UKARA Alternative

[Deva]

There is certainly a point where you will have to crack on, yes. There's always many ways of developing the same thing so finding a common solution (to the checking problem for example) in a thread like this is highly unlikely.

To me what is important is that what is to be achieved is agreed upon, not how you get there, and that the process remains open and transparent, as frustrating as that can be. There's an opportunity to make this awesome, so that's what should happen.

 

[fivezerothree]

There is certainly a point where you will have to crack on, yes. There's always many ways of developing the same thing so finding a common solution (to the checking problem for example) in a thread like this is highly unlikely.

To me what is important is that what is to be achieved is agreed upon, not how you get there, and that the process remains open and transparent, as frustrating as that can be. There's an opportunity to make this awesome, so that's what should happen.

Agreed. This is quite an ask to be honest and this thread hasn't been easy for me. It's hard to manage a project, assist in development and interface publically about minor development bits and bobs.

I suppose people have a lot to say and genuinely want to be involved which is awesome but in retrospect we may only be able to interface about subjects which need member decision in the future as we have to ultimately rely on what we know is best and indeed crack on! Speed is really of the essence.

The system development is well underway, which is why I am trying to be short and sweet, so we can focus on that for the time being.

 

[jcheeseright]

OK, at this point I think I'm gonna have to chime in with a question of my own, rather than a suggestion.

What exactly was the point in asking for community feedback / suggestions when you've clearly no interest in implementing anything which isn't on the original design specification which you've decided upon behind closed doors?

For this to be:

run by Airsofters as a democracy, where your input and vote counts and hold real weight.

then suggestions right from the beginning need to be considered.

Before I have any further input on any level into this project I'd like to see some kind of end specification, or even just some definite parameters that the system will work within.

One person's vote/support being withdrawn obviously isn't going to dent your progress but what will dent progress and alienate your potential user base before you even begin is running things in a standoffish and frankly opaque manner when your initial mission statement used words like transparency and input holding real weight.

 

[fivezerothree]

OK, at this point I think I'm gonna have to chime in with a question of my own, rather than a suggestion.

What exactly was the point in asking for community feedback / suggestions when you've clearly no interest in implementing anything which isn't on the original design specification which you've decided upon behind closed doors?

For this to be:

then suggestions right from the beginning need to be considered.

Before I have any further input on any level into this project I'd like to see some kind of end specification, or even just some definite parameters that the system will work within.

One person's vote/support being withdrawn obviously isn't going to dent your progress but what will dent progress and alienate your potential user base before you even begin is running things in a standoffish and frankly opaque manner when your initial mission statement used words like transparency and input holding real weight.

I mean in the sense we don't need advice on how to do our jobs as we do it professionally, making us experts – as big headed as that sounds. In the sense of server tech, system technology, knowledge of certain aspects are ran and considered by other parties.

What is actually happening here is you are thinking up of ideas and alternatives on the basis of what you have read previous to this post. I personally have spent countless hours before we even went public, researching and talking to the relevant authorities whilst working with developers in conjunction with site owners and retailers.

Also remember this is one forum and you are one person – you're out because we didn't do things your way? Fine, but that's a huge mistake on your part. Have some patience, man.

My time is limited, as is others. We simply cannot devote the amount of time I have done so far discussing matters as the appropriate frameworks for actually noting suggestions and allowing vote has been delayed due to the fact that i thought interfacing with the public would be better. Instead I get people throwing their toys out of the pram.

Don't use my own words against me – I think you are being petty, do you honestly think we have the time to argue the toss with statements such as the above whilst developing a system at quick pace? Be fair and realistic here.

You want direct involvement? Prove your worth because so far you've complained a lot and it's annoying to the Nth degree when I am truly working hard on developing something that could very well benefit the entire Airsoft industry in the UK – without being paid for my time. We don't even have members yet. We don't have most of the things I have mentioned as they are all still in development. I am not prepared to engage the development team on forums, it'll just waste time and end up turning into a shit slinging match because we are not in agreeance with you on one issue or another.

As mentioned, we need to do more to be able to properly act on suggestions as it stands. There isn't enough time in the day to list every single line of code and aspect of system design because you demand it. Quite frankly, doing this would be wasted effort on some people, as they don't care and/or understand.

Transparency is key, so is trust is the team – we've already thought about most of the aspects being continually bring up and we believe we have a working prototype design. But for the love of god, let us build it first.

We are not randomly asking for community feedback (see: questions) on all aspects, we want community support and those with in-depth knowledge at this point.

Know that I could have just said "suggestions noted" and copied and pasted your posts to look at, at another point – but instead I have explained about aspects in more detail as well as provided counter-arguments.

Your quoted post would be fair and perfect'y warranted if your logic and suggestions we're undeniably correct – but that's not the case. I have mentioned this a multitude of times now but just to make it clear.

All suggestions will be noted and subject to review by our committee which is one of the next thing we need to set up fully. Those suggestions that show promise as selected by members will be shortlisted and if possible actioned upon. But I have got to make this bloody system before I can do that.

So for the love of god, help me destress and hold fire... I'm also running my own business here.

 

[Deva]

From what I've read cheese, feedback is welcome, but feedback on the exact methods for doing something is neither here nor there if you are both trying to achieve the same thing. With the QR code vs Barcode, a public vote would be good, yes, there are technical benefits one way or the other, but developers will have to put up with a less convenient option if the general mass will find it easier to swipe a card rather than get their phone out and get someone to scan it (for example).

But for something like the lookup, we've all got the common goal that it needs to be reasonably protected, and that the result from the lookup needs to be open and informative. How you reach that doesn't really matter. If it ends up being a pain in the ass then they'll change it. You can't get something right first time, the systems will have to be tested and refined.

It'd be nice if it was an open-source project, but I suspect it's too late for that. If it was that way then those who are technically able would be able to contribute over the correct medium (of which this thread is not).

 

[Kaza66]

Look Cheese Leon is right. Whilst you guys have a great influence on the way PL turns out, we cannot mould it around peoples every need/ whim - Or we'd never get anywhere.

We have to go by the majority. Almost all of you're suggestions and tips have been considered and very useful to the whole process and we greatly appreciate that. However you will not see visible evidence that each and every single one of your suggestions has altered Project Luther. If you think your suggestions are that great then we all wish you success on setting up your own UKARA Alternative, because its a damn sight far from easy.

I'll say it once more, we cannot shape Project Luther around each and everyone of your desires.

Thankyou.

EDIT: Right now we could use a hand in suggestions for a name. Currently we like UK Airsoft Defence Initiative and Airsoft Independent Defence Initiative, but are not 100% sold. Any suggestions are hugely appreciated.

 

[fivezerothree]

From what I've read cheese, feedback is welcome, but feedback on the exact methods for doing something is neither here nor there if you are both trying to achieve the same thing. With the QR code vs Barcode, a public vote would be good, yes, there are technical benefits one way or the other, but developers will have to put up with a less convenient option if the general mass will find it easier to swipe a card rather than get their phone out and get someone to scan it (for example).

But for something like the lookup, we've all got the common goal that it needs to be reasonably protected, and that the result from the lookup needs to be open and informative. How you reach that doesn't really matter. If it ends up being a pain in the ass then they'll change it. You can't get something right first time, the systems will have to be tested and refined.

It'd be nice if it was an open-source project, but I suspect it's too late for that. If it was that way then those who are technically able would be able to contribute over the correct medium (of which this thread is not).

That's perfectly put. It won't be open-sauce as we like to spell it however one of the things we haven't mentioned yet is that this system will have an API – which means other systems can bridge with it such as retailers online e-commerce solutions. This means automatic defence checking, again reducing the time of retailers admin work hugely.

Our only true limit is time and at the moment it's super precious.

 

[fivezerothree]

Right now we could use a hand in suggestions for a name. Currently we like UK Airsoft Defence Initiative and Airsoft Independent Defence Initiative, but are not 100% sold. Any suggestions are hugely appreciated.

Yep I need a name for the domain name purchase so I can build the website!

 

[Ian_Gere]

Luther will have a policy of which has to be abided by. Although nice in a world full of ideal situations and people we can't have that recommendation but also allow people to make their own mind up.

I don't see the issue with this recommendation, it's well thought out and makes sense.

Luther doesn't force people to be part of Luther. You're either in or out, but having a relaxed policy makes the system lose all credibility.

UKARA doesn't force anybody to join either but the main thing we don't like about it stems from it being so ubiquitous as to be a de facto monopoly. If Luther works as intended, it will take over this position. Nothing wrong with that IMO, so long as its policy and operation make sense. The VCRA does not make sense. It is the law however, so the letter must be adhered to. But that doesn't mean that Luther should blindly follow down the same paths as UKARA. How about we attempt to come up with a system which is better than the requirements of the VCRA and also makes more sense in promoting the only sensible thing within the Act, which is attempting to keep RIF's out of the hands of criminals? I feel that we can, if we put our minds to it, come up with a plan which does the above and also doesn't make law abiding citizens jump through hoops in order to go about their lawful business. The only thing necessary to achieve this is to first step back from the habitual response toward potential problems resulting from people and their activities, which is control.
You, 503, are saying that unless Luther assumes the mantle of control, by defining what is and is not a reasonable test of whether a person is a skirmisher or not, then it will be a shambles. Why? We all know that 3in>2 does nothing to stop actual criminal behaviour, because criminals don't give a toss about the law and don't go along to an airsoft retailer to pay £200 for a fake gun when they could buy a real one for the same or less on the street. I don't see what is wrong with simply making a person's attendance info available to those with a membership code of their own. How pushed for time do we imagine retailers are that they can't look at a list and make a decision based on a series of simple records? For one thing, for most people the fact that there is a list, not just 1 or 2 entries, will be enough.

But how about keeping RIF's away from criminals? Is there anything we can do as an association of people with a common interest in preventing out hobby/sport from being portrayed negatively in the media and becomming subject to further inneffective but onerous legislation?

Again, this situation will be looked into and put to a vote but for the time being I would appreciate if all moved onto another subject because discussing the subject with non-experts of law is somewhat pointless at the time being.

Outside conversations with medical doctors, I have rarely felt so patronised. This doesn't bode well for the democratic aspect of the project imo. Seriously, how much of a legal expert do you imagine someone has to be to understand the VCRA? Especially given that here we are all into airsoft and therefore have probably had plenty of time to find explanations if, somehow (i mean personally i don't see how, but let's assume it's possible for the sake of generosity), there was some bit we didn't get...

 

[Deva]

I like that there will be an API.

Namewise I would say simpler the better, if it ends up being ADAIFIEKE then that's stupid. The Airsofters Defence, Independent Airsoft(ers) Defence, Airsofters Defence (by) Airsofters, or some kind of three word variation would be my preference.

Ian - I agree with you somewhat, but it's clear Luther doesn't have the resources to be something far and beyond what we have now. It would take a long time to liaise with the necessary people, groups and organisations to try and squash some of the restrictions we have now. Perhaps little, more achievable steps is the right thing, with the view that further measures can be taken once it's off the ground (that may not even happen).

 

[Longshot]

Right, I love a good argument (though I've genuinely been trying to put across my concerns and suggestions in this thread) but even I'm getting bored of the closed attitude now and am going to step away soon. Without trying to be personally insulting, fivezerothree I think you're a terrible ambassador for this project. Your whole response to any feedback has been completing dismissive (when not just insulting) and now you've adopted an attitude of 'well, I've made up my mind about what I'm going to do so let me get on with it and stop bugging me.' Any response I've seen from the rest of the Luther team might have felt a little bit like a 'yeah, we're not really going to be able to do that,' but at least it has been delivered with a professional 'we'll take that into consideration.'

The last thing I have to gripe about is your persistent claims to 'know the law,' and your assumptions that nobody else does, only to then explain the law incorrectly in your next post. Your last reply to me, for example:

The law states a RIF "cannot be sold" to someone without a defence.

Where exactly does it say that? The "defence" is for the seller (or manufacturer or importer) to establish, never the buyer. The buyer will be asked to provide details which aid the seller in establishing their own defence. This is why Luther sounded like a good idea, providing an easy way for the buyer to provide their details and the seller to confirm them and to act upon them as they see fit. But now I'm just confused about what Luther will actually provide to someone and the distinct advantages it will actually have over UKARA. I mean, look at this from 503:

Luther will have a policy that has to be abided by.

Luther doesn't force people to be part of Luther. You're in or you're out.

Now replace 'Luther' in the above quotes with 'UKARA' and tell me what the difference is that makes Luther better for the player. Right now the only advantage seems to be: we use digital scanners, we charge retailers less and we put you in a raffle.

I really hope it works in the end, honestly, because the VCRA is a bloody disaster and something needs to make buying and selling work for the sport. Something has to be better than UKARA, and I'm just hoping that Luther can work out what that is and create it rather than just being 'another' UKARA.

 

[AirsoftTed]

I haven't had a chance to read through every part of this thread yet, I've tried to follow it but it keeps growing, so I'm going to throw my 2 cence in.

I much agree with Ian, the whole purpose of the VCRA is to keep RIF's out of the hands of criminals, we as a community should take responsibility seeing as we, alongside re-enactors and collectors etc are the main arguement for allowing RIF's in the UK.

Ian's right, what criminal is going to go to 3 skirmishes or any other length to gain the right to pay £300 quid for what is effectively a bluff on their part, when if they wanted, they could get a sawn off for £50 quid, the same day they want it. Anyone with even basic hand tools, half a brain or access to google could build their own if they wanted to, so they're not going to go to length just to get shot by armed response for a bit of plastic, in fairness if they do, they deserve to be, survival of the fittest and all that.

That aside, the current system does act as an annoyance to anyone wanting to buy a New RIF (when the system does work) without legitimate cause, but then they could just buy a IF and paint it, they're a criminal anyway so they won't care for needing a defence will they?

The easiest way for anyone to obtain an RIF currently, is through secondhand sales, which are cheaper, require far less personal information, and sadly often require no checks as sellers more often than not don't ask for UKARA or proof of other defences. This is probably want we want to tackle, through the removal of IF's we would first eliminate that method of delivery to the hands of criminals, but secondly, if it was made easier for private sellers to check defences, then we could reduce the chances of sales to undesirables. Of course this would require the co-operation of the whole community, not only that of airsoft but other hobbies, but loving airsoft as much as I do, I would have no problem doing such checks and I don't think many others would if it protected our hobby and made it easier for it to legitimately grow with new players.

Obvioulsy what I'll have said won't be 100 percent water tight as there will be always be those wiggling there way around things and I'll have likely not been as clear as my thought process was, but I hope the jist of what I'm saying comes across clear enough for it to be a useful point of thought for the team or something for those inclined to add to, criticise or agree with appropiately.

 

[Longshot]

I should note that I wasn't just copying what Ian said, he ninja'd me while I was typing. He probably also explained it better than me.

Also, Devastator, I don't think Ian is suggesting we "squash the restrictions we have now," rather that 3 games in 2 months is not a real restriction, it's just something UKARA made up for themselves, so Luther shouldn't feel it has to abide by it (just as the rest of us actually don't if we want to sell a RIF).

 

[jcheeseright]

lots of text

This is pretty much what I tried to get across, being different is simply not enough. You need to be BETTER or you won't get market share.

As for my credentials with this sort of thing, prior to joining the Navy I was a marketing manager for a very large National public transport company, I understand what it means to put a product to market and I also understand what will allow a product to be successful and what will not.

Rebranding Fairy liquid as Super Clean Dish Fluid, and putting it onto the shelf next to fairy liquid at the same price point and with the same features will bankrupt you. People stick with what they know unless you can give them a real incentive to move, an incentive that isn't based on "UKARA is bad because the retailers on the committee have a monopoly".

As for the comments levelled at me, whatever guys, I saw problems with your system and presented workable solutions which would not just fix those problems but also give you that differentiation from UKARA. You have decided they're not worth implementing and I'm cool with that, it's your project (and it's been made abundantly clear that this is YOUR project).

Asking for suggestions for the name is really kinda insulting though. Regardless, I'll fire up my marketing brain put my 2p in the machine; please for the love of God avoid the word Defence at all costs. While legally it is the correct term, from a marketing point of view it's bad. UKARA is a Retailer's Association, UKAPU is a Player's Union... UK Airsoft Defence Initiative sounds like a Paramilitary organisation.

 

[Deva]

Also, Devastator, I don't think Ian is suggesting we "squash the restrictions we have now," rather that 3 games in 2 months is not a real restriction, it's just something UKARA made up for themselves, so Luther shouldn't feel it has to abide by it (just as the rest of us actually don't if we want to sell a RIF).

Ah fair enough. I think we're getting kind of hung up on this now though. My understanding is that:

- Luther will recommend someone if they adhere to 3 in no less than 2 because this is something which retailers and the home office are happy with. If you want to change that, it's a lot of work. It's not really abiding by, it's making use of an existing "rule". It doesn't place a restriction on you and I or hinder us in any way.

- Luther will still provide details on an individual, so should you wish, you can sell to them even if they don't meet the above requirements but their details and skirmish log satisfy you, the seller.

Yes, it's not all that different to UKARA and their self check, but due to Luther's nature, should it take off, you'll ultimately be able to check any airsofter, not just check any airsofter that has 3 in no less than 2.

Luther wants to be able to provide a recommendation. It's choice is to go with three in no less than 2. But it still allows individuals to make their own choice what to go with, that's the potential beauty of it. It'd be impossible for all airsofters to agree on just one method of recommendation, so this is the next best choice.

Edit (the following is loosely worded): I would however like to see, after project completion, Luther (as it's intended to be consumer/airsofter based/focussed) look in to talking to retailers and the home office to try and work out what isn't acceptable, as I feel this will be much easier than working out what is acceptable. Even if they find the 3 in no less than 2 is still the best measure of commitment and is the minimum you can use under the VCRA, at least it will have been revisited and investigated.

 

[fivezerothree]

Right seriously, lets cool this right now. I cannot speak to you all at this rate, there's so many misunderstandings it's untrue and I feel as though longshot is making issues out of thin air.

longshot, Iain, VCRA / Recommendation as to what constitutes legal defence within the Luther Scheme is a conversation for another time on another platform. I'm not discussing it over here because it's pointless – not because I don't wish to discuss options, the timing isn't right – read that part and please understand it.

Also, as I have typed a silly amount of times, all suggestions will be considered and put to a vote by members(or potential members) which will then be shortlisted and refined by the committee with evaluated pros and cons, with cost to benefit ratios all worked out. Members (or potential members) can then vote on which they want actioned. – please do not make me repeat this again, so please read and understand what I just said.

I have to build the website and the foundations of the Luther system before most issues are discussed and decided upon – how hard is it for you to understand this? Give us time.

You call us closed and accuse me of not being true to what I originally developed. That's so, so rude and I'm starting to wonder why I am doing this when I have people with opinions like you to contend with. Please back off, and let us ensure your voice can be heard by everyone involved, not just this thread on this forum.

On the other hand if you wish to discuss issues on your own, then please feel free, but no, you're right, I'm a terrible rep because I cannot and will not stroke people's egos ever. If i believe I have more experience on an issue or know better because I have done plenty prior research I will tell you. I will also argue other suggestions because that's a natural process?

One of the biggest problems so far is that we have had an awful lot of people sat on their backsides doing nothing, but they are very happy to try and poke holes in our system which leads us to further explain and defend. Why not suggest more solutions.

But yes we are getting hung up on a smaller factor that can be revisited later on.

If there is anyone I have offended, I sincerely apologise but I also suggest you toughen up a little as we have a long battle ahead of us.

Iain, Longshot, your points will be addressed and genuinely considered. However I need to set up a more appropriate channel for it as forums seldom are.

If you'd like, perhaps send me a summary of points and possible solutions which I can sit on for a little while?

Lastly, the next person to get personal and question my integrity and devotion to the project I created, will get both barrels.

Love you loads,

Leon. x

 

[fivezerothree]

Edit (the following is loosely worded): I would however like to see, after project completion, Luther (as it's intended to be consumer/airsofter based/focussed) look in to talking to retailers and the home office to try and work out what isn't acceptable, as I feel this will be much easier than working out what is acceptable. Even if they find the 3 in no less than 2 is still the best measure of commitment and is the minimum you can use under the VCRA, at least it will have been revisited and investigated.

Agreed!

 

[Ian_Gere]

Ian - I agree with you somewhat, but it's clear Luther doesn't have the resources to be something far and beyond what we have now. It would take a long time to liaise with the necessary people, groups and organisations to try and squash some of the restrictions we have now. Perhaps little, more achievable steps is the right thing, with the view that further measures can be taken once it's off the ground (that may not even happen).

A very reasonable approach, Dev, however not one shared by Luther i fear. 503 says they have spent countless hours in consultation. What concerns me is that I don't believe for one moment that we are the first airsoft players to say that the VCRA is ineffective and pointless so we should not pander to it any more than to do otherwise would invite prosecution. I mean, regardless of what we the players say, ACPO have said the VCRA is unenforcible, so why are we even talking about it ffs? But you get me? Where is the evidence of these countless hours of consultation?
If what we have been saying here has come as a surprise, then clearly the consultation has not been with many actual players, but rather various organisations each with their own agenda. Is it any wonder that now the difficult questions have become impossible to ignore, what Luther actually looks very like is, as Longshot said, digitised UKARA? The last time these organisations were queried the best anyone could come up with was UKARA and, as far as players are concerned, it is not fit for purpose. Why go back and try to satisfy the same people again? If you put the same ingredients in the same oven, you get the same pie... or, put another way, the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over expecting different outcomes.

There is a real opportunity here to create a means for retailers to establish that they can legally sell RIF's to players almost entirely on our, the players', terms. Because the technology will make it attractive to retailers if it can be done cheaply enough, regardless of what the largest retailers would prefer. It doesn't matter what the home office would prefer: they had their chance and the result was the VCRA. You make your bed, you lie in it. The police don't care about RIF's - there just aren't enough incidents per year / they have few enough resources with which to tackle the bigger fish they are expected to fry. All they want is a clear way for their officers to know whether someone is guilty of an offence or not. A simple record of attendance for players goes a long way towards providing that, and it provides nothing less useful to a copper than a 3in>2 based recommendation does. Then we have site owners. Keeping track of new players' skirmish attendance is beaurocracy which nobody would volunteer for, which is why digitisation is such an attractive feature. But why would a site owner care about a person's UKARA or Luther status, unless being a member of either organisation meant they were forbidden to use their own judgement when it came to selling RIF's to that person, because they are right there - if the player is clearly into it that's sorted, if they're wavering leave it for that day, if they're someone who just rocked up... they have to wait.

So I ask again, why are we talking about this as if the VCRA and its approach was anything but a pain in the arse which must be circumvented? Why are we talking about this as if anyone else's opinion matters? Without our interest and money there is nothing for anyone else to get their knickers in a twist about.

But hey, i'm just a wacky idealist aren't I? :lol: one who, as James said above, wants a clear vision statement that nails down the goals, but moreover those will have to be as previously stated, which implies that we the players decide what we the players think is reasonable information to provide to retailers in order for them to convince themselves they are safe to sell us RIF's (especially since the law is not, because it cannot be, enforced so really the retailers' decisions are actually "does this person seem dodgy or the kind of plonker who will do something irresponsible?"), otherwise my offer to put up money in advance to help with development is recinded. Naturally, if Luther becomes the new UKARA, i'll pay my £5, because not doing will make my life more difficult, but of course I'll jump ship at the earliest opportunity.

 

[fivezerothree]

Lots of points have been lost in this thread and I think we are all forgetting things and just getting plain frustrated and disappointed.

I'm going to start building our website tonight and try and get the member/voting framework in place. Because that's what is obviously needed right now.

None of your opinions and suggestions have been ignored. However they have been lost in this thread. So, I doubt you'll take me up on the offer but if Iain, Longshot and Jcheeseright would like to voice their concerns separately or whatever to me personally I will ensure they are saved so we can tackle them.

I will give you my personal email, my phone number, whatever you want. I will ensure points are addressed – that's a promise.

 

[fivezerothree]

Iain, you have a lot to say and I can talk so much quicker than I can type? Do you fancy a phone call? I'd be happy for you to summarise the call if you feel the need?