Should there be Guidelines or Rules for Pass Arounds

[LampLight]

In light of some recent events, it seems like it might be worthwhile for us to consider whether guidelines or rules for passarounds would serve the community and whether they are practical. Of course, participation is ultimately up to vendors, so we want to respect their wishes, and setting rules is ultimately up to Harri and the staff, so we want to respect their wishes too. But this seems like a good time to throw out some ideas for discussion.


A STRAWMAN FOR PASS AROUNDS

I'd like to see SOTW set guidelines that would shield vendors from what may be embarrassing decisions:

Only members with at least ___ posts may participate. (This was suggested elsewhere by nefertiti. My suggested threshold = 250.)
Only members who have been here for at least ___ months may participate. (My suggestion = 6 months.)
Participants are expected to forward the piece promptly to the next participant using tracking and/or delivery confirmation

I would encourage vendors to consider exercising these options at the their discretion:

An ordered list of participants will be posted. The list will be updated when the piece moves on, when current participants opt out, or when new participants opt in.
If a participant wants to buy the passaround piece, he or she may do so but will have to pay the price plus expedited S&H so the vendor can get a replacement piece in circulation quickly.


There are pros and cons to the last suggestion. On the plus side, since pieces are never the same, it avoids the possibility of a later disappointment and has advantages for the buyer and seller. It also is a bit more life-like, in that the SOTW community sees a bigger sample of the vendor's work. On the downside, I can think of reasons why this might hinder objective feedback - a valuable commodity to vendors - and it might tend to commercialize the passarounds with assorted negative consequences.

What do other people think? Vendors: If you want to comment anonymously and would like my help to do so, let me know via PM.

[J.Max]

Personally, I think everything about a pass-around should be up to a vendor. There's no reason for SOTW to set up a system of rules (like in the marketplace) because the marketplace rules are there to protect people from getting ripped off by unscrupulous sellers. Since there is no money being charged here, there is no reason for SOTW to get involved. If a vendor wants to ship a pass-around mouthpiece to someone with under 250 posts, that's their issue, not SOTW's.

Now, if someone fails to pass around a piece, and steals the piece, the vendor knows exactly who it is and should post their information to prevent it from happening to other vendors. That's different.

Honestly, I've been on both sides of a pass-around, and if you're a vendor, you are doing so at your own risk, and you should know that.

[Rackety Sax]

In light of some recent events, ...

Care to elaborate?

I've been very surprised how few of these seem to run smoothly. The reviews are widely spaced and they seem to be regularly sidetracked for lengthy periods. In one case the sponsor occasionally chimed in to inquire as to who had their mouthpiece.

I suspect the problem is that running one of these properly requires a lot more hand-holding than most vendors are ready or able to commit to. If true, it's a poor reflection on the level of responsibility exercised by many of us who participate in what should be a highly valued opportunity.

All of that said, I'm not in favor of more forum rules. I am in favor of vendors who undertake one to commit the resources to make it work properly, or to skip it altogether. I'm even more in favor of participants fulfilling their commitments to the process in a responsible manner.

[Rackety Sax]

Personally, I think everything about a pass-around should be up to a vendor. There's no reason for SOTW to set up a system of rules (like in the marketplace) because the marketplace rules are there to protect people from getting ripped off by unscrupulous sellers. Since there is no money being charged here, there is no reason for SOTW to get involved. If a vendor wants to ship a pass-around mouthpiece to someone with under 250 posts, that's their issue, not SOTW's.

Now, if someone fails to pass around a piece, and steals the piece, the vendor knows exactly who it is and should post their information to prevent it from happening to other vendors. That's different.

Honestly, I've been on both sides of a pass-around, and if you're a vendor, you are doing so at your own risk, and you should know that.

It's not really different, is it? A ripped off buyer can post the seller's name, too, but in either scenario someone is getting taken for a chunk of money that they are very unlikely to get back.

[gary]

While I sympathise with some who have had long, inexcusable wait periods receiving their pass-arounds, I don't think any uniform policies can apply since, in the end, this is between the person providing the mpc and those receiving it. Any restrictions fall on the person providing the mpc.

Personally if it were me, I would send something of value to no one who hadn't already had some kind of credibility-building presence on the forum and I would also have a visible, clearly understandable agreement between me and recipients before the first item went out, so that there are no misunderstandings if anything goes south.

It would seem to me that the biggest criticisms so far, refer to some folks keeping mpcs longer than a few days. IMO, if you are going to be out of town, under pressure to work overtime on your job, whatever, you need to pass that mpc along and not hoard it. You can get it at a later date when you have more time, rather than holding up the process. One has to realise that it's not just you and the next guy. If three people hang onto the mpc longer than reasonable, it's the guy at the end of that chain that gets the accumulative shaft because of that. To that end, if I were passing something around, I would openly post the list of those getting the mpc (in the case) and, sorry, then anyone holding on to it too long, would be quite visible and that visibility might encourage more prompt action.

But again, IMO this is up to the passer-around to determine. And on the other hand, regarding the responsibility of the passer-aroun, if he's an unorganised kind of guy and just can't keep up with it, that's his, not the forum's problem.

[Nefertiti]

While I sympathise with some who have had long, inexcusable wait periods receiving their pass-arounds, I don't think any uniform policies can apply since, in the end, this is between the person providing the mpc and those receiving it. Any restrictions fall on the person providing the mpc.

Personally if it were me, I would send something of value to no one who hadn't already had some kind of credibility-building presence on the forum and I would also have a visible, clearly understandable agreement between me and recipients before the first item went out, so that there are no misunderstandings if anything goes south.

It would seem to me that the biggest criticisms so far, refer to some folks keeping mpcs longer than a few days. IMO, if you are going to be out of town, under pressure to work overtime on your job, whatever, you need to pass that mpc along and not hoard it. You can get it at a later date when you have more time, rather than holding up the process. One has to realise that it's not just you and the next guy. If three people hang onto the mpc longer than reasonable, it's the guy at the end of that chain that gets the accumulative shaft because of that. To that end, if I were passing something around, I would openly post the list of those getting the mpc (in the case) and, sorry, then anyone holding on to it too long, would be quite visible and that visibility might encourage more prompt action.

But again, IMO this is up to the passer-around to determine. And on the other hand, regarding the responsibility of the passer-aroun, if he's an unorganised kind of guy and just can't keep up with it, that's his, not the forum's problem.

I agree, if you posted the list so everyone could see the community as a whole would have an interest in seeing the pieces passed along and reviews given in a timely manner.

[LampLight]

In light of some recent events, ...

Care to elaborate?


Sure - and thanks for asking. I was thinking of the GAIA pass around thread, starting about here:




Spooner - Where is the Gaia?????

Datsaxguy

That's a good question. One of the Gaia mouthpieces has gone MIA, and despite repeated phone calls, private messages, and emails, I can't seem to get the involved parties to even contact me back, let alone figure out what's happened to the piece.

We've got a similar situation with one of the tenor Kali mouthpieces right now. . . .

I know that delays and foggy schedules are par for the course, but this seems to be a step up.

[Datsaxguy]

I think we need to come to some consensus about when and how we "out" the parties involved in these incidents. My idea is that we start a thread that asks a simple question like this "Is (forum member) a thief? If you are not please respond" This let's everybody know what's going on. I would then update the passaround thread with pertinent info. OR we all start PM'ing the parties asking them what's going on.

I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I would like to think that there are some circumstances beyond there control and that it's not their fault.........but it's probably not. Theft is just inexcusable. Not communicating is inexcusable. I hope it's just a communication issue. People work hard for their property and it's not cool for MUSICIANS, the most underpaid people on the planet (for the most part) to steal from each other. Its just not right. Spooner your are a class act, and thanks for extending yourself. I probably would have outed these folks already.

I hope the parties are reading this thread realizes that Matt just wants the mpc back. He does not want to cause your reputation any harm.

Please keep the passarounds going. How many of you guessed that I was next on the list?

Datsaxguy

[Rackety Sax]

In light of some recent events, ...

Care to elaborate?


Sure - and thanks for asking. I was thinking of the GAIA pass around thread, starting about here:




Spooner - Where is the Gaia?????

Datsaxguy

That's a good question. One of the Gaia mouthpieces has gone MIA, and despite repeated phone calls, private messages, and emails, I can't seem to get the involved parties to even contact me back, let alone figure out what's happened to the piece.

We've got a similar situation with one of the tenor Kali mouthpieces right now. . . .

I know that delays and foggy schedules are par for the course, but this seems to be a step up.

Not defending a possible thief, but the potential for honest problems to develop is great. Consider: I submit my name for a passaround, 3-6 months later my turn comes up, and in the meantime I've moved/died/left the forum/gone on the road/whatever. I assume with a $700 mouthpiece that Spooner is contacting the next party right before the mouthpiece is sent to them. If that's happening and the mouthpiece is then disappearing with no word from the intended recipient, then I would say it's time to out the recipient here and/or contact their local police office. Though come to think of it, how ironclad is the sender's proof of mailing in a case like this?

FWIW, I recently backed out of the passarounds I had signed up for because I don't want to risk getting caught up in an ugly situation not of my making.

[CraigH]

There are many good thoughts in this thread.

I agree that it is a good idea to post the list of participants.

I would also suggest keeping the number involved in any passaround relatively low, maybe 5 to 7 members. This would make it easier to track where the piece is and keep things efficient.

Of course, as others have mentioned, ultimately it's up to the vendor.

FWIW, I think these passarounds are/can be very valuable.

[gary]

I just want to add something. The pass-arounds are not an official forum activity, they are something going on between (usually) a merchant and forum members. It's up to that merchant to set the guidlines. I'm not suggesting that forum members can't squeeze someone holding onto one of the items or the merchant publicly outing that person if a forum member makes off with an item, but ultimately, it's among you guys who are involved in this activity and that merchant.

[LampLight]

I think a public list is likely to be the most effective practical measure. I was also thinking that the forum might set guidelines to shield vendors from the awkward situations of refusing a new or untested member (thereby alienating a potential customer). Even though the pass-arounds are not an official forum activity, they are still a forum activity, and there is ample precedent for restricting and setting standards for activity that occurs on the forum.

[Stan]

... since pieces are never the same...



This is the real reason a pass around has no sense... every mouthpiece is different. The best pass around policy is the trial policy many vendors offer. This is just my personal opinion of course.

All the best,

Stan

[CraigH]

... since pieces are never the same...



This is the real reason a pass around has no sense... every mouthpiece is different. The best pass around policy is the trial policy many vendors offer. This is just my personal opinion of course.

All the best,

Stan

Your point is well taken. Not only is every mouthpiece different, but each individual doing the play testing is unique! However, I think we can still learn about the general character of a model or line of mouthpieces from the reviews that are written.

[Spooner]

LampLight--First off, let me say that I really appreciate your concern and effort in starting a discussion about this.

It is an issue...I'm in a bit of a quandary right now.

The Kali pass around got stalled, but that individual has been in contact with me and is taking some steps to track down what happened to the piece (he has been difficult to get in contact with, but very responsive and is at least taking some responsibility and is trying to make things right).

The individual involved with the stall in the Gaia pass around I've made numerous attempts to contact (4 voice mails, 5 emails, 4 private messages) and I know that he's at least gotten the private messages because I can see that he's been on SOTW virtually every day. I'm about ready to call it quits on this particular fellow, but I don't know if "outing" him on the forum will do anything but turn into a big soap opera and drag Theo's name in the mud as collateral damage.

The rules that have been proposed here about a minimum of 250 or more posts are good and can help mitigate things, but they would not have solved this particular problem either. This person has more than 250 posts (although he hasn't been a member for a full year).

I like the idea of making the list order public from the beginning. That gives some visibility to everyone in the community and gives some more accountability to those involved. I think that's something that I can implement soon.

Ultimately, this is not anything that SOTW has any direct involvement in, other than providing the venue. I think that it probably should be up to the vendor to set the rules and requirements for participation. If they are clear from the beginning, then there should be no reason for someone who would want to participate but can't (because of afore mentioned requirements) to take it personally. I am hesitant to ask the forum administrators to police this kind of thing, just because it's not really their responsibility in my mind, and they already do quite a lot to make this a great resource for sax players.

In the end, it's the vendor that is sending their wares out for people to try, with the understanding that they are taking on the risk of not seeing those items again.

It is really disappointing to have this happen.

I will post lists on each of the respective threads for the pass around order soon (using SOTW user names only--privacy must be respected) and maybe we can get things back on track, perhaps even flowing a little better than before.

Sorry for the long post, just wanted to say what was on my mind.

--thanks everyone.
Matt

[gary]

The individual involved with the stall in the Gaia pass around I've made numerous attempts to contact (4 voice mails, 5 emails, 4 private messages) and I know that he's at least gotten the private messages because I can see that he's been on SOTW virtually every day. I'm about ready to call it quits on this particular fellow, but I don't know if "outing" him on the forum will do anything but turn into a big soap opera

Well, here is one example where the forum readership should be informed, to save them grief in the future if they want to have any buyer/seller transactions with this individual.

If someone flat out steals an item and the merchant (for want of a better word) who was taken advantage of does not inform the forum, in a sense that merchant shares responsibility if someone else gets screwed also.

[Dr G]

The individual involved with the stall in the Gaia pass around I've made numerous attempts to contact (4 voice mails, 5 emails, 4 private messages) and I know that he's at least gotten the private messages because I can see that he's been on SOTW virtually every day. I'm about ready to call it quits on this particular fellow, but I don't know if "outing" him on the forum will do anything but turn into a big soap opera and drag Theo's name in the mud as collateral damage.

Matt, I'd be interested to learn who this is as I am coordinating a pass around as well.

Let's go to PM space to avoid "issues".

Thanks.

[gary]

Matt, I'd be interested to learn who this is as I am coordinating a pass around as well. Let's go to PM space to avoid "issues".

Well, this is one of those rare instances where I differ from my esteemed colleague. Even though these kinds of things can get messy, I don't think this is the kind of info that should be kept secret.

My sense of ethics say that if I keep information from others that might prevent their having something stolen from them, if something later is stolen, I share the responsibility for their loss.

[J.Max]

Personally, I think everything about a pass-around should be up to a vendor. There's no reason for SOTW to set up a system of rules (like in the marketplace) because the marketplace rules are there to protect people from getting ripped off by unscrupulous sellers. Since there is no money being charged here, there is no reason for SOTW to get involved. If a vendor wants to ship a pass-around mouthpiece to someone with under 250 posts, that's their issue, not SOTW's.

Now, if someone fails to pass around a piece, and steals the piece, the vendor knows exactly who it is and should post their information to prevent it from happening to other vendors. That's different.

Honestly, I've been on both sides of a pass-around, and if you're a vendor, you are doing so at your own risk, and you should know that.

It's not really different, is it? A ripped off buyer can post the seller's name, too, but in either scenario someone is getting taken for a chunk of money that they are very unlikely to get back.


It is and it isn't. The marketplace is set up by SOTW, it's part of the forum, and therefore, there should be rules applied (just as eBay or any other trading forum would enforce). With a pass-around, you're dealing directly with a vendor, so it's at their own risk.

There are also a few other differences. It is unlikely that a pass-around would be done on a vintage mouthpiece, or some other irreplacable item. Also, while it is possible that the vendor could get ripped off, you're talking at most a few hundred dollars (not that this is right, but I'm looking at scale here), as opposed to thousands in the marketplace. A vendor has to realize that this is part of the risk to get the word out on the mouthpiece.

One last thing, I HOPE that the vendors aren't turning around and reselling (at full price) a mouthpiece that has been passed around. If it's been used by 12 different people and shipped all over the world, it's probably NOT something that should be sold as new. Again, that's up to the individual vendor...and if someone wants to buy that specific piece, it's a different story...but it seems a little fishy to sell a well-traveled piece as "new".

[Spooner]

Gary,

I agree with you and plan to take action soon (one that will involve legal authorities as well as SOTW).

The situation is a little more complicated (my actions might affect a third party and I'm waiting to hear back from them before doing anything).

I do agree that this needs some light shed on it and that will happen one way or another very soon.

[LampLight]

First, I'm real sorry for Spooner and Theo. There are no great options when things get to this point.

Second, sometimes I don't seem to get my point across but FWIW: I am not suggesting the forum do any policing. I just thought that posted guidelines might be a helpful shield to vendors. But this idea appears to be DOA, and that's really okay.

Third, agree with Gary. There is a lot to be said for informing the forum readership. However, I can also understand that in this crazy world of ours, making the name public could have legal repercussions for Spooner and Theo. So publicizing the name may have to go on indefinite hold. Meanwhile, there is still a good reason for the information to be communicated privately to anyone running a pass around.

[LampLight]

... since pieces are never the same...




This is the real reason a pass around has no sense... every mouthpiece is different. The best pass around policy is the trial policy many vendors offer. This is just my personal opinion of course.

All the best,

Stan

Personally, I think it is a good reason to allow participants to buy the pass around piece on the spot and pay priority S&H for its replacement (as I suggested in the OP). We are understandably focused on missing mouthpieces, so this aspect of pass arounds has not been discussed.

It's true that vendors can set rules, but would like to see this aspect discussed at greater length for one reason: I have been in contact with a vendor who would like to hear how the membership feels about it.

[gary]

Gary,

I agree with you and plan to take action soon (one that will involve legal authorities as well as SOTW).

The situation is a little more complicated (my actions might affect a third party and I'm waiting to hear back from them before doing anything).

I do agree that this needs some light shed on it and that will happen one way or another very soon.

...at your descretion. You're one of the good guys. ;)