PDA

View Full Version : Unified Market Gets Attacked by RCG


mkranitz
11-07-2005, 03:30 PM
Guys,

I'm hoping to get some opinions here...

I made a post over on RCG showing them an RCG-branded version of the market we use on RCU. Currently, there are 30 sites that tap into the market (including the AMA), which allows any individual buyer or seller access to more buyers and more sellers than they could reach just posting on individual sites.

Here's the market: http://www.rcmarket.com/index.cfm?cobrand=61

The point of posting it was to get folks to think about how they buy and sell and whether they liked the idea of posting an ad on one site and having it be seen on 30 sites instantly. Anyway, they called me a "spammer" (even though we offered to GIVE the software to RCG) and shut down their minds on what is, in my view, the ONLY way this hobby should handle the sale of used merchandise. It's basic econ 101: bigger supply of buyers, better demand for stuff. Bigger supply of sellers, better deals for buyers.

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4539416

Lemme know your thoughts!!

Michael Kranitz

guapoman2000
11-09-2005, 01:26 AM
Geesh,

Jim Bourke thinking of banning you and Mark Woods completely:eek:

Wow, just to ask people their thoughts....seems like you hit a nerve:D

Rugar
11-09-2005, 01:46 AM
Geesh,

Jim Bourke thinking of banning you and Mark Woods completely:eek:

Wow, just to ask people their thoughts....seems like you hit a nerve:D

Who said anything about Mark Woods? :confused:

admin
11-09-2005, 02:52 AM
I think they meant me. Not woods. What I find upsetting is that they won't even let their members share an opinion on what michael proposed, good or bad. Ultimately information wants to be free. People will click where they want to go. Google proved that coming from nothing to lead the pack in just a few short years. They built a better product, listened to the customer and the essence of their business was sending people AWAY from their site!

Imagine if ebay was 5% the size it is now and 19 other online auction houses all had a 5% share. That fragmented marketplace serves to only hurt both buyers and sellers. A higher number of buyers and sellers benefits every marketplace online or off.

The rcu software was written for buyers and sellers to trade. These discussion forum software packages are built for discussions and forced to do something they only do well with until volume increases. You can see that RCG just split their forums up and that is only the beginning and you can never get a phillips screwdriver to screw in a flathead screw. You really have to use the right tool for the job and in the case of a marketplace you should try best to aggregate buyers and sellers rather than fragment them.

zappedalaskan
11-09-2005, 03:49 PM
Hi Michael, Marc
As a user of the RCU marketplace, I would like to see that system in place. I mean you could browse/sell thousands of items from one site. Whichever site you may frequent. It would only be better for everyone. Another plus would be a way broader seller feedback sytem as well, hopefully making harder for scammers.
Regards,
Jay
(aknitroguy at RCU)

gouch
11-10-2005, 03:12 PM
Ok, I'll bite.
I was one of the guys who thought you did absolutely the wrong thing over there. Why? because you took it upon yourself to publically make Jim the offer, and I feel you did it to not only advertise your RCU site there, but to lump on his site by virtue of his sale forums. Jim asked you to remove his copyright stuff from your web page, and you come back with this reply:

Marc and I have reached out to you for more than 3 years....I'm not sure why it is you won't have a discussion on the point? When I was with Microsoft (and before that), the hallmark of my business ventures were partnerships. Our industry is just too small to efficiently run multiple vertical markets. That's why I created the syndicated market 4 years ago.
Give me a call.



1: If Jim dosen't want to do buisness with you, that's up to him, not you.
2: Microsoft has been in the buisness of partnerships? more like takeovers
3:What is so "inneficient" with his for sale forums?
4: All you are trying to do is "own" the market. Anyone can see that a mile away (or half a planet away as is the case with me)
5: you won't even give the guy the respect he deserves by taking down his copyrighted logos, which he has asked you to on numerous occasions, and has every right to.


What I find upsetting is that they won't even let their members share an opinion on what michael proposed, good or bad.

I see plenty of posts in there, good and bad. He obviously has been getting the same crap from you guys "trying to reach out to him for three years", and is sick of it.

Imagine if ebay was 5% the size it is now and 19 other online auction houses all had a 5% share. That fragmented marketplace serves to only hurt both buyers and sellers. A higher number of buyers and sellers benefits every marketplace online or off.


So why don't you hand over your sales forum for him to run? Oh, that's right, the microsoft philosophy again, "it's mine, ALL mine" :rolleyes:

Every now and again here, I see neutral comments coming from Marc, about RCgroups, and how he dosen't want this to become a bashing ground for disgrumpled RCgroupies. But then, he throws in a sly post on how RCgroups copied "this" for sale forum, now this thread bashing Jims decision not to do buisness with you. Frankly I'm not surprised he won't talk to you. Hypocritical to say the least. How often does Jim go to Rcuniverse, or here, to start spamming his forums.

Oh, by the way, don't you think that if nobody liked using their sale forums because they are so bad and antiquated, why ARE people using them? And IF they are so bad, why do you need Jim to come to the table, surely the masses will all come to you anyway, so why bother?

I thought this site would be a refreshing change from Rcgroups, as I, like many others, have been a bit disillusioned with the place at the moment, whatever our reasons, but with Kranitz having a big hand here, and his obvious lack of buisness ethics, I am really beginning to wonder if I want to be a part of it.

Electrick
11-10-2005, 03:34 PM
I'd have to agree with everything said above.

The unauthorized use of Jim's copyrighted logos was enough by itself to make MK's idea a non-starter for me right off the bat. This, IMHO tipped MK's hand as an unethical (or at least disrespectful) businessman. Were I Jim Bourke, I think I'd be considering taking legal action over it.

Why does Jim Bourke need anyone else's help to make his For Sale area successful? It looks to be doing the job pretty well as-is. If I understand the offer correctly, you're essentially asking RCG to hand over the operation of its For Sale section to a site that YOU own and control--and receive banner ad revenue from. What incentive would anyone have to give up control of their own site like that--even a part of it?

Methinks there a much more nefarious and self-serving agenda at work here than the 'reaching out' for the sake of 'the market'.:rolleyes:

Rick

Mike Parsons
11-10-2005, 07:20 PM
It is no suprise that I am an advocate of the unifed marketing strategy no matter who administers the back end. The FS forums both here and at RCG accomplish the end goal, but they are not very efficient. As a seller, I like the idea of more than a single site's user base being able to see my product for sale. It means better selections from a buyers standpoint and quicker turn around profits from a seller.

On a side note however, I think it would have been better recieved had the Rcgroups logo's been left out of the equation. The same visual could have been accomplished and point made by using generic headers. Some members are very site loyal and the reaction did not suprise me.

-Mike

Electrick
11-10-2005, 10:09 PM
What prevents anyone from simply posting their For Sale items or shopping on multiple boards themselves?

It's not that big a deal to do so, is it?

Maybe some of those folks actually prefer doing business with a more 'selected' group of potential buyers and sellers, to just spamming their for sale items to who knows what kind of buyer--or buying from a shady, unknown seller--all over the web.

Just a thought.

Rick

admin
11-10-2005, 10:53 PM
The header and logo was not an "in commerce" use. It was for a demo to show people what it would look like including Jim. He was offered this cobranded market in private before but had not responded to such offers nor acknowledge that he received them so I'm sure michael had no idea if they were even received by Bourke.

As for us "owning" the market or being microsoft that is absurd. A cobranded marketplace would have his header on it, he would run HIS ads on it (yes banner ads..the things wattflyer doesn't have), he would gain any incremental revenue from ad upgrades (and as michael mentioned nobody gets rich off of these upgrades on the occasion where people opt for them).

The benefit ultimately comes to the users who have more buyers and more sellers. If you believe a fragmented marketplace is of benefit then you don't need to look very far to see how this concept is proven false in markets everwhere. Aggregation of buyers and sellers benefits everyone. But again for some it is all perceived as us vs them, winner take all, etc. Nobody can possibly believe that people can do something to just better serve the customer?

For us what is our benefit? Hmmm...let's see..more bandwidth, more cpu resources, more hosting cost. Ok...we must love spending money. What about income right? Well that would all go to Jim if he opted in. We would not benefit at all financially but our membership would benefit by a broader marketplace and that to us is a win. Sorry if we offended anyone for trying to do something good for all without personal gain motives.

Mike Parsons
11-11-2005, 12:37 AM
What prevents anyone from simply posting their For Sale items or shopping on multiple boards themselves?

It's not that big a deal to do so, is it?

Rick
Absolutely nothing prevents multiple posting, but I would much rather post on one resource and have it seen by three times the eyes. I think it would be easier to manage one than three on three different boards. Just my two cents.

-Mike

gouch
11-11-2005, 11:17 AM
Marc, I for one am not attacking you or your mate for trying to make a quid, heck, we all need to make money, so that's not the issue.

My issue with the whole thing was the way you guys did it, then try and justify it. You say you and kranitz have sent Jim the "offer" before for quite a while, and did it many times with no response. There's your answer right there, He obviously dosen't want to do buisness with you, and you know it. You can't seem to get over that fact.

Do you really think that 3 years of emails and whatever methods you have been hounding him with, ALL went missing, or he didn't happen to see ANY of it ? I realize and respect the fact you are not that naive.

The only way you guys were going to get a nibble from Jim was to post it smack bang in his forum, that is what I find troublesome in the ethics department.

It was krantiz who said by working at Microsoft he learnt how partnerships work. He was saying that to Jim when he was whinging for being penalized for spamming the site with your ads, worked over with RCgroups logos, to maybe impress someone, who knows? And as I'm sure you know, microsoft do NOTHING if it isn't to their benefit first and foremost.

Heres' my take on it:
You post a thread or two over in RCgroups telling everyone how you have this great offer for everyone, including Jim, by transferring all of HIS sale forums to yours, make this fancy looking screen to show how pretty it is going to be, justify using copyright material by telling everyone "it's only a demo" You find yourself with maybe a few more ads for yourself in the process, "cause someone will like it" all the time KNOWING Jim won't go for it, then you guys try and make Jim look like the bad guy by making out he is stiffling the remote control sale market.

hey, if it works, why not? Can't blame a man for trying.......very trying...

admin
11-11-2005, 02:27 PM
gouch,

The problem with this is that Jim setup a forum for the sole reason to discuss "Other Websites". The posts that michael made were within the doctrine of that forum and within the rules over there. Keep in mind if anyone else posted in there something like "wow..what a cool classified system at rcu go check it out here...." it would be allowed and that is nothing more than a heads up to the members of something that is available to them. There are no copyright issues as the demo michael setup was only window shopping to show members what it would look like. It was to show if implemented this is not some traffic or member sharing scheme that was devised. It would look, navigate and feel 100% like that site. Only through a mock demo like this can people understand how it would work and what it would look like.

The issue I personally have is that the members there never even got a chance to have their say in any of this. Emails were sent to Jim Bourke which I guess did fall on deaf ears because he feels that joining in the marketplace (which would have zero financial benefit to RCU but could have additional financial benefit to RCG ) was not in HIS best interest. He never considered whether something like this might be a platform some, or perhaps a majority of his member/customers might want. He doesn't give them a chance or allow them a voice to decide for themselves. As a result of this it appears that it is all about how to maximize his control and bottom line from what I can tell. What other reasons for not giving users a choice or even allowing them to be aware that another mousetrap exists? Regardless the old adage of "it's his site to do as he pleases with it" certainly applies. But eventually the users there will tire of having their information be controlled and their choices limited because of the whims of one individual.

This site as well as RCU have always been behind members suggestions. We did an RCU makeover years ago and were charging for ads and members pushed back. We yanked all of that promptly in response. They wanted some discussions in their classifieds so we added that option in the first ever hybrid model. Lo and behold a year later ebay even followed suit adding intra-ad discussions between buyers/sellers. These are just 2 examples of MANY where we have always listened to what the customer wants and provided it whenever technically feasible.

The idea behind WattFlyer is to have an open platform where users can truly have the free flow of information and it is in a thread like what happened at RCG (among many other things like warning points, etc) that show the need for a non commercially/politically motivated platform like Wattflyer. Let Jim come here and open up a poll and ask users whether they prefer his discussion forum based system of buying/selling or the true classified system being used on RCU. Additionally he has had the option to offer both as doing one or the other is not necessarily mutually exclusive but again the membership there has and likely will never be offered the option to decide for themselves.

Ultimately information wants to be free and people will find their way here or to rcu and then just vote with their clicks and patronage which is the way it should be. It should be the customers choice. When driving down the road we all know we can go to Burger King or McDonalds and WE make the choice where we want to go. Can you imagine if McDonald's put up a giant tarp so you could not see the Burger King just a block up the road and took the decision away from you to decide where you wanted to eat?

I don't care where modelers go. The pie is plenty large for everyone in this space. I do however think modelers deserve at least to choose where they will go and restricting options or worse yet information which at least informs a user of options which may be of benefit to them is not prudent.

Electrick
11-11-2005, 05:01 PM
After all that lengthy explaining of your allegedly altruistic motives, you still fail to acknowledge one simple inescapable fact.

It is, in the end, Jim Bourke's decision alone to do business with you--or not.

In a business sense, what the average RCG user may or may not want is irrelevant, since they are not co-owners of the site. While it may seem like a selfish or irrational decision on his part to you, it is nonetheless HIS decision alone to make. It is also his prerogative to consider or reject userbase (or anyone else's) input in his decisionmaking process. Like you say, users will express their satisfaction level one way or the other with their mice.

We weren't asked about the implementation of the silly warning points system, either. Jim more or less unilaterally just decided to do it. It turned out the users told him afterwards what they thought of the decision.

If the users feel they aren't being served adequately by the current RGC FS format and want a RCU-style For Sale forum, they'll tell him so without you having to introduce and sell the idea to them in such a controversial way. I'd wager that most RCG users know about and have seen/used the RCU For Sale forums, yet I've seen little or no clamor on RCG for Jim to adopt that model prior to your posting.

It comes off as underhanded, disrespectful, and unethical, no matter what your motives are. I wonder how you'd react if Jim were to come over here and try to tell you how to run RCU, by trying to sell an idea to the userbase that he knows upfront you don't agree with?

Rick

gouch
11-11-2005, 09:24 PM
It is, in the end, Jim Bourke's decision alone to do business with you--or not.


That's the one, right there. :)
And just to clarify, I have never actually bought anything from either sale forum, I'm just on the outside looking in, and all I can see is two (3 actually) stubborn buisnessmen, with two who just won't realize, or accept, that the other just dosen't want to do buisness with them.

Many obviously do want to do buisness with you guys, based on the RCU ad content, and that's great, it is a buisness after all, but Jim dosen't, which is the crux of this whole issue.


I'll give you credit though, you are good at spin doctoring because actually, Kranitz posted at least one of his threads in "site chat", not "other websites", so he didn't post (at least one, to my knowledge) in the correct forum. And also anyone can still view it, Jim hasn't taken it down. It has been warned, but you can still see it if you click on the "view post" button. Jim isn't stopping anyone from seeing it, now is he?

And the other one kranitz posted, (don't know where that was originally posted) is also there for everyone to see, so Jim really hasn't taken away the ability for people to see what kranitz put up there.

He has probably done you a favour in a round about way, by giving them warnings, as I know, for me anyway, I always check out a post that has been warned, just to check what all the fuss is about.

And BTW, The headers you used are the property of Jim, are they not? So stop with the "There are no copyright issues as the demo michael setup was only window shopping" It dosen't matter. What if I tried to run a new look for Ebay on one of their competitors website, using their copyright material? They wouldn't mind me doing that now would they? Not likely ;)

admin
11-12-2005, 12:19 AM
And BTW, The headers you used are the property of Jim, are they not? So stop with the "There are no copyright issues as the demo michael setup was only window shopping" It dosen't matter. What if I tried to run a new look for Ebay on one of their competitors website, using their copyright material? They wouldn't mind me doing that now would they? Not likely ;)

The key here is that the use was not an "in commerce" use but a mock demo. This is important point between demo and actual usage. A consult with our IP attorney has cleared this fair usage.

As for Jim yes he fails to see how this can benefit his customers. Eventually information wants to be free and people will vote with their clicks. We aren't trying to force anyone to go anywhere other than being able to make an informed decision so they can all decide what is best for themselves. Does anyone really like being "forced" and told what they have to do and where they must go? I know I don't. I like having a choice so I can decide for myself and I honestly believe most people in the free world are in sync with this perspective.

Electrick
11-12-2005, 03:54 PM
The key here is that the use was not an "in commerce" use but a mock demo. This is important point between demo and actual usage. A consult with our IP attorney has cleared this fair usage.

You know, there's a lot to be said for first impressions. IMHO, this move didn't do much to make a favorable one to any RCG user who understands anything about professional integrity and standard business practices.

What your attorney says be damned, ask yourself how you'd react if someone (say Jim Bourke) were to cut and paste RCU's logos or other copyrighted material onto some mockup webpage located on his own site, for 'demo' purposes or any other reason--without asking you first??

This is the point I was making with my initial post over in the RCG thread you originally posted in.

Is it not common professional courtesy at THE VERY LEAST, to ask the lawful owner of copyrighted or trademarked material for his permission to use it before you take it on your own to just go ahead and do so? I'd bet my last LiPo that there is specific language to that effect in the legal paperwork granting his copyright/trademark. To not do so simply underlines your intent to run an end-around campaign on Jim's board to serve your purposes, since you already knew he wasn't interested in the idea.

I am amazed by your inability or unwillingness to recognize just this point--let alone the other points being made here. It says a lot, really.


Rick

gouch
11-12-2005, 04:10 PM
Eventually information wants to be free and people will vote with their clicks

What in heck does that mean Marc? Their sale forums ARE free now, aren't they? As far as I can tell, you guys on RCU are the only ones charging for ads (RCU and RCG). I know you have free ads over there too, but between RCU, and RCG, you ARE the only ones that are doing ANY optional charging, are you not? :confused:

We aren't trying to force anyone to go anywhere other than being able to make an informed decision so they can all decide what is best for themselves. Does anyone really like being "forced" and told what they have to do and where they must go? I know I don't. I like having a choice so I can decide for myself and I honestly believe most people in the free world are in sync with this perspective.

Again, WHAT? Mate become a politician, no really, you'd be pretty good. Earlier I said spin doctor, change that to spin professor!

Who's FORCING anyone to do anything????

You really just don't get it do you? Jim obviously dosen't WANT to deal with you.
He isn't saying that people can't decide for themselves where to advertise, he hasn't deleted anything kranitz said over ther, like you suggest, and he isn't forcing anyone to post ads over there.....IS he?

So really you are in fact bashing the people that DO advertise on RCgroups, because in reality Jim is ONLY supplying a place to advertise for free, that's all, nothing more, nothing less, and this is what upsets you for some reason.

If you do ever happen to get everyone in the world using your site for selling and buying, well done! It means you have got it right, but in the mean time, appreciate the fact that people DO have options, and are expressing those options that you speak of by using the forums THEY want to use, not the ones YOU want them to use. :rolleyes:

Cheers
Paul, Sorry marc, but really mate... you made no sense relative to this discussion in that last reply.

P.S I'll take your word on the copyright thing as I'm no lawyer. Just try posting a thread in Ebays forums with the same thing Kranitz did on RCgroups with the Ebay header instead. I wonder what would happen? Hit your lawyer with that one and see what he says. Are all those Ebay'ers being forced into selling their stuff on that site too? ;)

admin
11-13-2005, 02:20 AM
Well fellas let's just say we can agree to disagree on a few points. Hopefully these "political" things won't get in the way of anybody just enjoying the hobby and moving on. Nobody here knows michael as well as I do. He is an avid modeler and yes he gets very enthusiastic about some of the things he put his blood and sweat into. I think we all do this sometimes. For this we both apologize if we get TOO enthusiastic and cross what some may feel are appropriate lines. It isn't our intention to do anyone harm.

It was always my mission from the day I started RCU to give modelers a place they could enjoy online because I felt they were being short changed several years ago. Since then, many good sites have come online and quite honestly if all of them were here back then the thought of even starting an RC related site would have never crossed my mind. However back then the internet was in desperate need of something good for us modelers. Hopefully RCU has satisfied that need for many (at 200,000+ signups and 200+ more each day I think it is accomplishing this well) and also WattFlyer will fill a new mission which is to only respond to modeler/member needs without having any other directives clouding this goal. Additionally the plethora of new sites since then and the choices at least give modelers choices of where they want to frequent.

gouch - yeah I understand what you mean about ebay...matter of fact they are using in commerce right now two things the RCU classifieds pioneered years before they did. The first is discussion posts within an ad. The 2nd just announced this week which is like the RCU blue book where they mine data from items sold and let users look up pricing. We wonder if they snagged the concept even from our very site as they got a personal walk through of our site and technology around a year or so ago. Now we find our features/functionality popping up over there.

electrick - have you ever put a logo of any company on your plane without written consent? If so isn't that the same thing as you are accusing michael of doing? Remember this mockup was only for show and not intended to be functional. There was no damage or loss created nor the possibility of either. I think michael mentioned yesterday he took it down since it seemed to upset a few of you and the point can be made with or w/out the logo itself in the mockup.

Now back to our regularly scheduled eflight discussions :) I was trying to tail touch my Mad Taco foamy and caught a wind and punched it in...gotta go down to glue the motor mount back on so its ready for tomorrow if mother nature cooperates.

Electrick
11-13-2005, 04:01 AM
electrick - have you ever put a logo of any company on your plane without written consent? If so isn't that the same thing as you are accusing michael of doing? Remember this mockup was only for show and not intended to be functional. There was no damage or loss created nor the possibility of either. I think michael mentioned yesterday he took it down since it seemed to upset a few of you and the point can be made with or w/out the logo itself in the mockup.
To answer your question, yes I have.

I have used manufacturer logos on my planes, helicopters, cars, and boats in the past. The difference is that I used stickers and/or decals that were either purposely custom designed to not duplicate trademarked logos, or they were logo stickers obtained from commercial sources, either decals from the manufacturer themselves (example-JR logo sticker sheets from Horizon), decals included with a commercially produced kit, or from a commercial sticker manufacturer. The consent-getting in the latter cases rests with the manufacturer of the kit or logo sheets, not me.

With stickers or decals obtained from such sources, consent to display them is implicit by virtue of the fact that they are for made for retail sale and are freely distributed.

That's the difference between what you did and what I've done. Nice try, though.;)

Rick

jrb
11-13-2005, 02:09 PM
I knew this place and its genesis just didnít feel right/clean!

Mike Parsons
11-13-2005, 02:56 PM
I knew this place and its genesis just didnít feel right/clean!
:rolleyes:

easytiger
11-13-2005, 02:57 PM
The "take down my copyrighted logos" thing was just pathetic. Sounds like a schoolkid. So petty as to be laughable.

That being said, I think you made a big mistake posting that on his site. No way he wants to "unify" in any way, shape or form. I think if you asked around through back channels, a lot of people would have told you that would have been a big mistake, could have saved you some trouble.

Business is business, I can understand wanting to dominate the classified ads, but if you did, and you started charging, it would be about five seconds before someone NEW started a new free site. You are up against the 20 ton gorilla, Ebay, and that is that. Not a thing you can do about it.

Better off beating RGgroups by having better forums and content, and getting their sponsors to move over.

I think RCG still has some great people, but the content has become endlessly repetitive, and especially amateurish, and the points system is untenable, so, whatever way you can, you need to work on getting the USERS to come over, by bringing them a better atmosphere, better CONTENT. The classifieds are not really the big draw.

admin
11-13-2005, 03:40 PM
ET - you are correct and I agree. Personally I would not have posted over there. Michael is less fluent in the ways of the forums and the dynamics at play in them. I have over 11,000 posts in discussion forums and have spent the better part of 4 years in them. Michael on the other hand has under a thousand of which 85% are in support capacity. When he posted this on RCG (and we don't confer beforehand on what we both do outside the site) I knew the likely reaction that would surely come forth from a select few. I on the other hand would have just let people find out on their own. As I have said in posts above information wants to be free and people will find out and make choices.

For Jim Bourke running RCG is a side business to his full time gig at Knife Edge flight simulator software. For us running RCU is a full time gig and with all my personal spare time I run Wattflyer. RCU picks up the couple hundred bucks a month in hosting fees it generates as a give back.

It is my belief that you get more out of anything when you put your complete focus on something which is why many years ago I decided to take the plunge for better or worse and only focus on RC. Michael also had done the same years ago. We will remain dedicated and focused on building, maintaining and managing as best as we can to benefit modelers. The signups on these sites and feedback we get in emails is proof for us that so far we have navigated these waters ok so far and we'll continue to spend 60-90 hour weeks dedicated and focused on things. I put so much time into this in the last year I barely even got out to fly all season which has been the only major downside.

easytiger
11-13-2005, 11:49 PM
Yeah, it was definitely a goofy post on his part!
But the "take down my copyrighted material" response was double goofy, he sounded like a six year old!

I think you need to do something DIFFERENT from RCgroups, if you want to get an audience. We already have the "hyper family friendly" thing, maybe moderation for grownups is a better solution. Frankly, it would be nice to have a little more freedom, if we want heavy censorship, we already HAVE RCgroups.
You need to seperate Wattflyer in some way, be different in some way, or why have it?
I don't claim to have a definitive answer, though.

gouch
11-14-2005, 01:22 PM
Better off beating RGgroups by having better forums and content, and getting their sponsors to move over

That won't work ET, there will NEVER, EVER be ads on this site, remember ;)


ET - you are correct and I agree. Personally I would not have posted over there

Marc, why didn't you just simply say that a few days ago here instead of going on about how Jim is doing 'this and that'?

I on the other hand would have just let people find out on their own.

Again, this is basically what I have been trying to get across. You don't need to spam your cause on other sites, as ET said all you have to do is just do it better and they will come. But I honestly think that most people shy away from "pressure". You keep spamming stuff like Mike did, and they will run to get FAR away.

As I have said in posts above information wants to be free and people will find out and make choices.

I still have no idea on what your "information wants to be free" thing you have going there? It IS free for those who want to find it. Those that don't want to find it are obviously happy enough, so leave them be, if they become unhappy, then you will win out long term.

I get quite a lot of work for myself from just sitting back and doing my thing, and letting my competition shoot themselves in the foot with over inflated claims, slander, etc People aren't stupid, they DO know when they think they are being pushed into something they may not want.
I am far from a big succesfull buisnessman, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but I would never publically criticize my competition, the majority of people really hate that.


and we don't confer beforehand on what we both do outside the site

That is either a crock, or you really need to discuss the way you do buisness together.
Surely you guys have an understanding to know anything the other does if it relates to the buisness before they release stuff like this to the mainstream???
Especially if it involves publically releasing buisness proposals, which is exactly what that was, and especially as both of you have been hounding Jim for 3 years about it......

Take it as a compliment when I say, I think you knew exactly what was going on ;)

easytiger
11-14-2005, 03:22 PM
"That won't work ET, there will NEVER, EVER be ads on this site, remember ;)"

Wattflyer is intended to be an anarcho-syndaclist commune, self-sustaining by means of a organic hydroponic pixel farm. Nobody told you that?




"Marc, why didn't you just simply say that a few days ago here instead of going on about how Jim is doing 'this and that'?



Again, this is basically what I have been trying to get across. You don't need to spam your cause on other sites, as ET said all you have to do is just do it better and they will come. But I honestly think that most people shy away from "pressure". You keep spamming stuff like Mike did, and they will run to get FAR away."

No harm in getting the word out, I say. Lots of people do not KNOW there is an alternative.



"I get quite a lot of work for myself from just sitting back and doing my thing, and letting my competition shoot themselves in the foot with over inflated claims, slander, etc People aren't stupid,"

I beleive you are mistaken...most people ARE stupid...

"they DO know when they think they are being pushed into something they may not want."

It happens ALL THE TIME.

"I am far from a big succesfull buisnessman, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but I would never publically criticize my competition, the majority of people really hate that."

Very true.




"That is either a crock, or you really need to discuss the way you do buisness together. "


Having partners can be tough. I do beleive Marc when he says Michael never consulted HIM before posting.

"Surely you guys have an understanding to know anything the other does if it relates to the buisness before they release stuff like this to the mainstream??? "

Doubt it. Really.

"Especially if it involves publically releasing buisness proposals, which is exactly what that was, and especially as both of you have been hounding Jim for 3 years about it......

Take it as a compliment when I say, I think you knew exactly what was going on ;)"

I tend to think Marc is being completely sincere. Michael does NOT understand the forums, the markets, the people, and he has ALWAYS been trying to do stuff that might fly selling used cars or whatever, but just does not work in this little model airplane world. He's ALWAYS got some marketing scheme that may look good to HIM, and might SEEM to be valid to an outsider, but to those who are more familiar with the model airplane venue, is an obvious mistake.

admin
11-14-2005, 08:00 PM
Well I gotta say I knew only AFTER he posted it that it was done. I figured some fallout was going to ensue after reading it. I've made that same mistake too many times myself over the years to do it again.

As far as the phrase "information wants to be free" what I mean by that is selective censorship. By not allowing people to know about other things which may be of interest to them solely because it has no personal or financial benefit. A site owner might choose to only allow what they see as non-competitive to them and thus disallow any information which could potentially financially harm them even if that information was in fact beneficial to their own customers.

You will notice here that choices for forum or classifieds are given. Also you will find threads here that point to what anyone would deem as "competitive" to WattFlyer but therein lies the twist. WattFlyer need not compete with anyone because it has nothing to lose. It generates $0.00 for its owner/operators. Its purpose and mission is not to generate money. Therefore it can act in different ways, enforce different policies and allow information to be as free as it wants to be. Matter of fact I urge anyone who loves wattflyer and wants to donate to help support it to instead donate to one of the following charitable organizations.

Yorkie Rescue - Saves yorkie's who have been put in shelters or given up
http://www.yorkierescueme.org


Human Society - www.hsus.org (http://www.hsus.org) - Protects all animals


ASPCA - www.aspca.org (http://www.aspca.org) - Prevents cruelty to animals

While these are not the only worthy charities I personally support or contribute to with my own mone or time, I am partial to these three as animals are often mistreated by people and need our help as they cannot help themselves all too often.

So if you enjoy Wattflyer.com and were thinking of maybe giving $5, $10, $25, $100 or whatever to help support this site click one of those links above instead & please and help out in any way you can. Donations are tax-deductible for those while a donation to WattFlyer would not be.

thanks

marc

Electrick
11-14-2005, 09:11 PM
Well I gotta say I knew only AFTER he posted it that it was done. I figured some fallout was going to ensue after reading it. I've made that same mistake too many times myself over the years to do it again.

A simple apology to Jim might help a bit towards smoothing his and others' hackles in the wake of this. If you truly regret how this all went down in your absence, then show it by apologizing to Jim on his board. You might also try revising your approach, or just simply accept what is.

As far as the phrase "information wants to be free" what I mean by that is selective censorship. By not allowing people to know about other things which may be of interest to them solely because it has no personal or financial benefit. A site owner might choose to only allow what they see as non-competitive to them and thus disallow any information which could potentially financially harm them even if that information was in fact beneficial to their own customers.

Neither Jim nor RCG is forcefully preventing anyone from viewing/using any information you have either on RCU or Wattflyer. That it isn't all linked together on one grand site doesn't make the case for it not being freely available to anyone who has an idea where to look and has the desire to do so. You're arguing for one-stop shopping convenience (ostensibly), not information-sharing.

By your logic, not having saltwater fishing or witchcraft content on RCU would also be considered 'selective censorship'. We on this side of the monitor have the freedom to surf both your site(s) AND RCGroups to find what we want, along with a zillion other sites. It's far from a zero-sum game WRT who holds the information.

Either your argument is simply disingenuous, or you are severely underestimating web-savvy R/Cers' ability to find the information they seek--regardless of its source.

Rick

admin
11-15-2005, 12:00 AM
Either your argument is simply disingenuous, or you are severely underestimating web-savvy R/Cers' ability to find the information they seek--regardless of its source.

Rick

Rick,

I truly think the amount of web savvy rc'ers is in the minority. The difference is that I see what people can find on our own sites and what they can't. I see what questions they ask of our support team and you don't see those. Most people online are not very web savvy or computer savvy. This does NOT mean that there are those who aren't savvy in these ways. It means that those are simply the minority (or so I have seen over the years).

Do you know how many people go to www.google.com (http://www.google.com) and type in a url like www.rcuniverse.com (http://www.rcuniverse.com) or whatever to find the website? Huge! People come to rcu and ask us where our forums are. This is despite the huge forum button on the top and the left size too. While many eventually find their way and muddle through after much frustration the fact remains (at least I feel) that RC'ers have a tough time finding things wherever they go online. 4 years of reading support emails, posts, tickets and weblogs for RCU and other sites gives me this point of view. I could be wrong ( I hope I am wrong) but only going on the data that has presented itself to me.

marc

easytiger
11-15-2005, 12:04 AM
Electrick is just another hardcore RCgroups patriot who just came over here to give you a hard time, far as I can see. This is not a "winnable" argument.
Over on RCgroups, they would just label him a "troll".

Electrick
11-15-2005, 07:20 PM
Electrick is just another hardcore RCgroups patriot who just came over here to give you a hard time, far as I can see. This is not a "winnable" argument.
Over on RCgroups, they would just label him a "troll".
Thanks for the assessment, ET. :rolleyes:

Regardless of what you may think I am, my participation in this thread is simply that of offering counter arguments/opinions to the (IMHO flimsy) ones being presented here as rationale for what was done over on RCG. I am a small business owner myself, and as such I would have been just as put off by what was done by Kranitz--and especially HOW it was done (and not just the cut and pasted logos either)--as Jim Bourke was. If that makes me some sort of apologist for Jim, then you're entitled to your opinion, right or wrong.

You simply can't FORCE someone to do business with you. All the rationalizing being done here about how much better life for everyone would be won't ever change that.

My position WRT the thread subject won't affect one iota my continued use of the RCU or Wattflyer boards themselves. That's been part of my point all along. The beauty of having multiple web boards on the web is that it gives us a choice to either use--or not use--any or all of them, in whole or in part. I don't have any particular allegiance to any one.

If you'd do a user search, you'll find that I frequent this board, RCUniverse, RCGroups, and a couple other R/C related web boards. That hardly qualifies me as a "hardcore RCGroups patriot".

Sorry if I'm not toeing the Wattflyer/RCU line like you want me (and RCG) to. Not really. :rolleyes:

BTW, 'trolls' are not defined as those who post differing opinions from the original poster while discussing a given subject.

If that were the accepted definition for 'troll', you'd likely win a prize for being the biggest troll ever to frequent an R/C web forum. ;)

Rick

admin
11-15-2005, 08:54 PM
Hey fellas...I think everyone vented here (I hope)...let's talk about some planes/helis now pleeeeeeeeeeze :)

thanks ;)

Electrick
11-15-2005, 09:16 PM
There's always the 'Close Thread' option. ;)

I've said about all I have to say. Anything more is just repetition, falling on deaf ears. I won't change any minds here, and you likely won't either--so it's a draw AFAIC.

Besides, I'm not the guy you have to convince in the first place. ;)

Rick

mauilvr
11-16-2005, 03:33 AM
Over on RCgroups, they would just label him a "troll".It seems no matter what forum you're on, you always resort to name calling. :rolleyes:

I think you're a *bit* confused, tiger - that's what they call you "over there". And it's a title you earned. ;)

ElectRick has a stellar reputation on RCG - something he's earned.

ET, this is a nice forum run by guys just trying to give modelers what they want. Don't ruin it for everyone.

easytiger
11-16-2005, 03:45 AM
Can we start a forum just for RCgroups Ex-moderators? There seem to be an awful LOT of them posting here!:)

mauilvr
11-16-2005, 03:48 AM
I've got an even better idea - why don't you just concentrate on airplane related topics and stop all the personal attacks. ;)

easytiger
11-16-2005, 03:54 AM
You seem to spend an awful lot of time and concern over here defending RCgroups...not talking about airplanes...

qban_flyer
11-16-2005, 04:15 AM
Can we start a forum just for RCgroups Ex-moderators? There seem to be an awful LOT of them posting here!:)

What a BRILLIANT IDEA! What shall it be called, RCG-XM? :D

Twmaster
11-16-2005, 04:15 AM
after much frustration the fact remains (at least I feel) that RC'ers have a tough time finding things wherever they go online. 4 years of reading support emails, posts, tickets and weblogs for RCU and other sites gives me this point of view. I could be wrong ( I hope I am wrong) but only going on the data that has presented itself to me.

It's not you man. Most people are stupid. Add a computer and teh Intarweb and they simply become click and drool idiots.

Geez, boy am I cranky today.

;)

easytiger
11-16-2005, 04:20 AM
What a BRILLIANT IDEA! What shall it be called, RCG-XM? :D


A support group, where they can all sit around in a big circle of folding chairs and talk about the paradox of how they all love RCgroups so much but they all got fired or "retired". It's a complex question they can spend hours pondering. I will donate the Kleenex!

easytiger
11-16-2005, 04:22 AM
It's not you man. Most people are stupid. Add a computer and teh Intarweb and they simply become click and drool idiots.

Geez, boy am I cranky today.

;)

Cranky, but correct. My wife is always reminding me of that...sometimes I get frustrated with people, and she tells me "don't forget...people are stupid." She is, as usual, right. Most people ARE. Most. Not all.

mauilvr
11-16-2005, 04:42 AM
You seem to spend an awful lot of time and concern over here defending RCgroups...not talking about airplanes...Actually, I visit here infrequently - except when I get email notification of another one of your nonsense posts from a thread I posted in previously.

I didn't start this thread - Michael did - and asked for opinions.

easytiger
11-16-2005, 04:53 AM
Now, if I said "your nonsense posts" on that OTHER site, what do you think would happen? Instant button push, a warning, and an accusation of "troll!"

mauilvr
11-16-2005, 05:37 AM
Curtis,
I have no intention of debating this nonsense. I have better things to do. A sailplane wing is waiting for me to put on some sheeting.

Go build an airplane. It's waaaay more fun than this petty bickering.

Have a good evening. :)

Rugar
11-16-2005, 09:07 AM
Hey fellas...I think everyone vented here (I hope)...let's talk about some planes/helis now pleeeeeeeeeeze :)

thanks ;)

Now, if they would just listen. :mad:

Mike Parsons
11-16-2005, 05:13 PM
Now, if they would just listen. :mad:
Here is a push that I hope helps.


Thread closed.