Shop Proposition

Responding to both Katrina and Elisabeth here (I see your enthusiasm to start over there Nell I like it! )

1. Featured Shop: We could most certainly pick the contestants via non-discriminant order such as Tatsu, say randomly it picks two, then have each "Conglomerate member" vote for their pick of the two for the featured shop of that month. Those who have been featured within the current year may not be featured that year again (or perhaps we could do biannually if membership is low), but when you are actually featured you may put a "Conglomerates Featured Shop of MONTH-YEAR" anywhere in their shop. These would be cumulative awards the owner gets to retain forever. We could even make each award a conglomerate effort.

2. Membership: Absolutely not. We will not charge membership fees or anything like that. A membership with benefits and responsibilities for sure, but not one that should cost you any form of currency asides from time and commitment.

3. Conglomerate: Alternatively, conglomerate could be replaced with "Alliance," "Coalition," "Union," or "Partnership" in our context. It's just a word to describe the gathering of individual businesses under a more united representation.

4. Discount: Agreeing with Kat here. The idea is that we offer reduced prices for our partners in business. This was my idea, and my original intent was to keep our business within the new alliance, thereby encouraging us to interact with each other. Additionally, the amount of discount would and should be accounted for by the shops owners themselves. There is no "flat rate" discount for members, only the discount the artist is willing to offer members of their union. This could be as high as free service, or as low as 1 knut. So long as a membership price is offered to members.

5. Benefit Guarantee: I can try to better explain. The purpose of the conglomerate wouldn't be to ensure that you "gain a following" or "guarantee your sales." The artists are still responsible for their own products, pitch, sales and customer outreach. However, joining this proposed union would surround them with like-minded individuals who specialize in selling, producing, and curating art as well as the aforementioned guarantee of benefits. Since the benefits are roadblocks to membership anyways (you cannot be a member unless you agree to them) then you should join for those benefits and not the presumed monetary gain. (Which we are not promising we have no idea how heavily this will impact sales).

I am merely adding my own opinion. Thank you Elisabeth for your considering of the possibilities and taking time to ask such pertinent and well thought through questions.

@Elisabeth Erner @Katrina Walker

I've seen on other forum sites ideas such as a shop directory - I think one of those would be really useful. If someone made a thread where you could register your shop for the directory and it was then added onto a main post (they could be grouped by what they sell, maybe?) it'd be way easier to organise stuff

I just read all previous posts (shoulda already done that Oop) and I'm definitely in.
Kat, would you mind owling me please? I don't have discord oop

@Katrina Walker and @Sylvain Indarys, thank you for helping answering my questions and concerns! I do hope it's OK with you if I still have some...

1. If I'm not mistaken, so "conglomerates" in our context means exactly the same as "members"? However, if I understand things correctly, it sounds somewhat similar to mods when I re-read the "Conglomerate's Responsibilities" proposed by Sylvain. So... is it members or mods?

2. The Featured Shop. Would this mean even if let's say there are 24 members, every store should be featured equally? I honestly think, if I might put it a little bluntly, it's not funny should a more popular user's shop can be featured twice when someone else's has not been featured even once, with the reason "one year has passed so I have the right to be featured again".

3. Regarding the featured shop again. Does this mean members are required to vote to decide which store would be featured within the month/week? I personally am uncomfortable with this; I don't like doing sides (the Newt Scamander inside me ^_^) and really, I don't want to vote for small things like this. It may be OK for some users, but maybe for others, they may feel hurt like, "Oh OK, X is more popular than me so everyone votes for his or her store. I'm nobody compared to that fifth-year; I'm just a new player. I don't feel such fun anymore running my shop or being a part of Hogwarts.io." I still suggest a random draw or an alphabetical order.

Oh, and in addition, I like @Lucia Fox's idea about categorising the stores based on what they offer! Coding stores, lettering stores, post banner/header stores, outfit stores, ...

Hope I don't hurt anyone by all these suggestions and concerns. If I unintentionally do, please do forgive me and always feel free to send me an owl to indicate which part offends you so I won't make the same mistake twice. : )

I agree with Elisabeth - one shop could never be 1st/2nd/3rd in the voting and that could be a little unfair

Again, membership is entirely optional. At the end of the day, if we don't like what the proposal entails, we are free to propose something else or remain independent on the matter. This won't be seen as an attempt to hurt anyone's feelings, but rather as a contribution to the discussion we are having together.

1. For clarity purposes: Conglomerate refers to the collection of shops and owners within it. It is a noun that is used to refer to everyone within the membership. It does not mean moderators (site or staff of Hio), or anyone with any kind of additional authority (I.E. if it is decided there is some form of moderator for this group).

Context: I am a shop owner. You are a shop owner. They are a shop owner. We three shop owners are members. Together, we three members form the conglomerate. (Or alliance, or coalition, whatever word works best for you)

2. Featured Shops: What do you propose we change to make things fairer? I see objection, but no counter proposal.

3. Featured Shops 2: What do you propose to replace of this benefit? It's clear you don't like the benefit, but it is also unclear what benefits you think we should gain from working together.

4. Lables as organization: I am against labeling our shops if we don't each have some benefit from it. What if I want to offer banners, and coding and lettering? Would my shop just get a bunch of labels, making the system redundant and oblong? Would we create a new label just for my shop, making the labeling system bloated? Both sound like tedious work for next to no benefit other than clarity of service and that clarity is a maybe, not a certainty. Perhaps you have some sort of idea as to the labels that would work for every shop?

Currently I will remain independent since the proposed benefits of working together aren't substantial enough to merit my participation. I am willing to continue discussion towards working together. If we're working together, we both need to gain something from this proposed partnership.

I am interested in featured positions, assurance of doing business with trusted customers, and discounts for members. I am not interested labels, popularity contests, and the removal of my choice to voice my opinion on other member's shops via voting for featured positions.

I had a bunch more stuff as well, but I'll probably make a new post for that later lol.

DIRECTORY-

• All shops are in the same post, which would be pinned in At The Counter in the Leaky Cauldron.
> I think this would be the best idea for sorting, so then there won't be any page-turning ect. People could sign-up in this topic - or we could have a separate topic exclusively for sign-ups, and the only posts in the main topic would be the directory and the rules/responsibilities ect.
• The order of shops is rotated.
> This is a definite. However, I'm not sure if a random generator would work very well; people could just get really good luck and end up at the top for months at a time. I think the best option would probably be to order everything alphabetically, and put the top shop down to the bottom every two weeks (depending on how many shops there are, monthly might be a big slow). Then, everyone will get an equal amount of time at the top and at the bottom.

MONTHLY CONTEST-

• Every month, a shop is voted for by the members to be Shop of the Month.
> I love this idea. It encourages shop owners to keep their shops active, tidy, and generally good-quality, and gives members a chance to help each other.
• The winning shop each month gets a spotlight in the Directory.
> Another definite. Maybe a section at the top for the 'Shop Spotlight' or something, where information about that shop could go? They would still only have the same amount of space to write about themselves as any other shop, but being in a special section might encourage more people to buy from them.
• No shop can win twice.
> Again, a definite to stop people from staying at the top too long. However, I think it needs some clarification. Would it be twice in a row (in which case they could win every second month), or twice in a certain amount of time? This would depend on how many shops there are in the union itself - if there are more than twelve (which we would hopefully get), then once a year? As in, a shop which wins once cannot win again for the rest of the year (January-December). However, a shop which won in December would then be able to win in January as well - they'd just have to wait a year before winning again.
Maybe this would work by removing a shop which has one from the competition (they would still be in the Directory, people just wouldn't be able to vote for them) for the rest of the year?
• All members should vote for the SOTM.
> Thinking a yes for this one as well. We should put some ground rules in place though, eg. not being able to vote for your own shop(s), posting in the vote thread to let everyone know you've voted (but not who you've voted for, I think people have a right to keep that private if they want).

RULES-

• If a shop goes inactive, it will be monitored then removed from the union. If it reopens, the owner is free to reapply.
> Definitely. We should clarify 'inactive' though - I'm thinking an 'inactive' shop should fit at least one of these criteria:

1. It has not received any relivant posts (orders, discounts, examples from owners/workers ect) for a month.
2. The owner of the shop has not been on hio for a month (we can check this by seeing when they were last online) and has not notified anyone of absence, but the shop has not been taken over by anyone.
3. The owner of the shop has stated that they are leaving hio, but the shop has not been taken over by anyone.
5. All orders from the past month have not been acknowledged in any way (if the shop uses owls to do this, we can always check by owling the customer).
6. The owner of the shop has stated that the shop has closed.

If we see that one of these has been fulfilled, we can monitor it for, say, two weeks, then if there has still been no more activity we can remove it from the union.
• Any shop can apply for membership.
> Not sure about this. As Sylvain said, we don't want people joining and then immediately becoming inactive because the shop was a spur-of-the-moment decision which they can't keep running. Maybe a shop should fit all of these criteria first?

1. The shop has been open for business for at least a week.
2. The shop is completely set up.
3. The shop has received and completed at least one order. (This may be hard because not every shop gets a lot of orders - but we do need to see that people are completing the orders they are given.)

However, any shops which fit this should be able to join.

Also, I removed my idea about categories when I'd properly read all the discussion. I don't think that would work, mainly for the reasons suggested by @Sylvain Indarys.

I feel alphabetically ordering the shops would be best since voting can be unfair. I currently don’t have any other inputs

.

Wow, a lot happened last night. (I am currently on mobile so excuse spelling errors/ lack of coding)

For those requesting owls, I will send them whenever there is a discussion on discord. However, this discussion seems to be the only one going last I checked.

So as far as the spotlight goes, I definitely understand your troubles. However, a year is an awfully long time to wait, and if we end up with 20 or even 30 shops, most shops would never get the opportunity to be spotlighted if we go alphabetically. Honestly, I would still prefer the voting, but a reminder that if we do it as a poll on the site, anyone can vote on it... and a few probably will on accident. As far as having people have to post that they voted, I think that might be a bit much. At the moment, I have no counter proposition, I just want to make that statement.

To add to Lucias list about inactivity, I think that if an inactive shop becomes active again after they have been removed from the directory, or whatever we are calling it now, if that shop comes back, they should have to meet the requirements a second time before they are re-added.

I will probably add more input at a later time, but I currently have to go. Thank you everyone who has contributed to the discussion. And a friendly reminder to read ALL of the previous posts if you can to ensure we aren’t repeating anything.

I really like the organizational method you put forward Lucille. I agree with this for the most part, and offer clarity on my thoughts and opinions below.

DIRECTORY-

• All shops are in the same post, which would be pinned in At The Counter in the Leaky Cauldron.
> I think this would be the best idea for sorting, so then there won't be any page-turning ect. People could sign-up in this topic - or we could have a separate topic exclusively for sign-ups, and the only posts in the main topic would be the directory and the rules/responsibilities ect.

(You have my full support on this method. We should reserve the first couple posts for shops and rules, then allow people to apply for membership in this thread. We might also include a quick shortlist of just the members for easy reference.)

• The order of shops is rotated.
> This is a definite. However, I'm not sure if a random generator would work very well; people could just get really good luck and end up at the top for months at a time. I think the best option would probably be to order everything alphabetically, and put the top shop down to the bottom every two weeks (depending on how many shops there are, monthly might be a big slow). Then, everyone will get an equal amount of time at the top and at the bottom.

(Let's say 25% of the topmost stores get rotated to the bottom each quarter of the year (January, April, July, October) . This potentially gives people time to plan for when they are at the top of the rotation, months to potentially relax when they are at the bottom, and requires less moderation overall.)

MONTHLY CONTEST-

• Every month, a shop is voted for by the members to be Shop of the Month.
> I love this idea. It encourages shop owners to keep their shops active, tidy, and generally good-quality, and gives members a chance to help each other.

Full support here.

• The winning shop each month gets a spotlight in the Directory.
> Another definite. Maybe a section at the top for the 'Shop Spotlight' or something, where information about that shop could go? They would still only have the same amount of space to write about themselves as any other shop, but being in a special section might encourage more people to buy from them.

I agree, a "Shop Spotlight" is what I had in mind. The only benefit of this is the publicity it might elicit from being in the spotlight.

• No shop can win twice.
> Again, a definite to stop people from staying at the top too long. However, I think it needs some clarification. Would it be twice in a row (in which case they could win every second month), or twice in a certain amount of time? This would depend on how many shops there are in the union itself - if there are more than twelve (which we would hopefully get), then once a year? As in, a shop which wins once cannot win again for the rest of the year (January-December). However, a shop which won in December would then be able to win in January as well - they'd just have to wait a year before winning again.
Maybe this would work by removing a shop which has one from the competition (they would still be in the Directory, people just wouldn't be able to vote for them) for the rest of the year?

I support the "once per year in the spotlight solution", but will counter with a secondary/support system for this. What if instead of yearly, we offer a quarterly ballot system. Each shop can sign up to be elected once per quarter of the year (so you can run for the spotlight once every 3 months, but spotlights are still chosen monthly) but you can still only be spotlighted once per year. This would allow people to refrain from being in the spotlight if they did not wish to be, or allow people to compete against their choice of shops for the spotlight, competing up to 4 times a year for the spotlight.

• All members should vote for the SOTM.
> Thinking a yes for this one as well. We should put some ground rules in place though, eg. not being able to vote for your own shop(s), posting in the vote thread to let everyone know you've voted (but not who you've voted for, I think people have a right to keep that private if they want).

Suggested Voting Rules:

-All have the right to vote anonymously
-Post once in vote thread to clarify that you have voted (or if you intend to abstain)
-Deadlines/Windows for each voting period broadcasted to all members at the same time
-Cannot vote for yourself, nor solicit votes from others (I.E. bribing, coercing, or extorting)

RULES-

• If a shop goes inactive, it will be monitored then removed from the union. If it reopens, the owner is free to reapply.
> Definitely. We should clarify 'inactive' though - I'm thinking an 'inactive' shop should fit at least one of these criteria:

1. It has not received any relevant posts (orders, discounts, examples from owners/workers ect) for a month. (agree)

2. The owner of the shop has not been on hio for a month (we can check this by seeing when they were last online) and has not notified anyone of absence, but the shop has not been taken over by anyone. (agree)

3. The owner of the shop has stated that they are leaving hio, but the shop has not been taken over by anyone. (agree)

5. All orders from the past month have not been acknowledged in any way (if the shop uses owls to do this, we can always check by owling the customer). (agree)

6. The owner of the shop has stated that the shop has closed.

(agree)

I would like to add a clause: (Any shop set to "Vacation" status for less than three months will not be considered inactive)

If we see that one of these has been fulfilled, we can monitor it for, say, two weeks, then if there has still been no more activity we can remove it from the union.

(One Owl, two weeks, three verifications)

[Inactive Membership Warning]

Greetings MEMBER,
It appears as though your shop has been labeled inactive due to the following:

REASONS SHOP WAS LABELED INACTIVE

If this has been done by mistake, you are for any reason taking a vacation or break, or you have fallen inactive and intend to close shop please send an owl to MEMBER, MEMBER, and Myself to verify your situation.

Regards,
SIGNATURE

• Any shop can apply for membership.
> Not sure about this. As Sylvain said, we don't want people joining and then immediately becoming inactive because the shop was a spur-of-the-moment decision which they can't keep running. Maybe a shop should fit all of these criteria first?

1. The shop has been open for business for at least a week. (agree)

2. The shop is completely set up. (The shop is functionally set up. As in orders can be placed)

3. The shop has received and completed at least one order. (This may be hard because not every shop gets a lot of orders - but we do need to see that people are completing the orders they are given.) (agree but with the clause "or has 3 peer reviews")

4. Applicant must be capable of maintaining a professional relationship with other members of the partnership. (I added this because I think it's an important criterion to consider).

However, any shops which fit this should be able to join.