Ethics and Policies

[Rick]

Originally Posted by Naga Sasra

Rick,

As for your proposal's my comments go as follow:

1. Agree

2. Agree but would also like to see a 90 day period

3. Agree

As for the just added proposal "active member" I realize the good it would do, I am however concerned with my own status. Please define active?

Erik

Yes, we must define 'Active Member' Erik but I don't think you have to worry .

Anyone want to offer criteria for discussion of what makes an active member ?

Also, I would like to re-state ; if implemented these rules would only apply to the Warung members and only to keris related selling.

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by Rick

Anyone want to offer criteria for discussion of what makes an active member ?

A minimum of 150 posts of which ten have been initiated by the person and that for the most parts do not contain speed-posting to boost the post account. By speed-posting I mean postings consisting mainly of







etc.

The number (150) may appear big at first but it is in the interest of both the potential buyer and seller to have had enough exposure to the unwritten "DOs & DO NOT´s" of the forum until he puts himself and his reputation at risk publicly. We all know one can loose his virginity only once and same goes for reputation within such a small pond which the keris collectors pond truly is.

If you want a high standard you must set the bar accordingly.

Thanks,

J.

[BluErf]

Whoa, this is a HOT subject!

Just as a caveat - I have no issues with dealers joining the forum, as long as their identity and intention is made clear to everyone. We all have trusted dealers whom we are friends with. Everything is above the board for these guys, and we appreciate that.

However, I am put off by dealers who disguise themselves as interested collectors, bearing ulterior motives. Must admit that I was the victim of such a character a few months back, here in Singapore. I was asked to visit the said person's home to look at his collection and share some opinions. That was a bad mistake, but it was entertaining how he twisted and turned his view on keris (from esoteric emphasis to cultural/history/art) to fit my views on keris-collecting. He also insisted on seeing my collection - which I firmly refused - because he wanted to take photos of my kerises (for what purpose I wonder ). He even pretended to take down some notes of my comments on why his newly-made kerises were not 'correct'. It was also very funny to burst his hot air balloon on some of his "magical" kerises which could stand by themselves (I balanced more than a few of his "magical" and "non-magical" kerises in front of him).

Anyway, my encounter was funny because the person was neither sophisticated nor knowledgeable in keris; he made a fool of himself. But had it been some else who knows his stuff, it would have been a lot harder to call the bluff.

Drawing the analogy to the forum, there are some such disguised dealers who are easy to spot. Others may not be. Some really ask questions in such details that we would have thought they were one of us. Some dealers also 'don't cr*p where they eat', to put it crudely, using the forum only as a source of info and reference. These are the bad dealers that are hardest to uncover.

However, I agree that some form of new rules would be better than no rules, and those proposed by Rick are good. I just wonder who is going to keep tabs on the 90days rule since a lot of new threads could have come and go in that period.

How about this - we can also look at a peer rating system in which fellow forumnites vote whether a fellow member is a "positive contributing member", or a possible "dealer in disguise" (there can be other categories/levels). This could require some tinkering of the forum programming. Votes can be given by each certified positive contributing member for every thread/post put up by any forumnite (members can only cast 1 vote for each post, once). Voting is anonymous. Accumulating a number of votes in certain categories would earn the poster that positive contributor or dealer in disguise tag. To prevent the rating system from being abused as a "political weapon" by factions/cliques/groups (which I don't think there are), I propose that the votes are only visible to moderators who can choose to endorse or ignore the tag. If endorsed, the tag appears below the member's avatars in every of their post/thread. To combat the possibility of the DiDs creating new IDs all the time, new IDs may be given the "stranger" tag or something, just to raise everyone's alert. The tags can be renamed to be more politically correct, but I'm just throwing up ideas.

[Rick]

I know this forum software features a reputation points option .
I don't know if it can be turned on for only one forum .
I have real concerns about enabling it due to possible abuse .

I also think (however attractive) the 90 day prohibition would involve a lot of Moderator work trying to enforce this timeline properly .

I think the New Member designation is a very good idea .
Using this feature we could control the amount of posts needed to become a full member . When the designation changes, the newly graduated member can sell keris on the site .

Keep 'em coming Gentlemen .

[Jussi M.]

In my experience and opinion there are only two ways to handle the €€€ question.

Commercialism either is completely acceptable and everything about it transparent or it either is completely unacceptable meaning that all violations despite how minimal against this principle must be met ruthlessly. Anything other in between these two opposing ends can and certainly will lead to problems and an ever increasing amount of innumerable rules followed by more rules. I hope that those in command choose the easy way out and set out a simple principle which against all action is judged upon instead of writing a book of laws and by-laws.




What we need is a simple principle, common sense, transparency and equal treatment of everybody never mind you status, rank, age or post count. I do not propose the idea of peer ranking as it will put people in unequal situation and lead to politics that would be contrary to what this place is set to be for(?).

Thanks,

J.

[Rick]

I think we might be getting close Jussi .

I too would like to keep this as simple as possible, really ...

A couple or three bright line rules .

Thanks for your input .

[A. G. Maisey]

I'm pretty much booked up for today, and will not have time to comment or read any more posts until tomorrow, but one post in the above caught my attention immediately, the one by Jussi.

Jussi, I strongly agree with and support this philosophy you have tendered.

Without reservation.

[fearn]

I generally agree with Jussi.

The one thing I would add is that the rules need to include some information about how you are planning to enforce them. Your response to my hypothetical was a good one, because it showed how such rules would work in practice. This could probably be folded under the rubric of "transparency."

As for equality and transparency, that's good. I think it's also reasonable to ask people to make a minimum commitment, such as a certain number of posts, as part of joining a community of equals who can use the swap forum. Most communities have entrance requirements, and we're not banning them from posting elsewhere.

Best,

F

[Rick]

Thanks for your input Fearn .

I've contacted Lee to see if the software will allow certain functions for this forum only .