New rules

[Jep21]

Now that this discussion appears to have run its course, I'm going to point out a few things regarding a few points that have been brought up.

First, regarding your comment above, the answer is an affirmative, yes. In fact I can think of 2 scenarios in the past where there were shady businesses trying to do business on this site and the members ran them both off very quickly. Perhaps this was before you were a member. This is a tight-knit community that won't stand for anyone preying on its members. To put your mind at ease, the team would absolutely protect the community from a predatory sponsor.

The second point I'd like to address is the concern over how many FS threads members and/or supporters are allowed. One of the things we are attempting to curtail with this rule is the prevention of non-active members from using the site as their own personal advertising site. Another thing we are trying to avoid, which appears to be causing the most commotion, is that we don't want this site to be over-run with FS threads. We made the decision to limit FS threads based on Team discussion and MEMBER feedback that there were too many of them. Selling on this site is and always will be a secondary benefit of being a member and these new rules were created to curtail those whose think selling is the primary purpose of the site. There is nothing stopping someone from selling 20 corals in a single thread and doing it 4 or 6 times a month. What we don't want is someone creating 20 individual FS threads and clogging up the forum, hence the entire point of limiting the amount of FS threads.If people don't understand this then I really don't know how to explain it any better.

Next, I'd like to address some of the comments about sponsors and their photo skills and how they don't list prices (and members are required to do so.) First of all, see the first response above. If a sponsor is going to do shady things with their photos or charge absurdly high prices then the word will get out and their business will suffer. This is a self-regulating system. Regarding the prices, I would like to direct those of you who seem to be so keen on rules to the sticky post with the subject line - Simple Courtesy for Seller, Buyer and thread browser. Did you notice that I highlighted the word "courtesy"? It cracks me up when I see members making snide comments and pointing out the "rules" when a seller forgets to add their price. If the seller forgets their price, or some other info then they have not broken any "rule". They simply have not created a good FS thread that is going to give them the best shot at selling their goods. And this could be said for sponsors as well. So as a member, if you are upset that sponsors don't generally list their prices then feel free to request prices as a courtesy and maybe they'll start adding them for you.

It was also brought up in this thread that we have too many restrictions on this site. I don't know whether to laugh or get angry about this comment. Perhaps members who feel this way can create a thread in the Site Bug/Suggestion forum so we can make a careful and critical examination of our oppressive ways. All kidding aside, I'm scrathing my head here wondering how members could possible free restrictd on this site. Other than not allowing people to swear, attack other members or, now, curtail the number of FS threads, I really can't think of any other rules that would cause someone to think that we are "restrictive".

+1
Well said bro

 

[Steve1986]

Thanks for taking your time to explain everything Eric, everything seems very reasonable.

 

[yogoshio]

I think it would make it easier on all of us if we remembered this forum is a business, not a community. People that "sponsored" this site are confusing it for a not-for-profit organization. You have not bought shares, nor have you done anything to give you any sway in decisions, since as far as I know this is a sole-proprietorship. We have as many freedoms on here as the owner allows and nothing more.

We can complain we get nothing in return, but return for what? Our activity on this site is what gives the owner leverage to sell advertising space. The information we post and the PMs we send are scanned for information to sell to advertisers and is used to make the owner money, which is great!

But, Chicago Reefs is not a community organization, it's a business, and to confuse the two is the problem here. While whatever rules are established can be discussed and potentially changed, it is completely up to the discretion of the owner to do what he feels is in his best interest. Whether that's keeping sponsors happy or the community happy is his decision, and a VERY fine edge to walk on, and I don't envy all of those decisions.

However, that being said, its not a club, it's Mike's business, so frankly, he can do what he wants.

 

[Lil BamBam]

I think someone likes my cat pictures

 

[KeishaKornbread]

I think it would make it easier on all of us if we remembered this forum is a business, not a community. People that "sponsored" this site are confusing it for a not-for-profit organization. You have not bought shares, nor have you done anything to give you any sway in decisions, since as far as I know this is a sole-proprietorship. We have as many freedoms on here as the owner allows and nothing more.

We can complain we get nothing in return, but return for what? Our activity on this site is what gives the owner leverage to sell advertising space. The information we post and the PMs we send are scanned for information to sell to advertisers and is used to make the owner money, which is great!

But, Chicago Reefs is not a community organization, it's a business, and to confuse the two is the problem here. While whatever rules are established can be discussed and potentially changed, it is completely up to the discretion of the owner to do what he feels is in his best interest. Whether that's keeping sponsors happy or the community happy is his decision, and a VERY fine edge to walk on, and I don't envy all of those decisions.

However, that being said, its not a club, it's Mike's business, so frankly, he can do what he wants.

I get it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

 

[EricTheRed]

I think it would make it easier on all of us if we remembered this forum is a business, not a community. People that "sponsored" this site are confusing it for a not-for-profit organization. You have not bought shares, nor have you done anything to give you any sway in decisions, since as far as I know this is a sole-proprietorship. We have as many freedoms on here as the owner allows and nothing more.

We can complain we get nothing in return, but return for what? Our activity on this site is what gives the owner leverage to sell advertising space. The information we post and the PMs we send are scanned for information to sell to advertisers and is used to make the owner money, which is great!

But, Chicago Reefs is not a community organization, it's a business, and to confuse the two is the problem here. While whatever rules are established can be discussed and potentially changed, it is completely up to the discretion of the owner to do what he feels is in his best interest. Whether that's keeping sponsors happy or the community happy is his decision, and a VERY fine edge to walk on, and I don't envy all of those decisions.

However, that being said, its not a club, it's Mike's business, so frankly, he can do what he wants.

You are 100% correct. However, Lionel, Nate and myself do not approach our involvement in this site from the perspective of this being a business. We have zero ownership interest. We are all active on this site solely because of the "community". So when you hear one of us referring to the community you can certainly trust that is the perspective from which we are coming.

 

[yogoshio]

You are 100% correct. However, Lionel, Nate and myself do not approach our involvement in this site from the perspective of this being a business. We have zero ownership interest. We are all active on this site solely because of the "community". So when you hear one of us referring to the community you can certainly trust that is the perspective from which we are coming.

But no rules are made without the approval of the owner, so that's a mute point. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, but its the truth.

 

[EricTheRed]

But no rules are made without the approval of the owner, so that's a mute point. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, but its the truth.

Yeah, it's no big secret. Everybody knows Mike owns it. You're stating the obvious here and I'm not sure why it is important for you to clarify this....?

 

[Herbie]

But no rules are made without the approval of the owner, so that's a mute point. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, but its the truth.

it's "moot" :tongue1:, but I agree. I think it's sort of like any public place where you gather with your friends. Whoever owns the space is going to have their rules and then your group has their own (whether published or purely subconscious). Mike gives us tons of leeway on our use of his space, but he is definitely going to step in if he perceives the space (or the people using it) to be threatened. He's also a lot more involved than it may sometimes appear. I think Smitty and ETR do a great job of taking care of things before rules or rulings are needed from Mike. We really don't have a lot of specific regulations compared to other resources of this type and I think Mike intends to keep it that way as much as possible.

 

[yogoshio]

Many of the arguments about the new rules were because people who are "sponsors" feel that they're being ignored, and that they should have more pull. If they didn't know it was for-profit, that could explain the frustration. Personally, I feel it is immoral to ask for sponsors with no return of partial ownership, which is why I put sponsors in quotations. Sponsorship involves a return on investment.
It's no different than if I give Microsoft $20. I get no special treatment or discounts, I just give them money.

 

[yogoshio]

it's "moot" :tongue1:

Oops, lol.

 

[yogoshio]

And, from a business perspective, allowing sponsors more than just a couple extra FS threads would create more revenue, even if just a one-time injection.

 

[Herbie]

Many of the arguments about the new rules were because people who are "sponsors" feel that they're being ignored, and that they should have more pull. If they didn't know it was for-profit, that could explain the frustration. Personally, I feel it is immoral to ask for sponsors with no return of partial ownership, which is why I put sponsors in quotations. Sponsorship involves a return on investment.
It's no different than if I give Microsoft $20. I get no special treatment or discounts, I just give them money.

Does Home Depot actually own a NASCAR or the Army or Viagra or Tide with Bleach? They sponsor NASCAR simply because they get to put their logo on the car. Sponsorship is just a form of advertising so I'm not sure where you morality issue is coming from.

 

[yogoshio]

I mean supporters, my bad. Not sponsors.

 

[EricTheRed]

I mean supporters, my bad. Not sponsors.

The beautiful thing is that being a supporter is not mandatory, so if someone doesn't see any benefit then it is their perogative not to be a supporter. Nobody forces anyone to be a supporter and if someone sees value in it and then changes their mind in the future then they can certainly stop.They can still be an active member of the reefing community by participating for free

 

[yogoshio]

But my point is the supporters feel like they should have more clout, and I don't think they were aware that its just out of the goodness of their hearts. Now they're frustrated because they feel they're getting mowed over because of sponsors who've given more money and they feel left in the dust.

I'm not trying to tell people not to do it, but those are the concerns and why. That's why I reiterated that this was a business and not a club.

 

[gonebad395]

As a sponsor I just thought there would be little extra bonus put it appears there really isn't and that's OK I'll just choose 2 big Mac meals instead of supporting this when renewal comes around

 

[FishBeard]

As a sponsor I just thought there would be little extra bonus put it appears there really isn't and that's OK I'll just choose 2 big Mac meals instead of supporting this when renewal comes around

Just remember there is no "renewal" when that time comes around. Since it is an automated subscription with PayPal, you need to remember to go in and cancel the subscription before you are charged on the anniversary date of setting up the subscription, or simply PM Mike directly a little before your time is up and ask that he cancel the subscription from his end before it is renewed for another year. Just trying to save you any headaches later if you miss the renewal date and get charged if you had assumed it would simply turn off.

 

[gonebad395]

Nah fish I already did it bro thanks for the heads up.

 

[yogoshio]

As a sponsor I just thought there would be little extra bonus put it appears there really isn't and that's OK I'll just choose 2 big Mac meals instead of supporting this when renewal comes around

Exactly my point, and exactly what other people have been glossing over...