Vote of confidence

[WebSlave]

OK, it's been over a year now since I implemented the paid memberships, and in particular the paid membership requirement for posting on the BOI as well as voting in the GGC polls and the Traders Ratings.

Time to see if this is working, in your opinion.

At this moment, there are 789 paid memberships to this site, which means 789 members able to post in the above mentioned situations. Is that enough to make those functions viable and worthwhile? Is this really a limitation to the quality if input to those functions or a liability because the quantity is not there to matter? Would MORE input, even some bad input, be better then not enough input?

The poll is a simple yes or no, but you can add comments to elaborate as necessary by posting in this thread. I can't see anything other then a black and white answer to this question right now.

 

[ZenReptiles]

Honestly, I'd have to say that a paid membership requirement seems useful for the BOI, but it also seems like only a select few paid members post on the BOI. Most of which have really no purpose of posting on some of the threads there. It seems to just stir up arguements that some people aren't even a part of in the first place. You should select one or two people to be mediators and only allow the people involved with the thread to post. That might clean things up a bit. But that's also just my two cents, maybe someone else has a better idea.

 

[shrap]

I personally believe it has improved the quality, integrity and legitimacy of the BOI, GGC and the Trader Ratings.

Going back to the old way now would be a step backwards in my opinion.

 

[Cheryl Marchek AKA JM]

I just want to qualify my vote with a nice loud.......HOWEVER......

I don't agree that all the changes made in the last year are a benifit to the site~

So my vote is yes.....but it's not a very strong or clear vote of confidence.........~

 

[WebSlave]

I just want to qualify my vote with a nice loud.......HOWEVER......

I don't agree that all the changes made in the last year are a benifit to the site~

So my vote is yes.....but it's not a very strong or clear vote of confidence.........~

I think the topic of this thread is sufficiently narrow enough that no one should have trouble staying on topic and NOT drifting into other avenues, thank you.

 

[coyote]

I personally believe it has improved the quality, integrity and legitimacy of the BOI, GGC and the Trader Ratings.

Going back to the old way now would be a step backwards in my opinion.

Big, loud...DITTO!

I like having the option of paid membership.

 

[Mike Greathouse]

This is an interesting dilemma.

While opening the gate would undoubtedly bring more traffic to the forums, how much of that traffic would be comprised of constructive posting?

I'm sure that there are many people who could contribute in a meaningful manner that may have one reason or another for not wanting to join in on a pay to play site.

Conversely, I'm sure that there are just as many, probably more, who would love the opportunity to troll the BOI.

Personally, I think that the system in place now, is the better choice to maintain the integrity of the BOI.

 

[reptilebreeder]

I think it has definitly helped the BOI as far as false, and multiple registrations, but I think it is unfair when it comes to the trader ratings. I can see having to be a paid member for having a good guy cert, and even voting on the cert members, but "forcing" everybody who sells, buys, trades etc. to pay to vote on sales related to ALL members, I disagree with, JMHO.

 

[WebSlave]

I think it has definitly helped the BOI as far as false, and multiple registrations, but I think it is unfair when it comes to the trader ratings. I can see having to be a paid member for having a good guy cert, and even voting on the cert members, but "forcing" everybody who sells, buys, trades etc. to pay to vote on sales related to ALL members, I disagree with, JMHO.

Yep, I understand what you are saying, but if there is, or has been, an already known problem with false and multiple registrations, do you sincerely believe that I allow members participating in the BOI Good Guy Certification program to be at their mercy? Anyone with a bone to pick with one of the participants could just register as many times as necessary, vote negatively on their Traders Rating, and get them kicked out of the GGC program. Does that sound fair to you? Perhaps you didn't realize that the Traders Rating also determines the status of someone in the GGC program?

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Membership is essential to the atmosphere you desire.

 

[reptilebreeder]

Yep, I understand what you are saying, but if there is, or has been, an already known problem with false and multiple registrations, do you sincerely believe that I allow members participating in the BOI Good Guy Certification program to be at their mercy? Anyone with a bone to pick with one of the participants could just register as many times as necessary, vote negatively on their Traders Rating, and get them kicked out of the GGC program. Does that sound fair to you? Perhaps you didn't realize that the Traders Rating also determines the status of someone in the GGC program?

I didn't realize they were attached, but thought that the trader rating would have been easier to manage, as it is different than the GGC, in that you have to actually be a customer to do a trader rating. To me the trader rating was a quick picture of actual business dealings, whereas the GGC is more of an "overall" rating.

 

[WebSlave]

I didn't realize they were attached, but thought that the trader rating would have been easier to manage, as it is different than the GGC, in that you have to actually be a customer to do a trader rating. To me the trader rating was a quick picture of actual business dealings, whereas the GGC is more of an "overall" rating.

No that is not true at all. Although it is suggested that only actual customers engage in using the Trader Ratings, it cannot feasibly be enforced. How could it be? Suppose I created a fake member ID here and went to your trader rating and falsely accused you of a negative transaction. Could you prove it was bogus? Heck I can make up a fake invoice in a heartbeat with your name on it and say you are lying about the deal to protect yourself. Suppose I then registered 10 more times using different IP addresses and unique hotmail accounts just so I could get you booted out of the program. Wouldn't cost me a dime to do so, so why not? It would quickly turn into a "he said, she said" argument that really couldn't be proven either way. And I VERY DEFINITELY do not want to get in the middle of those kinds of disagreements, which most certainly would happen without the controls I put into place.

Anyway, since the GGC certification does hinge on this rating, it appeared to me to be irresponsible to allow falsely registered members here to damage someone's rating at will.

Just a FYI, the GGC eligibility hinges on BOTH the Trader Rating AND the Certification Poll returning a non negative value when tested with the automated script. If either one returns a negative TOTAL, then that participant loses his/her standing in the program. Yes, I could have simplified it quite a bit by only using one or the other polling mechanism, but each of the two had advantages that I did not want to give up solely for the sake of simplification.

Hope that explains it a little better.

 

[Laura Fopiano]

I would have never paid my membership if I thought for a second that it didn't hold any value to the BOI. That was my intoduction to fauna and because of it became more actively involved in this sight.
Stay the course Rich, not everyone will be happy all the time, but the BOI can be quite the preschool of adults with the pay to play program....the alternative would be much worse........