CoOp sub-forum suggestion

[Darksyde]

I've been following all the drama that has unfolded today involving a few coops. I'm not posting this to comment on that issue but on an idea that sprang from it. It seems to me that there are a few coops that aren't exactly coops. I would define a coop as a group order of an existing item to get it at dealer cost. However, funding the development of a new item is a different thing altogether.

I've seen references to the kickstarter.com website and it came to me that maybe we need that here. What do you all think about a sub-forum aimed at funding new mod producers? Obviously, it would be buyer-beware as the actual coops are but with differences in the idea behind it. For example there may be a need for more funding as new problems arise. Also there would be room for ideas and improvements by the beta testers / financial backers. I'm sure there are lots of you who can either add to, refine, or totally shoot down this idea. I'm just putting it out there.

The basic thing is that, in hindsight I can see where the issue with the 300 spartan might have fallen apart. First, there wasn't an actual mod yet so everything had to go absolutely smooth for it to be a success. Second, the "coop runner" seemed to be intending to make a substantial profit. That makes sense in the concept of a startup business obviously but not in the sense of a coop. I think if people had gotten involved with the understanding that there are bound to be production issues and the possible need for more funding then the producer of the mod would feel comfortable being forthcoming about what was really happening and not feel compelled to cover up problems with the process.

Obviously, if the person in question misappropriates funds then everything goes out the window. The whole point I'm trying to make is while the facts of what happened today may not fit what I've covered, there may be other, similar coops run in the future and if the proper format is there it may go much better than trying to fit it into the current format.

OK, thats what I've got. Just an idea. Maybe a bad one. Lol.

 

[oldsoldier]

ECF won't be taking on that role in the community for a number of reasons We have enough issues already and if we were to get into the funding business you can just imagine the uproar. Besides it really would create conflict of interest issues for us.

 

[j0ker]

I agree with OS on this, in fact so much that there will be no more funding for un-produced merchandise in the CO-OP section. As some us have noticed recently, this is a recipe for disaster....live and learn I guess.

Something I never considered, until our recent catastrophes, is technically the person organizing a CO-OP for a one off item should be considered a supplier, even if there's no profiting involved. It's also almost impossible to determine if there is profit involved, so for this reason there will be no more CO-OPs of this nature.

So CO-OPers can expect this change coming real soon. I think it's a minor change in the scope of CO-OPs but I think it's necessary to keep the members safe from loss. I expect the trend to continue, one-off CO-OPs, but they won't be happening here, there's just too much risk for those involved.

All that being said, I think your idea is a good one but not one we won't to pursue here on ECF.

 

[Killjoy1]

It's a little disappointing to hear that, but I do totally understand from a member protection standpoint. I've been fortunate and haven't been burned financially in any of those types of co-ops, but I've seen some of the other pitfalls in those deals (that's not a criticism of the organizers, the ones I've dealt with like this have all been great) and I am not surprised to see this change coming given recent events

 

[crxess]

I prefer this approach to placing undue pressure on Ops that have already proven themselves to be excellent host.

Some have suggested standards, which could strengthen trust in the actual CoOp leader, would no doubt bring CoOps to a grinding hault due to a lack of Qualified OPs

Karn is my example as the young man has stepped up repeatedly and done an excellent job in a short time.

 

[Waterman]

I prefer this approach to placing undue pressure on Ops that have already proven themselves to be excellent host.

Some have suggested standards, which could strengthen trust in the actual CoOp leader, would no doubt bring CoOps to a grinding hault due to a lack of Qualified OPs

Karn is my example as the young man has stepped up repeatedly and done an excellent job in a short time.

I agree Karn is a very good example, we are blessed to have some very good organizers.

 

[Fiamma]

When it comes to Karn I'm in total agreement. I have one co op done with him and another one going to payment this week. He is fast, concise, and very business like in his dealings with members. AFAIC he goes well beyond expectations, especially when dealing with all the members who can't seem to make up their minds what they really want to order and submit change after change after change.

Life is full of caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. If you don't do the research you shouldn't cry when things go down the tubes, things that appear too good to be true, are. I am retired and on a fixed income, these co ops are a godsend for me when I need to buy hardware, and I would hate to see them disappear due to over regulation. I am, however, heartily in favor of banning 'vaporware' co ops. Those are huge opportunities for scammers. I don't think we need that here.

One other thing I have noticed is when leaving feedback for a co op host, I often find not many people are doing so. That's a shame as it is a factor in whether or not I do business with one. When I don't see feedback numbers as expected I go and read the threads for his/her closed co ops to help me decide.

 

[tiburonfirst]

ECF won't be taking on that role in the community for a number of reasons We have enough issues already and if we were to get into the funding business you can just imagine the uproar. Besides it really would create conflict of interest issues for us.

no argument there, sarge and being in the middle of one fiasco i understand changes have to and should be made. Co-ops for yet to be produced items with a long lead time are especially vulnerable, but they are also one of the most rewarding if brought to a successful conclusion.
i would hope that j0ker as the main moderator in the co-op forum would at least consider to allow these co-ops to proceed IF the co-op host would go through a reputable escrow company. i have not done any research on this but remember that option from the early days of ebay before the existence of ebay's own transaction guarantee policy.

 

[Rnoserious]

I know the escrow idea is offered on alibaba, but the suppliers I have bought from on there do not honor it.

I think the risks with coops is very small personally, but requiring coop hosts to submit all supplier quotes to mods of the forum should be a normal practice.

you cannot stop a thief, but what we can do is make an example out of them, by doing exactly what is going on with the whole fiasco. call the authorities, and pursue justice.

 

[tmcase]

When it comes to Karn I'm in total agreement. I have one co op done with him and another one going to payment this week. He is fast, concise, and very business like in his dealings with members. AFAIC he goes well beyond expectations, especially when dealing with all the members who can't seem to make up their minds what they really want to order and submit change after change after change.

Life is full of caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. If you don't do the research you shouldn't cry when things go down the tubes, things that appear too good to be true, are. I am retired and on a fixed income, these co ops are a godsend for me when I need to buy hardware, and I would hate to see them disappear due to over regulation. I am, however, heartily in favor of banning 'vaporware' co ops. Those are huge opportunities for scammers. I don't think we need that here.

One other thing I have noticed is when leaving feedback for a co op host, I often find not many people are doing so. That's a shame as it is a factor in whether or not I do business with one. When I don't see feedback numbers as expected I go and read the threads for his/her closed co ops to help me decide.

I don't think a lot of members know that you can leave feedback for co-op ops. I don't think it was allowed in the past. A co-op OP could state in his/her 1st post that feedback would be appreciated.

 

[cags]

I don't think a lot of members know that you can leave feedback for co-op ops. I don't think it was allowed in the past. A co-op OP could state in his/her 1st post that feedback would be appreciated.

yes, the coop host should let people know about feedback. I had no idea you could leave coop feedback!

 

[Underwhelmed]

yes, the coop host should let people know about feedback. I had no idea you could leave coop feedback!

One the first post of an active co-op, down at the bottom of the post, between the Blog this Post and the triangle for reporting posts, there is a small green checkmark and it says Rate Seller.

If you click on that it will take you to leave Feedback for that co-op.

You still need to copy the thread link to the co-op and paste that in though.

 

[seyaone]

Good idea.

 

[bstedh]

Would "unproduce" include items such as Dan's, Raidy's, and others fantastic designs or just stuff that is still "on paper".

I would hate to see co-op's for things like the SGV3, GTUS, and others to go away because projects like these have had a huge influence on the direction of vaping. Getting these minimally tested designs into the hands of multiple people are what help drive the innovation that changes the way we Vape. Yea, you get things that don't work as expected but that is part and parcel of being on the bleeding edge of any new concept.

Life is risk and you can do some smart things to minimize risk, but the more risk you take away the less freedom you have in your life. We do learn from our failures and change the way we do things because of them. I just ask that you consider if the trade off of the changes are actually better than what you loose by them. I don't expect you to make life risk free for me but do accept that you may have some good ideas to mitigate the risks.

I guess I just don't want rash decisions made in the heat of the moment.. The law of unintended consequences can sometimes take you in directions you have never considered.

 

[Uncle Willie]

Any Co-Op can be a temptation to some as a means of running a scam .. intentional scamming has been with us since we were dragging each other around by the hair .. the Web has made it somewhat easier for the thieves to profit ..

This will not change .. there will always be a faction of the population that are willing to try and rip us off ..

ECF must decide if Co-Ops have a place here .. and if ECF owners take on any liability thru providing a forum ..

 

[blackHelix]

I know the escrow idea is offered on alibaba, but the suppliers I have bought from on there do not honor it.

What do you mean by they do not honor it? The whole structure of escrow is so the supplier doesn't have access to the funds until the consumer has verified the purchase. Do you mean they don't accept escrow as a means of purchase?

 

[Rnoserious]

Yes.. This includes innoken, rainbow, and about 12 other vendors that i know of..

They are quick to refer you to paypal for your orders.