To keep the payment to the manufacturer within paypal's window to open disputes should reduce the risk; in the other hand, there is no reason to think that higher posting counts may increase the safety of a group buy, Ivan, for example, had already a bunch of posting, and that did no do anything to prevent the problem.
I suggest the GB leaders to sign and submit a document disclosing his/her personal information plus a responsibility commitment for the funds he/she has collected after the GB order's period with detailed amounts to someone whit in the moderator's team just as an insurance policy in case something does not run according with the GB's rule, he/she also should commit to refund the money paid in case something runs out of his/her control.I understand where you are coming from, but the mod team will not be involving ourselves with the organizing and fulfillment of Group Buys. We are simply looking at establishing guidelines for the community, that the community is happy with. These will simply put in place rules for organizers that would like to start a group buy.
I personally think that such a high post requirement is a bit unfair, as I've seen plenty of members with under 500 posts around and consider them longtime members. I'm quite active on the KeyboardCommunity slack, and post quite a bit in off-topic, but don't really participate in the other subforums. (I do try to be more active than I used to.) Maybe something like a 6 Month old account and a 200 post requirement would be better?
I suggest the GB leaders to sign and submit a document disclosing his/her personal information plus a responsibility commitment for the funds he/she has collected after the GB order's period with detailed amounts to someone whit in the moderator's team just as an insurance policy in case something does not run according with the GB's rule, he/she also should commit to refund the money paid in case something runs out of his/her control.I understand where you are coming from, but the mod team will not be involving ourselves with the organizing and fulfillment of Group Buys. We are simply looking at establishing guidelines for the community, that the community is happy with. These will simply put in place rules for organizers that would like to start a group buy.
I personally think that such a high post requirement is a bit unfair, as I've seen plenty of members with under 500 posts around and consider them longtime members. I'm quite active on the KeyboardCommunity slack, and post quite a bit in off-topic, but don't really participate in the other subforums. (I do try to be more active than I used to.) Maybe something like a 6 Month old account and a 200 post requirement would be better?
IRC, Slack, Skype, etc are not geekhack.org and are therefore not considered when discussing rules and ToS of geekhack.org. We do not enforce our ToS on these other chatting mediums, so why should your activity on them affect how the rules are enforced on geekhack?
I personally think that such a high post requirement is a bit unfair, as I've seen plenty of members with under 500 posts around and consider them longtime members. I'm quite active on the KeyboardCommunity slack, and post quite a bit in off-topic, but don't really participate in the other subforums. (I do try to be more active than I used to.) Maybe something like a 6 Month old account and a 200 post requirement would be better?
IRC, Slack, Skype, etc are not geekhack.org and are therefore not considered when discussing rules and ToS of geekhack.org. We do not enforce our ToS on these other chatting mediums, so why should your activity on them affect how the rules are enforced on geekhack?
I'm thinking in terms of general community involvement and how that could be taken into account when deciding on a new post requirement for everyone, and as a reason why some members may have lower post counts. I still stand by my 6 Months/ 200 posts idea.
I personally think that such a high post requirement is a bit unfair, as I've seen plenty of members with under 500 posts around and consider them longtime members. I'm quite active on the KeyboardCommunity slack, and post quite a bit in off-topic, but don't really participate in the other subforums. (I do try to be more active than I used to.) Maybe something like a 6 Month old account and a 200 post requirement would be better?
IRC, Slack, Skype, etc are not geekhack.org and are therefore not considered when discussing rules and ToS of geekhack.org. We do not enforce our ToS on these other chatting mediums, so why should your activity on them affect how the rules are enforced on geekhack?
I'm thinking in terms of general community involvement and how that could be taken into account when deciding on a new post requirement for everyone, and as a reason why some members may have lower post counts. I still stand by my 6 Months/ 200 posts idea.
I personally think that such a high post requirement is a bit unfair, as I've seen plenty of members with under 500 posts around and consider them longtime members. I'm quite active on the KeyboardCommunity slack, and post quite a bit in off-topic, but don't really participate in the other subforums. (I do try to be more active than I used to.) Maybe something like a 6 Month old account and a 200 post requirement would be better?
IRC, Slack, Skype, etc are not geekhack.org and are therefore not considered when discussing rules and ToS of geekhack.org. We do not enforce our ToS on these other chatting mediums, so why should your activity on them affect how the rules are enforced on geekhack?
I'm thinking in terms of general community involvement and how that could be taken into account when deciding on a new post requirement for everyone, and as a reason why some members may have lower post counts. I still stand by my 6 Months/ 200 posts idea.
I understand where you're coming from. What you're describing is actually fairly in line with the current "informal" system. If a user is far more active in another community and has shown that they can handle large tasks such as this, I've approved the thread despite the user being a bit newer on geekhack. I think that's what you're getting at?
I apologize for my misinterpretation of your comment.
he/she also should commit to refund the money paid in case something runs out of his/her control.
I'm tired of buying into things and the organizer deciding to change direction or turn the buy into something it didn't start out as without informing the participants.
It's very easy for someone to dangle some shiny new object in front of everyone, set up a group buy and have hordes of starry eyed participants throw money at them. And while we can easily just say buyer beware and let Geekhack wash its hands of any liability, it does little to allow the community to flourish and in turn build the trust required to continue having the support for group buys.
In addition to limitations on the number of simultaneous group buys being run, would it be worth taking into account total size of the group buy, both in number of participants and estimated total value? Something going wrong with an leader who has several simultaneous novelty buys with a few dozen participants going on would still result in less fallout than someone with hundreds of participants on a full keycap set. I get the feeling that this was kind of implied in a few of the other posts, but never really stated.
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment. There's been a lot of discussion about guidelines and responsibilities for the group buy leader. Has anyone given any thought to a set of guidelines for the participants? Let's just refresh ourselves of how a traditional storefront and a group buy work.
In a traditional vendor business approach, a vendor will begin with an educated guess as to what and how much product will sell. An order is placed with a manufacture and the product is made with some sort of credit filling the temporary financial void. The product is then manufactured, with any delays generally silently disappearing into the background. Once the product is delivered to the vendor, the vendor can advertise the product as immediately available and attempt to sell. A risk the vendor always takes is their educated guess being off and the product not selling. The price the vendor sets will need to at least cover the cost of the product, the cost of that credit, the cost of the overhead and a profit margin to cover the risk of it not selling.
With a group buy, the process begins with the leader collecting the funds, essentially pre-selling the product. This eliminates the risk of the product being manufactured and not selling. Those funds are also transfered to the manufacture before production and used to cover the cost of production. This eliminates the cost of the credit. However since this method operates on a manufacture on demand type system, any delays in the manufacturing process is apparent to the end consumer. Once production is completed, the product is distributed to the end consumer. The final price only needs to cover the cost of the product and any overhead as the credit and failure to sell risk costs don't apply.
As participants in the group buys, we're more than happy to take advantage of the lower cost model (even more so if it's a community group buy and the overhead is kept really low due to volunteer labour), but as part and parcel with that, the participants have to accept the trade offs. For one, we have to be reasonable on manufacturing delays. On most products, we have no idea what the delays are, but with group buys they can be very obvious. Secondly, we have to remember that we've already pre-bought the product. As consumers, we're generally very spoiled when it comes to stores accepting returns on products (at least in my part of the world). In today's world there's huge pressure for the customer to always be right and that a customer's future business is worth more than the loss they'll take on a returned item that they can't sell and have to right off. It doesn't mean it's always been that way or is that way everywhere.
If we begin to encourage and condone participants doing PayPal dispute every time someone has a nervous twitch, you have the potential to create real problems for a legitimate leader. Remember, assuming everything is going well, the money has already been transfered to the manufacture and there's no money to do refunds. We're setting out guidelines of what a leader needs to do and strategies for the participants if the leader fails to adhere to them. But what if the leader has met all the requirements? Should participants have the right to ask for their money back any time they want? If we they do, we'll either end up with less leaders or expect group buy prices to go up to cover the risk. Maybe we need guidelines that if you decided to participate and the leader is fulfilling their obligations, then issuing a dispute and requesting a refund is not acceptable. If you need the cash, sell your spot to someone else. (Certainly this is already practised by most people out of unwritten common courtesy, but since we're in the mode of turning unwritten rules into written ones...)
Someone's going to ask how do we enforce this, and the answer is it's going to be pretty hard. About the only thing we have is the power of the community. Collectively as a community we have guidelines and only those who follow them are allowed to play. Break the rules and you're out of the club. Or maybe more specifically in this case, it could be something along the lines of break the group buy rules (doesn't matter if you're a leader or a participant) and you make it onto the black list of people who can't start / participate in group buys in the future.
Don't forget the objective of all this is to have a welcoming place where like minded people can come and feel confident about working with others to get obscure things into the hands of those who want it. For group buys to work, we need both leaders and participants. And for us to have both, we need a system that protects everyone (as best we can given the nature of us being a semi-anonymous collection of people from across the globe).
If we begin to encourage and condone participants doing PayPal dispute every time someone has a nervous twitch, you have the potential to create real problems for a legitimate leader. Remember, assuming everything is going well, the money has already been transfered to the manufacture and there's no money to do refunds. We're setting out guidelines of what a leader needs to do and strategies for the participants if the leader fails to adhere to them. But what if the leader has met all the requirements? Should participants have the right to ask for their money back any time they want? If we they do, we'll either end up with less leaders or expect group buy prices to go up to cover the risk. Maybe we need guidelines that if you decided to participate and the leader is fulfilling their obligations, then issuing a dispute and requesting a refund is not acceptable. If you need the cash, sell your spot to someone else. (Certainly this is already practised by most people out of unwritten common courtesy, but since we're in the mode of turning unwritten rules into written ones...)
Well, I would argue that by virtue of accepting PayPal payments the GBL is implicitly saying yes to this question when it is within the guidelines of PayPal. I would argue that it makes little sense to use a service like Ebay and then expect that buyers will not make use of the 'protections' PayPal has in place. Perhaps the point is that Ebay is not the appropriate mechanism for GBs (regardless of its convenience).
I agree with your larger point that GBs require both leaders and buyers -- but I still see that the overwhelming majority of the risk involved in a GB is carried by the buyers rather than the GBL. Maybe that is inherent in the nature of GBs but that doesn't mean that there can't be steps taken to reduce that risk and done in a way that doesn't seem to place an unreasonable burden on the GBLs. Especially given the impact that (even a very small number of) negative GBs can have on the community.
One of the 'risk bottlenecks' seems to be a singular reliance on the GB leader for information. Requiring a second leader as a check-and-balance seems like a good idea. There should be a reasonable indication that the second person is not working in the interest of the GB leader.
GBs tend to ostracize individuals who initiate disputes within the buyer-protection period especially through Ebay because they will result in the GBL being out-of-pocket until the order comes in. I do not think it is wise to blame the buyer here. The GBL should recognize that by doing a GB and using services such as Ebay means that they have accepted this risk.
They must submit proof of the transaction in the OP of the buy thread.
Limiting the amount of group buys that can be run to 1 or 2.
- Putting down a rule regarding updates every 2 weeks. Although this is not exactly enforceable by us, it could be made a guideline. Even an update of "no news" could be an update.
They must submit proof of the transaction in the OP of the buy thread.
What kind of proof would be needed? As a person who run GBs with profit, I would rather not have to explain the expenses and budget of the entire GB and how the import regulations/fees work in Norway. I would like to keep that private. Understandable for non-profit GBs with a known manufacturer(GMK).
They must submit proof of the transaction in the OP of the buy thread.
What kind of proof would be needed? As a person who run GBs with profit, I would rather not have to explain the expenses and budget of the entire GB and how the import regulations/fees work in Norway. I would like to keep that private. Understandable for non-profit GBs with a known manufacturer(GMK).
I would think you could blur out that information. It's more just for the confirmation that an order was placed with the manufacturer.
They must submit proof of the transaction in the OP of the buy thread.
What kind of proof would be needed? As a person who run GBs with profit, I would rather not have to explain the expenses and budget of the entire GB and how the import regulations/fees work in Norway. I would like to keep that private. Understandable for non-profit GBs with a known manufacturer(GMK).
I would think you could blur out that information. It's more just for the confirmation that an order was placed with the manufacturer.
If that is the case, I think it is possible for me.
7. While I like the idea of posting 2 week updates, making sure this happens is beyond the control of the mods. The group buy could be running smoothly and have no updates until the product arrives at your doorstep. Furthermore, how are you going to force people to post updates anyways? Would failure to update result in a ban? In this case, scammers wouldn't not care- collect money and gtfo. Why would they stick around and use time to make up stories about their fake gb?
I don't think raising the barrier to be a GB leader will have that much impact. Thinking through some of the GBs that have failed (or at least required serious bail out), some of the biggest catastrophes have come from well respected community members whom I believe launched their GBs with good intentions.
I definitely like limiting the number of GBs a person can run simultaneously. Maybe we could require more accountability (proof of purchase, real life identify information) if the scale of a GB crosses a certain line. I don't want to discourage minor, less established members from running a small scale GBs (e.g. an Esc pack or a small novelty pack).
- Have a second person accountable. For example, two users are involved in running the group buy, so that there are two people who can confirm payments have been made, keys have arrived, etc.
Anyways, we choose who we allow to run group buys. We need to be a little more discerning and not believe everything we hear. Cell phone pictures are easy to take and upload. Organizers unwilling to provide these assurances shouldn't be trusted. PULL YOUR MONEY.
Yeah, some other vendors voiced this concern with me too. I think if we were to use this guideline, perhaps after payment, you could just ask for an email confirming? So then you can screenshot an email from GMK/whoever that says "Hey LeandreN, your payment has been recieved." or whatever.
One of the 'risk bottlenecks' seems to be a singular reliance on the GB leader for information. Requiring a second leader as a check-and-balance seems like a good idea. There should be a reasonable indication that the second person is not working in the interest of the GB leader.
Just throwing this out there, I run GBs with profit mostly to be able to reach MOQ for items and having an insurance if something happens. I had a incident where the postal fees changed in round 3 and I just used money from the profit fund. At the end of the day, I went in 0$ profit, but was able to have a fairly smooth experience for my customers. I personally encourage a small profit in GBs in case something happens, leftovers can be used to feed your addiction, refund the buyers or donate to Geekhack or a charity.
+1 to making people more aware of the PayPal window and setting an expectation among the community that GB leaders shouldn't be ****ing around with money for longer than ~2 months. As to the issue of "trigger-happy" disputes: it's just as risky to run a GB as it is to participate, seller beware.People already complain about price, doing what you're suggesting would add to that.
-1 to Geekhack or the mod team in any way becoming part of enforcement or regulating things. That's just silly and asking for way more trouble.
Personally I'd prefer if more people took a normal approach to selling goods: buy the keys/PCBs/etc. up front after an interest check and sell after. It's a big investment, but you can charge a legitimately profitable markup for a) substantially less risk and b) faster, more reliable service. Guess what, that's how businesses work. If you want to run a GB, you should practically be running it like a business anyway, to me this doesn't seem like all that crazy of an issue. If you need start-up capital, ask for investors separately. Get a few people you're close with to go in with you. Borrow money from your mom and pay her back with interest.
To put it differently, I don't think group-buys should be run by just anyone. Dealing with that much money with hundreds on anonymous people isn't something to take lightly. I also think that it should be on the community to grow up and participate in what you feel is appropriate. I think a substantial number of people learned the hard way that you can't trust strangers with thousands of dollars dozens of times each year. It's up to everyone to choose with our wallets the model that we want things to be run in. Far fewer buys would happen with a more traditional model, but responsibility and forethought would be two great qualities to see more of in a hobby composed essentially entirely of upper-middle class millennials with wallets bigger than their brains.
People already complain about price, doing what you're suggesting would add to that.
And nobody wants to get stuck with product that may or may not sell as interest checks are known to not always be a good representation of how orders will come in.
I considered doing this with GMK WoB before I bought a new house because I had extra money but again the risk was just too big.
One of the 'risk bottlenecks' seems to be a singular reliance on the GB leader for information. Requiring a second leader as a check-and-balance seems like a good idea. There should be a reasonable indication that the second person is not working in the interest of the GB leader.
Can you explain how this would work in practice? Isn't the second individual still relying on the first to provide them with updates? What happens when the first leader goes dark - how do they provide anything more beneficial than saying "well, I don't know what's going on"?
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your suggestion.
Personally I'd prefer if more people took a normal approach to selling goods: buy the keys/PCBs/etc. up front after an interest check and sell after.
Personally I'd prefer if more people took a normal approach to selling goods: buy the keys/PCBs/etc. up front after an interest check and sell after.
At some point things cross over from being a group buy to being a vender. I view them as 2 different models, with 2 different sets of pros and cons and probably should have 2 different sets of rules to govern. Nothing wrong with preferring or supporting that approach, but I do think the "traditional" group buy has its advantages. The question is how to keep those advantages while minimizing the possible downsides.
One of the 'risk bottlenecks' seems to be a singular reliance on the GB leader for information. Requiring a second leader as a check-and-balance seems like a good idea. There should be a reasonable indication that the second person is not working in the interest of the GB leader.
Can you explain how this would work in practice? Isn't the second individual still relying on the first to provide them with updates? What happens when the first leader goes dark - how do they provide anything more beneficial than saying "well, I don't know what's going on"?
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your suggestion.
My interpretation of the multiple buy runners assumes that both would have access to the vendor. It would obviously still limit who has access to the funds (unless somebody wanted to create a "group" paypal for that buy) but would help insure if something came up for one person Injury, sickness, family, etc.), there would either A) still be an open line of communication with the vendor and B) have somebody to hold accountable.
also i lurk (and lurk only) on another account so forgive the seeming absence
more communication would be good, from both vendors and distributors (such as GMK and sig. plastics). if **** is taking a while i want screenshots of emails, even with names blurred would be fine. some sort of verification before someone starts a GB that a final product will be delivered, no more of that korean PBT keycaps getting stolen bull****. none of that "it's coming just wait" bull****, i want clear updates even if they just say "we haven't heard from the distributor in x amount of time"
delete posts that provide information of the GB status that are not from people who are running it. no more of that buddy buddy **** in GBs. none of that "on skype they said..." ****
Anyways, we choose who we allow to run group buys. We need to be a little more discerning and not believe everything we hear. Cell phone pictures are easy to take and upload. Organizers unwilling to provide these assurances shouldn't be trusted. PULL YOUR MONEY.
i agree; the lax and trusting attitude of the community required of niche hobbyists of any kind is often too lax and trusting, allowing people handling their money to act rather carelessly. mandatory updates to a representative (above) would be even easier than logging into gh and posting a photo, and if they are unable to do it, the correspondent could.
4) IF YOU HAVE ****ED UP A GB IN THE PAST, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RUN ONE AGAIN. So going with my example before, Ivan should be banned. And I don't think Moz should be running them either...through MD or otherwise.
4) IF YOU HAVE ****ED UP A GB IN THE PAST, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RUN ONE AGAIN. So going with my example before, Ivan should be banned. And I don't think Moz should be running them either...through MD or otherwise.
I've commented on this a lot. Such a list exists, and both names you mention are on it.
4) IF YOU HAVE ****ED UP A GB IN THE PAST, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RUN ONE AGAIN. So going with my example before, Ivan should be banned. And I don't think Moz should be running them either...through MD or otherwise.
I've commented on this a lot. Such a list exists, and both names you mention are on it.
But Moz still has this thread up (https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=80570.0). If he's on the list, that thread shouldn't be up IMO.
This so much. I find people are far too trusting and never bother to do any research as to who's running the buy. And no one seems to speak out while the GB is running, only when things go bad. If you're unsure whether you should participate in a GB, find someone you trust on the forum and ask them if they'd join the buy. Maybe you can live without the thing right now and have it pop up in the classifieds where you've got a little more trust.
Get a bad feeling about your money 2 months into the buy? ****ing pull it. Don't let sheep mentality affect how you act.
I think GBs are in serious need of a shake up. I don't participate in many anymore because I don't trust more GB runners. Ivan ****ed me over during the Cherry stabilizer buy (never shipped my order) and it sucked because he was one of the last runners I thought I could rely on. CTRL ALT has a systemic problem with shipping late and lack of updates until you call them out; and so many ****ing excuses. So even the people who seem reliable may not be.
I generally wait until the item I want shows up in the classifieds so I know I've got a quicker turnaround and better help from PayPal. Or I only buy from the short list of trusted GB runners I have left.
Some ideas for making me trust GBs again:
1) The previously mentioned tag team idea is great. I also like the proof of submitted work idea. Constant updates are good as well as limiting the number of GBs a person/team can run at once.
2) I think that the screening process should be MORE intense. Time on GH and postcount both have flaws. Let's create a Google Form and setup a registry of GB runners WITH THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION. The mods can then step in and call/text them if things aren't going well. And the Form can help screen for things such as financial stability, age, etc.
3) A long shot would be having a third party hold the money until the buy is "certified" and the money can be released. I don't think we have such a reliable 3rd party though.
4) IF YOU HAVE ****ED UP A GB IN THE PAST, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RUN ONE AGAIN. So going with my example before, Ivan should be banned. And I don't think Moz should be running them either...through MD or otherwise.
5) Pausing GBs altogether and letting the hype die down around them. Maybe we need to step back as a community and re-evaluate whether or not this is Geekhack or BestBuy.com. A pause would help everyone kinda sit back and think about that. Is this a place to blindly throw money at the screen or to come together about customizing keyboards and meeting like minded people?
Welcome back digi. We missed you. Maybe not bunny, but I did.
Maybe you can live without the thing right now and have it pop up in the classifieds where you've got a little more trust.
Get a bad feeling about your money 2 months into the buy? ****ing pull it. Don't let sheep mentality affect how you act.
* Throughout my response I will use the generic 'you,' not addressing CPTBadAss directly.Maybe you can live without the thing right now and have it pop up in the classifieds where you've got a little more trust.
The problem with this type of thinking, as you know, is this: if fewer people place orders in the group buy, the cost will be higher for everyone, OR the MOQ might not be met to make the buy possible at all. Sure, it's ultimately your own decision as to whether or not to participate in a group buy, and you should ALWAYS research the leader/organizer and decide whether or not that person has built up trust within the community. But having a blanket policy not to participate in group buys because you can always wait and pick up the item in Classifeds isn't the right attitude, either. I guess it all depends on the level of trust you place in the leader/organizer. Some people choose to build trust in the community by participating in it; while others are just out to make a quick buck, or get something made that they personally want, but don't have the money to fund themselves.Get a bad feeling about your money 2 months into the buy? ****ing pull it. Don't let sheep mentality affect how you act.
Again, we need to clarify this 'bad feeling.' Should you pull your money (request a refund or file a PayPal dispute) because of buyer's remorse, or because you have a personal financial crisis after the fact? ABSOLUTELY NOT. You agreed to participate, and paid into the buy, and your funds are being used to have the items fabricated or produced. The leader/organizer most likely doesn't have your funds to send you a refund, because they already paid the manufacturer to have them make the item you ordered.
Should you initiate a dispute because the leader/organizer hasn't responded to repeated requests to post a status update, or because they refuse to contact you after multiple attempts have been made to establish contact? OF COURSE! There is no excuse for this type of behavior from a GB leader, and it shouldn't be tolerated. If things get this far, there is definitely a problem.
One of the 'risk bottlenecks' seems to be a singular reliance on the GB leader for information. Requiring a second leader as a check-and-balance seems like a good idea. There should be a reasonable indication that the second person is not working in the interest of the GB leader.
Can you explain how this would work in practice? Isn't the second individual still relying on the first to provide them with updates? What happens when the first leader goes dark - how do they provide anything more beneficial than saying "well, I don't know what's going on"?
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your suggestion.
One of the 'risk bottlenecks' seems to be a singular reliance on the GB leader for information. Requiring a second leader as a check-and-balance seems like a good idea. There should be a reasonable indication that the second person is not working in the interest of the GB leader.
Can you explain how this would work in practice? Isn't the second individual still relying on the first to provide them with updates? What happens when the first leader goes dark - how do they provide anything more beneficial than saying "well, I don't know what's going on"?
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your suggestion.
I was thinking specifically about the stages in the GB that could be verified - for instance, independent verification that 1) the GBL/manufacturer relationship exists (quote/order phase) 2) that the manufacturer has received payment (pre-production/production phase) 3) that the manufacturer has sent the product to the GBL (pre-shipping phase). All this information would come directly from the manufacturer rather than the GBL. And, especially in the earlier stages, minimizes risk for the buyer because the warning signs would allow them to dispute the charge within the protection window. I also think that there is less risk as the GB proceeds- its more likely that a GBL takes the money and doesn't send it along to the manufacturer than it is that the GBL receives the shipment and then doesn't ship things out. Even if not more likely, in the latter case, it is more easily salvaged (e.g. someone else offers to take the bulk shipment and then doing the individual shipping) whereas in the former, that money would probably be long gone.
To your point though -- maybe it is also the case that the secondary person has enough personal information about the GBL so that they can contact them IRL. There probably be some transparency about who the GBL is -- even if it is information only held by the second person.
Get a bad feeling about your money 2 months into the buy? ****ing pull it. Don't let sheep mentality affect how you act.
QuoteGet a bad feeling about your money 2 months into the buy? ****ing pull it. Don't let sheep mentality affect how you act.
been saying this since clackvent went sour. and it's extremely selfish of people to tell others otherwise.
This is a forum. I do not think the mods should be involved any more than they are now; i.e. I do not like any of the "mods should keep insurance policy", etc... This would make GBs look more legitimate (than they really are), and would even more fuel the impression that "it's run on GH so GH should do something about this". Again, I thought this is a forum, not a new MassDrop.
I personally do not really agree with any kind of hard requirements. I would suggest that in every GB thread the second post would be the CAVEAT EMPTOR, which would explicitly state that *the expectation* is that these requirements should be followed by the GB leader, explain what options do participants have (paypal chargeback within 180 days) {and maybe a few links to the failed buys. It's hard to find these for the newcomers, speaking from experience.}
It should also say in big red letters that the GB participants are basically giving money to a private person (the GB leader), based only on what they read on an internet forum, and so that they should think long and hard about trust and risk.
If the GB leader has good reasons not to follow some/any of these *expectations* and manages to convince enough people even despite these warnings, then good for her/him.
EDIT: BTW, the caveat emptor should be even more emphasised for the GB that are linked from here which may look more "legitimate" than GBs run from here, e.g. Ellipses's GB. Just that fact that he's got a website and a checkout system there does not mean that it's any different from a GB on GH; it's still giving money to a private person on a promise. {I am participating in these things, I trust Ellipse ATM, but I do understand the risk.}
also i lurk (and lurk only) on another account so forgive the seeming absence
...
You know the rules. (https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=39249.0)
There is no functional reason for you to create another account.
Then why do you need an account? Just log out.also i lurk (and lurk only) on another account so forgive the seeming absence
...
You know the rules. (https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=39249.0)
There is no functional reason for you to create another account.
the only functional reason is to **** up the "last online" date
which is all that i'm doing
i like to think it gets me more PMs
Then why do you need an account? Just log out.also i lurk (and lurk only) on another account so forgive the seeming absence
...
You know the rules. (https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=39249.0)
There is no functional reason for you to create another account.
the only functional reason is to **** up the "last online" date
which is all that i'm doing
i like to think it gets me more PMs
Then why do you need an account? Just log out.also i lurk (and lurk only) on another account so forgive the seeming absence
...
You know the rules. (https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=39249.0)
There is no functional reason for you to create another account.
the only functional reason is to **** up the "last online" date
which is all that i'm doing
i like to think it gets me more PMs
it's more fun this way