Thread: A Confused Citizen

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Honestly, AFAIK ....... no vendor has given a moderator an item for free in exchange for a review. If they did, I would expect the reviewer would say so.

Why there are no reviews anymore is a separate issue having to do with dev stuff that I don't understand, so I won't attempt to explain it.

I did not mean to imply that Moderators here are for sale. I just found it a bit strange that getting people to write reviews on products is actively encouraged by the moderation team as a marketing tool. This was not one of my main concerns, though, but I felt it deserved a mention.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

As Jimbo noted in his post, this vendor/rules stuff sort of evolved as it became necessary. I wasn't a mod when it began. Off the top of my head I don't know that there are that many seniors, that are not vendors, to choose from. We sort of assume that the vendors who are seniors, and are on the vendor panel, can be trusted. For sure if any one of the team felt there was a conflict the issue would be discussed.

Originally Posted by gugi

Here is the current list of senior moderators:


There are 6 of them, 2 are vendors 4 aren't.

Jimbo already gave a very good account of why things are the way they are.

The way I look at it is that we have to work with what we've got.

Good to hear. And I understand there have to be made pragmatic choices and that you have to work with the tools you have. However, to those who do not have intimate knowledge of the exact composition, practical functioning and personalities of the group of Senior Moderators and Vendor Panel, I think you will have to agree that having vendors as a part of the body that decides on the Vendor Policy and its enforcements at least seems like a direct conflict of interest, even if these specific vendor/moderators have no absolute power and can be trusted not to abuse their position (like I consider Max and Glen to be). For illustration, take for instance the hypothetical situation of a (Dutch) Minister of Infrastructure and Environment having (or spouse/direct relatives with) a large share in a construction company. It does not mean that the Minister is corrupt, but that is besides the point - that is not what a conflict of interest means. A conflict of interest exists, whether it is abused or not.

Originally Posted by gugi

Absolute commercial purity is impossible, so the objective is pragmatic - keep the priorities straight. The commercial side should not be front and center, like it is on many other places, but should rank towards the bottom of things.

I agree. The commercial aspect should definitely be kept in the background on a hobby forum such as SRP. Which is why I believe it should, in turn, be treated as a high priority aspect of moderation, because there is a lot of potential for business around here.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

As to the third and following questions ........ I can't answer those. Someone will be along. As I noted, most of this stuff was instituted before I came along to the team. I haven't memorized the rules, and frequently have to go back to them and check to see if this, that , or the other is allowed when I'm confronted with a reported post.

Not trying to avoid it, I just don't feel competent to explain what I haven't taken the time to understand myself.

Which raises another question: does this mean that the Vendor Policy has not been under serious scrutiny or revision since 21 December 2010? That would surprise me, bearing in mind the developments in the shaving scene over the past five years e.g. the boom in "artisan" businesses and a large increase in forum members. Now, I am all for 'If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it,' but a good, hard look every now and then at if and how the rules can be made to serve the SRP membership better 'wouldn't hurt none'.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Thanks for the kind words. Forgive my bringing some humor to your serious post (post #4) I couldn't resist.

I do not mind humour, Jimmy. Not in the slightest. In fact, I value it as an effective tool in communication.

Why, I oughta,

Pieter