursuit of your hobby has been of absolutely no financial gain whatsoever -- now that's a sure sign of nobility. A sense of community is not what drives your argument; it's simple envy. The items you want are only out of your reach -- not others. Sales are being made. Collecting keyboards is an expensive hobby -- making it into a business is not a bad thing if it allows people to acquire keyboards they want at a price they are willing to pay. You, sth, want to dictate prices ("you better be able to own up for your behavior") for your own benefit -- that's not a market or a community, that's a dictatorship.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: sth on Mon, 28 January 2013, 20:00:14
I'm new to this hobby, so I don't know all the backstory of what has happened when some members of the community started commercial ventures, but I'm a small business owner myself. Whenever one of these discussions come up there's always a budding young socialist who wants to make the two concepts out to be diametrically opposed in some way, or try to shame others into bowing to their beliefs. I believe that communities and markets overlap to a very, very large degree. Communities (like markets) feature transactions. Businesses (like communities) are personal.

How does GH or DT or any other forum community feature 'transactions'? There are benefits to associating with people with similar interests. When someone posts to the 'great finds' sub-forum, or posts a lengthy, photo-journal of their latest strip down of a new (or antique) keyboard, or offers up a review -- they are making a transaction into the community fund of knowledge and information. But it would be a mistake to believe that this is completely altruistic. Sure, there are those rare few who only want to be saints -- but in reality most people who post those sort of community-building posts do it because they want to throw another brick on the wall, maybe to encourage someone else to throw another brick on top of theirs at some point (at which point they collect on their investment). Or... they want to show off their expertise! And there's nothing wrong with that impulse.

Markets are similar. Most transactions are emotional. People can buy anywhere, but they really want to buy where they are most comfortable -- for whatever reason.

Also, markets and communities are generally self-regulating -- if they are allowed to be. Screw people over with a lousy product, or poor service and they will go elsewhere and word will spread. The general axiom in business is that if a customer has a good experience, they tell two other people about it. If they have a bad experience... they tell twenty people. This is evident even here on GH, I'm sure. Likewise, if you're a nasty member of a community who does nothing but take without gratitude, then yeah, you're not going to get much out of the community once people realixe what kind of person you are.

A few observations on some statements made thus far:

I think we do a good job of protecting our own from bad deals, but I think if someone wants something bad enough, there should be no stopping them spending more than you would for something.

Boilermaker: I don't know you, never bought a thing from you -- you're absolutely right. Buyer beware. Hell, that's what communities are for in the first place. I posted a thread asking people for their advice on getting my first Cherry switch keyboard, listed my requirements, my preferences, and patiently waited. The community responded and they gave me great advice. But I have no inherent right to their advice. It's freely given, and the axiom of buyer beware still holds. Would I be right to buy a keyboard and then come back and accuse those people of giving me bad advice? No -- it was freely given, with NO WARRANTY.

Boilermaker -- charge as much as you think you can get, because that's how markets work. And I hope you make your hobby into something profitable -- because that's a beautiful thing, to do what you love to do and be able to make living at it. Take that money and roll around in it with some perky-breasted minx in a European thong bikini like a ribald Alan Greenspan, I'll cheer you all the way! The surest way to spot the genius? All the mediocrities are confederated against him (or her).

Now, sth, your response to Boilermaker was, well... let's review.

Quote
i mostly agree with that but here's my problem with that way of thinking:

CONSIDERING nearly all of us got into this hobby as a result of some community, and the greater keyboard hobbyist community at large that existed before and without us (comprised of GH, DT,  OTD, KBDM, KBT etc),
CONSIDERING those with deep pockets do not comprise the entirety of said community,
CONSIDERING profiteering/auctioneering raises expected prices for products not previously valued at specific amounts,

#1 -- You have no idea why people came to this community. People could have discovered keyboards first, and then discovered GH or DT or some other keyboard enthusiast forum. Some of the forum members could have been laboring for years on their private hobby.
#2 -- What difference does it make if not everyone in this community has the same amount of disposable income?
#3 -- Profiteering? You mean charging an excessive amount? Sounds like you wish you could purchase something, but... didn't have the lettuce. That's okay, someone just wanted the product more than you and was willing to pay more. That's upsetting, but a fact of life. Also, so what if a previous object sold for $20 and now it's selling for $200 -- that's between the seller and the buyer, not you.

The message you're sending sth is very clear: GH (and other communities) made it all possible for this marketplace to exist in the first place, so participants in that market should owe some sort of fealty to the 'community' (as you define it). And therefore buyers and sellers should ... well, they should do what you want them to do.

Quote
when somebody spends a lot of money to get something, they cause harm to the community that afforded them the knowledge, the place to post WTB/FS threads, and the continued research and reporting of keyboard related information by individuals.

You believe that buyers and sellers didn't make GH happen -- it was the 'community' that made it all possible. Sth, has it ever occurred to you that GH survives as a popular forum partly because it acts as a way for buyers and sellers to meet? That that is in fact one of the primary reasons that some people congregate here? Why buy from an anonymous eBay seller when you can buy from someone you actually know? If the geekhack 'community' rose up in a socialistic revolution against buying and selling and banished it all from the forum.... do you think it wouldn't happen? No, they would go to eBay, or start a new forum not dominated by socialists. Or they would private PM one another, and it would still happen. And you probably still would not have the green to buy what you wanted to buy. So nothing would change, but you could feel good knowing that you were at least an impedance to others with more money. Buying and selling does NOT 'harm the community' -- it helps it. If neither the buyer or seller is upset about the transaction, what's your beef? My guess is you didn't get what you wanted, so now the system is 'broken' as far as you are concerned.

Quote
you have to consider yourself part of a greater collective of people who share your interests.

No I don't! I can be a selfish, self-centered jerk with a dozen CC's to sell for $10 a piece and the geekhack community would consider me a hell of a guy! KMACs for $10, Topre RealForces for $20 (they are imported after all) and if I'm happy with the price and the seller is happy, then why are you involved? Altruism is not a requirement for a working market -- all that is needed is to allow prices to be set by the market, not by nosy people without any money, and the absence of fraud. But even fraud makes the market react to prevent it from occurring again.

Quote
if, for you, your hobby boils down to "give me what I want, when I want it, for whatever price" it's no longer a hobby but a selfish collection of valuable goods. there is nothing intrinsically right or wrong about selfish behavior, but when it negatively impacts the community by putting products out of reach for reasons other than their existing rarity/demand, you better be able to own up for your behavior and not hide behind a veil of 'capitalism'/'free market'/any other econ 101 BS.

So, in order to be a 'true' collector you can't make a profit from your collection? Sounds like something a burnt-out, failed grunge musician sitting on a street corner might say when looking up at Kurt Cobain on the Jumbotron and saying, "Stinkin' sellout, man!" (takes a toke) Being a failure is so heroic, isn't it? To know that the pursuit of your hobby has been of absolutely no financial gain whatsoever -- now that's a sure sign of nobility. A sense of community is not what drives your argument; it's simple envy. The items you want are only out of your reach -- not others. Sales are being made. Collecting keyboards is an expensive hobby -- making it into a business is not a bad thing if it allows people to acquire keyboards they want at a price they are willing to pay. You, sth, want to dictate prices ("you better be able to own up for your behavior") for your own benefit -- that's not a market or a community, that's a dictatorship.

you're making some stupid-ass baseless assumptions about who i am and what i believe to make it easier for you to dismiss what i'm saying. i don't have time to respond to every point but i can assure you that a vast majority of the suppositions you're making are inaccurate or based on a distortion of things i have said in the past.

i don't want to be a part of a community that thinks like you do because that's not a healthy community.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: Krogenar on Mon, 28 January 2013, 20:10:40
you're making some stupid-ass baseless assumptions about who i am and what i believe to make it easier for you to dismiss what i'm saying.

Explain to me how I misrepresented your position, please.

Quote
i don't have time to respond to every point but i can assure you that a vast majority of the suppositions you're making are inaccurate or based on a distortion of things i have said in the past.

You don't have to respond to every point I made. I'll make it easy. Pick one point (the weakest point that you believe I made) and explain why it's wrong. Just one, please. And I didn't review everything you've ever said, just the comments in that one post.

Quote
i don't want to be a part of a community that thinks like you do because that's not a healthy community.

What thought(s) of mine are not conducive to a healthy community? And how do you define a 'healthy' community? I would consider a healthy community a place where people can trade knowledge, and items, freely, without compulsion and with a minimum amount of fraud. So far GH seems to fit the bill. I don't expect it to be perfect -- that's not really reasonable. A 'healthy' community I define as one that self-corrects for the most part when fraud occurs. What's your definition, sth?
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: sth on Mon, 28 January 2013, 20:21:13
you're making some stupid-ass baseless assumptions about who i am and what i believe to make it easier for you to dismiss what i'm saying.

Explain to me how I misrepresented your position, please.

Quote
i don't have time to respond to every point but i can assure you that a vast majority of the suppositions you're making are inaccurate or based on a distortion of things i have said in the past.

You don't have to respond to every point I made. I'll make it easy. Pick one point (the weakest point that you believe I made) and explain why it's wrong. Just one, please. And I didn't review everything you've ever said, just the comments in that one post.

Quote
i don't want to be a part of a community that thinks like you do because that's not a healthy community.

What thought(s) of mine are not conducive to a healthy community? And how do you define a 'healthy' community? I would consider a healthy community a place where people can trade knowledge, and items, freely, without compulsion and with a minimum amount of fraud. So far GH seems to fit the bill. I don't expect it to be perfect -- that's not really reasonable. A 'healthy' community I define as one that self-corrects for the most part when fraud occurs. What's your definition, sth?

you're the only one talking about socialism. your $10 examples are ridiculous. you're comparing me to a fictional bum that doesn't share your values rather than as a real person that exists who also doesn't happen to share your values. i don't understand where you're coming from with this nobility **** either.
quit using hyperbole to make your points; there are enough examples of price gouging and dishonest behavior that actually exist here (though i am not going to be the one to name names; been there done that haters gonna hate).
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: Krogenar on Mon, 28 January 2013, 20:35:27
you're the only one talking about socialism. your $10 examples are ridiculous. you're comparing me to a fictional bum that doesn't share your values rather than as a real person that exists who also doesn't happen to share your values. i don't understand where you're coming from with this nobility **** either.

Wait, what now -- bums are people!

My point is that your comments make it sound as though as soon as someone decides to turn a profit, they're 'sellouts' or 'damaging the community' somehow. It sounded a lot to me like something a failed (or failing) artist might say. Some other artist took their hobby (music) and found a way to make it profitable -- but only by selling out and hurting the 'community'. I have no idea if you play guitar or not, it's true. This is what is known as an 'example'. But you seem to have missed by point entirely.

Quote
quit using hyperbole to make your points; there are enough examples of price gouging and dishonest behavior that actually exist here (though i am not going to be the one to name names; been there done that haters gonna hate).

Wait -- you are harming the community by not naming names! If you were to point out who these nefarious, evil people were, well, then people could avoid making transactions with them.
... don't you care about the community? Be bold; be brave! Don't let other GH members fall into a trap. Isn't that what communities are for, to warn other people of dangerous situations? Maybe you're just worried that these people would refute your claims? We'll never know.

Also, stop attacking the style (hyperbole, examples) of my argument -- attack the meat of what I'm saying, if you think I'm wrong. Prove to me (and everyone) why an auction is bad for the GH community. The community will be the better for it. It might get some people thinking about these sorts of issues.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: sth on Mon, 28 January 2013, 20:44:57
man.

look.

you're trying to prompt a discussion with me about things that we are more or less diametrically opposed in our opinions toward. this stems from a difference in economic belief, of which neither of us are likely to budge on. i've written close to a book on GH discussions about profiteering and auctions, and so i'm sorry that i don't have the wherewithal to state the same things over again every time somebody who doesn't care to look at the issue from my point of view wants to try and troll me. trust me, i used to think the same way you did, and now i don't. maybe your opinion will change in the future but i am not making that my responsibility.

i really hope you get whatever it is you want out of this hobby. i also really don't feel like talking with you about your economic beliefs that much because you haven't presented an opinion i don't hear on almost a daily basis on geekhack or in meatspace. frankly, your entire ideology is boring and unappealing to me, and i can't do anything about that being the prevalent opinion of the privileged in any meaningful context. unfortunately GH has maintained a culture of 'caveat emptor' which, while appealing at first, is used as an excuse to stifle discussion (even when we're having a frank discussion about it rather than 'threadcrapping' in a FS thread).
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: Leslieann on Mon, 28 January 2013, 21:00:56
Being a forum owner (3 actually), and long time internet user, what Mkawa said is exactly it.

It comes down to how you manage the companies on the forum.
Companies appear on forums because it's profitable for them. Allowing them to take over your forum may put money in your pocket, but it can drive people away, when that happens the companies also move on to other places. There is no long term benefit to letting companies do whatever they want, they have zero to no concern for the forums health.

Can they co-exist? Of course.


In this particular case, how do you think many small companies get started? Is it good or bad? It depends. So long as they don't interfere with existing group buys it won't change anything and could actually be a boon. Look at the hassle of getting stickers and springs right now? It would be nice to have a place where we could get some of these things when we need it, not months away in a group buy that never happens.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: keyboardlover on Mon, 28 January 2013, 21:07:17
There is only one way that the market approach can work in a community, and that is a completely un-regulated approach. That way markets aren't manipulated by authority and consumers can vote with their dollar. That way consumers keep the market in check and don't get ****ed by manipulation.

People will still complain about pricing and all that stuff, and they can complain all they want. But what they really SHOULD do is vote with their dollar - that's the only way consumers can control markets. If you don't like the pricing or the product or whatever then shut the **** up and don't buy it. Period.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: sth on Mon, 28 January 2013, 21:11:46
 it sure would be nice if we could get together as a community and agree on that concept, but all it takes is two people who disagree with the majority opinion: a seller with a product and a buyer with money, both with a disregard for their negative affect on the market.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: keyboardlover on Mon, 28 January 2013, 21:14:06
it sure would be nice if we could get together as a community and agree on that concept, but all it takes is two people who disagree with the majority opinion: a seller with a product and a buyer with money, both with a disregard for their negative affect on the market.

I don't get your point; please explain.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: Krogenar on Mon, 28 January 2013, 21:16:53
Being a forum owner (3 actually), and long time internet user, what Mkawa said is exactly it.

It comes down to how you manage the companies on the forum.
Companies appear on forums because it's profitable for them. Allowing them to take over your forum may put money in your pocket, but it can drive people away, when that happens the companies also move on to other places. There is no long term benefit to letting companies do whatever they want, they have zero to no concern for the forums health.

Can they co-exist? Of course.

In this particular case, how do you think many small companies get started? Is it good or bad? It depends. So long as they don't interfere with existing group buys it won't change anything and could actually be a boon. Look at the hassle of getting stickers and springs right now? It would be nice to have a place where we could get some of these things when we need it, not months away in a group buy that never happens.

I agree with what you're saying about striking a balance as a forum owner between the advertisers and the forum members. In my own business there used to be a trade organization. For privacy reasons I would rather not say what I make, but let's say I make widgets. This trade organization met once a year, and all the widget makers would show up. Now some of the widgets I sell I get from several major manufacturing outfits. I'm a distributor. I make custom widgets, but also sell stock widgets. When the organization started, there was only to be a set number of widget makers from each geographic area. This was so that each small business owner could talk about widget selling with people who were not direct competitors. Also, the major manufacturers were not allowed to be members. Everything changed once those major manufacturers were allowed membership, and everyone was allowed to join. Instead of becoming a open place where we could talk, we would buy plane tickets and hotel rooms so that our manufacturers could pitch us for two days. It completely changed the nature of the organization and it died out. We were little fish surrounded by suddenly much larger fish. We found ideas for our smaller businesses that we had discussed suddenly become major marketing pushes by these other major manufacturers -- who were now our competitors!

A balance has to be struck, and it's not easy.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: Krogenar on Mon, 28 January 2013, 21:18:39
it sure would be nice if we could get together as a community and agree on that concept, but all it takes is two people who disagree with the majority opinion: a seller with a product and a buyer with money, both with a disregard for their negative affect on the market.

I don't get your point; please explain.

Seconded.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: sth on Mon, 28 January 2013, 21:23:33
It's a really nice ideal to think that we could all just 'do the right thing'. unfortunately i just don't have faith that that is going to happen even with a plurality, let alone a full consensus, because the upper echelons of this hobby consist of spending ludicrous amounts of money to complete a collection or to own a product that is rare and/or valuable. any attempt to self-regulate by means of forcing sellers to drop their prices could conceivably work in the short term. but that will only last until a compromise of those ideals is made by somebody who does not ascribe to them, most likely because they don't feel any obligation to the framework that allows them to pursue their hobby as it exists. as soon as that happens it is only a matter of time until things become... messy.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: keyboardlover on Mon, 28 January 2013, 21:29:47
It's a really nice ideal to think that we could all just 'do the right thing'. unfortunately i just don't have faith that that is going to happen even with a plurality, let alone a full consensus, because the upper echelons of this hobby consist of spending ludicrous amounts of money to complete a collection or to own a product that is rare and/or valuable.

That's the whole point though: we don't need people to come to a consensus on anything because we know they won't anyway. So what? Vote with your dollar: that's the only way to control markets in the community. Period.

Quote
any attempt to self-regulate by means of forcing sellers to drop their prices could conceivably work in the short term. but that will only last until a compromise of those ideals is made by somebody who does not ascribe to them, most likely because they don't feel any obligation to the framework that allows them to pursue their hobby as it exists. as soon as that happens it is only a matter of time until things become... messy.

It sounds like what you're saying is 'people wanna pay more than me, so I'm getting screwed'. Last I checked, no one forced you to come to this website, nor to buy any items featured ON this website. It's not short term vs. long term it's how markets freaking work. If people are going to pay more than you, that's quite simply something you'll have to live with. I have accepted the fact that life is inherently filled with risk and I would recommend you do the same.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: guilleguillaume on Mon, 28 January 2013, 22:44:12
I believe Demik once said something about GH turning in some kind of "Look at me, I have bigger e-pennis than you" kind of forum. He didn't tell it with those words but that was the point if I remember correctly.

People in this forum is no longer interested in the Hobby. They just want to collect the most expensive items and share the pictures in Geekhack Media subforum to compare their e-pennis size.

User 1 : Hey look my new Skull arrived[shows picture of a skull]
User 2 : Oh boy your collection sucks[shows picture with TONS of skulls]
User 3: Both of your collections suck because I've received a Box [shows picture of a box]
User 1: WOWOWOWO! (He's excited because he has shown a Box) Where can I buy that box?


The only reason a lot of  users are joining this forum it's because it has become popular to own mechanical keyboards. Some time ago they even looked at us like those rare "keyboards geeks" that spend 100$ in a keyboard and doesn't even have a colourful screen or shiny leds and made laugh of that.

Now some of them are joining GH and the only way they see to adapt to this community is by buying expensive items to show that they're worth of this forum. For this reason GH derailed to a Marketplace where people seems excited with the single idea of buying/selling in mind.

Sharing finds has started to be something really rare. The only idea of organising something for free or manage GB without earning money makes some people sick. They only care for $$$$$$$$$, I can see their faces:

(http://i.imgur.com/QTQQGfQ.jpg)

I'm not saying that every single user that joined GH recently is like that, I've been a noob too but not that kind of noob, at least I was interested in learning something in the forums and share knowledge. I've never been interested in making money here in Geekhack like some are.

It's nice to see that there is still some great people left (Old and new) but reading some posts in this thread and some other threads makes me think If It would be better to stay out of this forum for a while and see if the attitude changes.

I can remember those days were Click Clack keys were in stock for weeks on EK without being sold because people thought they were expensive. Now people has changed their mind and it seems that  the more you pay for something the more it's worth it like if you were receiving badges for buying items at ultra-expensive prices.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: jeroplane on Mon, 28 January 2013, 23:13:50
It's a really nice ideal to think that we could all just 'do the right thing'. unfortunately i just don't have faith that that is going to happen even with a plurality, let alone a full consensus, because the upper echelons of this hobby consist of spending ludicrous amounts of money to complete a collection or to own a product that is rare and/or valuable. any attempt to self-regulate by means of forcing sellers to drop their prices could conceivably work in the short term. but that will only last until a compromise of those ideals is made by somebody who does not ascribe to them, most likely because they don't feel any obligation to the framework that allows them to pursue their hobby as it exists. as soon as that happens it is only a matter of time until things become... messy.

This is why I believe the community should be allowed to speak their mind in the Classifieds, free of the glass wall that for some reason protects sellers in our marketplace. I understand part of the reasoning is to keep the majority of messages in that subforum sale-related, but I believe discussion on prices can and should occur in a civilised manner within those threads. The result is that sellers will be discouraged from price-gouging to avoid the backlash that ensues, newbies will be able to see upfront what things are or should be worth, and the whole community will benefit from a slightly smaller hole in their wallets.

Sure, rare or hard to obtain items will remain at high prices - as they should. However, more communication overall will result not only in a more of a self-moderated marketplace with more reasonable prices, but a stronger, tighter community.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: demik on Mon, 28 January 2013, 23:14:50
guilleguillaume, it all boils down to hype.

hype is created around something, and people start to lust over it. then people that are looking to make money see the opportunity and take advantage.

and honestly, we're all a little bit guilty of it. whether we meant to do it on purpose or not.

the pictures we post. the replies we make towards something we like all adds on to it.

i've seen this happen when i collected sneakers. same cycle.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: mkawa on Mon, 28 January 2013, 23:59:22
in defense of sth, markets don't only work unregulated. that's total claptrap. every successful market-based system is a hybrid in which regulation attempts to make up for deficiencies in the market algorithm and actions of realistic, non-ideal players. recall that even in a perfectly ideal case with rational actors and ignoring time to convergence, the simple market algorithm is only pareto, or locally, optimal.

in more detail, what this means that, in a "perfect world" of some kind, a market pricing algorithm will converge to a set of asset prices in which there every single-iteration change will cause prices to become less optimal (ie, the algorithm always reaches a local optimum). however, there may be a series of such changes which actually result in a more optimal set of asset prices (eg, a global optimum).

of course in reality, we don't have anything like a perfect world, so we can't even establish or run ideal markets, which means we can't even close to rely on any theoretical proof of even pareto-optimality. in this sense, sth is completely correct.

in defense of krogenar and others, we have to face the fact that we live in a system in which there is currency, goods, pricing, and it's almost impossible to just decide on an optimal set of prices from on high at all points in time. we are all individuals here, with limited information, back by a variety of resources and amounts of those resources, and ultimately what comes out of this is some kind of marketplace, in the most colloquial sense of the word. hence, we have to think about how to make this market better for everyone, and in some cases this is going to mean stepping back and letting stuff happen. if Alice really really wants something from Bob, and Alice has a lot of something (CASH MONEY) that Bob really wants, there is very little we can do to stop Alice from exchanging large amounts of resources for an asset of Bob's. If the transaction doesn't happen on geekhack, it will happen on DT, or BT, or HF, or any of the other practically uncountably many places on the web.

anyway, generally think this is a great debate, and would like people to try to put aside their emotional reasoning for a minute to interact politely and find the points on which they do agree..
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: hoggy on Tue, 29 January 2013, 01:22:40
The way I think of it is somewhat like this -

Do we want a community where most if not all members would happily help others out for free, or almost free.  Trading, listing great finds on craigslist or ebay, that sort of thing.

Or, would we prefer a forum where we could buy novelty keycaps, and then post pictures of them and not much else.

Both are extreme ends of the scale (and not all that likely).  I've seen geekhack move from somewhere close to the first scenario, to closer to the second. Geekhack now and then is fine with me, but I'd rather see a slow down in the direction it's taking - I don't want it to hit the barriers, so to speak.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: keyboardlover on Tue, 29 January 2013, 06:29:34
in defense of sth, markets don't only work unregulated. that's total claptrap. every successful market-based system is a hybrid in which regulation attempts to make up for deficiencies in the market algorithm and actions of realistic, non-ideal players. recall that even in a perfectly ideal case with rational actors and ignoring time to convergence, the simple market algorithm is only pareto, or locally, optimal.

Name one successful hybrid market-based system in the world today.

So the whole point is, yes people are different, yes they are going to disagree, but that's exactly WHY you want to give people the freedom to vote with their dollar. Regulating/controlling a market means that the consumer will always get screwed. Guillaume and sth have complained that they feel they are getting screwed because prices are so high - ok, so don't buy those items! You have determined that pricing is too high to you, ok, so don't buy the ****ing product! I can't determine what pricing makes sense for either of you, nor for anyone else on this forum, so the only way you can control the market is buy voting with your dollars! So you won't be able to afford all the items you want: fine! You can accept, like I have, the fact that life is inherently filled with risk!

Do we want a community where most if not all members would happily help others out for free, or almost free.  Trading, listing great finds on craigslist or ebay, that sort of thing.

Or, would we prefer a forum where we could buy novelty keycaps, and then post pictures of them and not much else.

No one can determine the community that EVERYONE on here wants: that's the whole point. Members should be free to voluntarily associate with the community in the way that makes sense for them. And if anyone else doesn't like the way another member is associating, they are disrespecting that member's freedom to associate here. Now of course, the community has rules which we all voluntarily agree to abide here in respect for the greater community. Hey, if you don't like it, no one is forcing you to stay here! Respect everyone's freedom to associate here in the way that makes sense for them, and you will have a happy and successful community, period.

In conclusion, there are only two different types of people on Geekhack: those who want to be left alone, and those who simply will not leave them alone.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: Krogenar on Tue, 29 January 2013, 08:36:30
in defense of sth, markets don't only work unregulated. that's total claptrap. every successful market-based system is a hybrid in which regulation attempts to make up for deficiencies in the market algorithm and actions of realistic, non-ideal players. recall that even in a perfectly ideal case with rational actors and ignoring time to convergence, the simple market algorithm is only pareto, or locally, optimal.

Agreed. But I don't think anyone is suggesting no regulation of any kind, or a completely Wild West -style market. As I said, the market should be free of fraud. The right to buy and sell is not an absolute right. In an absolutely free market, I could sell my organs, children, etc. -- the community as a whole can and should set some basic outlines. But what sth suggests is this:

Quote from: sth
any attempt to self-regulate by means of forcing sellers to drop their prices could conceivably work in the short term. but that will only last until a compromise of those ideals is made by somebody who does not ascribe to them, most likely because they don't feel any obligation to the framework that allows them to pursue their hobby as it exists.

(emphasis added by me)

I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings, but -- 'forcing sellers to drop their prices' goes far beyond setting up basic guidelines of behavior (requiring accurate photos, well-lit photos, maintaining a positive heatware rating, whatever) and to me constitutes a colossal mistake. Price setting goes beyond regulation of the market and would instead distort it. But likely people would just leave the forum and go someplace else. The items would still be sold at prices that upset some people, it just wouldn't happen here.

My guess Mkawa is that you didn't set up this forum to become a marketplace cop -- I would feel the same way.

How to police a marketplace? I would consider forum tools of some kind, something along the lines of an integrated 'heatware' system. There's already (if I recall correctly) a way to 'ignore' particular forum members? So the tools are already in place, to some degree. You can't stand a member who sells for too high a price because it offends you sensibilities? Well, hit the ignore button. Problem solved.

Quote from: Mkawa
of course in reality, we don't have anything like a perfect world, so we can't even establish or run ideal markets, which means we can't even close to rely on any theoretical proof of even pareto-optimality. in this sense, sth is completely correct.

I read what sth wrote and it seemed to me that he wanted to pursue an ideal of some sort -- or at least bemoaned the fact that the market is not perfect. My point is yours -- markets aren't ideal, and never will be. But markets are still a natural outgrowth of most communities, and therefore natural, normal and worthy of protection -- despite being imperfect. As for pareto-optimality -- it only holds when certain impossible assumptions are made (that all goods are marketable, etc.). It also holds to the zero-sum fallacy -- that one cannot gain economically without somehow harming another person in the market; i.e. that wealth (in the sense of keyboards and their accoutrements) is static, and cannot be created. In my experience, that simply is not the case. The concept is that all wealth (keyboards, what have you) is set, like pieces of a pizza pie. So if some people get more slices, that means everyone else must share what remains. But the facts paint a very different picture.

For example: I see a lot of barter, I see people selling custom accessories (Mimic cables), polish keycaps, assembly services. I see a growing, vibrant marketplace. I see people selling keyboards that they've expertly cleaned and refurbished and repaired. This is undeniably good for the hobby. There's altruism, too, but generally when something becomes profitable you get more of it. If interest in mechanical keyboards grows (which may or may not have anything to do with GH) that means more manufacturers taking an interest in an emerging market. Why would we be afraid of that?

Quote from: mkawa
in defense of krogenar and others, we have to face the fact that we live in a system in which there is currency, goods, pricing, and it's almost impossible to just decide on an optimal set of prices from on high at all points in time. we are all individuals here, with limited information, back by a variety of resources and amounts of those resources, and ultimately what comes out of this is some kind of marketplace, in the most colloquial sense of the word. hence, we have to think about how to make this market better for everyone, and in some cases this is going to mean stepping back and letting stuff happen. if Alice really really wants something from Bob, and Alice has a lot of something (CASH MONEY) that Bob really wants, there is very little we can do to stop Alice from exchanging large amounts of resources for an asset of Bob's. If the transaction doesn't happen on geekhack, it will happen on DT, or BT, or HF, or any of the other practically uncountably many places on the web.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: Krogenar on Tue, 29 January 2013, 09:17:34
I believe Demik once said something about GH turning in some kind of "Look at me, I have bigger e-pennis than you" kind of forum. He didn't tell it with those words but that was the point if I remember correctly. People in this forum is no longer interested in the Hobby. They just want to collect the most expensive items and share the pictures in Geekhack Media subforum to compare their e-pennis size.

I don't know if that's true or not, but even if it were... so what? Can you demonstrate how this harms your freedom to discuss, share knowledge, etc.? I think it harms your sensibilities and upsets you perhaps, but that's not actual harm.

Quote from: guilleguillaume
User 1 : Hey look my new Skull arrived[shows picture of a skull]
User 2 : Oh boy your collection sucks[shows picture with TONS of skulls]
User 3: Both of your collections suck because I've received a Box [shows picture of a box]
User 1: WOWOWOWO! (He's excited because he has shown a Box) Where can I buy that box?

I respectfully submit to you guilleguillaume that a free and open community allows for stupidity, so long as it does no actual harm. Your rights begin where mine end. And if forum members engage in discussions that we find useless and/or stupid we are under no obligation to participate. Ignore them if they upset you so much. How would you regulate people's discussions guilleguillaume? A stupid-meter of some kind? I can't think of any serious way to do it.

Quote from: guilleguillaume
The only reason a lot of  users are joining this forum it's because it has become popular to own mechanical keyboards. Some time ago they even looked at us like those rare "keyboards geeks" that spend 100$ in a keyboard and doesn't even have a colourful screen or shiny leds and made laugh of that. Now some of them are joining GH and the only way they see to adapt to this community is by buying expensive items to show that they're worth of this forum. For this reason GH derailed to a Marketplace where people seems excited with the single idea of buying/selling in mind. Sharing finds has started to be something really rare. The only idea of organising something for free or manage GB without earning money makes some people sick. They only care for $$$$$$$$$, I can see their faces:

So mechanical keyboards have become popular, and now... what? You're upset that new people are entering the hobby and not giving you the respect you think you've earned? Seniority should have its privileges? Economic privileges? Feels to me that you're mocking these people for being new to the hobby and having the temerity to (gasp) buy things! It's shades of the hipster barista meme -- once he hears a musician's work on the radio (public is now aware of artist) he immediately deletes their entire discography from his iPod. Again, I'm not attacking you, just your position. If you think people are all about the $$$$$ then by all means don't do business with them.

Quote from: guilleguillaume
I'm not saying that every single user that joined GH recently is like that, I've been a noob too but not that kind of noob, at least I was interested in learning something in the forums and share knowledge. I've never been interested in making money here in Geekhack like some are.

I see. You were a better class of keyboard nerd noob. I dunno, am I crazy? I am detecting a lot of elitism from the anti-marketplace crowd. How do you really know that the new class of forum members are not interested in learning and sharing knowledge?

Quote from: guilleguillaume
It's nice to see that there is still some great people left (Old and new) but reading some posts in this thread and some other threads makes me think If It would be better to stay out of this forum for a while and see if the attitude changes.

People always declare that they're moving out of the country if a particular political party wins/loses, etc. Hardly ever happens. But you have every right to do so. But you should know I sure don't feel threatened if an elitist snob threatens to leave a community. But they rarely ever do -- being a scold is too enriching an experience, apparently.

Quote from: guilleguillaume
I can remember those days were Click Clack keys were in stock for weeks on EK without being sold because people thought they were expensive. Now people has changed their mind and it seems that  the more you pay for something the more it's worth it like if you were receiving badges for buying items at ultra-expensive prices.

This is the same reason that people buy Ferrari's -- to show people how cool they are. That's human nature, and it's not going to change. But again -- we are under no obligation to participate, so where's the harm?
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: hashbaz on Tue, 29 January 2013, 10:20:24
I feel like all this market talk is beside the point.  The issue for me is not rights and efficiencies, but the flavor of the community.  If geekhack is a place where clacks purchased on EK for $30 are resold immediately for > $100, the sense of community diminishes IMO.  Don't you dare tell me that I sound like a sour old fart who can't afford clacks, because I don't give a damn about them, per se.

mkawa still said it best in his head-fi vs. neogaf post.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: longweight on Tue, 29 January 2013, 10:35:16
I can't imagine how CC's can be sold in a way that keeps everyone here happy, this is mainly due to the way that CC runs his business.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: keyboardlover on Tue, 29 January 2013, 11:12:28
The reality is that market forces can ever ONLY be controlled effectively by consumers. Regulation simply creates extremely lucrative black markets. Accept and embrace that, and the community can work effectively with markets.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: Krogenar on Tue, 29 January 2013, 11:16:31
I feel like all this market talk is beside the point.  The issue for me is not rights and efficiencies, but the flavor of the community.  If geekhack is a place where clacks purchased on EK for $30 are resold immediately for > $100, the sense of community diminishes IMO.

I honestly don't see how that diminishes the 'sense of community'. Let's say that people bought the CCs from EK for $30 and then resold them a month or two later (tired of the CC, needs to fund purchase of something else, etc.) and they choose to sell for $30 -- does the 'sense of community' remain unharmed? More importantly, would the 'sense of community' be enhanced if he gave the CC away for free?

For me, market talk is crucial to this discussion because it speaks to human interaction. Who knew (with certainty) that CCs were going to become wildly popular? Whenever anyone makes a purchase, they're taking a risk. They're trying to recoup that risk-taking when they resell it. The feeling I get is that some people at GH experience a kind of anaphylactic shock when someone makes (to their eyes) an unseemly profit.

I agree with you hashbaz, that the 'flavor' of the community can change, and that can make people uncomfortable. Another analogue to this is zoning laws. For example, a local community has zoning laws to maintain the 'flavor' of a neighborhood.

Zoning Board: "I'm sorry sir, but our zoning laws prohibit you from building a gentleman's club ("Krog's Boobie Bungalow, Coming in November 2013!") next to the elementary school."
Krogenar: "Aww, c'mon!"

And that makes sense, but it can be taken too far. It would be wrong to outlaw my gentlemen's club outright, as I am harming no one and breaking no laws, and I could build it someplace else in the community, where it would be appreciated. But to say I could not build my boobie bungalow at all, anywhere, that would be unfair.

Also, the CC phenomena (buy low, sell very, very high) is a reflection of the market. Let's imagine that ClackFactory decided to make 5,000 of every kind of CC out there, and people could buy as many as they wanted. He would probably have achieved market saturation -- everyone who wanted a CC would have one, generally. But from what I see, he doesn't make very many of them. Yet no one attacks him (not should they.) Or, maybe EK should sell them for $150 and be done with it. Maybe ClackFactory requires them to sell for $30 a piece? I don't know.

Quote
Don't you dare tell me that I sound like a sour old fart who can't afford clacks, because I don't give a damn about them, per se.

I'll gladly promise not to accuse you of being a sour old fart. I don't think any of the anti-profit members would agree to not denigrate people who are attempting to make a profit as evil, greedy bastards who don't care about the community. I'm not a seller, so I have no vested interest, and I have not purchased anything through GH either. Not that that should have any effect on the strength of our arguments. Also, these sellers aren't likely to defend themselves, so, being the hero that I am (stop laughing) I will speak for them.  (assumes Superman pose) ;)
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: longweight on Tue, 29 January 2013, 11:18:13
It is always going to be like this, I don't really think that there is anything to do or get wound up about.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: Alessandro on Tue, 29 January 2013, 11:48:11
Pretty much. This is a great read, however, and Krogenar has made some excellent points in my opinion.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: jdcarpe on Tue, 29 January 2013, 11:48:35
I think the one thing that could help the community the most would be to simply allow threadcrapping in the marketplace, within the limits of respectful conversation. It's one thing to say, "Hey, I just sold that same keyboard for $20 less, yours might sell faster at that price;" and another to say, "Quit being such a douchebag with your high prices!" If personal attacks are moderated without bias or the need for explanation, I think a little threadcrapping can be a good thing. That's how the marketplace works on DT, and it seems to work well.

If you are someone who sells things often using our classifieds forum, and you want threadcrapping to continue to be disallowed, please use this thread to explain your position.

On the subject of auctions, I have said before that I believe auctions should always be handled off-site. eBay has protections setup for buyer and seller, and their bidding system is well-known. GH as a forum doesn't have the resources to deal with auctions.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: Krogenar on Tue, 29 January 2013, 12:04:50
Pretty much. This is a great read, however, and Krogenar has made some excellent points in my opinion.

(takes thick wad of cash from Alessandro)  ;) Glad I could be of service! (rubs hands together greedily)

Just kidding. Thank you for the comment Alessandro. I looked at your caps, and to be honest, they're not my cup of tea -- at all. But I heartily endorse your business and hope you sell lots of keycaps and make an avalanche of money and become a tremendous financial success. Sorry about the "European minx" comment earlier on the thread -- I hope your profits are used to purchase trophy husbands of your choice. (Assuming you are female, apologies if I am mistaken.) And feel free to roll around in pound notes.

Apologies also for attempting to suck all the oxygen from the thread. This is a favorite topic of mine.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: longweight on Tue, 29 January 2013, 12:10:50
But why is there a need to post it in the thread? Just send a PM stating that the price might be dropped to sell, who cares if someone thinks that the price is too high? If it is then the item won't sell and the seller might drop the price.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: reaper on Tue, 29 January 2013, 12:13:00
I think the one thing that could help the community the most would be to simply allow threadcrapping in the marketplace, within the limits of respectful conversation. It's one thing to say, "Hey, I just sold that same keyboard for $20 less, yours might sell faster at that price;" and another to say, "Quit being such a douchebag with your high prices!" If personal attacks are moderated without bias or the need for explanation, I think a little threadcrapping can be a good thing. That's how the marketplace works on DT, and it seems to work well.

If you are someone who sells things often using our classifieds forum, and you want threadcrapping to continue to be disallowed, please use this thread to explain your position.


There is a whole other thread pertaining to that discussion, actually.


http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=39480.0 (http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=39480.0)
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: rek55 on Tue, 29 January 2013, 12:18:32
Case in point being sherryton and Originative - the community spoke up and he responded in a positive way.

TL;DR: there is a way for commercialism and community to live together in harmony.

Hmmm.  As a person who missed the window between his web pre-launch and the great hullabaloo after which it came down, I'll buy that the on-topic feedback worked for the positive.  And that this thread seems a useful discussion.  I don't think that having this discussion in the "great finds" thread about his site was helpful to the community.  As someone interested in keyboards and keycaps, I wanted to at least SEE what was up with the new site.  But what I found was this discussion instead.

I am here because I am interested in keyboards and keycaps, but mostly keyboards.  I like the aesthetics of a nice PBT or DS set of keycaps with some novelty keys tossed in for looks.  I don't have a CC key because I don't see the value, and only have a single anthropomorphic keycap because MMB had a closeout sale and I got a gasmask 'cap for under twenty bucks.  But I've bought a bunch of stuff from Techkeys, Imsto and WASD, and most of my keyboards from classifieds and great finds here.

I'm not a vendor, but I have started a few buys for items that I - personally - couldn't find anywhere else, and thought the community needed to have.  I didn't spend thirty grand on an MOQ for Cherry-mold keycaps, but I did spend more than a few bucks getting media keys custom-made so I would have something to show on a group buy.  (Sign up for those, please!)  And if any of my group buys ever makes it to the point of having leftover cash, I'll donate it to GH.  But that is because I have another job that pays my rent and keeps my kids fed and clothed.

And except for scale, I don't see a difference between putting up a few hundred bucks to make something available and putting up a few (many) thousands to make something bigger available.  Except perhaps courage.

Sherryton the person has signed up for a damn Elvish keyboard; Sherryton's enterprises have made it possible for me and others to have things we wouldn't otherwise have.  Sherryton the person posts, runs group buys, helps other people make group buys, and is generally courteous to everyone here.  Sherryton's enterprise has -- in the longest recession in recorded history -- invested significant coin in actually having something made that we can choose to buy.

Large German plastics firms don't invest in obsolete tooling unless they have a market.  Entrepreneurs don't invest in product unless they can cover their costs and maybe make a buck for the effort.  And unless we want to be a community of people who sell each other old pieces of plastic harvested from old keyboards, we need companies, entrepreneurs and individuals who are willing to take risks on our behalf.

In my personal opinion, there is room for both the slow, low-cost group buy path and the commercial path.  Both are helpful to this community.  Sherryton has paid his dues here, and continues (I hope) to comment and contribute.  And right now, at this very moment, HE has more money on the line with those keycap sets than anyone else.

Good for him.  And thanks as well.

Now I am going to go check to see if his site is back up.  I'd really like to see that Olivetti set.

Peace and harmony, y'all,

 - Ron | samwisekoi
Show Image
(http://www.samwisekoi.com/pixelart/Leo.png)

This was so well said, and seems to have been subsequently ignored. I'm on board with Mr. samwisekoi.
Title: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: jdcarpe on Tue, 29 January 2013, 12:19:50
But why is there a need to post it in the thread? Just send a PM stating that the price might be dropped to sell, who cares if someone thinks that the price is too high? If it is then the item won't sell and the seller might drop the price.

To keep sellers honest. To inform new members who may not know, of the usual price. As long as it is handles in a respectful manner.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: Krogenar on Tue, 29 January 2013, 12:22:09
I think the one thing that could help the community the most would be to simply allow threadcrapping in the marketplace, within the limits of respectful conversation. It's one thing to say, "Hey, I just sold that same keyboard for $20 less, yours might sell faster at that price;" and another to say, "Quit being such a douchebag with your high prices!" If personal attacks are moderated without bias or the need for explanation, I think a little threadcrapping can be a good thing. That's how the marketplace works on DT, and it seems to work well.

I think that's a good idea, but might be tough on moderators. Who's to determine what is or is not theadcrapping? One person's threadcrap is another person's useful advice, right? I'd rather see some kind of forumwide Karma system in place. Threadcrap too often (or accuse people of threadcrapping to often) and your reputation (karma, or what have you) suffers. Then the mods wouldn't have to get involved with every little fracas. Maybe if your karma gets too low with a particular person, your posts become invisible to them; self-regulating, to some degree. Limit karma up- or down-votes to one per person, per day to keep GH from becoming Reddit and limit abuse.

Quote from: jdcarpe
On the subject of auctions, I have said before that I believe auctions should always be handled off-site. eBay has protections setup for buyer and seller, and their bidding system is well-known. GH as a forum doesn't have the resources to deal with auctions.

Awesome, awesome idea. Also, eBay does allow for private auctions, so you could have people sign up through GH to be auctioneers and still keep it 'in the community' in some way. Great idea, jdcarpe.
Title: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: jdcarpe on Tue, 29 January 2013, 12:42:38
I think the one thing that could help the community the most would be to simply allow threadcrapping in the marketplace, within the limits of respectful conversation. It's one thing to say, "Hey, I just sold that same keyboard for $20 less, yours might sell faster at that price;" and another to say, "Quit being such a douchebag with your high prices!" If personal attacks are moderated without bias or the need for explanation, I think a little threadcrapping can be a good thing. That's how the marketplace works on DT, and it seems to work well.

I think that's a good idea, but might be tough on moderators. Who's to determine what is or is not theadcrapping? One person's threadcrap is another person's useful advice, right?

That's exactly the point of the other thread reaper mentioned in his reply. Positive comments are currently left in the thread, but negative comments are removed. Either remove both or none. The only time I think moderators should be involved is when someone personally attacks the seller. Comments about price and the item for sale should be left, regardless of whether the seller wants them in his thread or not.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: longweight on Tue, 29 January 2013, 12:47:30
If you allow thread crapping then you will start getting a lot more of the PM only locked threads.
Title: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: jdcarpe on Tue, 29 January 2013, 12:55:29
Then members shouldn't have the ability to lock threads. Only mods and admins.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: longweight on Tue, 29 January 2013, 12:57:26
Where do you draw the line then? When does a negative comment become trolling?
Title: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: jdcarpe on Tue, 29 January 2013, 13:01:15
At personal attacks. If someone is trolling the seller because of a personal (perhaps mutual) dislike, the other forum members are going to recognize that for what it is. Makes the troll look bad, actually, and not the other way around.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: mashby on Tue, 29 January 2013, 13:02:20
Really, really good discussion. If I can summarize thus far...

Those of us that have no problems with the commercial aspect of the community take little issue with the current "balance" of GeekHack. Those that do take issue have two primary concerns:

1. Members more focused on consumerism (look what I bought/have)
2. Companies leveraging (taking advantage) the community for their benefit.

What I find interesting about these two points is that they both relate to member/consumer demand. For example, since CC are rare and unique items, they've become highly desired my many in the community and thus their price has skyrocketed. Not everyone sees the value in these keycaps, but there is clearly a large majority that do. Scarcity is what is driving demand. Yet if you trace the roots of GeekHack, you'll find that it was founded on this very same principal of scarcity. The difference is that it was scarcity of information.

I've only been a member of the community for a couple of months, but it would appear that the success and/or draw of GeekHack is feeding this into a cyclical process. As more people learn about the benefits of a mechanical keyboard, more people will find GeekHack. The more people that become members, demand for products and services will increase. As demand increases, companies will see an opportunity to provide a good, or service in order to make a profit.

So a new question...

If commercialism is inevitable then should the goal be to provide more information to level the scales? If the answer is yes, then how do we do that?
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: longweight on Tue, 29 January 2013, 13:06:44
I don't think that the market place is broken so I don't see any need to change it.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: hashbaz on Tue, 29 January 2013, 13:17:41
I honestly don't see how that diminishes the 'sense of community'. Let's say that people bought the CCs from EK for $30 and then resold them a month or two later (tired of the CC, needs to fund purchase of something else, etc.) and they choose to sell for $30 -- does the 'sense of community' remain unharmed? More importantly, would the 'sense of community' be enhanced if he gave the CC away for free?

The sense of community is diminished when people take advantage of the system, and each other.  You can argue that it's just economics and it's inevitable, and that the system is at fault, and all that may be true.  But it's beside the point.  Friends don't rip each other off.  They don't snatch up limited merchandise from their peers with the intention of profiting from it rather than enjoying it.  If we're ripping each other off then we're not a community.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: longweight on Tue, 29 January 2013, 13:19:42
Sadly there is only one man that can stop that.
Title: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: jdcarpe on Tue, 29 January 2013, 13:20:58
Maybe you don't think so, but there are plenty of members here that do think the current rules need to be modified.

If you can post any valid reasons why threadcrapping in the classifieds is inherently bad, I'll be happy to consider them. But simply stating that you like it the way it is doesn't cut it. Too many people are unhappy with the direction this forum is taking. Note at least two threads full of comments discussing it, and comments dominating other threads.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: longweight on Tue, 29 January 2013, 13:24:44
1. It clutters up a thread which is about selling an item, muddling up genuine comments with a random conversation.
2. It can take over a FS thread and massively derail it.
3. It doesn't help is anyway, the thread is about advertising an item for sale. If someone thinks that the price or information is wrong then they can send the seller a friendly PM. If the price is deemed unfair then I don't think that comes into it, someone might be willing to pay the price and that is their prerogative.
Title: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: jdcarpe on Tue, 29 January 2013, 13:41:23
1. It clutters up a thread which is about selling an item, muddling up genuine comments with a random conversation.

We're not talking about random conversation.  Most "threadcrapping" is comments pertaining to the item being sold.

Quote
2. It can take over a FS thread and massively derail it.

Thread only gets derailed if members start discussing something totally unrelated. Comments about the item for sale do not derail the thread. Hell, the seller gets free "bumps" by it.

Quote
3. It doesn't help is anyway, the thread is about advertising an item for sale. If someone thinks that the price or information is wrong then they can send the seller a friendly PM. If the price is deemed unfair then I don't think that comes into it, someone might be willing to pay the price and that is their prerogative.

It doesn't help in what way? Doesn't help the seller who can't answer questions regarding his item or its price? It certainly helps other members decide if something is a good value or a ripoff.

Just because someone is willing to pay an inflated price for an item doesn't make it right to profit off fellow members, who may be uninformed as to an item's value.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: Alessandro on Tue, 29 January 2013, 13:44:57
Keeping such discussions to threads like this is brilliant. Unlike suddenly posting in another thread, we're having a proper, neutral discussion rather then biased attacking.

However, I still believe in threadcrapping to an extent (you're all still more than welcome to do it to me by the way, I'm not bothered) as it can help "discuss" prices as such. It's only when it becomes a barrage of biased attacks that a line must be drawn.

*I'm an english minx, not a european one.. ;)
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: longweight on Tue, 29 January 2013, 13:48:23
1. It clutters up a thread which is about selling an item, muddling up genuine comments with a random conversation.

We're not talking about random conversation.  Most "threadcrapping" is comments pertaining to the item being sold.

Quote
2. It can take over a FS thread and massively derail it.

Thread only gets derailed if members start discussing something totally unrelated. Comments about the item for sale do not derail the thread. Hell, the seller gets free "bumps" by it.

Quote
3. It doesn't help is anyway, the thread is about advertising an item for sale. If someone thinks that the price or information is wrong then they can send the seller a friendly PM. If the price is deemed unfair then I don't think that comes into it, someone might be willing to pay the price and that is their prerogative.

It doesn't help in what way? Doesn't help the seller who can't answer questions regarding his item or its price? It certainly helps other members decide if something is a good value or a ripoff.

Just because someone is willing to pay an inflated price for an item doesn't make it right to profit off fellow members, who may be uninformed as to an item's value.


If it isn't about the seller answering a question about the product for sale then it isn't necessary.


I don't think that there is any issue with the marketplace apart from CC sales and the whole painted caps malarkey.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: TheGreatAmphibianPling on Tue, 29 January 2013, 14:09:58

In the former case, I think the head-fi is THE canonical example of crass commercialization ruining a great community. Many years ago, when I was young and even stupider, I spent quite a bit of time on headwize and the earliest revisions of head-fi, learning to hack, building stuff, and generally having a grand old time. In those heady days, open source designs, cooperation, civility, and support for new users were the principles by which the community lived. Fast-forward 10 years, and now head-fi is a huge mess of advertisements for obfuscated implementations of circuits that have not changed in a decade and are described not without any sense of technical specificity but only with adjectives that appeal exclusively to emotion. Further, the userbase seems to be stuck in a horrible cycle of buying and selling these heavily advertised products while arguing about exactly which appeals to emotion are best. Meanwhile, all the hackers seem to have moved on, and I can find no evidence that the forum is able to incubate or produce cool community projects anymore..

It's worse than that: Head-Fi banned the last really knowledgeable poster there - an electronics engineer who has released excellent open source amp designs - after he discovered that one of their sponsor's amps was not only very good ***but tended to destroy headphones:***

http://nwavguy.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/banned-at-head-fi.html

The best part: the amp maker's name is.... Schiit.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: samwisekoi on Tue, 29 January 2013, 14:10:46
How about a "Limited Edition" run of PBT dye-sub litster smiley keys?  Say 50-100 max, each numbered like lithographs?

[attachimg=1]
Original Art

SP has DCS ‐ 1X ROW 1 ‐ YELLOW (YBX) in inventory, so we'd only need to get them printed up.

Or perhaps litster could contribute to the community by making each one special and unique?  Then perhaps a Dutch auction in benefit of GH?

Yo litster: I'll buy the keycaps and mange the auction if you'll do the customization!  (Seriously.)

 - Ron | samwisekoi
(http://www.samwisekoi.com/pixelart/M.png)
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: Krogenar on Tue, 29 January 2013, 14:14:11
I've only been a member of the community for a couple of months, but it would appear that the success and/or draw of GeekHack is feeding this into a cyclical process. As more people learn about the benefits of a mechanical keyboard, more people will find GeekHack. The more people that become members, demand for products and services will increase. As demand increases, companies will see an opportunity to provide a good, or service in order to make a profit.

I don't know that we can assume that GH itself as a forum is causing the increased interest in mechanical keyboards. Is GH going to benefit from that surge in interest -- it could. And I think that's where people's opinions are diverging. Some people don't like a lot of new people showing up and changing the 'flavor' of the forum. Sounds quite a lot like the gentrification phenomena.
(see here for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification))

Quote from: mashby
So a new question...
If commercialism is inevitable then should the goal be to provide more information to level the scales? If the answer is yes, then how do we do that?

A community focused on something that is a consumer product (keyboards) is inevitably going to want to trade, barter and engage in financial transactions. I agree completely that more speech (information) is the answer. To keep the mods sane, the tools should be available to everyone and members shouldn't expect mods to intervene except in the most outrageous situations. That is; the community should police itself for the most part, with mods and the forum owner maintaining the most open guidelines allowable.

Quote from: Longweight
I don't think that the market place is broken so I don't see any need to change it.

I don't think it's broken (as far as I can see -- again, never bought or sold anything via GH) but that doesn't mean the worries of other members should be ignored or that the market cannot be improved. Commercialism can be crass. Case in point: I'm a Penn State graduate. I went to the main campus for four years and can say without a doubt that football is everything. I quickly got the sense that Penn State (while being a great school) was a football team with a university attached to it. Football players got special perks and dispensations that other non-athlete students did not. It irked me, but overall the system worked.

Controlling pricing from members is not going to work -- but maybe the forum could use a bit more segmentation. Make a subform solely dedicated to keyboard epeen measuring so that the members who cannot abide it don't have to see it. Call it the 'Show Me Your E-Peen' subforum.

Ultimately, I think there should be a Karma system so that buyers and sellers can rate one another. It should not be anonymous and it should be a part of the public record. Believe it or not, it's not always the supplier that gets 'fired'. Sometimes buyers get fired. If you go into multiple restaurants, get upset with the meal in each place constantly, and protest by defecating on the tables of those restaurants, you will eventually become persona non grata just about everywhere, and even other restaurant patrons will start to get the picture that those people are just impossible to please and their opinions should be ignored.

If there's a potential consequence for not being forthright as a seller, or being even-tempered as a buyer, then people are more likely to behave like adults. Moderating all that behavior would be a logistical nightmare, so empower the community to do it itself. How many times have you seen an eBay seller with 99% approval, and one person who hated the experience? You chalk it up to a fluke or an accident. Give the 'knowledge is everything' clique a karma rating for knowledge, etc. and give the people who wish to allow a free market a market Karma rating.

As for people starting business ventures, let them, but make it all transparent and above board. I've seen comments in which people are very upset that a moderator or admin was making a profit, and then that person having to defend their actions. My solution is far simpler -- be honest enough to acknowledge that we're not all altruists and it's okay. Everything is a transaction in one form or another. When I first came to GH it was for information. I got it. What did the suppliers get from this transaction? Some people will proclaim "Nothing! You gave them nothing you bastard!"

Not true. I gave them my thanks -- and they got to demonstrate their knowledge and know that their expertise was of use to someone else. Is that self-centered, in a sense? Sure, but everyone got what they wanted, so why the panty twistedness? Even social interactions are transactions of a sort. Self-interest is the norm (and it's a spectrum) -- pure altruism is the exception. We shouldn't build a community based on faking altruism. That would be like an engineer building a machine that ignored gravity on ethical grounds. Gravity makes people fall down, makes women's breasts sag, down with gravity! Let's build a machine that puts gravity in its place -- no place!

Madness. Make gravity work for the community, harness it, and don't expect it to be flawless. And treat it with the respect and caution it deserves.

So 'monetize' these interactions with Karma. Someone helps you with great advice, send them some Karma love so they can stand a little taller. If (from my perspective) a keyboard snob thinks your prices are too high, they should vote your seller score down. That's feedback for sellers and buyers. The seller can come up with some lame (to me) way of 'giving back' to the community (as though providing a product was not enough) and take more money from those people. I make scads of money in my own business from people whose political beliefs are loathsome to me and it is sweet, sweet nectar.

An example: there's a person who used to come into my store to buy my product. The price is set, but they always ask for $.75 less than what it is marked. My initial response was "This is not 'The Price is Right' -- that's the price." I lost the sale! Then I got wise. The next time someone like that walked in I raised the price by $.75 and let them haggle me down to ... the actual price! I deserved an Oscar. She claimed her husband would beat her if I charged her the full price. I moaned ala Benny from Total Recall ("Man... I got five kids ta feed!") To this day she comes in and demands her 'special price' (the normal price). I sigh and fake relent to her demands. The point is that getting the product was not good enough for her -- she needed to know in her heart that she had put me over a barrel pricewise. I gave her that happiness because that's what she needed. Was it deceptive? Sure, but she left happy. The happiness she felt was quite real. Is she a bad person for wanting that from me? No, she just has special needs.

So I think another good solution would be for GH-related startups to perform a similar 'community awareness' kabuki dance to placate the people who are horrified by the rampant commercialization. Some are probably already doing it. They'll deny it, though. I just long for some honesty, in all transactions. No more fake altruism, no more denials that people were trying to make a profit.

Apologies to kabuki dance enthusiasts, it is a noble cultural artform.

Also, Karma add-on for Simple Machines Forum:

Quote
http://wiki.simplemachines.org/smf/Karma
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: longweight on Tue, 29 January 2013, 14:31:10
Oh I agree that I am not representative of everyone.

Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: Alessandro on Tue, 29 January 2013, 14:47:02
How about a "Limited Edition" run of PBT dye-sub litster smiley keys?  Say 50-100 max, each numbered like lithographs?

(Attachment Link)
Original Art

SP has DCS ‐ 1X ROW 1 ‐ YELLOW (YBX) in inventory, so we'd only need to get them printed up.

Or perhaps litster could contribute to the community by making each one special and unique?  Then perhaps a Dutch auction in benefit of GH?

Yo litster: I'll buy the keycaps and mange the auction if you'll do the customization!  (Seriously.)

 - Ron | samwisekoi
Show Image
(http://www.samwisekoi.com/pixelart/M.png)


Epic.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: TheGreatAmphibianPling on Tue, 29 January 2013, 14:59:37
There is only one way that the market approach can work in a community, and that is a completely un-regulated approach. That way markets aren't manipulated by authority and consumers can vote with their dollar.

Yeah, people should be free to sell food with additives that cause cancer - when their customers die 20 years later and their sales drop off they'll regret it!

Quote
But what they really SHOULD do is vote with their dollar - that's the only way consumers can control markets. If you don't like the pricing or the product or whatever then shut the **** up and don't buy it. Period.

Ok: why do you confuse the idea of an unregulated market with a a market WHERE SELLERS ARE FREE FROM CRITICISM? Apparently you don't know what regulation is, and you hate free speech... You also don't get  what an online community is - it's a place where people TALK about  the stuff  they buy and might might buy. If you are against that sharing of opinion, you are against the idea of there being a community.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: mkawa on Tue, 29 January 2013, 15:44:02
so much great food for thought here. just want to pop in for a second to refine what hash and i have been saying and i think others have been alluding to. another poster offered a simple dichotomy between us being a forum of junk collectors or a free-as-in-beer utopia (paraphrased), and i offered the dichotomy of head-fi vs neogaf...

to be clear, we are not going to become any of these things anytime soon (or ever!). for various reasons i don't see us becoming either head-fi or neogaf, either junk traders in some post-apocalyptic adspace-driven wasteland, nor will we ever be paradise where huge corporations are forced to support us by becoming part of the community and being heckled. what we will become is GEEKHACK, and what exactly that means is something for us to decide over the next five years. Every day, we are collectively deciding how money, material goods, and information plays a part in our community.

i know that one thing that that i've been thinking very hard about as i read this conversation is the notion of "threadcrapping" and the definitions we use to identify it in the marketplace forums. on the one hand, you should be allowed to post a classifieds ad without being personally insulted. on the other hand, i would be very sad if we became some kind of haven for plastic speculators.

personally, i like hacking; it's an integral part of who i am, and geekhack scratches that itch for me. i love the projects we work on as a community, and the information we discover by collectively experimenting with fabrication techniques, dissections of old designs, etc. but i'm not an old fart like hashbaz, and i actually also love the little blue clack on my realforce that i click on several hundred (thousands?) of thoroughly enjoyable times a day (vim, what the hell, are you in visual mode? GET OUT!). i also love building infrastructure that allows this community to thrive. but i am only one person in this community out of (as of this or last week, twenty thousand registered users (!!)). it's all of our actions that determine what geekhack becomes, and as hash said in his first post, active civil debate is a requirement for this to truly be a community-guided process.

anyway, before i pop out, i think mashby makes a good point in that there may be a scarcity of information causing the disconnect between some people's notion of how things should be priced and how much people are selling/buying them for. if so, is there something we can do as a community to try to fix this? does it need infrastructure support as well? maybe mashby and i are totally off base, and there's some other factor at play?
Title: Re: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: keyboardlover on Tue, 29 January 2013, 16:02:46
Yeah, people should be free to sell food with additives that cause cancer - when their customers die 20 years later and their sales drop off they'll regret it!

Actually not only do I believe they should be free to sell what they want, but the worst thing abot regulation is it legitimizes that very issue, since you can't trust government bodies to regulate what is healthy or good for everyone. I have accepted the fact that life is filled with risk.

Quote
Ok: why do you confuse the idea of an unregulated market with a a market WHERE SELLERS ARE FREE FROM CRITICISM? Apparently you don't know what regulation is, and you hate free speech... You also don't get  what an online community is - it's a place where people TALK about  the stuff  they buy and might might buy. If you are against that sharing of opinion, you are against the idea of there being a community.

I was being sarcastic dude: honestly I don't care if sellers are criticized publicly. I am a huge fan of freedom of speech. No one is forced to buy OR sell here!
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: Alessandro on Tue, 29 January 2013, 16:09:47

Or perhaps litster could contribute to the community by making each one special and unique?  Then perhaps a Dutch auction in benefit of GH?



Although on a side note to that, you're more than welcome to give Jdcarpe his $63 back if that's how you feel about auctions.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: sth on Tue, 29 January 2013, 16:24:52
I feel like all this market talk is beside the point.  The issue for me is not rights and efficiencies, but the flavor of the community.  If geekhack is a place where clacks purchased on EK for $30 are resold immediately for > $100, the sense of community diminishes IMO.  Don't you dare tell me that I sound like a sour old fart who can't afford clacks, because I don't give a damn about them, per se.

mkawa still said it best in his head-fi vs. neogaf post.

i get distracted easily, but this is the impetus behind my ranting. i would just prefer to be a part of a community that tends toward a mutually beneficial, more DIY/DIT focus rather than a place to show off your newest off-the-shelf keyboard with a flashy/expensive set of keys on it. i know that will always be a part of GH and i'm definitely not saying i never got into the 'visual' aspect, but i feel like emphasizing a cooperative vibe makes the community friendlier and encourages more creativity and experimentation.
Title: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: jdcarpe on Tue, 29 January 2013, 17:00:12

Or perhaps litster could contribute to the community by making each one special and unique?  Then perhaps a Dutch auction in benefit of GH?



Although on a side note to that, you're more than welcome to give Jdcarpe his $63 back if that's how you feel about auctions.

No one dislikes auctions on this site more than I. But that doesn't stop me from using one to donate to the site. I wouldn't take that money back (or any of the other money i have donated to the site) if they offered it. It's important to support this site financially, when one is able. Otherwise we will have stupid ads all over the place. Talk about commercialism vs. community. :)
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: samwisekoi on Tue, 29 January 2013, 17:07:26
Or perhaps litster could contribute to the community by making each one special and unique?  Then perhaps a Dutch auction in benefit of GH?
Although on a side note to that, you're more than welcome to give Jdcarpe his $63 back if that's how you feel about auctions.

Wait, what?  I don't have Jdcarpe's $63, and I am cool with auctions.  (Jdcarpe, please tell me if I owe you money!)

I said Dutch Auction because (according to my understanding and Wikipedia):

Quote from: Wikipedia
However, all winning bidders need to pay only the lowest qualifying (successful) bid. If there are more successful bids than items available, priority goes to the bidders who submitted their bids first.

So if we had a Dutch auction, everyone would pay the lowest successful bid.  That seemed fairer to me, but any other format is ok as well.

Was I misunderstood or am I misunderstanding?

Seriously, I'll buy the blanks and if litster will do the artwork, all proceeds can go to GH.  Isn't that a good thing?

 - Ron | samwisekoi
(http://www.samwisekoi.com/pixelart/M.png)
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: TheGreatAmphibianPling on Tue, 29 January 2013, 17:16:15
Yeah, people should be free to sell food with additives that cause cancer - when their customers die 20 years later and their sales drop off they'll regret it!

Actually not only do I believe they should be free to sell what they want, but the worst thing abot regulation is it legitimizes that very issue, since you can't trust government bodies to regulate what is healthy or good for everyone.

This makes no sense at all. It's like saying "Let's legalize murder, because we still have *some* of them even though we have cops." In fact, food safety and child labour laws have all been enormously effective over the past century, as have government standards to increase vehicle safety over the past couple of decades. And arguing that you can't trust "government bodies" is semantically meaningless - trust them to a -perfect job? Or a job that it us reasonably effective? If you can't define your ideas better than this, you really don't have any ideas - just things you say.


Quote
I have accepted the fact that life is filled with risk.

I doubt it. I suspect you have, by global standards, an unusually soft and well-cushioned life.

Quote
Quote
Ok: why do you confuse the idea of an unregulated market with a a market WHERE SELLERS ARE FREE FROM CRITICISM? Apparently you don't know what regulation is, and you hate free speech... You also don't get  what an online community is - it's a place where people TALK about  the stuff  they buy and might might buy. If you are against that sharing of opinion, you are against the idea of there being a community.

I was being sarcastic dude: honestly I don't care if sellers are criticized publicly.

The problem here is that the sarcastic thing was less insane than the non-sarcastically meant thing...
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: sth on Tue, 29 January 2013, 17:19:10
Quote
I have accepted the fact that life is filled with risk.

I doubt it. I suspect you have, by global standards, an unusually soft and well-cushioned life.



yeah but he's an anarchist.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: TheGreatAmphibianPling on Tue, 29 January 2013, 17:20:29
Quote
I have accepted the fact that life is filled with risk.

I doubt it. I suspect you have, by global standards, an unusually soft and well-cushioned life.



yeah but he's an anarchist.

I think he's a libertarian: anarchism is much more intellectually consistent.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: jdcarpe on Tue, 29 January 2013, 17:25:21
Hey now, I'm a libertarian. Tread lightly there. :)

Quote
I mean, really, what's the point? I'm not European. I don't plan on being European. So who gives a crap if they're socialists? They could be fascist anarchists, it still doesn't change the fact that I don't own a car.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: keyboardlover on Tue, 29 January 2013, 17:38:40
Quote from: TheGreatAmphibianPling
This makes no sense at all. It's like saying "Let's legalize murder, because we still have *some* of them even though we have cops." In fact, food safety and child labour laws have all been enormously effective over the past century, as have government standards to increase vehicle safety over the past couple of decades. And arguing that you can't trust "government bodies" is semantically meaningless - trust them to a -perfect job? Or a job that it us reasonably effective? If you can't define your ideas better than this, you really don't have any ideas - just things you say.

If you REALLY think any laws are "effective", no offense, but you know nothing about legal systems. Regagrdless, I fundamentally disagree that guns should be pointed at peaceful people in order to force them to sell or not sell anything. Unlike you I don't believe in legitimizing a monopoly on violence. I am a peaceful person and I have accepted the fact that life is inherently filled with risk.

Quote from: TheGreatAmphibianPling
I doubt it. I suspect you have, by global standards, an unusually soft and well-cushioned life.

Of course I have a soft and well-cushioned life by global standards. Everyone who lives in the USA does. But unlike you I have accepted the fact that life is inherently filled with risk. Because unlike you I don't need to legitimize a monopoly on violence to be comfortable with my life.

Quote from: TheGreatAmphibianPling
I think he's a libertarian: anarchism is much more intellectually consistent.

Only in the Western part of the world does the word "Libertarian" equate to those who believe in statism. I am a voluntaryist. Not only do you not know enough about my views to intelligently make such a comment as this one, you obviously don't know much about libertarianism or anarchism either.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: TheGreatAmphibianPling on Tue, 29 January 2013, 22:10:10
Hey now, I'm a libertarian. Tread lightly there. :)

You have a Trekkie icon, so I think we all took that for granted.

Although *why* being a Trekkie and a libertarian go together I have no idea - as far as I can determine, the Federation is Sweden In Space. Plus your avatar is Spock, a member of a species that would put Ayn Rand in a mental hospital (rather than having her executed for crimes against literature the way any sane species would.) The only Trek race that comes close to being libertarian are the Ferengi, surely? Shouldn't you have a Quark avatar? Or am I (ironically!) being too logical?
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: sth on Tue, 29 January 2013, 22:11:38
Hey now, I'm a libertarian. Tread lightly there. :)

You have a Trekkie icon, so I think we all took that for granted.


watch it, i kill and eat libertarians for breakfast, during which i watch star trek. treekies ain't all bad.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: TheGreatAmphibianPling on Tue, 29 January 2013, 22:28:35
If you REALLY think any laws are "effective", no offense, but you know nothing about legal systems.

Argument by assertion: an intelligent 8 year old can explain why it is frakked, but it's the basis of the libertarian intellectual diet!

Quote
Regagrdless, I fundamentally disagree that guns should be pointed at peaceful people in order to force them to sell or not sell anything.

So you wouldn't use force to stop the sale of slaves? Of children to paedophiles? Of poison laced food? Of an h-bomb to al qaida?


Quote
Of course I have a soft and well-cushioned life by global standards. Everyone who lives in the USA does.

Congratulations on knowing about your own society: a lot of black inner city kids face a higher risk of violence than most third worlders, not to mention poorer schools, a prison system that disproportionately targets blacks, etc.

Quote
But unlike you I have accepted the fact that life is inherently filled with risk. Because unlike you I don't need to legitimize a monopoly on violence to be comfortable with my life.

Repeating this cliche makes you sound like a Moonie. It's meaningless junk that shows that you have no ability to think rationally, because you are confusing two quite different concepts:

1. The contention that life has an element of risk that can't be reduced to zero

and

2. The question of how well regulation works at reducing risk

This is a huge intellectual fail. You are literally incapable of reasonably rational thought when you make errors like this. This isn't about your political views, it is about the laws of logic.

Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: TheGreatAmphibianPling on Tue, 29 January 2013, 22:32:04
watch it, i kill and eat libertarians for breakfast, during which i watch star trek.

Wouldn't it be better to kill the libertarians in advance and smoke cure them? They'd be tastier, last longer, and your mornings would be less hassled, leaving you time to watch a man's SF show like reboot BSG...
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: sth on Tue, 29 January 2013, 22:33:56
If you REALLY think any laws are "effective", no offense, but you know nothing about legal systems.
Argument by assertion: an intelligent 8 year old can explain why it is frakked, but it's the basis of the libertarian intellectual diet!
Quote
Regagrdless, I fundamentally disagree that guns should be pointed at peaceful people in order to force them to sell or not sell anything.
So you wouldn't use force to stop the sale of slaves? Of children to paedophiles? Of poison laced food? Of an h-bomb to al qaida?
Quote
Of course I have a soft and well-cushioned life by global standards. Everyone who lives in the USA does.
Congratulations on knowing about your own society: a lot of black inner city kids face a higher risk of violence than most third worlders, not to mention poorer schools, a prison system that disproportionately targets blacks, etc.
Quote
But unlike you I have accepted the fact that life is inherently filled with risk. Because unlike you I don't need to legitimize a monopoly on violence to be comfortable with my life.
Repeating this cliche makes you sound like a Moonie. It's meaningless junk that shows that you have no ability to think rationally, because you are confusing two quite different concepts:
1. The contention that life has an element of risk that can't be reduced to zero
and
2. The question of how well regulation works at reducing risk
This is a huge intellectual fail. You are literally incapable of reasonably rational thought when you make errors like this. This isn't about your political views, it is about the laws of logic.

(http://1.cdn.tapcdn.com/images/thumbs/taps/2012/07/google-image-result-for-http-cdn-head-fi-org-6-65-65c6f20c_dayum-jpeg-af1345a1-sz624x462-animate.jpg)

3rd reply is spot the **** on.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: sth on Tue, 29 January 2013, 22:35:18
watch it, i kill and eat libertarians for breakfast, during which i watch star trek.

Wouldn't it be better to kill the libertarians in advance and smoke cure them? They'd be tastier, last longer, and your mornings would be less hassled, leaving you time to watch a man's SF show like reboot BSG...

i pretty much have to blend them up into a smoothie and add a bunch of fruit and yogurt. not even a good smoking is going to hide the sour flavor of self-importance. good source of protein though.

oh and for the record, the person who convinced me to start watching BSG was a woman, not a man :P
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: jdcarpe on Tue, 29 January 2013, 22:44:22
It's not our fault that we libertarians happen to be right most of the time. Being enlightened can be such a burden, sometimes.

Actually, response #3 sounds like someone making excuses to me. If I were black, I wouldn't want someone else making excuses as to which school I attended, the conditions in which I was raised, or the prison system targeting my racial/ethnic group.

But I think we've strayed a bit off topic. :)
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: sth on Tue, 29 January 2013, 22:48:02
Actually, response #3 sounds like someone making excuses to me. If I were black, I wouldn't want someone else making excuses as to which school I attended, the conditions in which I was raised, or the prison system targeting my racial/ethnic group.

OMFG. this is exactly what's wrong with libertarianism. Sup with individuals perpetuating institutional racism?
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: TheGreatAmphibianPling on Tue, 29 January 2013, 22:58:04
Actually, response #3 sounds like someone making excuses to me. If I were black, I wouldn't want someone else making excuses as to which school I attended, the conditions in which I was raised, or the prison system targeting my racial/ethnic group.

People who say this are usually the first ones who want special treatment when they have minor hiccups with their life - if they have flu during an exam, hayfever, whatever. But mention that blacks are enormously more liable to go to jail than white Americans for the same, often victimless, offenses and much more likely to go to inadequate schools, and suddenly some white middle class kid is ***certain*** of what he'd want if his life was totally different...
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: jdcarpe on Tue, 29 January 2013, 22:58:46
Sup is that black people (and any other race of people) are humans, too. Why must one group of humans be treated differently than another? Aren't the people who see racism to be an issue the same ones who are promoting a racial divide between people?

P.S. I just want to say, it doesn't bother me that either of you have a differing position than mine on these issues. I'm just glad you HAVE an position, and are willing to defend it. :)
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: sth on Tue, 29 January 2013, 22:58:58
Actually, response #3 sounds like someone making excuses to me. If I were black, I wouldn't want someone else making excuses as to which school I attended, the conditions in which I was raised, or the prison system targeting my racial/ethnic group.

People who say this are usually the first ones who want special treatment when they have minor hiccups with their life - if they have flu during an exam, hayfever, whatever. But mention that blacks are enormously more liable to go to jail than white Americans for the same, often victimless, offenses and much more likely to go to inadequate schools, and suddenly some white middle class kid is ***certain*** of what he'd want if his life was totally different...

careful with your first statement there... prime fodder for libertarians who like to avoid the point.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: sth on Tue, 29 January 2013, 23:01:40
Sup is that black people (and any other race of people) are humans, too. Why must one group of humans be treated differently than another?

The point is not that black people are not humans. the point is black people as a group of humans (let alone pretty much every other marginalized group of people) ARE treated differently than others in the US every day, be it by individuals or institutions.

Quote
Aren't the people who see racism to be an issue the same ones who are promoting a racial divide between people?
No. racism is a huge issue and there's already a racial divide in this country. You're confusing symptoms with causes.

Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: TheGreatAmphibianPling on Tue, 29 January 2013, 23:24:30
Sup is that black people (and any other race of people) are humans, too. Why must one group of humans be treated differently than another?

This is missing the point: black people in the US ***ARE*** treated differently - there is an enormous disparity in sentencing for minor crimes for example. What you are asking people to do is to ignore this.

Worse, you are arguing for this via "If I was a black person -" Well, you're not. You're not black, you're not an Auschwitz or rape survivor, and you shouldn't assume that you can imagine how you'd feel if you were. That's not to say anything people in these groups say is correct - but you should argue based on logic, rather than your imagined version of an experience you don't have.

Getting back to those facts:

Quote
http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/black-americans-given-longer-sentences-than-white-americans-for-same-crimes?news=843984

A new academic study of 58,000 federal criminal cases has found significant disparities in sentencing for blacks and whites arrested for the same crimes. The research led to the conclusion that African-Americans’ jail time was almost 60% longer than white sentences.

 
According to M. Marit Rehavi of the University of British Columbia and Sonja B. Starr, who teaches criminal law at the University of Michigan Law School, the racial disparities can be explained “in a single prosecutorial decision: whether to file a charge carrying a mandatory minimum sentence….Black men were on average more than twice as likely to face a mandatory minimum charge as white men were, holding arrest offense as well as age and location constant.” Prosecutors are about twice as likely to impose mandatory minimums on black defendants as on white defendants.

This single difference alone has huge knock-on effects: because black men are much more likely to be in jail, black families are more likely to be impoverished and traumatized.

And remember: there is no reason even to believe these men are guilty - trials in the US criminal system are almost suicidal because of the lack of resources for public defenders and because of the large increase in sentence for not pleading guilty.

Quote
P.S. I just want to say, it doesn't bother me that either of you have a differing position than mine on these issues. I'm just glad you HAVE an position, and are willing to defend it. :)

That's very open minded. Good for you!
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: litster on Tue, 29 January 2013, 23:27:07
Quote from: TheGreatAmphibianPling

<*****slap trimmed>


TheGreatAmphibianPling, you are my GHero.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: demik on Tue, 29 January 2013, 23:37:24
Actually, response #3 sounds like someone making excuses to me. If I were black, I wouldn't want someone else making excuses as to which school I attended, the conditions in which I was raised, or the prison system targeting my racial/ethnic group.

OMFG. this is exactly what's wrong with libertarianism. Sup with individuals perpetuating institutional racism?

there is nothing better than a white male telling you what a minority should think.

as a minority, that **** is hilarious.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: TheGreatAmphibianPling on Tue, 29 January 2013, 23:56:35
Quote from: TheGreatAmphibianPling

<*****slap trimmed>


TheGreatAmphibianPling, you are my GHero.


Well, gosh, shucks - thank you!

...Just don't ask me how any of this applies to selling rare keycaps at a huge mark-up. But the guy who talked about not becoming head-fi has his head wired on - that site exists only to get people to spend huge amounts of money on complete rubbish. (Eg $200 cables that a blind listening test will prove work no better than the cheapest kind.)
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: iri on Wed, 30 January 2013, 02:13:37
Congratulations on knowing about your own society: a lot of black inner city kids face a higher risk of violence than most third worlders, not to mention poorer schools, a prison system that disproportionately targets blacks, etc.
isn't there equality in the united states?
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: Leslieann on Wed, 30 January 2013, 02:25:02
Congratulations on knowing about your own society: a lot of black inner city kids face a higher risk of violence than most third worlders, not to mention poorer schools, a prison system that disproportionately targets blacks, etc.
isn't there equality in the united states?
HAHAHAHAHAHA
After adjusting for everything, our income inequality is on par with China, Malaysia and Mozambique.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: tp4tissue on Wed, 30 January 2013, 02:52:00
Congratulations on knowing about your own society: a lot of black inner city kids face a higher risk of violence than most third worlders, not to mention poorer schools, a prison system that disproportionately targets blacks, etc.
isn't there equality in the united states?
HAHAHAHAHAHA
After adjusting for everything, our income inequality is on par with China, Malaysia and Mozambique.

income inequality isn't a problem... Doesn't matter how "rich" you are on paper..

You eat 3 meals a day, poop 1.5 times a day, and live to ~70


WHAT is a problem is the luxury market which causes a great deal of resources to end up as useless trinkets.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: sth on Wed, 30 January 2013, 02:58:46
you always have the answer don't you
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: Leslieann on Wed, 30 January 2013, 03:14:50
income inequality isn't a problem... Doesn't matter how "rich" you are on paper..

You eat 3 meals a day, poop 1.5 times a day, and live to ~70
It may not matter when you have money, but to those who are poor, it certainly matters.

As for 3 meals a day, a lot of people in this country struggle for one.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: iri on Wed, 30 January 2013, 03:23:21
Congratulations on knowing about your own society: a lot of black inner city kids face a higher risk of violence than most third worlders, not to mention poorer schools, a prison system that disproportionately targets blacks, etc.
isn't there equality in the united states?
HAHAHAHAHAHA
After adjusting for everything, our income inequality is on par with China, Malaysia and Mozambique.
i wasn't talking about income inequality
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: Leslieann on Wed, 30 January 2013, 03:33:30
Congratulations on knowing about your own society: a lot of black inner city kids face a higher risk of violence than most third worlders, not to mention poorer schools, a prison system that disproportionately targets blacks, etc.
isn't there equality in the united states?
HAHAHAHAHAHA
After adjusting for everything, our income inequality is on par with China, Malaysia and Mozambique.
i wasn't talking about income inequality
Income inequality often goes right along with other inequality.

Just because we have a black president doesn't mean everything is peachy.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: keyboardlover on Wed, 30 January 2013, 06:45:52
So you wouldn't use force to stop the sale of slaves? Of children to paedophiles? Of poison laced food? Of an h-bomb to al qaida?

Nope. Unlike you I am a peaceful person and unlike you I don't legitimize even my own slavery now. P.S. what is Al-qaeda exactly?

Congratulations on knowing about your own society: a lot of black inner city kids face a higher risk of violence than most third worlders, not to mention poorer schools, a prison system that disproportionately targets blacks, etc.

That is fair, but global poverty is a very serious problem caused by statism. In fact, I probably care much more about solving this crisis than you. I know that crises of war and poverty are caused by statism, and cannot be destroyed unless the state is; this has been true in all statist societies (and all successful anarchies have created unparalleled equality, until they were destroyed by force).

Repeating this cliche makes you sound like a Moonie. It's meaningless junk that shows that you have no ability to think rationally, because you are confusing two quite different concepts:

1. The contention that life has an element of risk that can't be reduced to zero

and

2. The question of how well regulation works at reducing risk

This is a huge intellectual fail. You are literally incapable of reasonably rational thought when you make errors like this. This isn't about your political views, it is about the laws of logic.

Cliche? Lol. It's a fact that destroys the statist mindset that a monopoly on violence is crucial to preventing risk and you know it. That's why you're getting defensive.
Laws of logic? Do you actually believe that risk in life can be reduced to zero? How? We are human beings! The burden of proof of how well regulation works at reducing risk is up to you, but like I said, I am a peaceful person who doesn't believe in legitimizing a monopoly on violence in order to feel comfortable with my life. Because unlike you, I know, LOGICALLY, that laws do not stop bad people from doing bad things. If it worked, it would work and the writing is on the wall. The worst thing about statism is it legitimizes these bad things, because the same bad things are always ok so long as government does them. Which goes back to war and poverty.

There is nothing statism accomplishes without the real or implied threat of violent force and therefore there's no such thing as government; only a monopoly of violence, legitimized by folks such as yourself. And if you think it works so damn well, then why is it currently working so damn POORLY? The burden of proof is on you sir!

Plus your avatar is Spock, a member of a species that would put Ayn Rand in a mental hospital (rather than having her executed for crimes against literature the way any sane species would.)

Wow, statists are SO violent!

Now, if you'd like to debate this further, please create a new thread or we can do it offline. Derailing this thread doesn't make much sense now does it mr. trollphibian?

As I've said before, there are two types of Geekhackers. Those who want to be left alone, and those who simply will not leave them alone.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: TheGreatAmphibianPling on Wed, 30 January 2013, 07:51:18
So you wouldn't use force to stop the sale of slaves? Of children to paedophiles? Of poison laced food? Of an h-bomb to al qaida?

Nope. Unlike you I am a peaceful person

I'd actually say that you are evil person, because you are willing to allow very large moral abuses to be committed so that you don't have to commit what are at most smaller ones.

Quote
and unlike you I don't legitimize even my own slavery now.

Gosh - more meaningless slogans!

Quote
Congratulations on knowing about your own society: a lot of black inner city kids face a higher risk of violence than most third worlders, not to mention poorer schools, a prison system that disproportionately targets blacks, etc.

That is fair, but global poverty is a very serious problem caused by statism.

Again: that's argument by assertion.

Quote
I know that crises of war and poverty are caused by statism

This is silly: Singapore is a state entity and peaceful and prosperous, but the Rawandan genocide was a sub-state conflict. Then there is happy, happy Somalia...

Quote
Repeating this cliche makes you sound like a Moonie. It's meaningless junk that shows that you have no ability to think rationally, because you are confusing two quite different concepts:

1. The contention that life has an element of risk that can't be reduced to zero

and

2. The question of how well regulation works at reducing risk

This is a huge intellectual fail. You are literally incapable of reasonably rational thought when you make errors like this. This isn't about your political views, it is about the laws of logic.

Cliche? Lol. It's a fact that destroys the statist mindset that a monopoly on violence is crucial to preventing risk and you know it.

Again: argument by assertion.

Quote
That's why you're getting defensive.

Actually I'd say I'm more derisory.

Quote
Laws of logic? Do you actually believe that risk in life can be reduced to zero?

Ok: you can't read. Once again:

It's meaningless junk that shows that you have no ability to think rationally, because you are confusing two quite different concepts:

1. The contention that life has an element of risk that can't be reduced to zero

and

2. The question of how well regulation works at reducing risk

This is a huge intellectual fail.

..So your the answer to your silly rhetorical question has already been given - which is that no thinks that the state can reduce risk to zero, but that this is a stupid criteria for whether to have a state. Vaccinations, seat belts, parachutes, air bags, etc, don't reduce risk to zero - but you're still an idiot if you jump out of a plane without a parachute because the parachute isn't guaranteed to work *perfectly.*

Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: keyboardlover on Wed, 30 January 2013, 08:23:04
Apparently YOU can't read. I said let's take it offline or in another thread to not derail this one. I'm not going to reply to you anymore.

Mods, do you agree?
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: Krogenar on Wed, 30 January 2013, 09:04:40
I come back one day later to this thread and ... wow. It's like going to bed with Bruce Lee's physique and waking with Chris Farley's body. (May they both rest in peace.) Full on 'The John McLaughlin Group' with sth & co. as Eleanor Clift! So many enticing political tangents to choose from! Some quick comments and then back on topic:

No time for my coruscatingly brilliant political insight? Fine. Skip down to line that reads: *** END POLITICAL TANGENT HERE ***

Quote from: jdcarpe
Hey now, I'm a libertarian. Tread lightly there.
:)

Hey, me too! No wonder you've supplied cogent and useful remarks so consistently! (secret libertarian handshake) For me, there is not always a capital letter 'L' on my 'Libertarianism' cap (Completely free and open borders? No more crazy pills for you!) -- basically I ascribe to the Milton Friedman model of economics because it is readable (enjoyable, even -- if I won the lottery I would drop copies of 'Free to Choose' over black communities) and it actually jibes with my experiences. I believe (as Friedman did) that of all human liberties (sexual, economic, legal, etc.) that economic liberty is the 'base' liberty, from which all other liberties may be derived, if it is allowed. Give people the right to own property (but no other freedoms) and they will eventually pry the other freedoms into being. Seriously, read 'Free to Choose' -- http://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-Statement-Milton-Friedman/dp/0156334607 (http://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-Statement-Milton-Friedman/dp/0156334607)

Economics is often referred to as 'The Dismal Science' but Friedman's book makes it truly enjoyable without skimping or 'dumbing it down'. For most people, the thought of reading about economics is about as appealing as receiving a lap dance from Hillary Clinton, but in this case you would be wrong. Awesome, awesome book written by a Nobel Prize winner.

Quote
I mean, really, what's the point? I'm not European. I don't plan on being European. So who gives a crap if they're socialists? They could be fascist anarchists, it still doesn't change the fact that I don't own a car.

I don't even know which budding young socialist said this, but what a beautifully honest remark. Who cares about the nitty gritty of how we organize ourselves economically -- do I, or do I not get my car? What does your ownership of a car have to do with the utility of capitalism versus socialism? Probably the most beautifully honest non sequitur (so far). That's why discussions of socialism interest me, the truth always slips out, given time.

Someone (guy with the frog avatar) pointed out that keyboardlover "probably has a well-cushioned life" -- as though that was somehow a black mark against him. I've been monitoring some of the other threads and I'm always surprised to see some people (generally the more collectivist-minded members) beating their breasts saying things like, "This hobby hasn't made me any money -- I've lost money on it!" -- again, as though that somehow entitles them to be an OG (original gangster? Their term, not mine. *snicker*) or that the fact that they've lost money is a badge of honor; proof of their superior sincerity and commitment.

What crap. I have a higher respect for the person who makes money off their hobby because (in my experience) you cannot make money unless you provide value to someone else. Hell, I have a higher respect for someone who tries (and fails) to make some money off their hobby because at least they had the stones to try. This is not an endorsement of fraud (selling crap to people), but of how markets work. Keyboardlover, I hope your life gets even more cushier and more comfortable.

Quote from: sth
watch it, i kill and eat libertarians for breakfast, during which i watch star trek.

Really? I like your swagger sth. Wait, didn't you essentially tap out of our earlier discussion with the 'Man. Look.' statement? Well, I'm a libertarian, so if you want to debate me in some fashion... make it so! Is this the part where I bang my shoe on the table? Also, sth, throw me some punctuation once in a while? You're on a keyboard forum and you can't find the Shift key? (I keed, I keed!) For all I know you're tapping this all out on a iPod Touch. (damned corporations!)

*** END POLITICAL TANGENT HERE ***

What was we talkin' 'bout? Oh right, how to strike a balance between commercial interests of members (and forum owners) while still fostering a non-commercial 'community'?

1. Acknowledge that they are not mutually exclusive and in fact are mutually beneficial to one another.

2. I think it matters how tactfully the forum owners and moderators handle advertisements on the forum. It doesn't have to be crass, or overbearing. Let advertisers know that they will not be getting free passes, soft-pedaled reviews of their products, etc. It should be like a journalism site -- no special consideration to advertisers. Avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest whenever possible.

3. The answer is (in my opinion) more and better communication, not less. After considering jdcarpe's idea about allowing more threadcrapping (negative feedback) I agree. But how to determine what is or is not useful threadcrap? I still think a karmic system could work. If users threadcrap recklessly it should eventually hurt them. If they threadcrap in a positive, useful way, it should help them. So if a user is just a business-hating anarcho-socialist who threadcraps anyone trying to sell for a profit, they would eventually end up being 'ignored' by the community, automatically. So -- more communication, but with auto-correcting consequences for misuse of that new communication. Positive feedback would also have positive consequences in this scenario.

4. I would consider asking community members to donate $5/year to the forum. I have definitely received better than $5 worth of knowledge and guidance and would drop that amount in a heartbeat. In fact, I'll do it today. If they do, give them a nifty profile badge. Or give them a nifty badge for donating stuff, or knowledge. Added five entries to the wiki -- badge time, woo! Get great feedback from buyers/sellers? Badge for you. We would be incentivizing positive interaction. Give the OG elites an OG badge -- whoops, now you can't -- they'll know they're being mollified and instead be peeved. Sorry. Which leads to my next point.

5. Accept that you're not Not NOT going to make everyone happy. Some people bear their unhappiness as a badge of honor, and there's no cure for their colic. Listen to them and then soothe them as best you can and move on. Owners and Admins probably know this already, but it never hurts to repeat it. Some people are always going to view business people in a negative light. Listen to them but please don't be ruled by them.

6. I've been to lots and lots of forums (even been banned from one) and run a small one (20 members) for a few years, and I'm really glad I found GH. The level of discourse here is very high. I'm glad that the mods, admins and owners are letting people vent their fears and frustrations because it's the right thing to do. One of the techniques I use in business when I'm faced with an angry, upset client is to let them vent and then I thank them for complaining.

This usually stops them dead in their tracks because most people don't thank people for complaining. They usually roll their eyes and hit them with some admin conflict-resolution language nonsense. I explain that for every person like them that complains there could be another ten that don't complain ... those other ten people just walk away, without a peep. I've lost those ten people as customers because they just accepted the problem as 'the way things are'. Then I explain that I don't want to lose them, or those ten people. So I sincerely thank them for bringing this problem to my attention -- and usually they become kittens. Sometimes they have nothing concrete to add, but the act of listening defuses them in any event.

So kudos to the admins, owners and mods of GH for listening, that bodes very well for GH's future. (It probably explains GH's present condition as well -- I don't believe in happy accidents.) I've also noticed that some of the member/entrepeneurs have taken a positive attitude towards threadcrapping. They want to be better, and that's also very heartening to see.

Also, someone please start a political discussion thread, if only to save this one!
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: samwisekoi on Wed, 30 January 2013, 09:34:20
And with that, can we put this thread aside and talk about keyboards?  Strive for balance and harmony, etc?

Seriously, everyone's opinion that can be changed has been changed.  And/or not so much.

Look there!  Keyboards!  Keycaps!  Geekhackery!

Move along now, move along.  Nothing to see here.  All trolls have been fed, have eaten, or both.  All relevant positions have been taken, attacked, discarded, reviled and/or admired.

Thank you all for coming!

Seriously, please move along.

</thread>

 - Ron | samwisekoi
(http://www.samwisekoi.com/pixelart/Leo.png)

Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: Alessandro on Wed, 30 January 2013, 10:08:29
Or perhaps litster could contribute to the community by making each one special and unique?  Then perhaps a Dutch auction in benefit of GH?
Although on a side note to that, you're more than welcome to give Jdcarpe his $63 back if that's how you feel about auctions.

Wait, what?  I don't have Jdcarpe's $63, and I am cool with auctions.  (Jdcarpe, please tell me if I owe you money!)

I said Dutch Auction because (according to my understanding and Wikipedia):

Quote from: Wikipedia
However, all winning bidders need to pay only the lowest qualifying (successful) bid. If there are more successful bids than items available, priority goes to the bidders who submitted their bids first.

So if we had a Dutch auction, everyone would pay the lowest successful bid.  That seemed fairer to me, but any other format is ok as well.

Was I misunderstood or am I misunderstanding?

Seriously, I'll buy the blanks and if litster will do the artwork, all proceeds can go to GH.  Isn't that a good thing?

 - Ron | samwisekoi
Show Image
(http://www.samwisekoi.com/pixelart/M.png)


No, I aplogise for misunderstanding that. :)

Also, I would love to take part, gimme one o' dem smileys.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: baldgye on Wed, 30 January 2013, 12:22:41
It's so strange that people on GH have such a problem blending commercialism with community, they are one in the same. Without people able to make money from this hobby, there wouldn't be shops or people out there providing for people who 'arn't' in the loop already.

From my own point of view, there seems to be only extreme's posted when ever anyone who runs a buisness tries and do it through there own shop, like making money is some great crime...
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: iri on Wed, 30 January 2013, 15:10:50
What does your ownership of a car have to do with the utility of capitalism versus socialism?
in socialist times, my granddad had three cars. i own none. *sigh*
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: Krogenar on Wed, 30 January 2013, 20:05:18
What does your ownership of a car have to do with the utility of capitalism versus socialism?
in socialist times, my granddad had three cars. i own none. *sigh*

Was he a member of the politburo?
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: iri on Thu, 31 January 2013, 02:32:11
What does your ownership of a car have to do with the utility of capitalism versus socialism?
in socialist times, my granddad had three cars. i own none. *sigh*
Was he a member of the politburo?
an emergency vehicle driver.
Title: Re: Commercialism vs. Community
Post by: davkol on Thu, 31 January 2013, 17:29:18
lol

You guys never disappoint... The first two pages: constructive discussion. The third page: KL advertising his religion, and sth with the positive discrimination stuff. I'm out of here. -_-

BTW I wanted to write an on-topic comment, but I'd just repeat what hashbaz, demik and sth said earlier. I stay away from most parts of GBs/classifieds and GH media for a reason. Profiteering may damage otherwise good relationships. What has been seen, cannot be unseen. (Someone remembers e.g. the MMB vs. Lin sh!tstorm? This stuff is exactly what drives the community feeling somewhere else.)