Reality Check

[Jack Daw]

I have not been shy about endorsing Kathy Lare a few times. My Buchanan Hunting was made by her and I've shown several pics of that fine kilt on this forum.

I say keep speaking your opinion, Ron.

[McClef]

There is a fine line between reviews and individual endorsements and what might be construed as unpaid advertising. Ron's enthusiasm for Kathy's work is well-known as is the enthusiasm of other members for other kilt makers.

But it does need to be in proportion - remember it's the sponsors who pay that enable this site to exist. Publicising a PM that generates this amount and level of discussion could be construed as free publicity and giving an unfair advantage especially when she isn't even a member. That's her right and choice of course and she is unlikely to know the rules or be responsible for the enthusiasm of her patrons.

"Concerning personal forum member Advertisements on X Marks the Scot

Statement of Intent-

X Marks the Scot prides itself on the diversity of the skilled craftsmen and artists who make up the membership of our forum. These individuals contribute much in the wealth of experience they freely share with the forum. We hold these individuals in high esteem. Our valued forum sponsors pay to advertise their businesses here and by so doing allow this forum to exist. We hold in equally high regard those that have invested in us and it is our desire to see that this investment is one worthy of their commitment.

Therefore it is the intent of the owner and moderating staff of X Marks the Scot to present guidelines that allow for the creativity and entrepreneurial spirit of the forum members as well as protect the interests of our sponsors.

Those individuals interested in advertising with X Marks the Scot are encouraged to contact any of the moderating staff by personal message (PM) and current advertising rates will be provided.

Those craftsmen and artists wishing to include a link to their wares and services are welcome to do so.

Individuals attempting to bypass the intent of these guidelines for the purpose of using X Marks the Scot for advertising without permission or payment will be subject to user infraction, restriction, or being banned as deemed appropriate by the moderating staff."

Just trying to ask for balance and keeping within the spirit of the rules.

[Spartan]

There is a fine line between reviews and individual endorsements and what might be construed as unpaid advertising. Ron's enthusiasm for Kathy's work is well-known as is the enthusiasm of other members for other kilt makers.

But it does need to be in proportion - remember it's the sponsors who pay that enable this site to exist. Publicising a PM that generates this amount and level of discussion could be construed as free publicity and giving an unfair advantage especially when she isn't even a member. That's her right and choice of course and she is unlikely to know the rules or be responsible for the enthusiasm of her patrons.

"Concerning personal forum member Advertisements on X Marks the Scot

Statement of Intent-

X Marks the Scot prides itself on the diversity of the skilled craftsmen and artists who make up the membership of our forum. These individuals contribute much in the wealth of experience they freely share with the forum. We hold these individuals in high esteem. Our valued forum sponsors pay to advertise their businesses here and by so doing allow this forum to exist. We hold in equally high regard those that have invested in us and it is our desire to see that this investment is one worthy of their commitment.

Therefore it is the intent of the owner and moderating staff of X Marks the Scot to present guidelines that allow for the creativity and entrepreneurial spirit of the forum members as well as protect the interests of our sponsors.

Those individuals interested in advertising with X Marks the Scot are encouraged to contact any of the moderating staff by personal message (PM) and current advertising rates will be provided.

Those craftsmen and artists wishing to include a link to their wares and services are welcome to do so.

Individuals attempting to bypass the intent of these guidelines for the purpose of using X Marks the Scot for advertising without permission or payment will be subject to user infraction, restriction, or being banned as deemed appropriate by the moderating staff."

Just trying to ask for balance and keeping within the spirit of the rules.

I would be surprised if Kathy Lare has ever asked to have her name used in this or any other forum. I don't believe that there is any intention on Kathy's part to "bypass the intent of these guidelines."

Like Ron, I sing the praise of Kathy's skill and work, and will continue to do so. Her prices are reasonable and her craftsmanship exceptional.

[McClef]

Spartan - my post was carefully phrased to in no way imply that Kathy was involved in this, simply to point out a concern to members about how they should handle what is effectively free advertising when a supplier is mentioned too frequently and prominently when they are not a sponsor of this site.

Where would the site be if our sponsors pulled out because they have enough enthusiastic members bringing them to the attention of the site for free?

The rules are addressed to members and I repeat:

"Therefore it is the intent of the owner and moderating staff of X Marks the Scot to present guidelines that allow for the creativity and entrepreneurial spirit of the forum members as well as protect the interests of our sponsors."

So for a non forum member to get so much coverage (albeit not at their own behest) is, IMHO, against the spirit of the rules. The onus is on the forum members to keep a balance.

Hope this clarifies what I was trying to say.

[Rex_Tremende]

Trefor, can you illustrate an example of balance between keeping to the spirit of the rules and speaking to one's experience?

Regards,
Rex.

[Panache]

Had the Mod Squad determined that Ron had been engaged in de facto advertising he would have been officially contacted and informed to stop this with an approriate warning or penalty by the Mod Squad.

This thread is about Ron parapharasing a PM sent to him by a friend.

Based on the way Ron has presented it I rather doubt this person considers Ron a friend any longer.

It is worth noting that we are hearing only one version, from one side, of a private conversation.

Respectfully

Jamie :ootd:

[McClef]

Thought it was self-explanatory but OK Rex...

I buy a kilt.

I do a review with photos and if I am happy I say so.

I say where I got it from and what I think of their quality and service etc.

I respond to requests for information.

I don't:

Mention the supplier at every chance I get.

Get a PM about my supplier from a member saying they don't agree with something and publicise the content asking what everybody else thinks that produces pages and pages of endorsements about that supplier.

When a supplier it neither a member nor a sponsor (no matter how good they are) there is a danger that fair comment allowed by the rules is undermined and that can be detrimental to those who sponsor the site or who are members. Members are allowed to mention their good and services but not to the degree that they could be interpreted as "attempting to bypass the intent of these guidelines for the purpose of using X Marks the Scot for advertising without permission or payment."

I know Kathy is not doing that but some members could be in danger of doing this on her behalf even if unwittingly.

Hope this answers your question.

[KFCarter]

Had the Mod Squad determined that Ron had been engaged in de facto advertising he would have been officially contacted and informed to stop this with an approriate warning or penalty by the Mod Squad. :

Thought it was self-explanatory but OK Rex...

I don't:

Mention the supplier at every chance I get....

With all due respect, McClef, I think the "line" is far from self-explanatory. You list as your first "don't", "mentioning the supplier at every chance..." seeming to imply that Riverkilt was over the line with his numerous mentions of his supplier. But Panache clearly states that Ron would have been contacted had the Mod Squad felt he was engaged in "de facto advertising". Apparently this did not happen, leaving me to wonder if your idea of where the line ought to be is not the same as the Mod Squad's idea of where the line ought to be. I only point this out to illustrate how difficult it is for all to agree where natural enthusiasm crosses the line to "de facto advertising".

I have followed this thread carefully, and I'm still not sure I know. I suppose De facto advertising could happen cumulatively, a result of a few positive postings from many, many members adding up to a critical mass, or from an individual member papering the forum with positive reviews. I would say the exposure received on this site for the kiltmaker in question has been a result of both factors.

I think it's best to trust the judgment and actions of the Mod Squad on this issue. I'd hate to think that individual members might start second-guessing an impulse to review someone who is not a forum advertiser. I think it's best if forum members feel free to express themselves about their experiences without too much self-editing, secure in the knowledge that they'll get guidance from the mods if they do something that infringes the legitimate interests of the forum's advertisers.

[Steve Ashton]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We have now had an opportunity to hash this subject over "ad nauseum".

I have a copy of the original message that was sent to Ron.

No where in it does it belittle Kathy Lare or her work.

What it seems to be is one friend letting another know that there are others on the board who wish Ron would temper his comments a bit.
What is passed on to Ron are comments from others such as "Ron is beginning to sound like a broken record".

That is all it was. And I stress was. This entire topic has now been published on another forum as an example of the heavy-handedness of X Marks.

What it has become here is a topic of conjecture, half-truths, and supposition.

This discussion has raised some valid and valued comments from our membership. There is much further discussion happening via PM.

I would like to take this topic to the Moderation Council.

Until the Moderation Council has had a chance to discuss this matter, and to give this topic a little time to cool down, I am going to temporarily close this thread.

[Steve Ashton]

When I was just a member of this forum one of the things I noticed was the impression of a lack of transparency about the actions of the owner and staff of the forum.

When I bought the forum from Hank and gained access to "the back room" I was impressed with the consideration and due process I found among the Moderation Council.

But this insight also allowed me to understand that much of what has been done, and why, has been misinterpreted, and worse, misrepresented on other places on the internet.

One of the first things I discussed with the staff was ways to increase the level of transparency behind the decisions and actions of the Staff.

These discussions are ongoing.

Which brings me to the subject of this letter.
If I am going to advocate more clarity to our membership in our actions then it behooves me to lead by example.

I was the one who sent Ron (Riverilt) the PM which has caused so much discussion of late.

Before I bought X Marks, but as the word begin to get out about my negotiations with Hank, I began to receive emails and PM's from many of the members of this forum. They were about a wide range of topics.

Six of the PM's and emails I received were from respected members of this forum. In those messages a reoccurring theme presented itself.

Now, out of respect for those members I am not going to release their names. And out of respect I will not publish the messages or what exactly was said. But these members knew that Ron was my friend, that I had met him in person, and that it was me who first invited Ron to check out X Marks.

Ron and I had been friends for quite awhile. We had exchanged messages emails and phone calls quite often. I thought we were on good terms.

So I felt that there would be no harm in me contacting Ron and passing on some of the concerns of other members of this forum.

I wrote Ron and sent him a few quotes from some of the messages. Things like "Ron is beginning to sound like a broken record".

I was asked, and passed on, to Ron the concern and words “Can’t you get him to at least change the wordings of his plugs for her?”

So I wrote my friend Ron a message. I didn‘t tell him to stop writing about Kathy Lare. I was simply trying to tell him about the perception of some people that his repeated postings were actually hurting him and Kathy.

No biggee I thought.

But as we have seen, that is not the case.

Ron and I continued to write back and forth for a while about this subject.
And then it was announced that I had purchased X Marks.

I immedialy began to receive hate mail from some of Ron's other friends.
I find out that Ron published my PM to him on another forum after finding out about my purchase of the forum. I do not know if my message was published in its entirety, but from the emails I received it seems to have been highly edited.

Then Ron decided to start this "reality check" thread. According to him his intention was to offer those, who had written to me, an opportunity to voice their thoughts directly.

As you all know, we on this forum do not air our dirty laundry on the open forum. We do not denigrate other members and we voice private concerns privately.

But I have to tell you that I was very angry that my intent was taken and turned around in an attempt to hurt this forum.

By posting what Ron did on another forum I felt that my attempt at personal friendship had been intentionally warped into a way to attack this forum.
By starting this thread it seemed to me that Ron was seeding hurt and resentment.

Ron is an intelligent man. Everything he writes is carefully worded and intended to elicit a particular reaction. He certainly got the reaction that he was looking for.

As I watched this "reality check" thread unfold I became angrier and angrier. My anger was one of the reasons I did not post on this thread earlier. I knew that anything I would say would be twisted and turned into another way to hurt this forum. And it seems to me that that was the whole intent of this thread.

So I discussed this issue with the Moderators. We are still discussing it.

I wanted to write this open letter to the members of this forum and let them know that although what I wrote to Ron was not official. As the new forum owner anything I say now is official. As the new forum owner I thought it would be for the best to let the thread run its course without my input.

Sadly that is not going to be able to be the case. So I am posting this letter to let you all know how it started and just some of what has happened since. And then I am going to step back out of this issue. I am going to hand it over to the Moderation Council. It will be up to them to decide if this "reality check" thread will be opened for further discussion or remain closed.

It will be up to the Moderation Council to decide if the words fit the facts. If it is found that things that have been said are not factual to take the appropriate action.

I hope that this letter will let the membership of this forum know that I am committed to openness and transparency in the decisions and actions of the staff.