Proposed Forum Guidelines & Hopes for MAC Representation

[jamesw]

Hi Folks,

The last few weeks, I have seen a number of requests for MAC representation in this forum. I would like to take a few minutes to discuss this, and I fervently hope that everyone can remain civil and rational for this discussion.

First some history:

Last year, we had an official MAC director (John Brandt, Hobbyist representative) who posted here answering questions, and going to the MAC board when he didn't have immediate answers). Upon the resignation of our moderator, we asked John to moderate the Industry Forum.

In hindsight, I consider this a mistake on the part of reefs.org and I would like to apologize to the group and take personal responsibility for the mistake. By definition, a moderator is supposed to be moderate, not take a position, and try to ensure that discussion of "hot topics" remains civil and productive. Obviously, this was a contradiction because it meant that John could not be a moderator and a MAC representative at the same time. So our decision to nominate John as a moderator effectively terminated his position as a MAC Representative here. Again, a mistake on my part and I apologize.

Discussions became extremely personal and I think that we can all agree that during that time, the forum was largely unproductive, because literally ALL that was discussed was MAC and a large portion of the posts made were personal in nature.

We re-organized and now I think the forum is much more well-balanced. But the cost was that we as a forum drove our MAC representative away. I take as much responsibility for this as anyone, and I would ask all of you to reflect for a moment, and take some of the responsibility for the fact that MAC no longer participates in the Industry Forum.

So how to move forward from here? Just like all of you, I think this is a valuable forum, and I think the hobby would benefit from having a MAC representative here to answer questions, ask questions, and foster discussion and learning (what reefs.org is here for). However, unless some changes are made, it is clear that this will not happen.

So, again, how to move forward from here? I think we need an agreement, a covenant if you will, between a select few posters here, and MAC. With that agreed upon, I would humbly suggest and invite MAC to participate here again.

I will leave it up to the forum to put forth some suggestions as to what this agreement will be, and after some discussions, I will make some suggestions of my own. At no time do we (reefs.org) intend to EVER ramrod anything like this down anyone's throat. Remember, this is just a suggestion, and ultimately, we will do what the forum participants agree is the right course of action.

This is just my opinion as a member here, having been a member of reefs.org since 1997 and an aquarium hobbyist for over decade.

Sincerely,
James Wiseman

 

[Ad van Tage]

Hi Folks,

The last few weeks, I have seen a number of requests for MAC representation in this forum.
.................................................................................

Sincerely,
James Wiseman

Excellent post James. You have hit the nail on the head.
Will get back later, after I get a bit more time.
First gotta go and shovel more snow.

 

[dizzy]

Rule #1. No spinning allowed. All questions should be answered honestly and in a straightforward manner.

 

[dizzy]

In light of all the hard feelings that got aired when John was mod, I think it might be better if MAC offered up some new blood so to speak. It really isn't fair to John to be put in that lonely spot again. If he can find the time I think David Vosseler would be a good choice for the job. I would also like to see if we can get one of the original MAC certified dealers to come here and make themselves available to anwer a few questions as well. I mean who is better qualified to answer some of our questions than someone who has seen the benefits of MAC certification first hand.

 

[JennM]

Hmmm.... so what will be expected of we "loonies" ?

Except during some heated moments, the vast majority of the postings I saw directed toward MAC have always been clear, concise and impersonal. I contend that any time it did get personal was because of past history, or "guilt by association" with past history.

I won't lay blame - but the personality conflicts often went both ways between debating parties. However, I've seen attempts at productive conversation go on ad infinitum *before* things degraded, and things usually only degraded when brick walls were hit.

I'm can only speak for myself here. While I am sure that I can keep within the rules of decorum (I did when by business and I were being attacked before, and chose to report problems to the moderators, rather than get into a p*ssing match on the board), I'm not sure that I can keep my questions to the benign. If MAC is willing to put somebody out here, I intend to ask my questions, my hard questions, politely, and expect polite and concise answers. Double-talk and sidestepping will be further questioned, politely and concisely.

For my part I can promise to be polite, but I'm not going to blindly put up and shut up.

I don't think a public presence of a MAC rep should stifle any of the productive discussion or constructive criticism.

Respectfully,

Jenn

 

[Chucker]

Rule #1. No spinning allowed. All questions should be answered honestly and in a straightforward manner.

Rule #2 - Rule #1 also applies when asking questions.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think MAC is in any position to answer any questions. My two cents is that everyone jumped the gun. MAC made themselves look like they had accomplished more than they had, partly as a PR spin move and partly as a way to keep the funding coming in. Dunno if that was a good or bad move yet as we will have to wait till it all plays out. They are still in such a stage of infancy that I don't really see how anyone can expect anything of them at this point. They aren't a government sponsored org, so no one is giving them the authority to tell you what to do, and in order for the concept to work (on a "volunteer reform" basis) they are going to have to get the majority of the retailers to coerce (through competition) the unwilling. They are a long way from that. And there are many hoops for them to jump through before that even becomes a possibility, and we are giving them new hoops here every day that they probably haven't even considered yet (which is a good thing in my opinion). But I don't see what the big rush is to demand all the answers from somebody right this second. They don't even have fish yet. They don't even have a product to market. It's all ideas and speculation. I think a big part of the problem is the fact that we all want MAC to solve all the problems so badly, that we were so let down when they didn't have everything put together the instant we demanded it. At best thay are simply taking longer than anticipated to get on track, to trouble shoot all of the issues, and to line up all of their ducks. If this is the case then all of our questions will be anwered in due time. At worst they are a bunch of power hungry liars simply out to make a buck off grant money, while greenwashing an industry. If this is the case the facts and info will come to light, (through this forum, hopefully), and they will ultimately fail.

In either case, MAC doesn't have the authority to tell anyonme what to do, and they aren't trying to. They don't owe anyone any explanations or any answers at this point. True, the silence may be hurting their cause in the long run, but that's their call to make. They aren't in any position of authority and as such don't really owe us the time of day. We are simply potential clients and they can take us or leave us. I am sure they currently have their hands full just trying to deal with the few people who are fighting to get on board first, to spend any effort actually convincing people that it's a sound idea who aren't already convinced. When that supply runs out and they move to start making MAC certification the nationwide program they are planning on, suddenly they will need the straddlers and even the nay sayers and my guess is that's when answers, responses, and replies will come forth.

In the mean time everyone needs to slow down and stop expecting a fledgling organization to solve the problems of an entire industry that spans so much territory. It might work and it might not, but shooting the hat off their head everytime they poke it out of the foxhole for not having exactly the right answer the very first time isn't helping anyone.

Just file them away with the Green Party and the Libertarians, as groups with noble goals who are still struggling to get the kinks out of their message to appeal to the mainstream, compromises all around.....

 

[JennM]

Glenn, you are such a diplomat

Nobody is arguing that MAC needs time to get all their ducks in a row. I think the biggest source of ire here is that MAC is selling certifications, advertising to beat the band, and plowing full steam ahead, without having their ducks in a row.

I for one, would like to see the infrastructure IN PLACE and working, the supply chain up and running BEFORE trying to sell the general public on it.

I'd like to see MAC working WITH industry critics and supporters alike, not tuning out what they don't seem to want to hear. After all, we're in the business, yes we're potential clients -- in my experience, businesses who don't listen to their clients don't last very long.

I'm not sure how long is long enough for MAC to get their act together, but it seems that all the money spent on advertising would have been better spent on CAMPs or nets or trainings, yes?

I am left with the *impression* that MAC consists of a bunch of well-paid suits, who really think a lot of themselves and the outfit they are running, and don't give a tinker's damn about the reality of the trade today, and the people in it. I really REALLY want to be wrong. I really want to be wrong... but in the last year or so, I have not seen anything to dispell that idea.

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh - it is harsh, but after the lack of forward motion in the last year, except for the glossy ads, telling unsuspecting hobbyists to demand net-caught fishes that come with a MAC sticker... I just walk away shaking my head.

I'm not standing around waiting for MAC to save the industry, but at the very least I expect us all to be working in the same direction. I'm doing my part.

Jenn

 

[Anonymous]

They don't owe anyone any explanations or any answers at this point.

Nope, sorry, you couldn't be more wrong. MAC was given money to do a job by FUNDERS --- THEY OWE THEIR FUNDERS EXPLANATIONS. Those who funded the funders are also in the right to know where and what was done with the charity money.

Your basicly saying that if I give money to starving children in Africa NGO and they never show ANY progress with feeding ANY of the starving children, I don't have a right to ask no do the owe me ANY explanations as to where the monies went?

MAC is a non-profit by IRS definition. They aren't a private business, YET. They recieve grants to do certian jobs, and are expected by the funders to COMPLETE those jobs.

I gave to the Packards, I'm a funders funder. I'm owed an explanation. I'll let Blue Hula make my questions for them.

 

[Anonymous]

I also gave to the WWF, so basicly I'm funding two of their funders.

 

[Anonymous]

Glenn, you are such a diplomat

Dunno if that's good or bad.

Nobody is arguing that MAC needs time to get all their ducks in a row. I think the biggest source of ire here is that MAC is selling certifications, advertising to beat the band, and plowing full steam ahead, without having their ducks in a row.

I don't really think they are selling that many certifications, and their advertising has been somewhat minimal, (heck if only 1-2% of "hobbyists" read the boards and only half of them know who and what MAC might be.....)

I for one, would like to see the infrastructure IN PLACE and working, the supply chain up and running BEFORE trying to sell the general public on it.

I'd like to see MAC working WITH industry critics and supporters alike, not tuning out what they don't seem to want to hear. After all, we're in the business, yes we're potential clients -- in my experience, businesses who don't listen to their clients don't last very long.

Agreed. But's it's not our organization. We can only take it or leave it.

I'm not sure how long is long enough for MAC to get their act together, but it seems that all the money spent on advertising would have been better spent on CAMPs or nets or trainings, yes?

But we are all making assumptions based on very little actual information. (Granted it's their own fault for maintaing the deafening silence) How they spend their money is the concern of their backers not ours. We can only agree or disagree.

I am left with the *impression* that MAC consists of a bunch of well-paid suits, who really think a lot of themselves and the outfit they are running, and don't give a tinker's damn about the reality of the trade today, and the people in it. I really REALLY want to be wrong. I really want to be wrong... but in the last year or so, I have not seen anything to dispell that idea.

This is hardly the industry to build a fortune with. We all know that. And I don't see too many other people/companies/organizations fighting over doing what they want to do, which is the opposite of what one would expect when there is money to be made. And I you could hardly call what they are doing "running an outfit".

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh - it is harsh, but after the lack of forward motion in the last year, except for the glossy ads, telling unsuspecting hobbyists to demand net-caught fishes that come with a MAC sticker... I just walk away shaking my head.

No need to apologize. Truth is, this ain't gonna be esy no matter how you slice it. For anybody. But the hobbyist are the ones to be coddled at this point, not us.

I'm not standing around waiting for MAC to save the industry, but at the very least I expect us all to be working in the same direction. I'm doing my part.

'Tis all that can be expected. [/quote]

 

[Anonymous]

Nope, sorry, you couldn't be more wrong. MAC was given money to do a job by FUNDERS --- THEY OWE THEIR FUNDERS EXPLANATIONS. Those who funded the funders are also in the right to know where and what was done with the charity money.

My apologies for the use of such sloppy language. By anyone and everyone I specifically meant the regular participants here. You are correct, they do owe their funders explanations. But I hardly expect their funders to come to this board to get their answers. And the fact that their funding is still continueing I think says something about whether or not their funders are getting the answers they want. Either that or maybe you should stop funding the funders for poor money management.

MAC is a non-profit by IRS definition. They aren't a private business, YET. They recieve grants to do certian jobs, and are expected by the funders to COMPLETE those jobs.

Again, all issues for their funders to deal with. It is the funders decision as to whether or not satisfactory progress has been made in regards to their grant money.

I gave to the Packards, I'm a funders funder. I'm owed an explanation. I'll let Blue Hula make my questions for them

I'd say you have every right to give the Packards a call and ask them any question you want about what they have done with your contribution. Free country and all. I don't think that donating to the Packards gives MAC any obligations to you though.

 

[JennM]

It's good that you're a diplomat You have far more patience than I do.

MAC rode the "Nemo" wave... enlisting the young man who was the voice of Nemo as the spokesman, handing out literature at the premiere... kudos for the "Nemo Care" literature - that was a tangible positive, but they forged ahead telling people to demand MAC-certified livestock etc.

FAMA is widely read - I don't know what their current circulation is, but I get a heck of a lot of business from my little ad...

No it's not our organization, but the perceived notion is to make it fashionable to sell certified livestock - it's being promoted as a competitive edge. Store A is better than store B because Store A sells MAC certified livestock...

Am I wrong to assume that at some point the idea is to have the majority of dealers on board? It would be out of step to not be certified... that's the impression I was given. All this would stem from hobbyist demand for certified specimens.

I know and you know that the vast majority of hobbyists don't join any sort of club or organization, and they rely primarily on their LFS for information, so it's unlikely that hobbyist demand will drive the trend to certify.

So what to do? Just shrug MAC off and hope it will go away?

I personally don't think that not being a part of the MAC bandwagon will hurt my business at all. I guess I'm just irritated that so much money is going to accomplish so little. That's the business-woman in me.

Jenn

 

[mkirda]

Wouldn't this just be "The Golden Rule"?

Do onto others as you would have them do onto you?

Many people in this forum have gone overboard- by which I mean that they have taken the discussion of ideas and turned it into a discussion of personalities instead. John is guilty of this. So is Peter, Mary, Steve, as well as a number of others, and probably even myself to a certain degree.

If there are to be rules, then #1 should be to stop the personal attacks all around.

Stick to the discussion of the ideas, of the facts, think things through and have something positive and/or constructive to post. Criticism need not be framed in ascerbic terms. Use logic in your arguments, not emotion. Treat the person with respect, and expect the same in return.

Vitz, your view of John is a caricature that doesn't fit the man. He doesn't agree with everything MAC has done, and has voiced that in this forum. While I don't agree with him on every point, I will say with utter conviction that he is not the complete yes-man that you think he is.

Anyway, those would be my version of the rules, which is how I try to live my life anyway.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[JennM]

I totally agree with the Golden Rule notion.

I'm sure most, if not all, do too.

So bring it on!

Jenn

 

[MaryHM]

Rover,

With all due respect, I think that you as a retailer with absolutely no certified MAC "competition" in your area have a different outlook on this as others of us. I have MAC certifying my competition (other importer/wholesalers). When they are at your doorstep certifying your competition with their false claims, then you may feel differently.

Concerning personal attacks, I admit that I have pointed out flaws as I perceive them with the person Paul Holthus. I never attacked the person John Brandt until he repeatedly and venomously attacked both me and my business. I just want that to be made clear. Mr. Brandt was responsible for a massive amount of the personal attacks that caused this forum to deteriorate for a few months. Whoever MAC sends in here better not come in with a chip on his shoulder, or it's gonna get knocked off. I know I won't put up with the personal crap I put up with in the past from anyone in here again. All we want is for someone to give answers to some serious questions. And if they don't have the answers and intend to try to pull the wool over our eyes again (remember that CDT memo??), then they need to stay out. Either come in and give straight answers or give "We don't know" answers. Don't come in and misrepresent the facts, cuz it's gonna come out in the wash.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey.. I'm a Libertarian.. :| (And yes, there are many times when answering questions is like having one put through the wringer.. but I do my best.)

 

[jamesw]

Hi Folks,

Let's please try to keep this sticky post on topic. Remember, this is a "poll the members" thread, that will remain stuck at the top for some time, not a "normal" discussion.

So please try to refrain from discussing the merits of MAC, their goals, the industry in general, economics, etc.

What I am interested in here is some suggested guidelines that will make this forum a more attractive place for everyone. I'm not saying that if we adopt some guidelines, that MAC will come back and have some representation here, because I can't speak for them. But I'd like to at least make it attractive. I think some agreed guidelines would help.

Sincerely,
James Wiseman

 

[Anonymous]

With all due respect, I think that you as a retailer with absolutely no certified MAC "competition" in your area have a different outlook on this as others of us. I have MAC certifying my competition (other importer/wholesalers). When they are at your doorstep certifying your competition with their false claims, then you may feel differently.

You are probably right. Have you lost much business because of them? Do you expect to even if they don't come through with what they claim? As a customer of several of the various wholesalers, I've never heard any of them use MAC certification as a way to get more of my business, and like most retailers I continue to use the quality of the product as the main criteria for where my dollars go. Likewise I would expect most hobbyist to do the same. "Highest quality animal for the lowest price" blah blah blah. As long as I can continue to provide that for customers I really don't think it will matter. Certificate or no certificate.

Either come in and give straight answers or give "We don't know" answers. Don't come in and misrepresent the facts, cuz it's gonna come out in the wash.

Agreed. But you guys have to be prepared to recieve "We don't know" as a valid answer. As is, it seems as though any admission of uncertainty validates all of the negativity that has been thrown around. Any appearance of retreat or reconsideration will be taken as the sign they they don't know what they are doing after all.

Bottom line is we know very little about MAC's daily operations, goals, set backs and triumphs, and pretty much everything that gets put forth here is opinion and specualtion.

 

[MaryHM]

I highly doubt I have lost any business to them at this point, because they're just now pushing certification with a vengance. It's the future I'm concerned about. I'm also highly concerned about an organzation coming in and creating an illusion of reform- THAT is the real problem here. Once an illusion of reform is created, who has an incentive to create real reform? No one. And that would be a crying shame. Best to deal with the problem now, while it is still fixable, than to let this train get up to full steam and then try to stop it for repairs.

MAC has never given us a "We don't know the answer to your question, but we're working on it" response. Never. It's always some shade of gray answer or an out and out answer that ends up being a farce.