Conflict of Interest

[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.

[ScorpionCrawler]

I have been following along as this thread has developed and I have tried to put myself into the various postions of all parties.
My first thought has to be how much potential financial impact this has to the owner of the site.
Sponsorship 1yr $100, 5yr $500, 25yr $1500.

Sponsorship companys that make similar products to SA would be the only ones affected.
If I was a competing vendor, of the similiar product, I would first be looking at how quick of a return I could get on the sponsorship investment, how much product would be sold from being on this site, and or how much would have to be sold to pay for the sponsorship?
I don't know the markup on armor or the like so how many sets of rock rails does that equate to?

Next, what would be the ramifications of being a sponsor?
Would SA bash my product, unjustly?
I think that threat has been eliminated with the moderators not being SA or knapster.
Anyone can really bash anything, so that threat will always exist, but the conflict would be if it came from SA.
So is sponsorship worth the risk of being bashed???? Only the sponsor could make that decision.

For me the bigger sponsor decision would be the return on sponsorship dollars.
With a few assurances from SA and or the site owner I would make that comittment.
To me it is clear that this is the BEST site for our platform and would be a great place to be a sponsor.

As far as knapster is concerend what is the sponsorship money really worth to him?
How many armor companys are really potential sponsors?
And what is that worth.
Is the value of other armor companys sponsorship worth more?

I don't know Jon personally other than reading his posts for many yrs at the other site and here and the few pms between us.
But the way I see it he has a huge passion for Jeep and his XK.
His comittment to developing the best Jeep formum out there is evident.
His comittment to developing products for us goes way back to the center console storage compartment lock.
The sponsorship part of it only adds to aid in making this site the best.
I haven't witnessed anything from Jon contrary to the good he is doing for the brand, forum wise or product wise.

Jon, having started this discussion also proves his comittment to other sponsors.

[Matt]

Sort of on the contrary to what you just said.... being a sponsor here doesn't subject you to criticism; we're allowed to critique companies whether they're sponsors or not. Being a sponsor here would ENABLE a company to respond to that criticism and backup their products.

Some of the best discussions I've seen on this forum have been when multiple vendors are intermingled in the discussion with the members. Us, the consumers, have learned a lot about the product design methodology with this which helps us, as consumers, select which products we want to spend our money on.

In the very limited WK/XK market that exists today, this forum is definitely one of the top (arguably the best) platform to get your products out there. $.02

[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?