Just to be absolutely clear about corporate interaction here.

DeVore · 10-04-2003 2:44pm #1

If you post on a thread regarding your company or a competitor, I expect full disclosure regarding your alliegances.

For example:

"hi, firstly you should know I work as XYZ for ABC ltd.

I think you are talking arsé because
1.
2.
3.
"

If you engage in debate without that full disclosure I will inform the users of this board of the association so that they are not "hoodwinked" (as I percieve it).

If you DO NOT involve yourself directly in such debates then we will not reveal your connection details or affiliations to anyone without court order.

I hope this is clear. It should be bloody obvious

DeV.

DeVore · 10-04-2003 3:21pm

Ok. I'm trying to be impartial here. The "burning orpanages" comment on another thread isnt helping but I'm trying.

I believe in enforcing the rules the community decides for itself. The above is my current modus operandi.

What I need from the community is verification that I'm representing your desired rules.

So, this isnt a dictat more of a sanity check that what I currently do is what the community wants.

Please feel free to express your views pro or contra here with anonimity, except Esat employees. I know your views and I'm still pissed about the orphanages comment.

DeV.

iwb · 10-04-2003 3:24pm

Your current modus operandi makes perfect sense to me.

flav0rflav · 10-04-2003 3:37pm

If you're asking, you must have doubts. Take time to resolve the issue for yourself, grasshopper.

DeVore · 10-04-2003 3:41pm

I have absolutely NO DOUBTS in my mind whatsoever. If I left it up to me I would continue in this train.

I *do* try to keep this as a commuity driven site and where an issue revolving policing comes up, I go to the community and ask what laws they want me to police.

I have no doubts whatsoever, but its not just me that has a say.

DeV.

DeVore · 10-04-2003 3:44pm

You have to remember that I have strong views on marketing and sales people.

What I'm doing here is sanity checking that I'm in line with the community's desires. Otherwise I'll change modus operandi.

DeV.

leeroybrown · 10-04-2003 3:47pm

Well within your right's ... and the orphanages comment was way out of line.

Actually, I'm surprised (actually amused is a better word)) that a telco's employee actually posted in that manner from their place of work.

Johnmb · 10-04-2003 3:48pm

I think anyone who has a vested interest, or can be perceived to have a vested interest, in a thread should notify us of the possible vested interest. If they don't do it themselves, someone else should do it for them. While their imput may be valid, it is surely only fair that other readers are aware that there may be a conflict of interests if you are posting about your own company or a competitor. As long as your points are valid, I don't see why you should be upset about people knowing where you are coming from.

Dustaz · 10-04-2003 3:50pm

If this thread was started by anyone else it would be circling around the rim of the recycle bin by now. Devore tho has been good to us

However, i disagree with some sentiments here.

I feel that the post that sparked this off was an overreaction on all sides. The post in question was NOT offensive or dirt-slinging and i feel it was slightly unfair that the poster in question was 'unmasked' in the fashion that he was.

However, in light of recent activities by other esat employees it is understandable why this was recieved in such a way. Looking at some of the indignant replies goes further to understanding why devore got annoyed.

Simply put, I do not think that employees and especially lower level employees should have to reveal themselves unless thier remaining anonymous is obvious deception. 'Aggies' posts are a prime example of this and that matter is being dealt with. s8n's comments (imo) were nowhere near that level of deception and were fine by me.

Since this forum started it has enjoyed a good mix of people posting here. Consumers and comms employees alike. I dont see any advantage to alienating anyone working in that sector by forcing them to reveal who they are.

De Rebel · 10-04-2003 4:13pm

Now that there is a clear and unambiguous statement on commercial interaction it should probably be stickied immediately below the Charter. A title like "Commercial Interaction - Telco Employees/Vested Interests Please read" Then there will be no possibility of misunderstandings.

UTV/IP have set a standard for constructive commercial interaction, and a number of the Wireless Operators have been reasonable too. It is understandable the ComReg and DCMNR people with their Civil Service ethic or whatever are reluctant to engage, disappointing but understandable. It would benefit everybody if Eircom and ESAT would engage (including themselves). They have nothing to be afraid of.

Thorbar · 10-04-2003 4:49pm

Haven't read all the threads that brought this about so I can't comment on them but from a purely objective point of view I think everyone should declare who they work for/have ties with if they're going to openly debate the merits of a company that they're in competition with. I'd respect someones opinion more if they were willing to openly declare who or what they were then if someone was being underhand or deceptive.

The Clown Man · 10-04-2003 4:52pm

I think that the 'unmasking' of corporate employees on posting is maybe a little harsh.

Everyone should be entitled to expression of their own personal opinion regardless of who they work for. They may genuinely believe that Esat or others deserve defending in some regards.

Although their defending comments may seem to be obtuse, mislead or even deluded to us, the fact that they see it from a different perspective, albeit from inside the company, does not automatically mean that they are trying to serve as corporate PR.

In s8n's case, I think that the comment made was hardly Esat or it's cohorts trying to make an attempt at defending it's product, but merely a person that didn't agree with the way Muck (no harm to him) was ranting.

I think that it was a sly, pointless comment that if anything, should have been deleted by the mods for lacking any real contribution to the discussion.

Hardly deserving of an ip trace and an announcement of origin.

Of course cases of real attempts at corporate PR should be dealt with as with the case of Aggie, but I would have thought that a high degree of misconduct would be needed for it to go that far.

Basically, just because they work in East, Eircom, NTL, or others shouldn't render them labeled in discussions as suddenly they will become targets for anti-corporate aggression. They might not be in a position to defend what might be thrown at them and might even get themselves into trouble by misinforming or otherwise.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

Dustaz · 10-04-2003 4:57pm

My inbox is pretty much bulging with pms about this.

One thing that should be made clear from my point of view as mod. Corporate Interaction is just that. Interaction by a visible corporation. If someone is posting as a regular poster and SHOULD be posting as an identified person, we take a dim view of that. I really dont think this needs to be fleshed out much more than it is in the charter - we all have common sense,

However, people who for want of a better word are 'grunts' (no offense) are allowed to have thier own opinion. As long as they post factual, truthful, polite and non-misleading messages i have no problem with them remaining anonymous.

For the moment that is the policy on this forum. Personally i dont think that needs to change.

DeVore · 10-04-2003 5:11pm

posted by The Clown Man:
Although their defending comments may seem to be obtuse, mislead or even deluded to us, the fact that they see it from a different perspective, albeit from inside the company, does not automatically mean that they are trying to serve as corporate PR.

We wont know they are "from inside the company" unless they fully disclose who they are.

I did post the example of how this should be done and the person *still* gets to have a personal opinion. They dont have to post as an official representative...

Posted By Dusty:
However, people who for want of a better word are 'grunts' (no offense) are allowed to have thier own opinion. As long as they post factual, truthful, polite and non-misleading messages i have no problem with them remaining anonymous.

How are we to know they are "just grunts" if they dont reveal who they are.

People know I have strong feelings about this. I stand by my words and my posts. I have always identified myself and lived with the fall out (which as the CEO of a seperate company unrelated to Boards can be considerable).

People may PM you dusty but only the community can create community rules imho. We can take their "votes" into consideration so that they are represented on this issue but we (the community) decide whether we want to introduce the thin end of the wedge on this or not.

Who will judge whats a s8n post and whats an Aggie post?

Better to have clear rules.

For the moment, I'm not going to "out" anyone until the community decides what to do about this thorny issue but I dont feel good about debasing the believability of everyones posts because they *could* be PR-bunnies in disguise.

DeV.

DeVore · 10-04-2003 5:50pm

I'm going to sleep on this, talk to the mods, read posts here and consider the pm's I've gotten.

I'm still too angry about the orphanage comment to rationally decide anything and I recognise baggage I bring with regard to "marketing".

Dont be surprised if tomorrow I still think I'm right though

DeV.

Dustaz · 10-04-2003 7:28pm

Originally posted by DeVore

People may PM you dusty but only the community can create community rules imho. We can take their "votes" into consideration so that they are represented on this issue but we (the community) decide whether we want to introduce the thin end of the wedge on this or not.

The people who pm me are probably more part of the community than you are if you look at it one way. They are just people who happen to work for a telco. They are consumers when they go home because and they have no real vested interest in whether someone goes for an esat product or a eircom product. Just today i saw someone who works for one company tell someone to check out a rival companies offer. At no point did he disclose where he worked and he didnt need to. If someone points out that company X offer something for Y, that is factual information and it does not need a background check and mothers maiden name supplied to take thier word for it.

Who will judge whats a s8n post and whats an Aggie post?

Well, I would have thought it was up to Sceptre and I as mods of the forum to decide that. Without sounding too indignant, thats one of the things mods do isnt it?

The Clown Man · 10-04-2003 7:35pm

The problem I have about people being 'out-ed' in such an immediate manner is that a person who is genuinely expressing a point of veiw is victimised simply because he/she works for the company in question.

I used to work for Eircell and I often was the only one standing up for them on various issues because as far as I could see they were acting the same way I would in their position. I often criticised them as well but the point is that I was expressing my own personal opinion, nothing to do with my own position in the company.

As for rules to govern the problem, I would think that the origin of any suspicious posts should be kept within the circle of mods until such time as they think it necessary to publicise in order to indentify the true course of the discussion.

I reckon that the mods would be more than capable of reasoning whether a person needs to be identified in order to contain any 'disgused' PR attempts or whether the person is purely expressing a personal opinion regarding an open discussion.

Basically, the discretion of the mods should rule. And I'd say that a more liberal approach would be more suitable.

My own view on it anyway.

The Clown Man · 10-04-2003 7:39pm

You know, I had that typed out ages ago but forgot to hit 'Submit Reply.'

Looks like you pretty much said it already for me Dustaz.

DeVore · 10-04-2003 7:52pm

I'm suggesting that I get one vote on this issue. If there are lots of them, and one of me then the decision should be easy.

Also, I made a judgement today about s8n. If you think I've judged wrongly (and as an admin I have the right to make such judgements I feel) ... well whats to say that the Mods here couldnt make an equally "wrong" judgment call and "offend" someone.

Just counter points to your argument... I think the whole area needs careful thought.

DeV.

JohnK · 10-04-2003 8:05pm

I think it’s a difficult decision to make because on the one hand any company or person trying to surreptitiously influence people with regard to their company should be unmasked but at the same time if 'genuine' people were to link their account here to the company they work for they could be endangering their jobs. While they may say that any post they make represents a completely personal opinion and is in no way representative of the company, I’m sure that there are a lot of boss’s & HR managers that might not like it too much and could give them some hassle over it.

regi · 10-04-2003 8:48pm

My view on this is that while I deplore any attempts to deceive the users of this forum, people should be entitled to their privacy. I feel people are also very much entitled to a private opinion, entirely seperate from the company they work for if they so choose.

If people feel they are forced to reveal who employs them in order to express an opinion, people will simply not post information for fear of discovery. I don't want that to happen. As JohnK says above, there are companies who would potentially discipline their employees for expressing an opinion which is perceived to be related to that company. Others may wish to just keep their privacy, or not wish to be bugged by others because of who they work for.

In fact, particularly on this forum, we wouldn't hear as much of the good information we need to hear if it wasn't for the fact that until now, your anonymity was reasonably ensured. Some pieces of particularly interesting or juicy information have come from telecom employees who would absolutely not reveal any details about themselves. I don't want people to feel gagged.

Also, if someone wanted to spread disinformation, its not awfully tricky to hide your tracks. Those who wish to deceive could post away while we potentially victimise legitimate posters.

So yes, it does put us at the risk of deception, but I feel its heavily outweighed by the cons of forced disclosure.

OHP · 10-04-2003 9:07pm

Originally posted by Thorbar
Haven't read all the threads that brought this about so I can't comment on them but from a purely objective point of view I think everyone should declare who they work for/have ties with if they're going to openly debate the merits of a company that they're in competition with. I'd respect someones opinion more if they were willing to openly declare who or what they were then if someone was being underhand or deceptive.

Actually where are all the threads / posts that brought this about in the first place could anyone please post a link to it so we can form our own opinion?

OHP

DeVore · 10-04-2003 9:34pm

Ok, without sleep I've spoken to the Mods about this.

-- Official Admin Opinion --
Clearly there are concerns about it that need to be addressed.
Clearly *some* people will feel genuinely intimidated from posting for fear of breaking an "unseen" rule.

So, we've decided this.

If someone is acting the bollox on a thread I will consult with the Mods before doing anything. This gives them time to input their feelings on the issue. There are then 3 possible outcomes from that discussion:

1. No action... poster is just blowing off steam or genuinely making points.

2. Mod warning: The poster is not playing ball and needs to have a finger wagged that them.

3. Defcon 1. Incoming DeVore... I get to play with them for sport.

So, unless you blatantly lie, you'll get a warning that we arent happy about your conduct and why. That will be in private and you'll be expected to understand it. This is a yellow card so to speak.

If you blatantly lie about who you are or try to deceive or be clearly underhand, you become my new favourite chew-toy.

You dont necessarily *have* to have been warned once. Though you'd want to be pretty bad.

Dusty? Have I got it basically right?

-- Personal Opinion --
The mods will act as pressure check and a sanity check as three heads are better then one. Personally I'd frog-march all the telco marketing/advertising/pr people onto a BIG mo-fo ship and fly all you human-spirit infecting wastes of carbon hydrogen and oxygen into the nearest sun. But thats just me.

If the two mods vote me down, I'll abide by their decision, its their forum.

DeV.

DeVore · 10-04-2003 9:36pm

Originally posted by OHP
Actually where are all the threads / posts that brought this about in the first place could anyone please post a link to it so we can form our own opinion?

OHP

In a very rare move and at some formal complaining from me, I've deleted those posts to protect the "innocent". Personally I think you own your own words and should be ready to stand by them but I'm just a big softie.

DeV.

DeVore · 10-04-2003 9:41pm

Regi and I basically disagree on this point as we have during the today, but I hope the new rules will provide an imperfect solution to an impractical problem.

Regi, I think you understand how to move around without leaving tracks, I'm not sure your average marketing bunny would

I see no reason why these companies cant have a representation like UTV have here. Even as the UTV guys demonstrate the way to do it, most of the rest havent even copped on to that yet.

DeV.

hmmm · 10-04-2003 9:53pm

That's a good compromise. Personally I'd like this 'power' to be used very very (did I say very?) rarely, as the 'outing' of someone who trips up by themself (good old Una) is so much more devastating.

Dustaz · 10-04-2003 9:56pm

Yes that seems about right.

The one thing i should make clear is that were not going to be actively looking for people who should and shouldnt be saying things. This is only in case alarm bells start ringing as they did, for example, with previous cases of pimping.

So anyway, back to complaining!

sceptre · 10-04-2003 10:29pm

Originally posted by Regi
My view on this is that while I deplore any attempts to deceive the users of this forum, people should be entitled to their privacy. I feel people are also very much entitled to a private opinion, entirely seperate from the company they work for if they so choose.

If people feel they are forced to reveal who employs them in order to express an opinion, people will simply not post information for fear of discovery. I don't want that to happen.

Agree with all of the above. it's what I would have written myself as a gambit if I'd been here earlier.

Originally posted by DeVore
Ok, without sleep I've spoken to the Mods about this.

<cough> (yes, DeV, you know why I'm coughing)

Moving on...

If someone is acting the bollox on a thread I will consult with the Mods before doing anything. This gives them time to input their feelings on the issue. There are then 3 possible outcomes from that discussion:

1. No action... poster is just blowing off steam or genuinely making points.

2. Mod warning: The poster is not playing ball and needs to have a finger wagged that them.

3. Defcon 1. Incoming DeVore... I get to play with them for sport.

So, unless you blatantly lie, you'll get a warning that we arent happy about your conduct and why. That will be in private and you'll be expected to understand it. This is a yellow card so to speak.

If you blatantly lie about who you are or try to deceive or be clearly underhand, you become my new favourite chew-toy.
You dont necessarily *have* to have been warned once. Though you'd want to be pretty bad.

I broadly agree with the above. As mods of this forum, our ultimate duty of care is to the users who post. That's above our duty to those who just read, the boards admins, any legalities wrt libel (though that's pretty important for other reasons) and so on.

Essentially, it should be our decision (as essentially delegates of the users) on what to allow and what not to allow. Separate from that would be any rules imposed by our kind hosts at boards.ie on the type of commercial interaction they are willing to allow on our hosted space. Any decision made on that basis is entirely different to a decision made by users (all of whom get precisely one vote) and should be seen as such.

Basically, it's our call (or the call of either one of us if one is out of contact). And that's the way it should be - we've enough users here who are well capable of reporting posts, capable of telling us where we're going wrong and capable of and willing to scream if we make a booboo, however small. Our users are our greatest asset - in fact they're the only asset we have. I'd rather see a load of idiots promoting Eircom* (which we're well capable of dealing with) than to see anyone being reluctant to post. If the above are rules or an agreement, we follow them. All of us.

Personaly, I think two companies have the correct notion at this point as far as I can see: UTV and Leap. Scott and Malcolm from UTV always make it pretty obvious who they are and have never really overstepped the mark. Rory Ardagh has made one post in the recent past - and that was to correct an incorrect statement made about his service/company. I may be missing some angel but broadly speaking, most other companies have screwed up at one time or another - Esat and Eircom seem to make a small business out of it. I'd like to see every company representative identify themselves. I'd like to have a notion of suspicions re unidentified company reps too but I don't want this kind of stuff to be posted openly until one of us has a chance to look at it first.

Given that I'm usually on boards all weekend and almost every evening (rarely during the day) I may be seen as the late shift supervisor. Actually that works out pretty well IMHO - it often effectively works out as Dustaz having access all day, me off-peak with limited access during the day. Doesn't bother me frankly as on the whole it works better that way. Essentially what I'm saying is that pimpage can be detected fairly quickly regardless of when it's done - midday, midnight, afternoons or 4am. When we're not here, there are a host of users who'll tell us pretty damn fast.

("evening shift":D started late today btw - had to drive a friend to a funeral)

*that's not an invitation to those who seek to pimp - more of a threat if you read it the way it was written

Hobart · 10-04-2003 10:39pm

Originally posted by DeVore
In a very rare move and at some formal complaining from me, I've deleted those posts to protect the "innocent". Personally I think you own your own words and should be ready to stand by them but I'm just a big softie.

DeV.

I think the thread should be re-instated with the offending comments removed as I thought that the subject matter/thread starter was excellent.

My 2c on the 'New' approach to potential outing is a good thumbs up. IMO you(Dev) overreacted to a childish remark by s8n which should have been deleted or acted upon by the Mods of the board. A simple PM would have sufficed or a quircky reply in this case.

milobloom · 11-04-2003 8:12am

Originally posted by Johnmb
I think anyone who has a vested interest, or can be perceived to have a vested interest, in a thread should notify us of the possible vested interest. If they don't do it themselves, someone else should do it for them. While their imput may be valid, it is surely only fair that other readers are aware that there may be a conflict of interests if you are posting about your own company or a competitor. As long as your points are valid, I don't see why you should be upset about people knowing where you are coming from.

Do we not all not have a vested interest?

Telcos want to make money
Their employees (I work for Esat) want to have jobs
Users want to get a good service and pay reasonable rates
By this reasoning, we should all be outed.

Ireland is still a small place and even those working outside any one Telco probably have reasons to attack or defend their choosen target. Friends, family or Eircom shares could sway opinion away from an objective stance.

I followed the now deleted thread yesterday and reckon there was more than one Telco employee in the group -DeV0re could check this for us ;-).
Why was only S8n outed? Maybe because s/he got an emotional response from Devore.

How do we know if any given user in any thread is about to be outed because the Mod has a personal problem with their position, or affiliation ?
I reckon the best boards are those that include all users, regardless of origin. People are mostly smart enough to make up their own minds if the postings are bull**** marketing, or not.

P.S. I don't work for the PR bunnies, just grunt from sector 7-G.:cool:

Cloud · 11-04-2003 8:37am

Here's one I prepared earlier, roll on the admin wars

I'd imagine that DeV's (first set of) rules should only apply if you stand to make a profit from posting. If you are just an employee and not a company director or owner, why should you have to say who you are? I think some of the people above are right in this case, and as they've pointed out, why risk your job by revealing where you work.

DeVore · 11-04-2003 9:21am

The problem with the "yay lets all be happy clappy friends" line is that some "people" are willing to blatantly lie to obfuscate their company's shortcomings or to muddy the water. They take advantage of a naive idea that people who are out to make LOTS OF MONEY are going to meekly sit by while we disect their industry.

Trust me, if it were left to them IOFFL and Boards.ie would be shut down to stop people here saying what they are saying.

If I overreacted yesterday perhaps it was from a history between the poster and Esat and a nasty comment being made towards him while he criticised them. Is noone concerned that other posters who are perhaps arent as brassnecked as some of us wont post because a legion of fanboys from company X will tell them to "stop whinging"?

DeV.

eth0_ · 11-04-2003 9:31am

Originally posted by DeVore
Is noone concerned that other posters who are perhaps arent as brassnecked as some of us wont post because a legion of fanboys from company X will tell them to "stop whinging"?

DeV.

Muck and his IOFFL colleagues will never stop posting because of a silly comment made about them.
And just because you're a "fanboy/girl" of telco X (I prefer to refer to myself as an employee though), doesn't mean you can't think muck or anyone else whinges on occasion, and muck does get all high spirited about things on occasion ;-)

Johnmb · 11-04-2003 9:49am

Reply to milobloom

Do we not all not have a vested interest?

Telcos want to make money
Their employees (I work for Esat) want to have jobs
Users want to get a good service and pay reasonable rates
By this reasoning, we should all be outed.

Yes, but it is different when you work for the company. I used to be an auditor, and even now I would be hesitant to give an opinion on any auditing firms. While I would be honest, and give factual information, the simple fact is that I'd look at some through rose coloured glasses, and some not so kindly, giving a slightly twarted view of the facts no matter how hard I try not to. I would feel it only fair to point out that I may have some bias one way or the other to people I was discussing the subject with. I don't think much information needs to be given, just point out that you work in the area. What you have done in the quote above is more than adequate IMO. Also, I don't think you should have to do it unless the thread directly relates to your company or a competitors. The Web Hosting forum seems to get on okay, and there are a number of posters there who have vested interests and openly admit it.

As for my "outing", on this forum I only want a cheap service that is reliable. I have a bit of a grudge with UTVip, but I have nothing against any of the rest (other than price).

flav0rflav · 11-04-2003 9:52am

So let me get this straight.

Devore is the US, with god given powers and means, while the mods are the UN?

Yea, that worked.

flav0rflav · 11-04-2003 9:57am

(Oh and while I'm here and all you Admins are here, can I get back my original FlavorFlav account?)

cgarvey · 11-04-2003 10:05am

Originally posted by Hobart
I think the thread should be re-instated with the offending comments removed as I thought that the subject matter/thread starter was excellent.[/B]

And as for declaring who you work for... DeVore, you're just talking about people who blatently lie/misrepresent on behalf of their company, aren't you? I.e. biddy from eircom can come on and say she's well impressed with her dialup if she wants, without declaring her employer can't she?

Because, if not, and everyone who says anything about their place of work without declaring where they work will either
a) Face unecessary questioning either in private or in public (and it sounds like it was pretty public in the s8n case?)
b) Be seen to represent their employer and, therefore, must watch every word they say, as its a different ball game
c) Not be arsed post at all

Now all 3 are fine for someone who comes on and blatently lies/pimps, I think thats an ugly insult to boards.ie founders.

However if it applies to any telco employee then I think that is way OTT.. nothing I can do about if of course, as I don't pay anything for this service, but I don't think there is need for that.

Besides, whats wrong with the way were? I thought these guys were pretty much rumbled as soon as they posted?

Finally, why was the thread deleted? Is it because there was a potential legal issue in its contents? If not, then please don't tell me it was "personal"!? That would but yesterday down as a black day in boards!

Anyway, I'm sure alot of people are passionate about the topic, but I hope its not censorship, and I hope it doesn't mean employees have to say who they work for if they say anything that involves their employer.

My rant is over, sorry for taking up so much space
.cg

spongebob · 11-04-2003 10:30am

Anybody can delete a thread that they themselves started as long as they do so within 24 hours.

So I did.

Others had deleted their own posts before I chopped its ugly head off.

M

cgarvey · 11-04-2003 10:48am

Originally posted by Muck
Anybody can delete a thread that they themselves started as long as they do so within 24 hours.

So I did.

Well that's a relief (/me purges brain of conspiracy theories)! I just read

In a very rare move and at some formal complaining from me, I've deleted those posts to protect the "innocent".

and thought it was either way out of line (which I've not seen before, out of line yeah, but not enough to warrant it to be thrashed) or censorship, but I had no way to clarify other than to ask here.

My point about the need for employer disclosure still stands

De Rebel · 11-04-2003 10:53am

Originally posted by eth0_
Muck and his IOFFL colleagues will never stop posting because of a silly comment made about them.

Stranger things have happened. Yesterday could be something of a watershed for this forum. Being called a "whinger" is unlikely in itself to scare off any of the regulars, however some of what followed may do so. There are a lot of contributors here who operate semi anonymously for a variety of reasons, and that seems to be part of what boards is about. And it has merit.

I have no problem standing up and being identified, the admins and the IOFFL peeps have my personal details and I have posted enough about myself in this and other forums to be identified. I have declared my interest: sorting out my two monthly €400 eircom bills. Others are not in a position to be so open.

Generally the informal rules about identity have worked well. Newbies with a post count of 1 get the sceptical treatment they deserve when they zone in with controversial views on a hot topic. Regular posters get a bit more respect, as there is usually a general if vague appreciation of where they are coming from. By and large the anonymous rule works well.

Blatant breaches of the "common law" like last weeks Aggie post which exposed her deliberate lie about here identity while sniping at competitors are easily dealt with. That case got up everybody's nose and as I understand it was dealt with appropriately. sn8 was a far less clear cut case.

He/She certainly didn't help the issue with a one line "Muck your a whinger" post. His motivation and reasoning behind the post were open the question and this combined with the "ESAT" context is where the trouble started. If the post had started with "Muck I think your a whinger because....." and gone on to explain his point of view, then I doubt that DeV would have reacted the way he did.

However that is water under the bridge. There is a bit of a cloud (small C) hanging over the forum. Somewhere among the posts by Dustaz, Cloud (big C), and DeV there is the basis of an unambiguous rule about revealing the identity of a poster.

In 6 months I have developed tremendous respect for Boards.ie and for Tom in particular. There is a lot of merit in the anonymity that Boards allows, but there is also a clear need for abuse to be dealt with. Boards is maturing into something really special. Its getting bigger and hopefully better. Hence the need to move from the informality that was adequate heretofore to a few essential rules.

Sorry to go on a bit, but I believe this is a key point in setting the foundations for the future strength of Boards.ie. It may even be worth taking this topic up in the Admin forum, as the privacy issue has implications for many of the other forums also.

The last thing any of us want to see is the suppression of open and informed debate or the disappearance of any of the valued and informed contributors.

SkepticOne · 11-04-2003 11:10am

Originally posted by DeVore
The problem with the "yay lets all be happy clappy friends" line is that some "people" are willing to blatantly lie to obfuscate their company's shortcomings or to muddy the water. They take advantage of a naive idea that people who are out to make LOTS OF MONEY are going to meekly sit by while we disect their industry.

Yes, but what can you do about it? Someone from Company X who wants to muddy the water will do so. We might have suspicions about it, but we have no way of knowing. You can tell if someone is posting from the corporate network, but what if it is being done via a proxy within the ISP? A lower-tech solution would be to use a dial up account and bypass the corporate network altoghter.

If I overreacted yesterday perhaps it was from a history between the poster and Esat and a nasty comment being made towards him while he criticised them. Is noone concerned that other posters who are perhaps arent as brassnecked as some of us wont post because a legion of fanboys from company X will tell them to "stop whinging"?

Again there could be a number of posters on here with specific vested interests, i.e, not those of a user of services but those of a provider. We have had the example of someone posing as a user but who, in fact, turned out to be an Esat employee. She was caught because she slipped up. Asking for disclosure would not have prevented the original postings since this assumes a certain level of honesty.

What I'm saying, is that there is no point in asking for a disclosure. Others, who may be working for Eircom, another company or indeed Esat may well be laughing at the idea of disclosure because if they wanted to say they were working for Company X, they would have said so.

None of this should be seen as attacking ordinary employees of telcos who post here.

For me it comes down to this: this is supposed to be the forum for IOFFL, an organisation trying to bring about flat rate 56k and affordable broadband in Ireland. The forum, although it is not limited to IOFFL members should be, at least, for those who share its aims. If not, it is meaningless and confusing.

What is "on topic" for the IOFFL forum is the subject of how to bring about the aims of IOFFL.

Therefore, in addition to asking for disclosure, we should state that by not disclosing, it will be assumed that they are posting as an ordinary user who shares the aims of IOFFL. This won't be perfect, but at least we can tackle overt attempts to muddy the water by the fact that what they are saying is not in line with the goals and aims of IOFFL.

I'm not trying to curtail peoples right to free speech here, merely defining the 'topic' of this forum.

flav0rflav · 11-04-2003 11:18am

Ok, I just reviewed what I could see on the 'Aggie' drama. Was she outed by Dev? Didn't see it.

What I did see was that if someone tells lies it'll get found out without any need to remove anonymity.

Christ, if someone stands up and says Esat (or whoever) is ****, without any facts, you ignore it, plain and simple. I only read these boards for opinions backed by facts. And say they do have wrong facts, it's easy to check them.

Take, for example the start of the topic about Esat lower cost DSL. I was most interested to find out if it was just an eircom resell. From all the discussion, I came to the conclusion that it is. But I didn't conclude that from just one post.

The internet is information, use it.

DeVore · 11-04-2003 11:20am

Few points.

Johmb... thank you for saying what I was trying to say. You are an ethical person and though I've never met you, you're ok in my book

I am not, regardless of my ego, always right. I feel yesterday I was right. I still feel it but I am willing to accept that my feelings arent always the desires of the community. So be it, from now any anything like that will be run passed the level heads of sceptre and dusty. (I'm not one for unilateral action...

)

We split and moved the thread to recycle bin. Unfortunately that put it out of reach of the mods and (because of the settings on that forums) from the users. Muck asked me to kill it to save peoples blushes (I'm still angry about the "burning orphanages" comment directed at me about which noone seems to give a ****).

I strongly objected to Muck and others at the time as I felt (and feel) that "you own your own words" and revisionism is an ugly thing. However I relented and at their request deleted the thread.

DeV.

DeVore · 11-04-2003 11:30am

Flav, she outted herself by a slip up. If I had seen it I'd have outted her.

In the new world I would have brought it to the mods and we'd have decided. My vote would have been for public outting, I dunno how the others would vote.

I think the distinction is going to be drawn between deliberate deception and fanboyism.

DeV.

Just to be absolutely clear about corporate interaction here.

Comments