Limited Supply Resources

[Cal]

Allow sellers to sell resources with a known, predetermined quantity.
Sellers will not be allowed to list this resource again once the predetermined quantity has sold out anywhere and can be punished if proven to be selling past the given quantity.

After the listing has sold out, the resource page is archived, and removed from the resources page.

This would allow for exclusive products like builds, server banners and setups to command higher prices because they will only be sold X number of times, and buyers would gain a product with similar benefits to individual products, but spend significantly less.

Additionally, individual products can be sold. Like logo packages, builds, and individualized setups via the resources system.

 

[nether1]

Or instead of deleting, just remove the purchase button. This will serve as evidence that the resource existed, incase of SR.

 

[Mick]

The concern with this is that allowing exclusive products to be sold through our resource manager is the time that it takes for our resource moderators to go through each resource to check that it meets our rules and minimum standards. If we allowed for exclusive items to be sold through our resource manager, that means we would have to complete the exact same checks for them which would significantly increase the workload of our resource moderators for only a single person to purchase it.

 

[nether1]

The concern with this is that allowing exclusive products to be sold through our resource manager is the time that it takes for our resource moderators to go through each resource to check that it meets our rules and minimum standards. If we allowed for exclusive items to be sold through our resource manager, that means we would have to complete the exact same checks for them which would significantly increase the workload of our resource moderators for only a single person to purchase it.

Maybe add an exemption to a single purchase resource. And he was talking about semi-exclusive resources, where the resource will be automatically deleted after a certain amount of purchases.

Sellers will not be allowed to list this resource again once the predetermined quantity has sold out

 

[TBK]

Or...

Top of the description say "This resource will only be sold 10 times" after 10 sales remove it..

 

[Cal]

The concern with this is that allowing exclusive products to be sold through our resource manager is the time that it takes for our resource moderators to go through each resource to check that it meets our rules and minimum standards. If we allowed for exclusive items to be sold through our resource manager, that means we would have to complete the exact same checks for them which would significantly increase the workload of our resource moderators for only a single person to purchase it.

There are many resources on the first page with 0-3 purchases that have been listed for months, so it's not uncommon for the same workload to go towards a similar result.

One thing I've noticed is that the site clearly wants to move towards legitimizing itself, as characterized by the proposal to remove the accounts forum, the new verified hosts forum and the push against piracy. Increasing the share of the site that is actively moderated will help move the site away from some of the ethically questionable aspects and discourage these practices the site is working against.

Even if it's still a concern, potentially adding minimum and maximum quantity can be added to limit the number of items added.

 

[Mick]

Justis and Cal what do you think about the idea of us adding limited supply resources as an Ultimate perk?

My initial concern was that us approving resources if they're only going to have a very limited run was that it'd take up a lot more time, and it would also be costly as we pay our staff. If we only allowed Ultimate users to do it and perhaps made it so that you must sell at least 3 copies of a limited supply resource then that could be a good middle ground in my opinion but would love to know everyone's thoughts on this.

 

[Cal]

Justis and Cal what do you think about the idea of us adding limited supply resources as an Ultimate perk?

My initial concern was that us approving resources if they're only going to have a very limited run was that it'd take up a lot more time, and it would also be costly as we pay our staff. If we only allowed Ultimate users to do it and perhaps made it so that you must sell at least 3 copies of a limited supply resource then that could be a good middle ground in my opinion but would love to know everyone's thoughts on this.

It would incentivize subscriptions to Ultimate, but you would need to decide if the purchase quantity restriction is in place in perpetuity from creation or if the resources is removed when a user fails to renew their subscription.

My perception is that the site has a goal of "legitimizing" the business done on platform. By reviewing more products, a great amount of progress will be made towards this goal. I encourage you to consider opening the feature to more users.

 

[Justis]

I’m really not sure how I feel about this. I put off responding so that I’d have some time to mull it over, but the idea still makes me uncomfortable. At the same time, I don’t want to write off giving our resource authors more utilities and freedom.

Firstly, I find the term "partial exclusivity" to be misleading to many people, and so I won’t use it. If it’s not fully exclusive, meaning all rights are sold, then it is non-exclusive. What you’re referring to is most easily understood to be non-exclusive content with limited availability. Often referred to as "limited edition". I will use that term for clarity purposes.

As I’ve already hinted at, my worries are mostly in how creating a feature to enable this very specific type of sale will cause confusion to our buyers and sellers alike, as well as make uncertain where rights to a product lay. The division of rights is a very complex topic. Not just due to the fact that there can be multiple people in possession of various combinations of rights, but also due to the different kinds of rights that exist.
Most commonly including:
- The right to use the product
- The right to create local copies
- The right to redistribute copies
- The right to sell or pass on one’s own rights
- The right to grant additional rights to others
- The right to revoke rights
- etc.

For example, if you are the owner of a product, and you sell a "limited edition" license to use something, then most likely the only rights you are granting them are usage rights, and the right to create local copies. Moreover, you still retain those rights for yourself. So you, as the only true owner, after all of your sales, have not given away any of your rights. However, you are nonetheless still unable to make any additional sales or redistribute it further. This may sound obvious and very simple to understand to some of you, but our scam report history proves that not everyone is on the same page. Many would assume that as long as you are the sole and rightful owner of a product, you have the right to do whatever you want with that product.

One last example I’d like to make is based on an experience I had when handling a scam report on MCM. There was a user who had advertised that he was selling a setup "semi-exclusively", and he claimed to grant all of his buyers full ownership of the product. Based on the fact that I’m using this as an example, you’re probably assuming there’s something wrong with that, but tell me if you actually understand the issue, because there’s nothing inherently wrong with a product having multiple owners. If he’s selling it as "limited edition", but he’s also granting all of his buyers the right to redistribute copies of the product, then he’s either not actually selling it as "limited edition", or he’s not actually granting any of his buyers the rights to redistribute copies. As you’d expect, one of his buyers ended up trying to resell his setup on MCM as was told was his right. A different buyer caught wind and filed a scam report because the product was no longer as exclusive as it was originally advertised to be.

If you did not catch the problem with the agreement immediately then this demonstrates only how easily things get confused when it comes to "limited edition" items. The resource system is intended to make things fast and simple. It eliminates all of the mutual dialog that would normally happen between a buyer and seller, and consequently, it also makes misunderstandings far more commonplace. Currently, all products in our resource system are entirely non-exclusive and unlimited, and yet there are constantly disputes between buyers and sellers over misunderstandings about the rights that were granted as a result of the transaction. These misunderstandings cause losses on both sides, scam reports, and all of the implicit consequences that follow.

Currently, limited edition content is pretty rare on site. When it is done, it’s done by people who generally already know what it is and go into writing their thread with the intention of selling their product as limited edition.

Creating a feature like this to specifically enable limited edition selling would be more or less an advertisement to prospective sellers "Hey, this is an option. It sounds attractive, doesn’t it. Why not click this check box and see how it goes". I’m very afraid of our sellers opting into this without fully understanding the consequences, which after some point, includes never being able to resell their treasured product again.

We have a link to our rules and TOS on every page. We PM links to those pages to all new members. They are the only links seen in the body of the main wiki page when you visit our wiki. All of our community members see users being punished for violating our rules, and yet so many of those members still have not fully read our rules and TOS pages. Many of those who have read it may have only skimmed. Those remaining who have actually read these pages are still likely to forget key details. Lastly, those who remember everything they read on our rules and TOS pages, and have read them fully, may still have misunderstandings without realizing it, and still receive warnings for violating rules that they knew existed, because they had unknowingly interpreted them incorrectly. All this to say, the problem I’m worried about would not be resolved just by creating a notice above the option.

Limiting this option to only ultimate users may severely limit the damage that it can do, especially by restricting it to users who are generally considered the most dedicated. However, it also calls into question exactly how much use it will get, and whether it will be worth creating and maintaining as an option within our resource system.

I’m not against this feature. It’s just, as I said, I’m just not sure I can support it.

 

[Mick]

I’m really not sure how I feel about this. I put off responding so that I’d have some time to mull it over, but the idea still makes me uncomfortable. At the same time, I don’t want to write off giving our resource authors more utilities and freedom.

Firstly, I find the term "partial exclusivity" to be misleading to many people, and so I won’t use it. If it’s not fully exclusive, meaning all rights are sold, then it is non-exclusive. What you’re referring to is most easily understood to be non-exclusive content with limited availability. Often referred to as "limited edition". I will use that term for clarity purposes.

As I’ve already hinted at, my worries are mostly in how creating a feature to enable this very specific type of sale will cause confusion to our buyers and sellers alike, as well as make uncertain where rights to a product lay. The division of rights is a very complex topic. Not just due to the fact that there can be multiple people in possession of various combinations of rights, but also due to the different kinds of rights that exist.
Most commonly including:
- The right to use the product
- The right to create local copies
- The right to redistribute copies
- The right to sell or pass on one’s own rights
- The right to grant additional rights to others
- The right to revoke rights
- etc.

For example, if you are the owner of a product, and you sell a "limited edition" license to use something, then most likely the only rights you are granting them are usage rights, and the right to create local copies. Moreover, you still retain those rights for yourself. So you, as the only true owner, after all of your sales, have not given away any of your rights. However, you are nonetheless still unable to make any additional sales or redistribute it further. This may sound obvious and very simple to understand to some of you, but our scam report history proves that not everyone is on the same page. Many would assume that as long as you are the sole and rightful owner of a product, you have the right to do whatever you want with that product.

One last example I’d like to make is based on an experience I had when handling a scam report on MCM. There was a user who had advertised that he was selling a setup "semi-exclusively", and he claimed to grant all of his buyers full ownership of the product. Based on the fact that I’m using this as an example, you’re probably assuming there’s something wrong with that, but tell me if you actually understand the issue, because there’s nothing inherently wrong with a product having multiple owners. If he’s selling it as "limited edition", but he’s also granting all of his buyers the right to redistribute copies of the product, then he’s either not actually selling it as "limited edition", or he’s not actually granting any of his buyers the rights to redistribute copies. As you’d expect, one of his buyers ended up trying to resell his setup on MCM as was told was his right. A different buyer caught wind and filed a scam report because the product was no longer as exclusive as it was originally advertised to be.

If you did not catch the problem with the agreement immediately then this demonstrates only how easily things get confused when it comes to "limited edition" items. The resource system is intended to make things fast and simple. It eliminates all of the mutual dialog that would normally happen between a buyer and seller, and consequently, it also makes misunderstandings far more commonplace. Currently, all products in our resource system are entirely non-exclusive and unlimited, and yet there are constantly disputes between buyers and sellers over misunderstandings about the rights that were granted as a result of the transaction. These misunderstandings cause losses on both sides, scam reports, and all of the implicit consequences that follow.

Currently, limited edition content is pretty rare on site. When it is done, it’s done by people who generally already know what it is and go into writing their thread with the intention of selling their product as limited edition.

Creating a feature like this to specifically enable limited edition selling would be more or less an advertisement to prospective sellers "Hey, this is an option. It sounds attractive, doesn’t it. Why not click this check box and see how it goes". I’m very afraid of our sellers opting into this without fully understanding the consequences, which after some point, includes never being able to resell their treasured product again.

We have a link to our rules and TOS on every page. We PM links to those pages to all new members. They are the only links seen in the body of the main wiki page when you visit our wiki. All of our community members see users being punished for violating our rules, and yet so many of those members still have not fully read our rules and TOS pages. Many of those who have read it may have only skimmed. Those remaining who have actually read these pages are still likely to forget key details. Lastly, those who remember everything they read on our rules and TOS pages, and have read them fully, may still have misunderstandings without realizing it, and still receive warnings for violating rules that they knew existed, because they had unknowingly interpreted them incorrectly. All this to say, the problem I’m worried about would not be resolved just by creating a notice above the option.

Limiting this option to only ultimate users may severely limit the damage that it can do, especially by restricting it to users who are generally considered the most dedicated. However, it also calls into question exactly how much use it will get, and whether it will be worth creating and maintaining as an option within our resource system.

I’m not against this feature. It’s just, as I said, I’m just not sure I can support it.

All very good points. This idea is something we've been discussing internally quite a bit recently and despite these concerns it is something I would like for us to implement, although not necessarily how it was initially proposed.

We plan to have paid resources be either non-exclusive (unlimited copies) or exclusive (one copy sold with full rights). For example, it will be possible to automatically sell a build that you created and haven't distributed previously to a new owner who will then be able to do anything they want with it (resell it, etc). This opens a new avenue for our authors who want to create products but want money immediately rather than receiving essentially passive income from selling products.

The idea still needs plenty of time to be fleshed out and considered more and won't be coming until at least a few months after our move to XF2, but it is planned.

I'll move this to pending, thanks for the suggestion