This is something good.
I think the first rule would be only one GB at a time and the organizer ahould not be allowed to start a new one untill the other GB is completed together with shipping and eventual issues solved.
If the organizer is a minor there should be an adult also involved.
The payment to the vendor should be done within the PayPal dispute period and proof of payment should be presented and something solid not just words.
Updates must be made on regular basis, we have trusted people and that lead to nothing good :(
I think we should follow in /r/MechanicalKeyboards footsteps and post a very visible PSA regarding group buys on every new GB thread. As trustworthy as some people may be, **** happens. You aren't buying from a business that has a reputation to protect or obligations to meet. You are literally giving your money to someone who is then entrusted to make an order for you, and everyone else in the group buy, and follow up with updates and delivery. No matter what rules you implement, no matter how much you vet everyone, something can always go wrong. It is up to the participants in the GB to be fully aware of this and realize that there is a very real possibility of failure (followed by a refund), or, in a worst-case-scenario, being scammed.
I know you all hate Ripster, but he posts this PSA (https://www.reddit.com/r/MechanicalKeyboards/wiki/psagroupbuys) in nearly every group buy post that goes up in /r/MechanicalKeyboards, and while almost all group buys go smoothly, there is a chance that some won't.
I think we should follow in /r/MechanicalKeyboards footsteps and post a very visible PSA regarding group buys on every new GB thread. As trustworthy as some people may be, **** happens. You aren't buying from a business that has a reputation to protect or obligations to meet. You are literally giving your money to someone who is then entrusted to make an order for you, and everyone else in the group buy, and follow up with updates and delivery. No matter what rules you implement, no matter how much you vet everyone, something can always go wrong. It is up to the participants in the GB to be fully aware of this and realize that there is a very real possibility of failure (followed by a refund), or, in a worst-case-scenario, being scammed.
I know you all hate Ripster, but he posts this PSA (https://www.reddit.com/r/MechanicalKeyboards/wiki/psagroupbuys) in nearly every group buy post that goes up in /r/MechanicalKeyboards, and while almost all group buys go smoothly, there is a chance that some won't.
We have had that stickied in the group buy subforum since before ripster started posting it in every thread. Are you suggesting we should post it in every group buy as well? I think that is a little excessive as everyone knows the risks going into a group buy (I think).
Yeah I think that the stickied PSA is enough. People should be responsible enough to do their own research before joining a buy. It is pretty obvious that there are risks involved i think.
We have had that stickied in the group buy subforum since before ripster started posting it in every thread. Are you suggesting we should post it in every group buy as well? I think that is a little excessive as everyone knows the risks going into a group buy (I think).
What would happen if a group buy runner say got put in prison for say tax evasion? Or robbery, or anything else.
Or if a group buy leader got very ill or become so sick they literally couldn't respond? Or it was use group buy funds to pay bills/rent/food or be homeless due to a medical emergency?
And this is out there but what if someone did die (I'm not trying to be funny this isn't anything to joke about) and someone stole there identity?
Not saying any of this has happened just some question that come to mind since everything seems to be hitting the fan lately.
Would it be reasonable to have the group buy leader be required to update the first post with a status update at a minimum of say every 2 weeks? Even if there's nothing new to report, they could still check in with something like: "Status update for <insert current date>. Keycaps are still in production at the factory. Estimated production completion is still on track for <insert whatever the future date is>." Then edit the post 2 weeks later and update the information, even if that's just changing the current date.
Would it be reasonable to have the group buy leader be required to update the first post with a status update at a minimum of say every 2 weeks? Even if there's nothing new to report, they could still check in with something like: "Status update for <insert current date>. Keycaps are still in production at the factory. Estimated production completion is still on track for <insert whatever the future date is>." Then edit the post 2 weeks later and update the information, even if that's just changing the current date.
Ah this is a good point. At a very minimum I think requiring updates at a set/reasonable interval is pretty basic to maintain good standings as a GB leader. There is really no reason not to do an update every 2-3 weeks. It is a single post, and any GB leader is more than likey pretty active to begin with on here
I am not sure what adding a status update would help with though. Sure it would cut down on the people asking for updates, but all the group buys that go south are usually due to the leaders running with the money, or no longer logging into geekhack. For example, what if Ivan had done biweekly updates, and then it eventually still came out that he had made those up? Then we would be in the same place we are now.
I am not sure what adding a status update would help with though. Sure it would cut down on the people asking for updates, but all the group buys that go south are usually due to the leaders running with the money, or no longer logging into geekhack. For example, what if Ivan had done biweekly updates, and then it eventually still came out that he had made those up? Then we would be in the same place we are now.
This is very true, but at least it gives you a piece of mind that the organizer isn't trying to run away with your $$$.
There's got to be a better way to handle the money side of things that doesn't involve running the GB through MassDrop.
I wonder if Square (https://squareup.com/) can offer anything better than PayPal can regarding a group or GH account. Something that someone with a solid reputation can manage/keep an eye on. Makes more sense to not have all your eggs in one basket in the event something DOES go belly up.
I am not sure what adding a status update would help with though. Sure it would cut down on the people asking for updates, but all the group buys that go south are usually due to the leaders running with the money, or no longer logging into geekhack. For example, what if Ivan had done biweekly updates, and then it eventually still came out that he had made those up? Then we would be in the same place we are now.
I am not sure what adding a status update would help with though. Sure it would cut down on the people asking for updates, but all the group buys that go south are usually due to the leaders running with the money, or no longer logging into geekhack. For example, what if Ivan had done biweekly updates, and then it eventually still came out that he had made those up? Then we would be in the same place we are now.
This is very true, but at least it gives you a piece of mind that the organizer isn't trying to run away with your $$$.
There's got to be a better way to handle the money side of things that doesn't involve running the GB through MassDrop.
I wonder if Square (https://squareup.com/) can offer anything better than PayPal can regarding a group or GH account. Something that someone with a solid reputation can manage/keep an eye on. Makes more sense to not have all your eggs in one basket in the event something DOES go belly up.
I don't quite agree. I think a HUGE problem with many GB's, even some that get sketchy for a bit, then end up okay is a simple lack of communication. Having someone that has $$$$$$ money from the community be required to simply communicate with them at a set interval in the very least would help that. There isn't a downside to making this a requirement that I can see.
If you want to start handling money better, communication is a good first step imo.
I am not sure what adding a status update would help with though. Sure it would cut down on the people asking for updates, but all the group buys that go south are usually due to the leaders running with the money, or no longer logging into geekhack. For example, what if Ivan had done biweekly updates, and then it eventually still came out that he had made those up? Then we would be in the same place we are now.
This is very true, but at least it gives you a piece of mind that the organizer isn't trying to run away with your $$$.
There's got to be a better way to handle the money side of things that doesn't involve running the GB through MassDrop.
I wonder if Square (https://squareup.com/) can offer anything better than PayPal can regarding a group or GH account. Something that someone with a solid reputation can manage/keep an eye on. Makes more sense to not have all your eggs in one basket in the event something DOES go belly up.
I don't quite agree. I think a HUGE problem with many GB's, even some that get sketchy for a bit, then end up okay is a simple lack of communication. Having someone that has $$$$$$ money from the community be required to simply communicate with them at a set interval in the very least would help that. There isn't a downside to making this a requirement that I can see.
If you want to start handling money better, communication is a good first step imo.
Not sure what part of my post you were disagreeing with, but I absolutely agree with everything you said :P
I am not sure what adding a status update would help with though. Sure it would cut down on the people asking for updates, but all the group buys that go south are usually due to the leaders running with the money, or no longer logging into geekhack. For example, what if Ivan had done biweekly updates, and then it eventually still came out that he had made those up? Then we would be in the same place we are now.
Fair enough. I guess I am trying to think of ways to better address the issue of leaders running with the money. I do agree that more communication is nice, my point was that it doesn't stop someone running with the money.
Any ideas that are brought up here, I will bring up with the modteam :)
Any ideas that are brought up here, I will bring up with the modteam :)
As paternalistic as it seems, when you are entertaining this type of activity on your site, I think you need to draft some official terms, and future Groupbuy runners need to formally agree to them, so there is some level of accountability.
Fair enough. I guess I am trying to think of ways to better address the issue of leaders running with the money. I do agree that more communication is nice, my point was that it doesn't stop someone running with the money.
Any ideas that are brought up here, I will bring up with the modteam :)
This is something good.
I think the first rule would be only one GB at a time and the organizer ahould not be allowed to start a new one untill the other GB is completed together with shipping and eventual issues solved.
only one GB at a time and the organizer ahould not be allowed to start a new one untill the other GB is completed together with shipping and eventual issues solved
Organizers should be limited to 1 group buy at any given time, and required to complete it before moving on to another.
Require regularly scheduled updates.
Require posted proof of payment to the manufacturer.
I believe that geekhack has and should have no responsibility in how group buys are conducted. This is the responsibility of the participant. Each and every person going in on a group buy should understand that there is a chance that nothing comes to fruition, either at the fault of the organizer or for other reasons. If this is not an acceptable possibility to someone, they should not participate.
I don't believe that any of the suggestions laid out so far do anything to either prevent scams nor mitigate the effect of one should it happen. Let's scrutinize, shall we?QuoteOrganizers should be limited to 1 group buy at any given time, and required to complete it before moving on to another.
ddot makes good points about this rule above. I'll make some of my own and reinforce some of his.
First, the rule isn't enforceable. Just because overlapping group buys might not be conducted on geekhack, they can still be conducted elsewhere: Reddit, DT, etc. Sure, you can prevent multiple active group buys from the same organizer in the Group Buys subforum, but you can't prevent someone from posting about other buys in a different subforum – this happens all the time already (Chinese buys as an example). Sufficiently accessible group buys run not on geekhack will still be joined by members of our community.
Second, this rule doesn't guarantee any mitigation of the impact of a scam. Sure, it's one buy, but we all know how huge buys can get. Someone set on taking advantage of the community still has every means to do so, and is not meaningfully limited by this rule.
Third, it has the significant drawback of limiting output from organizers willing and able to take on multiple buys simultaneously.
The "no multiple groupbuys" thing is silly, and basically encourages contributors to pick quick and easy group buys. Someone like leandren would have to stop doing his periodic 60% buys just to be able to create a keyset or something. A good example of someone who it would kill is bunnylake, he wouldn't have been able to run sophomore JTK without settling the topre sliders. And also what is "one buy"? The JTK/topre sliders thing is a good example, or leandrens groupbuys where he's getting from multiple manufacturers. Is that one group buy, or multiple? What if leandren ran his own keyset alongside the 60% case buy for his own "Leandboard", like matteo did with the whitefox? Is that one or two, since he's doing it at the same time, but its a groupbuy for a keyboard and a keyset that might be sent out at different times.
I believe that geekhack has and should have no responsibility in how group buys are conducted. This is the responsibility of the participant. Each and every person going in on a group buy should understand that there is a chance that nothing comes to fruition, either at the fault of the organizer or for other reasons. If this is not an acceptable possibility to someone, they should not participate.
QFMFT
I believe that geekhack has and should have no responsibility in how group buys are conducted.
As paternalistic as it seems, when you are entertaining this type of activity on your site, I think you need to draft some official terms, and future Groupbuy runners need to formally agree to them, so there is some level of accountability.
I think this is especially important for Mods/people with sub forums because they represent the site even more. I mean a mod doing what Ivan did really just makes the site look kind of bad. Other people in the same group really aren't great about running efficient buys either. Some good ideas thus far were:
1. Require an update every 3 weeks minimum.
2. Allow no more than 1 buy to be run at a time, encouraging wise/correct use of community funds and getting buy leaders to 100% complete a project before getting tied up in another.
3. Some way to confirm the payment has gone to the manufacturer. This could even be the Leader giving the mods prof, and they can give an update.
I believe that geekhack has and should have no responsibility in how group buys are conducted.
In one sense, I agree. Geekhack is just a central meeting place for individuals and group buys are essentially transactions between individual members. Geekhack should have no financial liability between what 2 individuals do.
But look at it this way. Geekhack has grown over the years into one of (if not the) preeminent hubs for mechanical keyboard discussion. This creates a long list of returning members and from that group membership a community has developed. Without the community, Geekhack would not be what it is.
My guess is there are people who are willing to participate in a Geekhack community group buy (vs say a group buy on some random corner of the internet) because they feel safer. And that safety comes from the collective trust of the community to moderate, either officially or unofficially, their own members.
Personally, I'm less in favour of hard rules on limitations to group buys and more in favour of transparency rules. By ensuring participants have access to relevant information, only then can people make informed decisions. It's very easy for someone to dangle some shiny new object in front of everyone, set up a group buy and have hoards of starry eyed participants throw money at them. And while we can easily just say buyer beware and let Geekhack wash its hands of any liability, it does little to allow the community to flourish and in turn build the trust required to continue having the support for group buys.
When we're a semi-anonymous collection of people from across the globe, it's very difficult to use any type of formal rules (ie laws) to strictly regulate anything. About the only thing we have is the collective power of the community and the implicit trust that the Geekhack site gets from that community.
I am curious about the state of vendor-run group buys as there seems to be a little inconsistency about them.
I'm not sure what the exact rules are, but I think it's something along the lines of "if some stock from the GB will be left over to be sold in the vendor's store at a later date, the thread should be put in the vendor's own subforum."
I noticed this due to the UKKeycaps GMK Esc GB being moved to his Vendor sub forum, but the JTK Sophmore GB hosted by CtrlAlt is still in the GB thread? I remember Bunny distinctly saying that there would be stock left over to be sold in the CtrlAlt store after the GB was over, and UKKeycaps is one of our newer and less established members, so I think it would be good to support them with keeping them in the main GB forum, rather than push them out of the main area of the forum. If we are to keep all vendor GBs in there of course.
I dunno, I just think there should be consistency across the board, especially when "extra stock to be sold on" is the case.
I believe that geekhack has and should have no responsibility in how group buys are conducted.
In one sense, I agree. Geekhack is just a central meeting place for individuals and group buys are essentially transactions between individual members. Geekhack should have no financial liability between what 2 individuals do.
But look at it this way. Geekhack has grown over the years into one of (if not the) preeminent hubs for mechanical keyboard discussion. This creates a long list of returning members and from that group membership a community has developed. Without the community, Geekhack would not be what it is.
My guess is there are people who are willing to participate in a Geekhack community group buy (vs say a group buy on some random corner of the internet) because they feel safer. And that safety comes from the collective trust of the community to moderate, either officially or unofficially, their own members.
Personally, I'm less in favour of hard rules on limitations to group buys and more in favour of transparency rules. By ensuring participants have access to relevant information, only then can people make informed decisions. It's very easy for someone to dangle some shiny new object in front of everyone, set up a group buy and have hoards of starry eyed participants throw money at them. And while we can easily just say buyer beware and let Geekhack wash its hands of any liability, it does little to allow the community to flourish and in turn build the trust required to continue having the support for group buys.
When we're a semi-anonymous collection of people from across the globe, it's very difficult to use any type of formal rules (ie laws) to strictly regulate anything. About the only thing we have is the collective power of the community and the implicit trust that the Geekhack site gets from that community.
Agreed. It may not be GH's responsibility but it does become a part of the their reputation, like it or not, so it's important to not ignore it. No matter what your personal principles are, our culture, here in the US at least, seeks to blame an authority for problems and ultimately can result in the destruction of said authority's position in the community. It may rub us the wrong way at times but it's better to flex and be uncomfortable than to cease to exist. Ultimately, I think it can create a more inviting and vibrant environment for everyone to have more structure and accountability.
We have had examples being set in the past. Go and read up on the history of Sherraton from Originative. He lost mod status and his subforum.
But he seems to have redeemed himself lately. Give Ivan a chance to make this right.
Same thing happened to Redline, yet the person who royally screwed the GH60 buy still has an artisan forum and there's no indication that that will change. Mods have remained silent on that issue when asked. There's not always consistency on those issues.
It definitely is a situation where some input is needed given the reliable history of Ivan. I have a hard time believing that he would disappear absent something outside of his control, especially everything he's done for the community as a whole and individuals in it in the past. Hopefully he didn't do a runner and hopefully there is an answer soon for what is going on. If he did do a runner, it would be a huge blow.
Things like this, the unfulfilled orders with some ancient CtrlAlt buys, and other GB issues really do reinforce the notion that you should only be able to run a single group buy at a time and that we need to figure out some sort of escrow situation for group buys.
I am curious about the state of vendor-run group buys as there seems to be a little inconsistency about them.
I'm not sure what the exact rules are, but I think it's something along the lines of "if some stock from the GB will be left over to be sold in the vendor's store at a later date, the thread should be put in the vendor's own subforum."
I noticed this due to the UKKeycaps GMK Esc GB being moved to his Vendor sub forum, but the JTK Sophmore GB hosted by CtrlAlt is still in the GB thread? I remember Bunny distinctly saying that there would be stock left over to be sold in the CtrlAlt store after the GB was over, and UKKeycaps is one of our newer and less established members, so I think it would be good to support them with keeping them in the main GB forum, rather than push them out of the main area of the forum. If we are to keep all vendor GBs in there of course.
I dunno, I just think there should be consistency across the board, especially when "extra stock to be sold on" is the case.
I know you can argue ctrlalt is a business with the volume they do but that isn't their goal.
I know you can argue ctrlalt is a business with the volume they do but that isn't their goal.
Lots of valid points, but does the point above really matter? What does the "goal" of an entity really have to do with it? They still have to be making some money off the buys (which can be deduced just by knowing what items cost, shipping costs, etc), and often have quite a lot of community money tied up in multiple group buys at any given time (some very old ones are still not 100%). Now, live I've said before, I am totally FOR GB runners to get a well deserved cut for the hard work, but also think that you should basically be a vendor at that point as well. Obviously nobody expects you to do all the work for free. This simply would increase the level of transparency and accountability by claiming to be a vendor.
I know you can argue ctrlalt is a business with the volume they do but that isn't their goal.
Lots of valid points, but does the point above really matter? What does the "goal" of an entity really have to do with it? They still have to be making some money off the buys (which can be deduced just by knowing what items cost, shipping costs, etc), and often have quite a lot of community money tied up in multiple group buys at any given time (some very old ones are still not 100%). Now, live I've said before, I am totally FOR GB runners to get a well deserved cut for the hard work, but also think that you should basically be a vendor at that point as well. Obviously nobody expects you to do all the work for free. This simply would increase the level of transparency and accountability by claiming to be a vendor.
My point with that is some people have an actual registered commercial business versus some being hobbyist regardless of our opinion on what that entails.
I though that was the distinction between having artisan status versus vendor status.
id be interested to help create some kind of geekhack platform which would act as a financial vault for GBs. Have some ideas. Anyone intersted in helping out, please feel free to pm me.
Finally, I believe that geekhack has and should have no responsibility in how group buys are conducted.I agree.
MoreIs one a vendor and the other under artisan?
Or one an actual business versus just members running buys?
I know you can argue ctrlalt is a business with the volume they do but that isn't their goal. Whereas UKKeycaps is actually having a storefront to sell things to make money with or without us here and that's what pays the bills.
Also in the case of the escape pack I think UKKeycaps was buying caps to sell anyway and just offered them here to help get them paid for to put in their store.
And sometimes it seems like it depends on how involved people actually are in the community. As in do they only come here to sell things or are they actually part of the community and is the community involved in helping with set decisions or at least discussing sets etc.
id be interested to help create some kind of geekhack platform which would act as a financial vault for GBs. Have some ideas. Anyone intersted in helping out, please feel free to pm me.
id be interested to help create some kind of geekhack platform which would act as a financial vault for GBs. Have some ideas. Anyone intersted in helping out, please feel free to pm me.
All I'd really like (and basically the only thing GH can actually control) is how many GBs a person/group can run at a time. Too many and you have a bigger possibility of scamming. Or the work becomes too much and nothing ever finishes on time and people have to sit their with a thumb up their ass waiting.
All I'd really like (and basically the only thing GH can actually control) is how many GBs a person/group can run at a time. Too many and you have a bigger possibility of scamming. Or the work becomes too much and nothing ever finishes on time and people have to sit their with a thumb up their ass waiting.
Agreed. It's fine to have a few buys, but you can't keep launching new ones when you have a bunch unfinished. If you want to run two more buys while finishing one, you need to show meaningful progress on the unfinished one.
The problem with this is that every mod will implement it differently and the tendency over time will be for the standards to loosen until we are basically where we are now.All I'd really like (and basically the only thing GH can actually control) is how many GBs a person/group can run at a time. Too many and you have a bigger possibility of scamming. Or the work becomes too much and nothing ever finishes on time and people have to sit their with a thumb up their ass waiting.
Agreed. It's fine to have a few buys, but you can't keep launching new ones when you have a bunch unfinished. If you want to run two more buys while finishing one, you need to show meaningful progress on the unfinished one.
Yeah, I don't see a downside to this. Sounds like you are talking about a case-by-case basis, with some limitations in place. Which I agree is better than my original idea about stricter limitations. JD is a good example of someone that has been pushing out his GB's on a very quick schedule with overlap. Many seem to get bogged down by taking on too much at once though, so what is the point in letting people like that start new buys when they cant finish old ones in a normal/reasonable time frame?
A GH vault is a bad idea. A certified escrow service is a good one. If love to see a third party collect the funds or be given the funds within 90 days, distribute them to the manufacturer, and only release the remaining funds to the GB runner after they receive the goods.
An escrow service would greatly reduce the risk of scams and other problems, but I haven't seen anything like that available abd the bonding cost may be too high.
I'mAll I'd really like (and basically the only thing GH can actually control) is how many GBs a person/group can run at a time. Too many and you have a bigger possibility of scamming. Or the work becomes too much and nothing ever finishes on time and people have to sit their with a thumb up their ass waiting.
Agreed. It's fine to have a few buys, but you can't keep launching new ones when you have a bunch unfinished. If you want to run two more buys while finishing one, you need to show meaningful progress on the unfinished one.
A GH vault is a bad idea. A certified escrow service is a good one. If love to see a third party collect the funds or be given the funds within 90 days, distribute them to the manufacturer, and only release the remaining funds to the GB runner after they receive the goods.
An escrow service would greatly reduce the risk of scams and other problems, but I haven't seen anything like that available abd the bonding cost may be too high.
The problem with this is that every mod will implement it differently and the tendency over time will be for the standards to loosen until we are basically where we are now.All I'd really like (and basically the only thing GH can actually control) is how many GBs a person/group can run at a time. Too many and you have a bigger possibility of scamming. Or the work becomes too much and nothing ever finishes on time and people have to sit their with a thumb up their ass waiting.
Agreed. It's fine to have a few buys, but you can't keep launching new ones when you have a bunch unfinished. If you want to run two more buys while finishing one, you need to show meaningful progress on the unfinished one.
Yeah, I don't see a downside to this. Sounds like you are talking about a case-by-case basis, with some limitations in place. Which I agree is better than my original idea about stricter limitations. JD is a good example of someone that has been pushing out his GB's on a very quick schedule with overlap. Many seem to get bogged down by taking on too much at once though, so what is the point in letting people like that start new buys when they cant finish old ones in a normal/reasonable time frame?
A GH vault is a bad idea. A certified escrow service is a good one. If love to see a third party collect the funds or be given the funds within 90 days, distribute them to the manufacturer, and only release the remaining funds to the GB runner after they receive the goods.
An escrow service would greatly reduce the risk of scams and other problems, but I haven't seen anything like that available abd the bonding cost may be too high.
I'mAll I'd really like (and basically the only thing GH can actually control) is how many GBs a person/group can run at a time. Too many and you have a bigger possibility of scamming. Or the work becomes too much and nothing ever finishes on time and people have to sit their with a thumb up their ass waiting.
Agreed. It's fine to have a few buys, but you can't keep launching new ones when you have a bunch unfinished. If you want to run two more buys while finishing one, you need to show meaningful progress on the unfinished one.
How would this work in situations where the GB ends up costing more than originally planned?
There was a GB very recently where international postage costs increased during the GB, and the GB organiser stumped up tbe extra funds with a request in the thread for people to give an extra $5 if they could.
And situations where the items are made, paid for and delivered to the GB organiser, who then fails to actually ship anything?
A GH vault is a bad idea. A certified escrow service is a good one. If love to see a third party collect the funds or be given the funds within 90 days, distribute them to the manufacturer, and only release the remaining funds to the GB runner after they receive the goods.
An escrow service would greatly reduce the risk of scams and other problems, but I haven't seen anything like that available abd the bonding cost may be too high.All I'd really like (and basically the only thing GH can actually control) is how many GBs a person/group can run at a time. Too many and you have a bigger possibility of scamming. Or the work becomes too much and nothing ever finishes on time and people have to sit their with a thumb up their ass waiting.
Agreed. It's fine to have a few buys, but you can't keep launching new ones when you have a bunch unfinished. If you want to run two more buys while finishing one, you need to show meaningful progress on the unfinished one.
A GH vault is a bad idea. A certified escrow service is a good one. If love to see a third party collect the funds or be given the funds within 90 days, distribute them to the manufacturer, and only release the remaining funds to the GB runner after they receive the goods.
An escrow service would greatly reduce the risk of scams and other problems, but I haven't seen anything like that available abd the bonding cost may be too high.All I'd really like (and basically the only thing GH can actually control) is how many GBs a person/group can run at a time. Too many and you have a bigger possibility of scamming. Or the work becomes too much and nothing ever finishes on time and people have to sit their with a thumb up their ass waiting.
Agreed. It's fine to have a few buys, but you can't keep launching new ones when you have a bunch unfinished. If you want to run two more buys while finishing one, you need to show meaningful progress on the unfinished one.
I totally agree with the idea about the escrow service.
The buyers can choose the way to pay the goods.
1.) The traditional GB way
2.) The agency safe way
And they must pay a little fees(eg,.$10) for the 2.) safe service.
The runner would take more $8 for the hard work.
The agency would take the 2$ for the safekeeping.
GH's management team could do this work.
All I'd really like (and basically the only thing GH can actually control) is how many GBs a person/group can run at a time. Too many and you have a bigger possibility of scamming. Or the work becomes too much and nothing ever finishes on time and people have to sit their with a thumb up their ass waiting.
No, group buy organizers/leaders should NOT have to reveal their manufacturing partners or suppliers. If you don't trust the organizer to have the goods made and delivered, don't join the group buy. Everyone wants everything to be open and transparent, but there are some things that are and should be considered proprietary and confidential. If people insist that everything be 100% transparent to the participants, organizers will most likely decide it's not worth it to do the buy at all.
Is providing a company name that much of a hassle? I believe it can be a win win situation for both sides, the company gets free advertising and we at least know where we are putting our money into.Because the restaurant is selling you the preparation and service, more than the actual raw product.
All the restaurants I've eaten at are not afraid of telling the customers where they purchased their meat or their vegetables.
Is providing a company name that much of a hassle? I believe it can be a win win situation for both sides, the company gets free advertising and we at least know where we are putting our money into.Because the restaurant is selling you the preparation and service, more than the actual raw product.
All the restaurants I've eaten at are not afraid of telling the customers where they purchased their meat or their vegetables.
Sometimes the relationship with the manufacturer or supplier is actually something of value to the organizer, and they wouldn't want to reveal that information. If every participant starts bugging the supplier with a barrage of emails, because the buy is a bit late or whatever, that supplier might decide not to do business with the organizer in the future.
Is providing a company name that much of a hassle? I believe it can be a win win situation for both sides, the company gets free advertising and we at least know where we are putting our money into.Because the restaurant is selling you the preparation and service, more than the actual raw product.
All the restaurants I've eaten at are not afraid of telling the customers where they purchased their meat or their vegetables.
Sometimes the relationship with the manufacturer or supplier is actually something of value to the organizer, and they wouldn't want to reveal that information. If every participant starts bugging the supplier with a barrage of emails, because the buy is a bit late or whatever, that supplier might decide not to do business with the organizer in the future.
That is a very good point, I definitely undervalued the relationship between the manufacturer and supplier
No, group buy organizers/leaders should NOT have to reveal their manufacturing partners or suppliers.
So thinking about it a bit more, I don't see any reason at all there shouldn't be a limit to the number of group buys someone/vendor/whatever can run. Originally I was thinking a strict site wide limit, but that doesn't make much sense in all honesty and I realize that now. I think JDcarpe was spot-on in suggesting that it should be a case-by-case deal, but I think it should be enforced.
Obviously it would be silly to have a set limit. Using JD as an example, he currently has the January Cap finishing up (maybe all shipped, was extremely quick buy) and Feb caps in line with the JD45 starting up. it would be crazy to not let the JD45 run because of the two previous buys. In his case, both other buys are on schedule and accounted for, and his past GB record is spotless.
Now, some people here have 3-4 buys that arent 100% done from 1, even 2 years ago. While there may be valid reasons for some of the delays, i feel there are definitely some dual standards here. At some point I think someone should not be allowed to start new buys until old ones are 100% completed.
In many ways this helps buyers and leaders alike. For leaders stopping new buys from starting when a reasonable number are still incomplete will make sure they have time to talk to the vendors/manufacturers/customers to get the product out on time without being tied up in new buys. For buyers, it protect them a bit more from crazy delays, or from someone like Ivan with multiple open buys running off mid buy.
If someone is new and doing a buy on their own, without a veteran member, why not limit it just to 1? See how it goes, work up to doing more if that is something you want to happen. Regardless on if you are making money, you are doing no service to the community if the buys get really delayed or go south, and really its just going to hurt buys in the future because everyone will be so timid to join anything if things keep up at this pace. And like it or not, buys that go south definitely reflect on the GH community as a whole, for the worse.
So thinking about it a bit more, I don't see any reason at all there shouldn't be a limit to the number of group buys someone/vendor/whatever can run. Originally I was thinking a strict site wide limit, but that doesn't make much sense in all honesty and I realize that now. I think JDcarpe was spot-on in suggesting that it should be a case-by-case deal, but I think it should be enforced.
Obviously it would be silly to have a set limit. Using JD as an example, he currently has the January Cap finishing up (maybe all shipped, was extremely quick buy) and Feb caps in line with the JD45 starting up. it would be crazy to not let the JD45 run because of the two previous buys. In his case, both other buys are on schedule and accounted for, and his past GB record is spotless.
Now, some people here have 3-4 buys that arent 100% done from 1, even 2 years ago. While there may be valid reasons for some of the delays, i feel there are definitely some dual standards here. At some point I think someone should not be allowed to start new buys until old ones are 100% completed.
In many ways this helps buyers and leaders alike. For leaders stopping new buys from starting when a reasonable number are still incomplete will make sure they have time to talk to the vendors/manufacturers/customers to get the product out on time without being tied up in new buys. For buyers, it protect them a bit more from crazy delays, or from someone like Ivan with multiple open buys running off mid buy.
If someone is new and doing a buy on their own, without a veteran member, why not limit it just to 1? See how it goes, work up to doing more if that is something you want to happen. Regardless on if you are making money, you are doing no service to the community if the buys get really delayed or go south, and really its just going to hurt buys in the future because everyone will be so timid to join anything if things keep up at this pace. And like it or not, buys that go south definitely reflect on the GH community as a whole, for the worse.
We actually have this unofficial rule right now. As a mod team, we have been allowing two group buys per person, unless they are someone who has/had an established successful history running group buys.
However we will consider lowering that to 1/person for sure, just wanted to provide some background.
So what about people with 3+ unfinished GB's?
As a mod team, we have been allowing two group buys per person, unless they are someone who has/had an established successful history running group buys.
So what about people with 3+ unfinished GB's?
I'll assume that in your eagerness to make veiled jabs, you passed over the following:QuoteAs a mod team, we have been allowing two group buys per person, unless they are someone who has/had an established successful history running group buys.
You're welcome :thumb:
Yeah, the people who get their stuff are real quick to forget about those that are kept waiting. God forbid we talk about that tho.So what about people with 3+ unfinished GB's?
I'll assume that in your eagerness to make veiled jabs, you passed over the following:QuoteAs a mod team, we have been allowing two group buys per person, unless they are someone who has/had an established successful history running group buys.
You're welcome :thumb:
no, he read it. the question is still valid.
at what point do we start being concerned about numerous group buys that aren't finished and yet more pop up?
i know going against bunnylake/ctrl group is a death wish on here, but it's ridiculous.
you should PM this guy the progress
https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=51026.msg2110631#msg2110631
or better yet..
'we are friends with bunny, so it's okay if he takes his time"
Maybe at the point that the organizers stop communicating and no progress is being made? Until then, your repeated attacks really do just read as ****posting. It's not a death wish to say that things haven't all gone well, but there's a reason that ctrlalt has built up so much goodwill, regardless of whether you acknowledge it.
technically, your "problem buys" are still open buys.
and what you do for geekhack is irrelevant to the discussion, so i don't understand why you're bringing it up. GHers already think you're a "top legend m8" there is no need to remind everybody.
i'm not disputing you don't deliver (eventually) what im saying is that it would be nice for stuff to get finished before more buys are opened up because all that will create is even more stuff being put on the back burner.
bro, let's not fool ourselves. this site loves you. anything negative against you and you have people jumping up defending you. you give them free caps and run GBs they want. you can deny it all you want but it happens. im not blaming you for it, maybe you are a nice guy to them i dont know.
i dont know why you're bringing up donations? im not accusing you if taking people's money. my only problem with this whole thing (in general, not against your little group) is that stuff doesn't get finished and other stuff pops up.
so i ask again, is it really that much to ask for? for stuff to get done before you take on another large task? lets be honest, none of your group buys are ever small. im sure you'd like a break yourself.
gotcha, that makes more sense. i dont fully agree with it, because again, it's just work piled on top of work and while you're trying to fix it little by little it'll only be a cluster**** again. or maybe not. im sure you don't give a **** about my opinion but i figured i'd give my 2 cents (in a somewhat civil manner for once) on why a couple of us feel the way we do.
gotcha, that makes more sense. i dont fully agree with it, because again, it's just work piled on top of work and while you're trying to fix it little by little it'll only be a cluster**** again. or maybe not. im sure you don't give a **** about my opinion but i figured i'd give my 2 cents (in a somewhat civil manner for once) on why a couple of us feel the way we do.
And it's that civil manner that I appreciate and why I'm here replying
I do appreciate the opinion, and for what it's worth I don't entirely disagree, but I've been left in a really ****ty situation and I'm just doing everything I can to solve it
There are a ton of misconception about me and Ctrl alt, both good and bad ones, but I'm doing my best
gotcha, that makes more sense. i dont fully agree with it, because again, it's just work piled on top of work and while you're trying to fix it little by little it'll only be a cluster**** again. or maybe not. im sure you don't give a **** about my opinion but i figured i'd give my 2 cents (in a somewhat civil manner for once) on why a couple of us feel the way we do.
And it's that civil manner that I appreciate and why I'm here replying
I do appreciate the opinion, and for what it's worth I don't entirely disagree, but I've been left in a really ****ty situation and I'm just doing everything I can to solve it
There are a ton of misconception about me and Ctrl alt, both good and bad ones, but I'm doing my best
i haven't really followed your buys since the people that had a problem with you either got refunded, stop bothering with it or eventually got their order. but i remember you telling half truths on when stuff was going to get done. and while im sure you're under constant pressure from all this **** your CS was a somewhat rude ( i know i know, of all the people to complain about being rude i should be the last one.. but im not running GBs). personally i'd stop being so specific with stuff. not saying to be vague but unless something is certainly going to happen on a specific day i wouldn't even say it. IIRC, inanis had 2 sets that were suppose to be shipped together and weren't. she had no mention of it until SHE had to bring it up. then you told her what was what.
same with phoenix in the hyperfuse buy. but that's just me being outside looking in. i've ran GBs and i know they're a *****. and mine weren't even nearly as big as what you're running or really what any of these buys are anymore. that's why i think stuff should be limited so it can be better organized and ran faster/easier.
Finally, I believe that geekhack has and should have no responsibility in how group buys are conducted. This is the responsibility of the participant. Each and every person going in on a group buy should understand that there is a chance that nothing comes to fruition, either at the fault of the organizer or for other reasons. If this is not an acceptable possibility to someone, they should not participate.I agree with this.
Please keep further discussion on topic and constructive. Further personal attacks will result in moderator action.
There is a lot of good discussion going on here, from all sides. Please don't allow personal issues to cloud judgement when posting.
Please keep further discussion on topic and constructive. Further personal attacks will result in moderator action.
There is a lot of good discussion going on here, from all sides. Please don't allow personal issues to cloud judgement when posting.
Ghost works for Ctrl Alt too??
Please keep further discussion on topic and constructive. Further personal attacks will result in moderator action.
There is a lot of good discussion going on here, from all sides. Please don't allow personal issues to cloud judgement when posting.
Ghost works for Ctrl Alt too??
Digi, please chill out. You made a dig directly at another member. He made one at you. I removed both posts. I removed no other discussion in here, since they have been constructive.
We aren't here to listen to everyone's personal issues with other members. We're here because we share the same hobby and enjoy the community. If anyone thinks my actions are uncalled for, please let me know. I'm a new to moderation and still don't know many of the users. But I welcome any feedback, good or bad.
DONT DO IT DIGI. MODS ARE THE TRUE ENEMY.