Author Topic: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys  (Read 38031 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HoffmanMyster

  • HOFF, smol MAN OF MYSTERY
  • * Senior Moderator
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 11469
  • Location: WI
Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« on: Wed, 08 November 2023, 08:44:48 »
Hey everyone, big announcement to share with y'all today. A cross-platform team including representatives from r/mk, r/mm, MGB, and geekhack (with feedback and insight from a whole host of other community members - huge thanks to all that contributed, listed in the below linked doc) has put together what we hope will serve as a useful tool for hobbyists looking for reputable vendors in the mechanical keyboard space. This is a particularly tough nut to crack, and the system is not 100% perfect today; however, we are confident that with continued input and feedback it can mature into a useful system for all.



We are pleased to announce the initial launch of a new system that is intended to improve trust and transparency of vendors running keyboard and keyset group buys.

The current version of the MK Trust and Safety System is available at: http://www.mktrust.org/

This system is a community-driven effort, relying on vendors, consumers, platforms and streamers to report and maintain vendor GB status and commitments.

geekhack is supporting this initiative by requiring that:
  • All vendors who want to promote a group buy (as defined in the system) must have a rating
  • Vendors can promote a maximum # of group buys based on their rating limit

There will be a grace period of 30 days from today, for vendors to submit their information for rating before these rules are enforced. After December 8, 2023, new GB posts from vendors who have not submitted their information for rating via this system will not be approved. Instructions for vendors to submit their information for rating are available at mktrust.org.

Any community member or vendor can also report any issues with vendors or submit feedback on the system using forms available at mktrust.org.

Please join us in supporting this initiative. It will continue to evolve through feedback and lessons learned. We hope that it helps to increase vendor trust and provide useful information to the community as it continues to grow.

Discussion between rmendis and TaehaTypes regarding the new system:

Feel free to share any thoughts and feedback below (in addition to submitting via the form) to allow others to engage in discussion and workshop any improvements as a collective.

Edit: Added rmendis/Taeha video
« Last Edit: Wed, 08 November 2023, 09:16:53 by HoffmanMyster »

Offline farlig

  • * St. Jude Supporter
  • Posts: 13
  • Location: Denmark
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #1 on: Wed, 08 November 2023, 08:54:51 »
Great initiative, I hope this all works out to hopefully help prevent or minimize scams in the future.
Collection: Singakbd x TGR Unikorn R2.2 Pewter Grey, JJW Cloudline Red WKL, Noxary Valhalla Green, Keychron Q1 Black

Offline mk

  • Posts: 17
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #2 on: Wed, 08 November 2023, 12:03:03 »
Great initiative, and quite exhaustive.

There are a few things in the document that are quite unclear.

The definition of a group buy according to the document:
Quote
Group Buy (GB) = Sale mechanism based on prepayment model for future delivery of a product, where a certain order quantity must be reached before the order is placed. For the purposes of these ratings, a GB must be at least 250 MoQ for keysets and 50 MoQ for keyboards across all participating vendors (eg. lead vendor + regional proxies).
For running group buys / pre-orders for "low"-quantity keyboards/keycaps, switches, deskmats or other things:
  • Does this mean, that they can be advertised without it counting towards the GB limit?
    • If not, can they still be allowed to be advertised as a proxy vendor for these without it counting towards the GB limit?
  • Does it mean, that they will not count towards fulfilled group buys once delivered?

Quote
Made to Order (MTO) = or "Rolling Fulfillment" is an ongoing sale that could last for several months or longer, during which time customers can purchase a customized version of the product to be fulfilled within a specific time. For the purposes of this system, these types of sales are treated as a single GB for each MTO product.
  • Can a "group" of different but similar products be advertised? (i.e. plate cutting and case printing?) with it only counting as one GB?
  • How will this count towards fulfilled GBs? (x deliveries etc?)

As the title of the system is "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" and the group buys are only mentioned in the subtitle, there is a chance it may mislead some customers to believe a C-rated vendor that primarily sells in-stock items is untrustworthy. The C-rated vendor only has a rating as they want to be allowed to promote their store on one of the collaborating platforms. As the rating cannot improve without successful GBs, it may encourage the vendor to either run products as pre-orders / MTO in order to boost their trust rating, rather than selling in-stock items. (Not unlike how Americans take out a loan for a car rather than buying it with the cash they have on hand, in order to boost their credit-rating)
  • Are there any plans to be able to increase trust rating by being a reliable in-stock vendor?
  • Will participating networks/partners be encouraged to disclose that it is a Group Buy Trust System when referencing the system?

Offline carlanthony

  • Posts: 29
  • Location: Southern California
  • DIVINIKEY INC.
    • Divinikey Inc
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #3 on: Wed, 08 November 2023, 13:04:01 »
Great initiative, and quite exhaustive.

There are a few things in the document that are quite unclear.

The definition of a group buy according to the document:
Quote
Group Buy (GB) = Sale mechanism based on prepayment model for future delivery of a product, where a certain order quantity must be reached before the order is placed. For the purposes of these ratings, a GB must be at least 250 MoQ for keysets and 50 MoQ for keyboards across all participating vendors (eg. lead vendor + regional proxies).
For running group buys / pre-orders for "low"-quantity keyboards/keycaps, switches, deskmats or other things:
  • Does this mean, that they can be advertised without it counting towards the GB limit?
    • If not, can they still be allowed to be advertised as a proxy vendor for these without it counting towards the GB limit?
  • Does it mean, that they will not count towards fulfilled group buys once delivered?

Quote
Made to Order (MTO) = or "Rolling Fulfillment" is an ongoing sale that could last for several months or longer, during which time customers can purchase a customized version of the product to be fulfilled within a specific time. For the purposes of this system, these types of sales are treated as a single GB for each MTO product.
  • Can a "group" of different but similar products be advertised? (i.e. plate cutting and case printing?) with it only counting as one GB?
  • How will this count towards fulfilled GBs? (x deliveries etc?)

As the title of the system is "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" and the group buys are only mentioned in the subtitle, there is a chance it may mislead some customers to believe a C-rated vendor that primarily sells in-stock items is untrustworthy. The C-rated vendor only has a rating as they want to be allowed to promote their store on one of the collaborating platforms. As the rating cannot improve without successful GBs, it may encourage the vendor to either run products as pre-orders / MTO in order to boost their trust rating, rather than selling in-stock items. (Not unlike how Americans take out a loan for a car rather than buying it with the cash they have on hand, in order to boost their credit-rating)
  • Are there any plans to be able to increase trust rating by being a reliable in-stock vendor?
  • Will participating networks/partners be encouraged to disclose that it is a Group Buy Trust System when referencing the system?

Just wanted to echo what is mentioned here as well. Some clarification on MK's points would definitely be appreciated, especially toward his last sentiment.

I'm the co-owner of Divinikey.com, a vendor that has specialized in in-stock product for our industry for the last 3 years. We also would like to see some sort of trust rating boost for being a reliable in-stock vendor as well. Years of service, number of transactions, and traffic to the store are some metrics that could be used to help identify in-stock vendors as trustworthy or not.

Under the current system, we would be punished with a lower trust rating for choosing our business model despite being considered a trustworthy vendor.

We are definitely open to having a discussion on this. I'll submit similar feedback on the listed feedback form as well! Hopefully we can work something out.  :thumb:


Offline spikedsynapse

  • Posts: 167
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #4 on: Wed, 08 November 2023, 13:26:29 »
TIL that being in business longer makes you more trustworthy. This means I can fully trust HSBC. :thumb:

Offline pixelpusher

  • * Elevated Elder
  • Posts: 4182
  • Location: Tennessee - USA
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #5 on: Wed, 08 November 2023, 14:56:47 »


Just wanted to echo what is mentioned here as well. Some clarification on MK's points would definitely be appreciated, especially toward his last sentiment.

I'm the co-owner of Divinikey.com, a vendor that has specialized in in-stock product for our industry for the last 3 years. We also would like to see some sort of trust rating boost for being a reliable in-stock vendor as well. Years of service, number of transactions, and traffic to the store are some metrics that could be used to help identify in-stock vendors as trustworthy or not.

Under the current system, we would be punished with a lower trust rating for choosing our business model despite being considered a trustworthy vendor.

We are definitely open to having a discussion on this. I'll submit similar feedback on the listed feedback form as well! Hopefully we can work something out.  :thumb:

You guys rock, and I'd love to see a way for you to earn AAA vendor status.  I agree, there has to be a way to boost vendors who offer a lot of in-stock options and have a good reputation.

Offline ankit

  • Formerly ankit-sachdeva
  • Posts: 462
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #6 on: Wed, 08 November 2023, 15:30:56 »
Will non-vendor related hobbyist-ran and self-fulfilled keyboard projects still allowed to advertise on GH?
collection:
More
  Daal, Emp Mini, HHKB x5, Horsey, Prophet, RS60, Seis Cero, Unikorn, Pixy Mini

Offline pixelpusher

  • * Elevated Elder
  • Posts: 4182
  • Location: Tennessee - USA
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #7 on: Wed, 08 November 2023, 16:19:15 »
Will non-vendor related hobbyist-ran and self-fulfilled keyboard projects still allowed to advertise on GH?

I believe the plan is you will be required to have a rating to post a group buy on Geekhack.  So you would have a rating of "N" most likely. 

Offline wigol2506

  • Posts: 36
    • Instagram
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #8 on: Wed, 08 November 2023, 20:07:46 »
With the ideals of this new system in mind, it leans towards consumer protection but balanced against obligations expected from vendors. With that said, I do wish that the definition of "Failed GB" can be revised and fine-tuned, or alternatively, a temporary label (other than Safety Rating D) for Vendors who have not shown to have paid even the manufacturer's 1st invoice.

My points of concern:

1. "initial GB delivery ETA" are provided by vendor, consumers do not have transparency that the estimated delivery time was indeed provided by the manufacturers, hence it could be arbitrary or padded with their own concerns for fulfilment. We have seen different ETAs provided by Vendors even in the same region.

2. "500 days from close of GB" opens a wide exposure of risks to consumers, considering the chargeback window from most credit card companies are way lesser than this.

I has given to understand that most manufacturers do not require full upfront payment for the GB orders, but at least a part of it. There has been concerns of reputable vendors protracting delivery of manufactured GB orders that are ready to be shipped due to non-payment of invoices (progressive, final or otherwise) to the manufacturers. Having this difficulty / non-payment of invoices when due whilst accepting new GBs could possibly indicate cashflow issues to fulfil customers' orders. Eventually, the deficit hole cannot be fully recovered. 

I hope you can consider a mechanism that could:-
(a) Require Vendors to provide proof that at least the 1st manufacturer's invoice is paid no later than 120 days before the commencement of the GB (or whatever the average chargeback window period is for credit card companies); and/or
(b) Monitor the progressive payments of manufacturer's invoices when they fall due, at least a % based monitoring, i.e. 30% of manufacturer's invoices paid.

I think this will either relieve some of the concerns from potential GB customers or assuage fears from people who have previously lost monies due to false reassurance by Vendors / GB runners that "things are positively in progress".

https://www.flickr.com/photos/wigol2506/

Singa Ocelot R1 Prototype | Singa x TGR Unikorn R1 Prototype | Singa x TGR Unikorn R2.1 PC & FG | Singa Kyohaku | TGR Jane V2 CE | TGR Police | TGR 910 OG (01/23) |TGR 910RE PC | LZ Phase | LZ XE | LZ erGhost | LZ erGhost CL | LZ REs | LZ Trik X_T | LZ SQ | LZ GHv1 | LZ GHv2 |LZ Prism | Palmetto60 | HBCP | Ibis | No2Rev2 TKL Black Unfinished | 1/60 Rev. 1 | Keynergy Serratus Chrome | DNworks SBL (DN)

Offline Kokaloo

  • Posts: 1023
  • Location: Las Vegas
  • 🤘(• ω •)🤙
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #9 on: Wed, 08 November 2023, 20:31:11 »


All vendors should be required to display their grade on the shop website displaying their rating given by the MK Vendor Trust and Safety System.

Online Rhienfo

  • Posts: 656
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
  • Why is everything I want here so expensive :(
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #10 on: Wed, 08 November 2023, 20:43:30 »
While I think the idea is good, the more I look into it and discuss it with many members of the community, the more I start to see this as an flawed idea.

I feel that the entire idea of a rating system is stupid, because it treats the situation as a objective thing when it really isn't. there are so many moving variables when it comes to these situations that rating it objectively is kinda missing the point, there are far more moving variables than just if they delivered or not and if they are responsive for support, people can have a perfectly good track record and still just go away never to be seen. This feels like a way to minimize damage and not actively prevent it, which is better than nothing but doesn't fix the issue long term and will allow people to get scammed still.

I have concerns with how concentrated the amount of power is through this system, in the hands of a few people. It does not help that the system feels like it's designed to benefit the big players in the hobby and not the small ones. I am worried about the massive conflict of interest here and I think a lot of people wouldn't trust a bunch of discord and reddit mods to handle this in a way that is unbiased. What is stopping someone from excluding someone from this list, someone who has not done anything wrong and is a reputable business just simply because someone on the team doesn't like the person running the business, or a large company, secretly paying someone to get rid of competition of the list, limiting the ability to advertise to a lot of the community, the way the system is currently implemented seems exploitable.

I also understand that this is very early in development but presentation needs a lot of work, I feel that the new people who need this info the most will not go and read a random spreadsheet about it, this information needs to be properly presented in a website in an appealing way.

At the end of the day, a centralized data set about vendors is a good thing. But I feel that the whole thing seems rushed without any foresight into the long term effects and how this would affect smaller vendors and individuals. I hope things can improve and the system be fully fleshed out.

That's just how I feel though. Would like to hear other opinions.
 

Offline eksuen

  • Posts: 614
  • Location: Torgue Zone
  • Ambassador of explosions.
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #11 on: Thu, 09 November 2023, 14:38:09 »
Hoff works for Drop/Corsair. Being on a committee that rates competitors and has access to some of their GB data from the Vendor Profile Form submissions is a massive conflict of interest. Even the appearance of impropriety or a potential conflict of interest would be a violation of any serious code of conduct. That he sits on a Trust & Safety Admin Team is hilariously ironic.

Offline kiyoboard

  • Posts: 172
  • https://www.youtube.com/kiyoboard
    • https://www.youtube.com/kiyoboard
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #12 on: Fri, 10 November 2023, 22:27:38 »
I am honestly not sure if all these rating system was necessary and I can see it hurting new or small vendors. So far, all the scams seem to happen due to a person or vendor not paying the invoice, regardless of their previous successful GBs, and none of the parties involved mentioning anything until it is too late. I think rather than giving scores, a better system would be to have all vendors have their invoice information publicly available. I see that in the document there is an info about GB status updates, but nothing is mentioned about invoices. I think vendor accepting or not accepting this is a better indication of a potential scam than a score system designed by few people that can also be exploited or abused in the future.

Offline Kokaloo

  • Posts: 1023
  • Location: Las Vegas
  • 🤘(• ω •)🤙
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #13 on: Sat, 11 November 2023, 14:08:26 »
I am honestly not sure if all these rating system was necessary and I can see it hurting new or small vendors. So far, all the scams seem to happen due to a person or vendor not paying the invoice, regardless of their previous successful GBs, and none of the parties involved mentioning anything until it is too late. I think rather than giving scores, a better system would be to have all vendors have their invoice information publicly available. I see that in the document there is an info about GB status updates, but nothing is mentioned about invoices. I think vendor accepting or not accepting this is a better indication of a potential scam than a score system designed by few people that can also be exploited or abused in the future.

Further adding to this hurting new vendors, I think it's by design. They don't want so many untrustworthy newcomers when there is always an established circle of vendors who can pick any project. Advertising on this platform doesn't mean much anymore, and during my last gb Reddit's r/mechanicalkeyboards wasn't allowing promotional posts by most anyone, however allowed some posts from larger vendors absolutely hurting the numbers and exposure for my set. There should be a process to prove that a business is in this hobby for real, however I don't think that's possible, but everyone should remember we had to trust novelkeys, Dixie, originative, zeal, etc without any reason to believe they were for real too. This rating system absolutely harms people attempting to profit from the hobby without an already established connection, harming lesser designers and vendors. There's absolutely no correct precaution for joining gbs other than giving people the facts and their rights as a consumer.

Offline dvorcol

  • Posts: 3184
  • Location: MI-US
  • Discord: dvorcol_5071
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #14 on: Sat, 11 November 2023, 17:00:44 »
Hoff works for Drop/Corsair. Being on a committee that rates competitors and has access to some of their GB data from the Vendor Profile Form submissions is a massive conflict of interest. Even the appearance of impropriety or a potential conflict of interest would be a violation of any serious code of conduct. That he sits on a Trust & Safety Admin Team is hilariously ironic.

I don't understand why Drop is considered different from other vendors.  They started in 2012 as two people running GBs to support communities interested in niche products - https://drop.com/talk/1954/the-history-of-massdrop?mode=guest_open

If Drop should be excluded from this activity, shouldn't all vendors?

Offline AmethystDCVR

  • Posts: 39
  • Location: Los Angeles
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #15 on: Sun, 12 November 2023, 05:38:46 »
i dont think his comment has anything to do with drop as a vendor, but moreso that drop is directly connected to this commitee, hence the point about it being a conflict of interest.

Offline dvorcol

  • Posts: 3184
  • Location: MI-US
  • Discord: dvorcol_5071
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #16 on: Sun, 12 November 2023, 20:11:37 »
i dont think his comment has anything to do with drop as a vendor, but moreso that drop is directly connected to this commitee, hence the point about it being a conflict of interest.

This thread's original post states that the new MK Vendor Trust and Safety System "is intended to improve trust and transparency of vendors running keyboard and keyset group buys." It "is a community-driven effort, relying on vendors, consumers, platforms and streamers to report and maintain vendor GB status and commitments."

There are 16 vendors in the current document's "Contributors and Acknowledgements" list (see image below). Working for a vendor does not conflict with being a platform moderator and/or part of the admin team. They are all part of this community and share a common goal.


Edit: updated chart
« Last Edit: Thu, 30 November 2023, 16:35:44 by dvorcol »

Offline rmendis

  • Posts: 448
  • Artisan addict
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #17 on: Mon, 13 November 2023, 22:50:43 »
Hi folks!

I am one of the authors of this draft of the MK Trust system. Apologies for the delayed responses to these posts, some of which raise issues we are working on to improve.

I'll attempt to address all the posts and any new questions as much as possible, but please forgive me for any delays. =)

Just for disclosure...
  • I am not a moderator of Geekhack
  • I am not a moderator of r/mk or r/mm
  • I am a moderator of discord mechmarket (not affiliated with r/mm)
  • I am a moderator of some discord servers related to artisan makers
  • I have no commercial relationships with any keyset or keyboard vendors, manufacturers or designers
  • There are many people who are in groups listed above that I consider friends (to whatever degree that may influence my perspective)

Ok, on to a few responses for tonight, in chronological order.
« Last Edit: Mon, 13 November 2023, 23:26:13 by rmendis »

Offline rmendis

  • Posts: 448
  • Artisan addict
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #18 on: Mon, 13 November 2023, 23:06:53 »
Quote
There are a few things in the document that are quite unclear.

The definition of a group buy according to the document:
Quote
Group Buy (GB) = Sale mechanism based on prepayment model for future delivery of a product, where a certain order quantity must be reached before the order is placed. For the purposes of these ratings, a GB must be at least 250 MoQ for keysets and 50 MoQ for keyboards across all participating vendors (eg. lead vendor + regional proxies).
For running group buys / pre-orders for "low"-quantity keyboards/keycaps, switches, deskmats or other things:
  • Does this mean, that they can be advertised without it counting towards the GB limit?
    • If not, can they still be allowed to be advertised as a proxy vendor for these without it counting towards the GB limit?
  • Does it mean, that they will not count towards fulfilled group buys once delivered?

The system currently applies only to keyset or keyboard GBs that meet the defined MoQs (250 and 50 respectively). If you look at the FAQ section, it explains in detail why this version is focusing only on those items, but it's basically because those are the GBs that caused the biggest vendor failures.

Only those keyset and keyboard GBs that meet the MoQ will be given as credit to lead and proxy vendors, and any limits apply only to GBs that meet this criteria.

There are no restrictions on other types of GBs, nor do other GBs give credit towards ratings.

Quote
Quote
Made to Order (MTO) = or "Rolling Fulfillment" is an ongoing sale that could last for several months or longer, during which time customers can purchase a customized version of the product to be fulfilled within a specific time. For the purposes of this system, these types of sales are treated as a single GB for each MTO product.
  • Can a "group" of different but similar products be advertised? (i.e. plate cutting and case printing?) with it only counting as one GB?
  • How will this count towards fulfilled GBs? (x deliveries etc?)

We should probably expand this definition, but you can advertise accessories related to a keyset or keyboard GB, such as plates, foam, novelty caps, etc., and they only count as one GB associated to a primary product (e.g. the main keyset or keyboard). Credit is given once the primary product is fulfilled. In some cases, there may be issues related to fulfillment of accessories (*ahem* RAMA novelties), which we will have to potentially deal with on a case by case basis (no pun intended).

Quote
As the title of the system is "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" and the group buys are only mentioned in the subtitle, there is a chance it may mislead some customers to believe a C-rated vendor that primarily sells in-stock items is untrustworthy. The C-rated vendor only has a rating as they want to be allowed to promote their store on one of the collaborating platforms. As the rating cannot improve without successful GBs, it may encourage the vendor to either run products as pre-orders / MTO in order to boost their trust rating, rather than selling in-stock items. (Not unlike how Americans take out a loan for a car rather than buying it with the cash they have on hand, in order to boost their credit-rating)
  • Are there any plans to be able to increase trust rating by being a reliable in-stock vendor?
  • Will participating networks/partners be encouraged to disclose that it is a Group Buy Trust System when referencing the system?

We mention in several places throughout the document and the rating sheet that this is only for keyset and keyboard GBs, but I take your point. We will make it more explicit in even more places. (Until the system can be expanded to cover other types of sales.)

There is very little risk to consumers for in-stock items, given that they can charge back and many in-stock items are from already completed GBs.  The problem we are focusing on solving initially is to mitigate risk of unvetted GB promotion and provide an early warning system to avoid situations like Mech&Co, Project Keyboard, and similar situations (see the doc for how the system might have helped in those cases). That said, we will explore ways to expand the system to consider in-stock items at some point.

Offline rmendis

  • Posts: 448
  • Artisan addict
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #19 on: Mon, 13 November 2023, 23:12:01 »
Great initiative, and quite exhaustive.

There are a few things in the document that are quite unclear.

The definition of a group buy according to the document:
Quote
Group Buy (GB) = Sale mechanism based on prepayment model for future delivery of a product, where a certain order quantity must be reached before the order is placed. For the purposes of these ratings, a GB must be at least 250 MoQ for keysets and 50 MoQ for keyboards across all participating vendors (eg. lead vendor + regional proxies).
For running group buys / pre-orders for "low"-quantity keyboards/keycaps, switches, deskmats or other things:
  • Does this mean, that they can be advertised without it counting towards the GB limit?
    • If not, can they still be allowed to be advertised as a proxy vendor for these without it counting towards the GB limit?
  • Does it mean, that they will not count towards fulfilled group buys once delivered?

Quote
Made to Order (MTO) = or "Rolling Fulfillment" is an ongoing sale that could last for several months or longer, during which time customers can purchase a customized version of the product to be fulfilled within a specific time. For the purposes of this system, these types of sales are treated as a single GB for each MTO product.
  • Can a "group" of different but similar products be advertised? (i.e. plate cutting and case printing?) with it only counting as one GB?
  • How will this count towards fulfilled GBs? (x deliveries etc?)

As the title of the system is "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" and the group buys are only mentioned in the subtitle, there is a chance it may mislead some customers to believe a C-rated vendor that primarily sells in-stock items is untrustworthy. The C-rated vendor only has a rating as they want to be allowed to promote their store on one of the collaborating platforms. As the rating cannot improve without successful GBs, it may encourage the vendor to either run products as pre-orders / MTO in order to boost their trust rating, rather than selling in-stock items. (Not unlike how Americans take out a loan for a car rather than buying it with the cash they have on hand, in order to boost their credit-rating)
  • Are there any plans to be able to increase trust rating by being a reliable in-stock vendor?
  • Will participating networks/partners be encouraged to disclose that it is a Group Buy Trust System when referencing the system?

Just wanted to echo what is mentioned here as well. Some clarification on MK's points would definitely be appreciated, especially toward his last sentiment.

I'm the co-owner of Divinikey.com, a vendor that has specialized in in-stock product for our industry for the last 3 years. We also would like to see some sort of trust rating boost for being a reliable in-stock vendor as well. Years of service, number of transactions, and traffic to the store are some metrics that could be used to help identify in-stock vendors as trustworthy or not.

Under the current system, we would be punished with a lower trust rating for choosing our business model despite being considered a trustworthy vendor.

We are definitely open to having a discussion on this. I'll submit similar feedback on the listed feedback form as well! Hopefully we can work something out.  :thumb:

I just replied to the items you quoted - they were all good questions. =)

As mentioned, we are looking at how/what if any credit can be conferred from in-stock items, but are initially focused on capacity and track record to fulfill GBs, which are the primary type of mechanism that caused recent and past vendor failure.

Really appreciate your feedback! Please do submit feedback or feel free to reach out to me on discord (easier to chat), with same username: rmendis.

Offline rmendis

  • Posts: 448
  • Artisan addict
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #20 on: Mon, 13 November 2023, 23:15:49 »
TIL that being in business longer makes you more trustworthy. This means I can fully trust HSBC. :thumb:

I realize this may be a joke, but just in case it's not or some people don't read it that way, longevity without failed GBs is only one of the criteria for rating. The other two criteria are (1) number of successful GBs that meet the MoQ, and (2) number of full time employees who have ability to fulfill/ship product and manage transactions. Also required are commitments to timely GB updates, customer tickets, and admin communications.

Offline rmendis

  • Posts: 448
  • Artisan addict
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #21 on: Mon, 13 November 2023, 23:22:41 »
Will non-vendor related hobbyist-ran and self-fulfilled keyboard projects still allowed to advertise on GH?

The system applies to any keyset or keyboard GBs that meet the MoQ criteria. If a non-vendor hobbyist is running a GB for a keyset with 250 or more units or a keyboard with 50 or more units, then they are subject to the same promotion limits. There is no reason why a hobbyist should be able to take on more financial risk than a vendor, or vice versa.

Everyone gets 3 simultaneous GB promotions even with a new (N) rating, so this shouldn't be severely limiting to a hobbyist who is self-fulfilling. If a hobbyist is running more than 3 concurrent GBs that meet these MoQs, it can be argued that they are starting to take on non-trivial financial responsibility that is approaching vendor category.


Will return to do more responses soon!
« Last Edit: Mon, 13 November 2023, 23:25:21 by rmendis »

Offline rmendis

  • Posts: 448
  • Artisan addict
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #22 on: Mon, 13 November 2023, 23:27:20 »
With the ideals of this new system in mind, it leans towards consumer protection but balanced against obligations expected from vendors. With that said, I do wish that the definition of "Failed GB" can be revised and fine-tuned, or alternatively, a temporary label (other than Safety Rating D) for Vendors who have not shown to have paid even the manufacturer's 1st invoice.

My points of concern:

1. "initial GB delivery ETA" are provided by vendor, consumers do not have transparency that the estimated delivery time was indeed provided by the manufacturers, hence it could be arbitrary or padded with their own concerns for fulfilment. We have seen different ETAs provided by Vendors even in the same region.

We are tracking the actual delivery time in the detailed sheets and will make a note if it significantly exceeded the ETA. Ofc vendors do and should pad ETAs - it's better than setting unrealistic expectations, no? As long as they deliver.

Quote
2. "500 days from close of GB" opens a wide exposure of risks to consumers, considering the chargeback window from most credit card companies are way lesser than this.

There are tons of GBs that take more than 6 months to fulfill, for a variety of reasons, which is beyond the scope of paypal or some cc charge backs. This is not a system that can prescribe manufacturing timelines, we can only define, track, and provide warnings when GBs fail.

Quote
I has given to understand that most manufacturers do not require full upfront payment for the GB orders, but at least a part of it. There has been concerns of reputable vendors protracting delivery of manufactured GB orders that are ready to be shipped due to non-payment of invoices (progressive, final or otherwise) to the manufacturers. Having this difficulty / non-payment of invoices when due whilst accepting new GBs could possibly indicate cashflow issues to fulfil customers' orders. Eventually, the deficit hole cannot be fully recovered. 

I hope you can consider a mechanism that could:-
(a) Require Vendors to provide proof that at least the 1st manufacturer's invoice is paid no later than 120 days before the commencement of the GB (or whatever the average chargeback window period is for credit card companies); and/or
(b) Monitor the progressive payments of manufacturer's invoices when they fall due, at least a % based monitoring, i.e. 30% of manufacturer's invoices paid.

I think this will either relieve some of the concerns from potential GB customers or assuage fears from people who have previously lost monies due to false reassurance by Vendors / GB runners that "things are positively in progress".

We did of course consider and discuss financial disclosures. Those are the obvious first places to start. But, as mentioned in both the document and interviews with Taeha, financial disclosure was a non-starter for vendors, both large and small (for reasons I understand). Since there is no financial disclosure, as mentioned in the document, this system should not be considered a guarantee of anything at all. It is simply a mechanism to provide centrtalized reporting, track some mertics of GB performance and commitment, rate vendors transparently and objectively according to their performance against those metrics, and limit their promotion of GBs on certain platforms based on that rating. Is this perfect? No. Is this better than having nothing? We think so, but time will tell. =)
« Last Edit: Tue, 14 November 2023, 06:52:11 by rmendis »

Offline rmendis

  • Posts: 448
  • Artisan addict
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #23 on: Tue, 14 November 2023, 08:01:11 »
While I think the idea is good, the more I look into it and discuss it with many members of the community, the more I start to see this as an flawed idea.

No one who worked on this system claims it is flawless. We know it has flaws, and probably many that we haven't even realized yet. That's why it says "draft for initial vendor submission and community feedback" in big red font at the top of cover page. =)

Quote
I feel that the entire idea of a rating system is stupid, because it treats the situation as a objective thing when it really isn't. there are so many moving variables when it comes to these situations that rating it objectively is kinda missing the point, there are far more moving variables than just if they delivered or not and if they are responsive for support, people can have a perfectly good track record and still just go away never to be seen. This feels like a way to minimize damage and not actively prevent it, which is better than nothing but doesn't fix the issue long term and will allow people to get scammed still.

Nothing in the system criteria is subjective. It provides clear definitions of requirements and how they will be tracked. Yes, there are many potential variables. The current ones were selected based on the collective experience of the vendors, mods, designers, veteran community members and others who dealt in some way with the ongoing vendor failures and have attempted to create a system that mitigates some of the risk of a zero-vetting GB free for all on certain platforms. There is no system that will "actively prevent" damage or scams - that's a fundamentally unrealistic expectation of GBs. If anyone is looking for that, it's called "buy in-stock items only". 


Quote
I have concerns with how concentrated the amount of power is through this system, in the hands of a few people. It does not help that the system feels like it's designed to benefit the big players in the hobby and not the small ones. I am worried about the massive conflict of interest here and I think a lot of people wouldn't trust a bunch of discord and reddit mods to handle this in a way that is unbiased. What is stopping someone from excluding someone from this list, someone who has not done anything wrong and is a reputable business just simply because someone on the team doesn't like the person running the business, or a large company, secretly paying someone to get rid of competition of the list, limiting the ability to advertise to a lot of the community, the way the system is currently implemented seems exploitable.

The criteria of vendor ratings is transparent and objective measures, such as number of completed GBs, number of employees, response times, etc. There are no subjective criteria. If there are, please do let us know which ones, so we can correct it. There are multiple people working on the mechanics of taking vendor submissions and creating the profiles. It is in no one's interest to exclude a vendor based on personal feelings. If a vendor feels they have been unfairly treated, they can contact anyone on the team or make a public post, and we'll respond. But at the end of the day, someone has to do the (thankless) work of actually entering data. Any affiliations of those people are disclosed in the document. Any volunteers are more than welcome. =)

Furthermore, this system is actually reliant on way more than just the limited number of people who are doing the mechanical work. It relies on vendors to submit info, community members to report issues, mods to verify info. platform mods to enforce rules, streamers to support rated vendors, etc. It will succeeded or fail purely on a collective effort by the community.

Quote
I also understand that this is very early in development but presentation needs a lot of work, I feel that the new people who need this info the most will not go and read a random spreadsheet about it, this information needs to be properly presented in a website in an appealing way.

Yes - we need to evolve this into a website eventually. Thankfully, we've had some people who have graciously volunteered their time, and will work with them once the requirements of the system are more stable and requirements for a web site can be clearly defined.

Quote
At the end of the day, a centralized data set about vendors is a good thing. But I feel that the whole thing seems rushed without any foresight into the long term effects and how this would affect smaller vendors and individuals. I hope things can improve and the system be fully fleshed out.

That's just how I feel though. Would like to hear other opinions.

Think of this as an minimum viable product (MVP) or prototype. There is no way to stress test all the possibilities of hundreds of vendors, proxies, and other situations than putting out a draft, collecting submissions, and refining the system based on those results. That's the process we have to go through. That process will result in some growing pains, but it's a process that needs to happen regardless. The entire GB model is an experiment, which in some cases has resulted in the failure of dozens of vendors and millions in lost consumer funds. All of these things are a symptom of the hobby maturing, painfully in some cases, but hopefully net positive in the end. Appreciate your feedback. =)
« Last Edit: Tue, 14 November 2023, 08:03:05 by rmendis »

Offline rmendis

  • Posts: 448
  • Artisan addict
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #24 on: Tue, 14 November 2023, 08:06:40 »
Hoff works for Drop/Corsair. Being on a committee that rates competitors and has access to some of their GB data from the Vendor Profile Form submissions is a massive conflict of interest. Even the appearance of impropriety or a potential conflict of interest would be a violation of any serious code of conduct. That he sits on a Trust & Safety Admin Team is hilariously ironic.

Hoff (and some other GH mods) were moderators of this site long before Drop acquired the property. Drop decided to let the existing mods remain. Yes, that technically means Hoff is affiliated with Drop, but not that he will somehow start treating those vendors unfairly. He has been approving GB posts and supporting vendors and members here long before and after the Drop acquisition.

That said, I'll reiterate what I mentioned in an earlier comment regarding bias...

The criteria of vendor ratings is transparent and objective measures, such as number of completed GBs, number of employees, response times, etc. There are no subjective criteria. If there are, please do let us know which ones, so we can correct it. There are multiple people working on the mechanics of taking vendor submissions and creating the profiles. It is in no one's interest to exclude a vendor based on personal feelings. If a vendor feels they have been unfairly treated, they can contact anyone on the team or make a public post, and we'll respond. But at the end of the day, someone has to do the (thankless) work of actually entering data. Any affiliations of those people are disclosed in the document. Any volunteers are more than welcome. =)

Offline HoffmanMyster

  • HOFF, smol MAN OF MYSTERY
  • * Senior Moderator
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 11469
  • Location: WI
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #25 on: Tue, 14 November 2023, 09:24:57 »
Hoff works for Drop/Corsair. Being on a committee that rates competitors and has access to some of their GB data from the Vendor Profile Form submissions is a massive conflict of interest. Even the appearance of impropriety or a potential conflict of interest would be a violation of any serious code of conduct. That he sits on a Trust & Safety Admin Team is hilariously ironic.

I understand the principle of concern here, but functionally there is nothing shared that would raise any eyebrows. Vendors are only sharing publicly available information with the trust team and any ratings or decisions that come from it are not made in a subjective manner. There just isn't an opportunity for foul play or any sort of bias to present itself.

Offline HoffmanMyster

  • HOFF, smol MAN OF MYSTERY
  • * Senior Moderator
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 11469
  • Location: WI
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #26 on: Tue, 14 November 2023, 09:47:16 »
I am honestly not sure if all these rating system was necessary and I can see it hurting new or small vendors. So far, all the scams seem to happen due to a person or vendor not paying the invoice, regardless of their previous successful GBs, and none of the parties involved mentioning anything until it is too late. I think rather than giving scores, a better system would be to have all vendors have their invoice information publicly available. I see that in the document there is an info about GB status updates, but nothing is mentioned about invoices. I think vendor accepting or not accepting this is a better indication of a potential scam than a score system designed by few people that can also be exploited or abused in the future.

Thank you for the feedback!

One very common thread through all of the recent failed vendors was taking on wayyy too much and finding themselves under water (financially and/or mentally). Buying too many extras, spreading too thin, expanding too fast, etc. One manifestation is unpaid invoices, as you mention.

I don't think there is a workable version of this system where vendors share invoice details with an external party. It's just not how business is done, and sometimes there are NDAs and other agreements in place that would severely limit what could be shared anyway. Would you trust a company saying "yep, we paid it!"? Probably not. You'd want proof, and that is simply not feasible at this time (who knows, maybe things will evolve from here).

The fundamental way that this system is designed to work is to make it apparent to potential customers whether a vendor is taking on more than their counterparts, or prevent them from taking on "too much" (which, because it's a limit, will be open for debate as to whether it's the right amount - fair, but a different conversation). I don't think it's unreasonable to allow larger vendors to take on more simultaneous work than a smaller vendor; more people allow for more work to get done and more GBs to be processed. If the system were to ban small or new vendors from posting at all, that would be cause for concern. But there needs to be some sort of signal and safeguard or the whole system is for show.

All that said, as @rmendis mentioned above, the system is not perfect nor in its final form yet. Feedback is being collected (thanks again) and adjustments will continue to be made.

Offline rmendis

  • Posts: 448
  • Artisan addict
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #27 on: Tue, 14 November 2023, 09:52:28 »
I am honestly not sure if all these rating system was necessary and I can see it hurting new or small vendors.

Do you feel that zero vetting of people who run multiple concurrent GBs promoted for free on community platforms and collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars with no accountability or transparency is reasonable? How does this hurt small vendors? Because it now requires them to show some modicum of success before taking on more risk?

Quote
So far, all the scams seem to happen due to a person or vendor not paying the invoice, regardless of their previous successful GBs, and none of the parties involved mentioning anything until it is too late. I think rather than giving scores, a better system would be to have all vendors have their invoice information publicly available. I see that in the document there is an info about GB status updates, but nothing is mentioned about invoices. I think vendor accepting or not accepting this is a better indication of a potential scam than a score system designed by few people that can also be exploited or abused in the future.

Vendors are simply not going to share proprietary financial information. That's just not feasible. We need something that is actually practical and still has some benefit. If vendors don't pay their invoice, they will fail, and that failure will be reflected in the system. The difference now, is vendors can only promote a limited number of GBs before failure, and consumers will be able to see the historical information in a centralized place and make more informed decisions for themselves.

Offline rmendis

  • Posts: 448
  • Artisan addict
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #28 on: Tue, 14 November 2023, 09:55:12 »
i dont think his comment has anything to do with drop as a vendor, but moreso that drop is directly connected to this commitee, hence the point about it being a conflict of interest.

This thread's original post states that the new MK Vendor Trust and Safety System "is intended to improve trust and transparency of vendors running keyboard and keyset group buys." It "is a community-driven effort, relying on vendors, consumers, platforms and streamers to report and maintain vendor GB status and commitments."

There are 14 vendors in the current document's "Contributors and Acknowledgements" list (see image below). Working for a vendor does not conflict with being a platform moderator and/or part of the admin team. They are all part of this community and share a common goal.

Show Image


Love this chart - thanks for putting it together! We may create something similar in the doc at some point.
Appreciate the feedback!

Offline rmendis

  • Posts: 448
  • Artisan addict
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #29 on: Tue, 14 November 2023, 09:55:28 »
Show Image


All vendors should be required to display their grade on the shop website displaying their rating given by the MK Vendor Trust and Safety System.

lmao, this is great

Offline HoffmanMyster

  • HOFF, smol MAN OF MYSTERY
  • * Senior Moderator
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 11469
  • Location: WI
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #30 on: Tue, 14 November 2023, 10:16:03 »
This feels like a way to minimize damage and not actively prevent it, which is better than nothing but doesn't fix the issue long term and will allow people to get scammed still.

There is unfortunately no way to fully prevent scams or damages. The best that anyone can do is minimize the risk, which is exactly what is being attempted here. If there are ways to do it better, then it should be improved upon and that is exactly what will happen. So, thank you for the feedback and sharing your thoughts. :)

I have concerns with how concentrated the amount of power is through this system, in the hands of a few people. It does not help that the system feels like it's designed to benefit the big players in the hobby and not the small ones. I am worried about the massive conflict of interest here and I think a lot of people wouldn't trust a bunch of discord and reddit mods to handle this in a way that is unbiased. What is stopping someone from excluding someone from this list, someone who has not done anything wrong and is a reputable business just simply because someone on the team doesn't like the person running the business, or a large company, secretly paying someone to get rid of competition of the list, limiting the ability to advertise to a lot of the community, the way the system is currently implemented seems exploitable.

I certainly appreciate a healthy dose of skepticism, so I totally get where you're coming from.

At the end of the day, any platform like this has humans on the other side who could be making biased/impartial decisions (knowingly or not), or as serious as you mentioned, taking bribes and engaging in intentionally malicious behavior. In practice, this new system is no more ripe for abuse than any modded platform is by default.

We've been manually approving Classifieds and Group Buy posts here for years now, along with a whole slew of other moderator activities/abilities that could theoretically be abused. The mod team has prided ourselves on transparency and fairness, and we've always been willing to share details on decisions when possible. I'm not here to beg and plead that you trust us - that is your decision and yours alone. Rather, I'm just pointing out that using any platform like GH or reddit means accepting that there is a mod team in place and those mods are human, for better or worse.

If any abuse does take place, I would hope that those affected would take the evidence to another mod team, community members, etc to make it known. No one involved in this project, from the moderators to vendors to designers or streamers wants that sort of behavior to go unaddressed if it were to happen.

Offline rmendis

  • Posts: 448
  • Artisan addict
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #31 on: Tue, 14 November 2023, 15:21:18 »
Quote
Further adding to this hurting new vendors, I think it's by design. They don't want so many untrustworthy newcomers when there is always an established circle of vendors who can pick any project.

I have heard theoretical concerns from both sides now: that it somehow hurts new vendors by them having a new vendor rating, and it somehow hurts more established vendors by forcing designers have to work with new vendors as more established ones hit their GB promotion limits. It's virtually impossible to know for sure what will or won't happen. Instead of arguing theoretical possibilities, we would rather stress test the system to find an approach that is practical and neutral as possible based on actual real world data.

Quote
Advertising on this platform doesn't mean much anymore, and during my last gb Reddit's r/mechanicalkeyboards wasn't allowing promotional posts by most anyone, however allowed some posts from larger vendors absolutely hurting the numbers and exposure for my set.

I can't speak to your specific situation, because I'm not a mod on r/mk, but i'm pretty sure they paused GB promotion for all vendors regardless of size. Larger vendors may have promoted in-stock items, but that's not the same thing. Also, NK and CK were able to promote "rescue" projects related to Mechs&Co. Sorry that your set was impacted, but unless I missed something, the GB promotion pause was not targeted at small vendors specifically.

Quote
There should be a process to prove that a business is in this hobby for real, however I don't think that's possible, but everyone should remember we had to trust novelkeys, Dixie, originative, zeal, etc without any reason to believe they were for real too. This rating system absolutely harms people attempting to profit from the hobby without an already established connection, harming lesser designers and vendors. There's absolutely no correct precaution for joining gbs other than giving people the facts and their rights as a consumer.

I am still unclear how this system "harms people from making profit". It establishes a rudimentary vetting process. centralizes visibility, limits risk exposure for larger keyset and keyboard GBs based on track record of running said large GBs, and obtains commitment to timely updates and customer responses for those who wish to use the platforms as a promotional vehicle. The absence of any vetting at all has been shown to harm average consumers far more than the minor inconvenience to vendors that a simple system like this entails. It's certainly not perfect, and we are committed to hearing feedback and improving it over time. =)
« Last Edit: Tue, 14 November 2023, 15:23:30 by rmendis »

Offline rmendis

  • Posts: 448
  • Artisan addict
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #32 on: Tue, 14 November 2023, 15:22:23 »
I think that answers all the posts for now, but will check back in the next few days. Thanks again for all the feedback!

Offline Kokaloo

  • Posts: 1023
  • Location: Las Vegas
  • 🤘(• ω •)🤙
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #33 on: Tue, 14 November 2023, 16:01:46 »
what did you type all of that with

Offline rmendis

  • Posts: 448
  • Artisan addict
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #34 on: Tue, 14 November 2023, 19:04:14 »
what did you type all of that with

Like on what keyboard?
Yesterday evening I was responding on desktop with VE.A
This morning on my macbook

Offline codecoffeecode

  • Posts: 42
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #35 on: Tue, 14 November 2023, 22:28:41 »
I think that this system will be a great step forward, and I'm excited to see if it can make a positive impact. The system definitely needs time to make a real effect on the community, but there is just one thing I'd like to see as the system moves from a draft to the real deal: versioning.

As far as I can tell, Google Docs doesn't support redlining (at least not natively), but I would like to see when updates are made specifically to the language surrounding the vendor classifications as well as the language of the terms and definitions.

I think a Github repository could serve this purpose well: Github would allow the community to easily track changes to the main document, view the vendor rating pages in a more organized fashion, as well as provide a platform for posting and discussing issues surrounding the system. I also think a repository would scale better, especially as more vendors and individuals participate in the system.

Offline HubertThemad

  • * St. Jude Supporter
  • Posts: 81
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #36 on: Wed, 15 November 2023, 09:57:07 »
Thanks to all who have worked (and continue to work) on this doc.

As others have mentioned above, it's not a perfect system, and it doesn't mean that a trusted/high-rated vendor means they're 100% safe or there will be zero problems (just like how a vendor/solo runner not being on this doc doesn't = scammer), but it is useful.

edit: grammar

« Last Edit: Wed, 15 November 2023, 10:07:50 by HubertThemad »

Offline HoffmanMyster

  • HOFF, smol MAN OF MYSTERY
  • * Senior Moderator
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 11469
  • Location: WI
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #37 on: Wed, 15 November 2023, 14:34:06 »
I think that this system will be a great step forward, and I'm excited to see if it can make a positive impact. The system definitely needs time to make a real effect on the community, but there is just one thing I'd like to see as the system moves from a draft to the real deal: versioning.

As far as I can tell, Google Docs doesn't support redlining (at least not natively), but I would like to see when updates are made specifically to the language surrounding the vendor classifications as well as the language of the terms and definitions.

I think a Github repository could serve this purpose well: Github would allow the community to easily track changes to the main document, view the vendor rating pages in a more organized fashion, as well as provide a platform for posting and discussing issues surrounding the system. I also think a repository would scale better, especially as more vendors and individuals participate in the system.

Great point, making sure this is all captured and easily digested will be important. There is already a changelog at the top of the doc, but that doesn't explain what exactly the change is - will make sure this is addressed in the future. :thumb:

Offline mgsickler

  • Posts: 849
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #38 on: Wed, 15 November 2023, 17:18:57 »
To chime in one aspect here. As a direct competitor to Drop, I have 0 issues with Hoffman being part of this.

Offline codecoffeecode

  • Posts: 42
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #39 on: Fri, 17 November 2023, 13:22:49 »
One question I do have is: will the December 8th enforcement date be coordinated across all participating platforms?

So far, the only found hard dates I've found were in this thread and specific to GeekHack. I don't see any dates on the r/mechanicalkeyboards, r/mechmarket, or the MechMarket discord posts. I definitely may have just missed them, but I wanted to ask to be sure.

Offline HoffmanMyster

  • HOFF, smol MAN OF MYSTERY
  • * Senior Moderator
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 11469
  • Location: WI
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #40 on: Fri, 17 November 2023, 21:57:01 »
One question I do have is: will the December 8th enforcement date be coordinated across all participating platforms?

So far, the only found hard dates I've found were in this thread and specific to GeekHack. I don't see any dates on the r/mechanicalkeyboards, r/mechmarket, or the MechMarket discord posts. I definitely may have just missed them, but I wanted to ask to be sure.

Ahh, good question. You definitely didn't miss anything. It's a little complicated with how the teams operate and given the past half year of history, but I'll do my best to articulate it all accurately here.

- r/mechanicalkeyboards has been closed to GB posts for a few months now, so they opened back up when the system was announced and immediately require compliance as otherwise it would be odd to have a free-for-all grace period after being closed down, only to implement the system in full a month later. There are some short-term allowances and leniency that go along with this (only the lead vendor needs to be rated, etc) for a one month "grace period" of sorts.
- geekhack and MechGroupBuys have been open for GB posts without interruption, so both will have the grace period to help transition over to the new system.
- discord mechmarket has disallowed commercial posts for some time now, so this won't have any impact on how they operate.
- r/mechmarket is the unique case in this instance; implementation and specific timing is a little fuzzy right now, largely due to a general lack of GB posts over there. I'd expect a little more clarity to come on this one over time.

Offline SwitchKeys

  • Posts: 305
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
    • SwitchKeys
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #41 on: Sun, 19 November 2023, 14:16:12 »
Do we have a time frame on submission reviews (Apologies if i've missed it) - We'd submitted the day the doc came out but haven't heard anything back since.

Offline HoffmanMyster

  • HOFF, smol MAN OF MYSTERY
  • * Senior Moderator
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 11469
  • Location: WI
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #42 on: Sun, 19 November 2023, 17:23:03 »
Do we have a time frame on submission reviews (Apologies if i've missed it) - We'd submitted the day the doc came out but haven't heard anything back since.

This first round is going to take a little time simply due to the quantity that were submitted all at once. That said, an estimate would be nice, so I’ll see if there’s anything to be shared in that regard.

Offline BruceDinh

  • Posts: 108
  • Location: Hà Nội
  • Explorer | Artist | Petrolhead
    • ORI CLUB
Re: Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
« Reply #43 on: Tue, 06 February 2024, 01:03:45 »
I have submitted, hoping to receive the results soon.