UKARA Alternative

[Deva]

If it is a recommendation as you suggest, then I see this being a non issue. If someone has done 6 games in 6 weeks you can choose to sell to them. You just won't meet Luther's recommendation. You can still see the data and make your own decision. At least that's how it should be imo.

[Longshot]

Just to get it perfectly accurate; a buyer needs a defence for a seller to be able to legally sell that item.

You see, I don't believe that is perfectly accurate at all. The term we use, 'defence,' is shorthand for 'defence against prosecution.' Since there is no law at all against buying a RIF if you're over 18 why would you need a defence against prosecution? You can't be prosecuted for doing something that is not illegal.

 

So, you want to leave it up to whoever's checking against the player to use the information that's there and make up their own minds whether or not to sell to them?

Where do you draw the line?

As it stands now, people on Facebook will regularly sell guns to people with no defence at all.

 

This is true, but in what way, shape or form will Luther change that? Why keep pushing a time/game limit that is already being ignored as something people 'need,' when really they don't.

 

I like the way that M_P put it to some degree, and the 'if' that Devestator threw in (and it's a term 503 used earlier in this read too); why not just suggest the 3 in over 2 as a "recommendation?"

 

'We at Luther have gathered this data so that you can use it when establishing your defence to sell a RIF. We recommend you do not sell a RIF to anyone who has not played 3 games in a period of greater than 2 months. However, this data is purely for information purposes and the ultimate choice to sell is up to you. Luther cannot be help legally responsible.'

[M_P]

Oh... I thought I was supporting what Ed and 503 were saying...

The seller can't sell unless they're sure that the person who's buying has a real reason to own one. P:L having a time based decider just like UKARA is quick and easy and allows people to distinguish between people wanting a fake gun and those who actually need them for airsoft.
It's not the be all and end all but it will allow people to quickly see that the person buying is or is not a regular player under their guidelines.

 

You seem to be making a big deal about it, when it's a similar idea to a system that's been in place for 6 years or so. Everyone knows that it's not a necessity by law to be on the ukara database, bac, P:L or whatever other system, it's a just a quick reference to find out whether the buyer is genuine and to give the seller a defence so they can point to whichever system they're using ad say by these guidelines it was acceptable.

I don't see the big deal you're making it out to be.

 

No one is saying without P:L or whatever you cannot buy an RIF, it's a simple system to make the process easier for all parties involved.

[Deva]

I think you're missing his point. Luther should offer a recommendation, but not a be all and end all. You satisfy everyone then. It's really very simple.

[jcheeseright]

Most importantly I think retailers will want the 3 games in no less than 2 months to remain extant, it provides them with a solid baseline from which to work and as Longshot has said, it's the SELLER who needs the defence.

 

If people were able to make their skirmish diary available to people for private sales (as I expect they will be able to) then people like Longshot and myself will be able to look at a person's record and make our own decision based upon their history. I expect however that retailers will want the system to be quick and a simple "YES/NO" for a player when they perform a lookup, with the 3 games in no less than 2 months standard they can have that, while with the skirmish diary those of us who can afford to make a judgement call can do so.

 

If anything, this could be Luther's unique selling point for players, above and beyond the raffles and free games; it'll be the ability to check if a sale is within the law without having to stick to the retailer's standard which I personally think is over cautious in most situations (but necessarily so, people's livelihoods depend upon the exemption).

[typefish]

I think you're missing his point. Luther should offer a recommendation, but not a be all and end all. You satisfy everyone then. It's really very simple.

 

That could work quite nicely actually.

 

For the form which people can use to check each other out, I was thinking of giving out a ranking based on:

 

- Barcode match (10%)

- Address match (40%)

- 3 in 2 match (50%)

 

That way, for a lookup to be 100% perfect the barcode has to match, the address has to match (it'll be a nice challenge to make sure that 'Coomb Road' matches 'Coombe Road') and if someone looks up a user that's only played one match, the rank would be something like 55% or something.

 

That way, those who want to make sure that the transaction is as legitimate as possible, they'll be aiming for a 100% rank, obviously.

[fivezerothree]

You see, I don't believe that is perfectly accurate at all. The term we use, 'defence,' is shorthand for 'defence against prosecution.' Since there is no law at all against buying a RIF if you're over 18 why would you need a defence against prosecution? You can't be prosecuted for doing something that is not illegal.

 

 

This is true, but in what way, shape or form will Luther change that? Why keep pushing a time/game limit that is already being ignored as something people 'need,' when really they don't.

 

I like the way that M_P put it to some degree, and the 'if' that Devestator threw in (and it's a term 503 used earlier in this read too); why not just suggest the 3 in over 2 as a "recommendation?"

 

'We at Luther have gathered this data so that you can use it when establishing your defence to sell a RIF. We recommend you do not sell a RIF to anyone who has not played 3 games in a period of greater than 2 months. However, this data is purely for information purposes and the ultimate choice to sell is up to you. Luther cannot be help legally responsible.'

 

Fair points. However you don't seem to understand the law. There is no law against buying a RIF – correct. The law states a RIF "cannot be sold" to someone without a defence. The people liable to prosecution are the sellers. Retailers need a safe system otherwise they lose their business, period.

[Baz JJ]

I've read somewhere that if you don't use your UKARA for 12 months, it will expire. Now that's how it was written, so don't lecture about terminology and the fact that its not a licence - we know this, but do they mean that you are deleted from the database if you don't buy something for 12 months or does it mean that you have to renew/re-submit something every year ?

[Deva]

That could work quite nicely actually.

 

For the form which people can use to check each other out, I was thinking of giving out a ranking based on:

 

- Barcode match (10%)

- Address match (40%)

- 3 in 2 match (50%)

 

That way, for a lookup to be 100% perfect the barcode has to match, the address has to match (it'll be a nice challenge to make sure that 'Coomb Road' matches 'Coombe Road') and if someone looks up a user that's only played one match, the rank would be something like 55% or something.

 

That way, those who want to make sure that the transaction is as legitimate as possible, they'll be aiming for a 100% rank, obviously.

 

This sounds complex.

 

Why not be able to enter someone's ID (barcode number or whatever it ends up being), you see their name and address along with a table which lists all the skirmishes they've been to. At the top of the profile you can have a badge if they meet 3 in !< 2 months and !> 12 months which lights up, however you want it to work.

 

That way you can check you are posting to the same place as the address on the profile, along with the name. If you're a retailer you can make sure these details match some ID if you want.

 

The Luther recommended badge will save you looking at the table if this is the only requirement you want to go on. It should still remind you to check their details match up fully with the profile.

[fivezerothree]

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.

 

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.

[M_P]

I think you're missing his point. Luther should offer a recommendation, but not a be all and end all. You satisfy everyone then. It's really very simple.

Assuming that was a response to me?

That's what I said in my previous post, no one is saying Luther is a steadfast guarantee, it's like UKARA in that if the system says the person is eligible to buy an rif then both parties can quickly see and agree to it. Just like if you're on the ukara database someone can look it up and say yes you're a regular player and then sell to them.

That's all any system of this type is, something that says they've played a certain amount of games over a certain period. No one is forced to go by it but it's an option there and for those who would use it, it's a quick way of finding out whether or not a person is a regular player- whether that is ignored or whatever is another matter, it's just an option.

 

I mean they could provide every skirimish date everyone has ever attneded with the reply of yes or no to further help that decision.

I've read somewhere that if you don't use your UKARA for 12 months, it will expire. Now that's how it was written, so don't lecture about terminology and the fact that its not a licence - we know this, but do they mean that you are deleted from the database if you don't buy something for 12 months or does it mean that you have to renew/re-submit something every year ?

It means you need to renew every year. There would be no point in forcing people to buy something using it every 12 months

I don't think it's a case of if you don't use it for 12 months, but that after 12 months it needs to be renewed anyway.

[Deva]

We're not discussing the law, and it isn't a policy which would allow you to lose any credibility.

 

It's just the availability of data which people are asking for.

[fivezerothree]

 

This sounds complex.

 

Why not be able to enter someone's ID (barcode number or whatever it ends up being), you see their name and address along with a table which lists all the skirmishes they've been to. At the top of the profile you can have a badge if they meet 3 in !< 2 months and !> 12 months which lights up, however you want it to work.

 

That way you can check you are posting to the same place as the address on the profile, along with the name. If you're a retailer you can make sure these details match some ID if you want.

 

The Luther recommended badge will save you looking at the table if this is the only requirement you want to go on. It should still remind you to check their details match up fully with the profile.

We can't allow willy nilly searches on people. They have to be warranted in the sense that they are only searched when completely necessary. The way we do this is by some sort of invite system or a data accuracy test. For example, Bob checks Tom's defence: he does this by asking Tom his ID, Address, Name. Possibly year of birth too!

 

What way the server doesn't get spammed and people only need to know, when they actually need to know.

 

Otherwise I can search the details of everyone on the database.

[Deva]

With what I suggested, unless everyone hands out their ID's willy nilly, willy nilly searches will not be available. If you're given someone's ID so you can verify them, you should be able to see everything.

[jcheeseright]

An invite system makes sense, perhaps you can have a way that a player can email a time sensitive link to their profile/history.

 

Player A wants to buy a gun from Player B.

Player B requests to see his Luther history so he can verify a defence.

Player A puts Player B's email address into the 'send link' box.

Player B receives an email with a link.

This link is valid for say 3 hours after it's initially clicked and allows Player B to see Player A's address, DOB, skirmisher status as recommended by Luther (3 in no less than 2?) as well as their skirmish diary.

3 hours later the link expires and Player A's data is secure again.

 

Retailers could be given specific permissions to look up a profile based just on membership number to save hassle for them, just like a UKARA lookup works now.

[Baz JJ]

Are you sure ?

 

To me, either method seems possible. I just don't know which one is the correct ?

 

Are other members renewing their registration form every year or does your site just update the details on the database.

 

Ive yet to renew mine, so haven't got to this stage yet.

 

 

It means you need to renew every year. There would be no point in forcing people to buy something using it every 12 months

I don't think it's a case of if you don't use it for 12 months, but that after 12 months it needs to be renewed anyway.

[fivezerothree]

With what I suggested, unless everyone hands out their ID's willy nilly, willy nilly searches will not be available. If you're given someone's ID so you can verify them, you should be able to see everything.

Yeah, we have decided to go beyond that though for data protection and privacy. In ID number just to find someones address is dodgy, especially if that ID number was to enter the public domain somehow.

[M_P]

Are you sure ?

 

To me, either method seems possible. I just don't know which one is the correct ?

 

Are other members renewing their registration form every year or does your site just update the details on the database.

 

Ive yet to renew mine, so haven't got to this stage yet.

 

 

It wouldn't make sense, otherwise someone could get UKARA and then stop playing and continue to buy RIFs as much as they want so long as they bought at least one a year.

[jcheeseright]

Are you sure ?

 

To me, either method seems possible. I just don't know which one is the correct ?

 

Are other members renewing their registration form every year or does your site just update the details on the database.

 

Ive yet to renew mine, so haven't got to this stage yet.

 

 

 

Renewal is annual based on being a member of a skirmish site, when you renew your site membership you also renew the UKARA database entry which corresponds to that membership.

 

Yeah, we have decided to go beyond that though for data protection and privacy. In ID number just to find someones address is dodgy, especially if that ID number was to enter the public domain somehow.

 

I agree that an ID number to address is indeed dodgy unless appropriate safeguards are put into place; the key being that a player must consent to their data being shared with another party. Everyone thinks their own ideas are best but I think my email invite idea covers both consent and then re-secures the data once it has served it's purpose.

[fivezerothree]

 

Renewal is annual based on being a member of a skirmish site, when you renew your site membership you also renew the UKARA database entry which corresponds to that membership.

 

 

I agree that an ID number to address is indeed dodgy unless appropriate safeguards are put into place; the key being that a player must consent to their data being shared with another party. Everyone thinks their own ideas are best but I think my email invite idea covers both consent and then re-secures the data once it has served it's purpose.

The hard part for us is that we think of things from a development perspective and from professional experience. If we were to use an invite system as I earlier mentioned, it would mean that each and every member would need login credentials to access a player back-end system that we are not planning to create – yet. Possibly further down the line, as I previously mentioned about using this a diary too.

 

There are other ways but this is something I need to consult with the devs about.

 

I think the best way forward is to crack on with building it as we have 95% of things right as it stands. The minor things that may have been conversed about here can be changed.

 

So it would be best if we get as much work done as possible and then ask for member (or indeed potential member) consultation regarding different aspects in stages?

[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).