Just to be absolutely clear about corporate interaction here.

DeVore

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

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

Your current modus operandi makes perfect sense to me.

flav0rflav

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

DeVore

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.