Conflict of Interest

[SkidMarx]

Knappster,
Correct me if I'm wrong her, but don't you own this site?

[hoaxci5]

Knappster,
Correct me if I'm wrong her, but don't you own this site?

He sure does, so ultimately he can do whatever he wants.. but he's trying to do right by the members and other sponsors. If his members and other sponsors aren't happy the forum won't succeed and grow.

[SkidMarx]

Then I don't see how him being a moderator can be an issue. He will always be the Ultimate Mod.
If the question is whether or not he should exercise his rights or to what extent, that's a bit different.
Knappster already stated he wasn't going to moderate the vendor section. I would think that's enough.
I imagine only competing vendors would really worry about unfairness, but I think they should remember that one of their competitors is allowing them to advertise on his site and they should act accordingly. i.e. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
I'm sure the other Mods will step in if needed.

A note under his UID (whichever one he chooses) that says 'Site Owner' might clear up any questions any of us newbs have.

[cico7]

I imagine only competing vendors would really worry about unfairness, but I think they should remember that one of their competitors is allowing them to advertise on his site and they should act accordingly. i.e. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

The competitors are paying to advertise here, or so i thought. If that is the case, then the site
owner needs to be considerate of how his actions could affect his paying advertisers and how not to offend them.

As far as "owner" goes, that isnt really that important for him to advertise that. is it?

[LWM]

The competitors are paying to advertise here, or so i thought. If that is the case, then the site
owner needs to be considerate of how his actions could affect his paying advertisers and how not to offend them.

Here is a perfect post to show the example of needing two log-ons, I cannot answer this as a vendor because it is a forum business comment, not a Steel Armadillo comment.

Half of the current vendors were given a free sponsorship through December 31, 2011 by the forum owner as a way to promote their businesses and provide sources to forum members, they did NOT pay to be here. Those choosing to pay for a sponsorship will remain after that date, all others will be removed (like any other forum would do).

Any vendor that is removed will be for lack or payment NOT because they are competitors, I know one competitor has indicated desire to purchase and stay on and we will see how that works out in 30 days.

Other Vendors have already paid their 2012 fees and will remain through the lenght of their aggreement with the forum owner.

[SkidMarx]

The competitors are paying to advertise here, or so i thought. If that is the case, then the site
owner needs to be considerate of how his actions could affect his paying advertisers and how not to offend them.

As far as "owner" goes, that isnt really that important for him to advertise that. is it?

True, but If that was really a problem, I doubt we would be here having this discussion.
Being identified as the owner is just a full disclosure thing. Not really important, but I think it might help.

Here is a perfect post to show the example of needing two log-ons, I cannot answer this as a vendor because it is a forum business comment, not a Steel Armadillo comment.

I prefer your Knappster ID anyway. Is it safe to assume you inform potential vendors that you are also a vendor?
If it's all out in the open then there shouldn't be an issue.

[cico7]

I dont disagree with you. When I made that comment, I was thinking in terms of an individual, not as vendor.
If this were only about Jon being a moderator and the owner, I dont think it is extremely important to know he is the owner.
As an advertiser/sponsor I agree 100%. In the words of a man I detest body and soul, I did learn 1 thing from him: Full disclosure or **** em

True, but If that was really a problem, I doubt we would be here having this discussion.
Being identified as the owner is just a full disclosure thing. Not really important, but I think it might help.
I prefer your Knappster ID anyway. Is it safe to assume you inform potential vendors that you are also a vendor?
If it's all out in the open then there shouldn't be an issue.

[cico7]

As far as "owner" goes, that isnt really that important for him to advertise that. is it?

I got carried away with "that". I am saying it is not really important for Jon to advertise he is the owner. Better?