How should organizers handle people not honouring their committments in exchanges?

[gr82bart]

So, tell us what you think?

Regards, Art.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

For those for whom it's a big issue, my suggestion posted in another thread (how many new threads do we need on this topic?) is to create a kind of secure exchange, where the organizer collects the prints and redistributes them. That way everyone who sends a print gets a print, and those who don't send prints get nothing. The downside is more shipping (and everyone would probably have to make a small contribution for mailing costs), but the attraction is more security, and it's less administration than the debt collection approach.

And for the rest of us, for whom the current exchanges seem to be working, we can continue participating in the existing exchanges, recognizing the possibility that return is not going to be 100%.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I say establish a rules set before the start of an exchange - make the rule set transparent and open, with benefits (continuing participation, receiving prints) and consequences (certain APUG priviledges suspended until compliance is verified). Failure to comply would be determined by some set criteria - IE failing to reply to a series of three consecutive messages over a period of three months, or providing a lame excuse (my dog ate the prints... for the third time, I lost the address, etc). Have some kind of three-strikes-and-you're-out deal - someone can legitimately fail to deliver in one exchange, but be allowed to continue participating. A second failure puts them on probation, and a third failure means permanent ban.
I don't think making a public blacklist is necessary, but having a publicly posted policy on how one gets on the blacklist, and the steps required to get off the blacklist, would go a long way to remedying the problem.
I'd also be in favor of creating a set of rules for sending poorly made prints, but that's so subjective a judgement call that I wouldn't want to be the one who has to do it. Someone could send a bad print, then claim (perhaps legitimately, perhaps not) that they are a novice and don't know any better. If you set up a grading system of novice to expert, how do you decide when someone is no longer a novice, versus a lazy slacker, versus just an incompetent printer?

 

[arigram]

chop off their genitals and feed their kidneys to wild turkeys.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I'd also be in favor of creating a set of rules for sending poorly made prints, but that's so subjective a judgement call that I wouldn't want to be the one who has to do it. Someone could send a bad print, then claim (perhaps legitimately, perhaps not) that they are a novice and don't know any better. If you set up a grading system of novice to expert, how do you decide when someone is no longer a novice, versus a lazy slacker, versus just an incompetent printer?

I'd rather leave the issue of print quality unregulated. No one wants to send out bad work, but not everyone recognizes good work, and that's a big part of the attraction of these exchanges--everyone gets to see what other people are really doing, and it raises the bar without having to add any new rules or official judging procedure. I've certainly seen this happen with the Traveling Portfolio. Sometimes it slows the portfolio down, because people decide that their planned contribution doesn't measure up, but if it sends them back to the darkroom for another week or two to make a better print than they've made before, then it's worth it, I think.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'd rather leave the issue of print quality unregulated. No one wants to send out bad work, but not everyone recognizes good work, and that's a big part of the attraction of these exchanges--everyone gets to see what other people are really doing, and it raises the bar without having to add any new rules or official judging procedure. I've certainly seen this happen with the Traveling Portfolio. Sometimes it slows the portfolio down, because people decide that their planned contribution doesn't measure up, but if it sends them back to the darkroom for another week or two to make a better print than they've made before, then it's worth it, I think.

I agree- I don't think it is something you can successfully regulate, because A: some folks just aren't up skillwise yet
B: what one person considers sub-par, 99 others might well say is excellent
C: the ne'er-do-wells who intentionally contribute poor prints (when we know they are capable of much better) will always find an excuse or claim ignorance.

You'd have far too many peoples' toes stepped on with some kind of quality regulation and prevent those lower on the learning curve from accessing the exchange. I just think it would be unfair for someone with 20 + years of darkroom experience and a gallery exhibition resume (for example) to get away with sending out poorly exposed, sloppily processed prints that needed spotting, regardless of the intended recipient. I just wouldn't want to have to be the policeman to make that call.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

I'd listen to David, a well modulated voice of reason.

 

[gr82bart]

I'd listen to David, a well modulated voice of reason.

Then YOU organize it.

Art.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

Then YOU organize it.

Art.

Leave it alone Art.

 

[gr82bart]

Leave it alone Art.

Knowing before writing would be a good first step. Participating would be nice too.

Just a thought.

Art.

 

[avandesande]

I don't think this is necessary. Just set up a deadline, and if you don't meet the deadline than the person you are sending to will get paired with someone else who got stifffed.

For those for whom it's a big issue, my suggestion posted in another thread (how many new threads do we need on this topic?) is to create a kind of secure exchange, where the organizer collects the prints and redistributes them. That way everyone who sends a print gets a print, and those who don't send prints get nothing. The downside is more shipping (and everyone would probably have to make a small contribution for mailing costs), but the attraction is more security, and it's less administration than the debt collection approach.

And for the rest of us, for whom the current exchanges seem to be working, we can continue participating in the existing exchanges, recognizing the possibility that return is not going to be 100%.