Conflict of Interest - How to Handle

S

switched

Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Messages
303
Our American buddies may not be rivetted by this bit, but anyway...

There is this guy here in Au, named Eddie McGuire. He has quite a number of fingers in the media pie in Au. In particular, he calls the AFL (Australian Football). As anyone who knows anything about Au would know, sport has a special significance for Australians - breaking the Americas Cup stronghold, for example, was no accident. Anyway the point is, this applies even MORE, to Au Football (although I prefer Cricket myself). The guy I've mentioned, is ALSO the President of one of the leading clubs in the AFL. Among the games he calls, are those involving HIS club. So as you might expect, there's been a fair amount of discussion, about whether this is proper.

So to relevance here:

As some will know already, I am an Attorney/Lawyer. I know a bit about this subject - conflict - and how it can be handled. It isn't always clear cut and it isn't easy. To be VERY clear, in my assessment Spark presents VERY well in this respect. If anything, my sense is he's inclined to act against his own interest to an extent, with this in mind. Not once have I seen even a shred of inclination towards 1SKS, in what he or the moderators in his charge have done about the place.

But as I say, it isn't easy. Suppose Spark had a good relationship with say Rob Simonich, just as an example. He might just plain like the guy. He might have a commercial relationship of sorts, in one way or another. I stress I have no idea. IF someone then came on here and had a shot at RS, how do you think Spark and Co. should conduct themselves then?

In short, what are your thoughts on the Conflict issue overall, in the particular context of this board?
 
Well fair enough, I suppose. This wasn't an easy topic to 'frame'.

I know what the law is. I'm interested in the average guy view.

In very simple terms, what do you regard as being okay and not okay?

Edited to add, after reading my initial over:

If your intention is to dissemble, then I'd suggest you read again. And think.
 
It is Spark's forum so everything and anything he does is 'OK'.

There is no conflict of interest here whatsoever..................
 
Well I certainly don't agree with that Ira, in one respect.

The Forum, any forum, is the sum of its parts.

If you mean Spark can DO anything, well yes. But that doesn't mean it is okay.

Edited to add again:

Also, I have NOT said there IS a conflict. I am seeking the views of those who participate, in relation to the topic. Clear?
 
What is behind your mind ? What you said or not said is not very clear.
 
Originally posted by switched
But as I say, it isn't easy. Suppose Spark had a good relationship with say Rob Simonich, just as an example. He might just plain like the guy. He might have a commercial relationship of sorts, in one way or another. I stress I have no idea. IF someone then came on here and had a shot at RS, how do you think Spark and Co. should conduct themselves then?

In short, what are your thoughts on the Conflict issue overall, in the particular context of this board?
Click to expand...

It would depend on several factors, including the actual "shot" the "someone" had at Rob Simonich, the "someone"'s standing on this board, and the "someone"'s intent. It's never clear cut, especially on Internet forums, and therefore mods are selected and entrusted with the responsibility of exercising their judgement on a case by case basis. In the end, it's up to the m[g]ods, and Spark, who hires them.

Spark and the mods' response would depend entirely on the circumstances and nature of the shot taken at Mr. Rob Simonich.

If it's a troll, they should poke it, squish it to reduce volume, then sentence it to HED (Hot Electron Death) accompanied by horrific IP ban disembowelment.

If it's deserved in some way, then it's GB&U material. And it's up to the m[g]ods to decide.

Again, I may have misinterpreted your question entirely :D
 
So you're referring to the fact that Spark runs both 1SKS and BladeForums? And that he has editorial power over the latter? Maybe you should state this explicitly.

I don't think there's much of a problem. In fact, it's rather telling of Spark's generosity that he allows dealers to sell for a nominal fee and manufacturers to have their own forums. He started up both the forums and 1SKS, so it's not like he started out with 1SKS first and was elected to be moderator supreme of a completely unconnected forum. There might be a conflict of interest situation in that case, though that still depends on whether or not editorial powers are used unscrupulously to further his own business.
 
Perhaps this is a case of a fool jumping in where angels fear to tread, but there was an invitation for the average guy's view, so here goes. In my recent and ongoing evolution from knife accumulator to knife collector, I repeatedly hit upon this forum in my frequent internet searches for information. I was drawn to the forum because it is a source not only of knife "fact," but also user opinion and experience. From my very first visit, I clearly understood that 1SKS sponsored the forum; that relationship is not hidden. I am free not to use the resources of this forum, but I choose to use it. In other words, assuming the existence - or even appearance - of a "conflict of interest", certainly I waive any objection to such conflict of interest by choosing to utilize this forum. To the extent that legal analogy is appropriate, I assume Austrialian law, not unlike U.S. law, generally permits a party to waive a conflict - real or apparent - following disclosure. Such is the case here.

All that gobbledegoop aside, Wolfmann is right: this forum belongs to 1SKS. Users should take it or leave it for what it is worth. IMHO, it is worth very much.
 
This is a just before turning in type post, so excuse me if it isn't all it should be.

Anyway:

Look perhaps I should 'declare' that in the main, this occurred to me because of something I am attending to at present. It certainly isn't specific to Spark/this Forum, although it does have relevance to the Forum, in my view. It's an intriguing industry/place, this one, in a number of respects, to me.

I thought I'd made it reasonably clear that I consider Spark and Co. handle this sort of thing remarkably well. I don't think for a second Spark et al would be particularly concerned one way or another about that, but there you go.

I do hope that the forgoing answers the "behind the mind" query. If not, well I can't be any clearer I'm sorry.

As for the rest:

- Pahl if all you can do is post up an emoticon, I can only assume you don't have anything of substance to say. Are you really that limited?

- Pyramid/Alpha/Loodie thank you for responding. In relation to those:

Alpha I think 'we all' know all about the relationship, but if you insist, okay. To my knowledge, there is/has never been a problem here. I'm interested to know however, what you consider the appropriate parameters to be, given any scenario of this kind.

Pyramid that is along the lines of what I'm looking for - no misinterpretation I think. Yes it would depend on the circumstances.

Loodie that is one view I can't agree with - the take it or leave it line. That is too absolutist, in my view. As I've said I don't dispute it is enforcable, but such a forum shouldn't endure. I agree though, this is an excellent forum. In my view because, among other reasons, they do NOT do what you say you'd accept, basically.
 
But as I say, it isn't easy. Suppose Spark had a good relationship with say Rob Simonich, just as an example. He might just plain like the guy. He might have a commercial relationship of sorts, in one way or another. I stress I have no idea. IF someone then came on here and had a shot at RS, how do you think Spark and Co. should conduct themselves then?

In short, what are your thoughts on the Conflict issue overall, in the particular context of this board?
Click to expand...

First of all, any one who wants to "have a shot" at anyone else here had better keep it within the rules.

Beyond that, Spark owns the place, but we have quite a number of moderators, I've lost track of exactly how many, but a couple dozen at least. The moderators have a separate forum which is only visible to them. When problems arise, they are discussed there. So, if there was a complaint that Spark (or any other moderator) was showing some unfair preference to someone else because of some conflict, it would, hopefully, be resolved there.

One of the biggest problems with conflict is simply recognizing it. Lawyers have long lists of rules that they follow and they're very sensitive to and constantly aware of conflict issues. The rest of us often aren't so aware of potential conflicts of interest day-to-day. So, we are, very often, not the best people to be guarding ourselves against it. Very often, it takes someone else, a neutral third-party, to point out when our actions may be motivated in part by conflict of interest. That's where the rest of the moderators come in. It would be up to us to say -- privately, of course --, "Spark, we think you're acting improperly here and we suspect that your out-of-character actions may be motivated by your business relationship with Rob."

It's been my experience that if you point such a situation out to a reasonable man (and Spark is a reasonable man), that once they see the conflict, they recognize the problem and will act to fix it.

So, the bottom line is that while Spark owns the place and certainly is in charge here, he has a group of advisors who should help him recognize conflict situations.

If you are aware of any apparent problems, I suggest you e-mail the moderator of the appropriate forum privately.
 
As both BFC and 1SKS are wholly owned private enterprises by the same individual, I submit as a lay person that there can be no conflict of interest. Spark can promote or demote within the bounds of defamation and such law as he chooses and not have a conflict of interest. There can be no conflict as there is no other interest than his own. What is there to conflict with?

Surely his actions would affect the viability of both enterprises, but that in itself is not a conflict of interest.

Even under the priniciples of easement, where Spark has opened up this one part, BFC, to public input, it is still with in the rules Spark has chosen. Because of the rules he initially opened under, he can amend rules at his whim to promote or demote within the bounds of -- as above. This is still no conflict as he has undertaken no obligation to the users to supply us with this service nor promised any level of accurate nor unbiased information.

It is interesting to note that the incident that sparked the formation of BFC is much as switched is proposing. Claims of bias and conflit were made and damage incurred both to the business and forum. But those were still legal choices the then owner made. There was no conflict. And while the owner had the privilege and legal right to so act, it destroyed what he had built. Those actions were not of benefit to his customers and he lost them. But it was the owner's own and proper choice to do so.
 
Switched, what exactly is the' conflict of interest' you are referring to?

You state:
Look perhaps I should 'declare' that in the main, this occurred to me because of something I am attending to at present. It certainly isn't specific to Spark/this Forum, although it does have relevance to the Forum, in my view. It's an intriguing industry/place, this one, in a number of respects, to me.
Click to expand...

You need to provide more information on the alleged conflict, the parties involved, and how it relates to this forum.

I can't give an opinion on something without all the relevant information.

As far as the 1SKS/BFC relationship, it is in the open as was stated, and Spark does not openly advertise 1SKS here, like he could. He respects the dealer members more than that, and he even follows the rules in the exchange forums when posting items there, and doesn't override the dealers either.

Spark has proven himself as a man of integrity when it comes to managing this board, so the conflict of interst as far as that is a moot point.

(For information, I'm not an ass kissing brownnoser; I'm stating facts.)
 
I must say I really dont appreciate my name being used here in this context unless there is a problem. If there is a problem then spit it out!
 
For a brief fleeting moment, I was hoping this was going to be a thread about Aussie rules football.:(
 
Switched: I don't mind taking a punch or two, but let's be fair. I said "take it or leave it for what it is worth." In other words, consider the source. If you find the forum collectively, or any particular thread or post individually, to be less than credible or valuable - for whatever reason - fine. Take it or leave it for what it is worth. I fail to see how that constitutes "absolutism." I am not advancing the old "love it or leave it" line.

By the same token, this forum is not ours; we participate by privilege, not right. By that, I do not mean to suggest that I would accept, for lack of a better term, a despotic forum. I wouldn't participate in such a forum, and I feel safe in assuming that you wouldn't either. But I believe we are all agreed that this forum is anything but that.

So what does it all come down to? I understand that you are not raising any specific accusations; rather, you are simply interested in how potential "conflict of interest" is addressed at forums such as this? Gollnick seems to have addressed that, no?
 
Hmmmm, I'm not exactly sure what's going on here... except to say that Rob Simonich is a great guy whom I've known for about 5 years now. Any time there's been a problem with anything Rob is associated with, he's more than bent over backwards to get it resolved quickly and to the customers satisfaction.

How does this involve me? Well, like anyone else, I am likely to defend people I like. Sometimes I have a business interest with those people, which isn't entirely unexpected: I like doing business with people I like.

Is it a conflict of interest? Yeah, possibly, but you know what? I'm not under any other to be fair or impartial or to recuse myself of any conflict where I have a personal interest. If someone is a turkey, or has earned a "special" spot in my life, then they get to reap the rewards.

That being said, I typically don't get involved with anything anymore that I don't have to unless it seems like something *has* to be done. Often times, I just don't need to get involved in matters at all, even if I have information that people really should know - why start trouble where there is none, or fan the flames?

I go out of my way not to show "special treatment" for people when possible.

Anyhow, what's the exact point in this again? What did I do now?
 
Switched, it is natural for people to look upon a post such as yours with suspicion. Especially if in a hypothetical situation you name an actual maker. Why not just use the name John Smith if you are just presenting a hypothetical scenario?

I would expect Spark to back a friend in the scenario you provided. That's what I would do. The fact that Spark runs this forum makes him no less prone to doing what any of us would do. Could a perceived conflict of interest arise from such a situation? Sure it could, but from what I know of the way Spark handles himself, this does not concern me in any way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top