| Author | Message | ||
     Regkittrelle |
Hiding behind a non de web is an accepted practice with this new medium. I don't like the idea as I think it promotes behaviour that, were a person's real name shown, wouldn't otherwise appear. So be it; that just my Luddite side, I guess. However, I'm particulary bothered by the presence of the "Anonymous" poster. He/she has positioned themselves as an insider, and has offered some helpful clarification. This is cool, but there has also been opinion posted that sounds very un-Buell-like. This calls their cred into question... at least to me. I think it a great idea that there is input from a credible corporate source; I just want to know that it is indeed, a credible corporate source. If Anonymous is not a "CCS," then they are only offering opinion such as myself and the rest of us. Opinion's great, but it's often different from fact. So, what do we have with "Anonymous"? Fact or opinion? | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
From my experience, the modorators have a list of acceptable screen names from those who have a valid reason to post anony, IE: "CCS". Otherwise, you have to give them a valid reason for using the anony post at the time you make the post. If it isn't valid, you get outed. The only drawback to an outed post is the timeframe it takes for an admin/moderator to get to the post, so it could be taken initially as "CCS" only to be found out later it wasn't. | ||
| Regkittrelle |
So Blake, are we to assume that we're dealing with a "credible corporate source" behind the Anonymous tag? | ||
| Newfie_buell |
Who is CCS? I agree with Reg on this one. There was a thread recently and I believe it was the "Best Handling Thread" that really got out of hand at times. The Anon should have been outed in that case or the whole thread just stopped and deleted. It was a shame it went that far. Moderators do have access to who is posting and I think they do a good job but that thread is an obvious example of dropping the ball. The Anonymous feature should be strictly for those insiders that like to drop a hint about these wonderful machines we call Buells. I was guilty of playing with the Anon a while back and was politely asked by Blake to come clean, which I did. Just my thoughts on it. | ||
| Court |
>>>>So Blake, are we to assume that we're dealing with a "credible corporate source" behind the Anonymous tag? I am not Blake but will speak to the question. All folks wanting to post "Anonymous" are subjected to a degree of scrutiny and must have a valid reason. Wanting to get in someone's face doesn't rise to sufficient reason. There is, as you well know, about as much misinformation as information. Often times the Anonymous function allows for some, assumed to be the CCS level, clarity. Anyone can check the "post as "Anonymous"" box. Anyone not having good reason to do so will quickly be un-anonymized. Not sure that's an answer, but that's what the practice has been since we started. Now that we are headed over 7,000 active participants, it may bear revisiting. Court | ||
| Jb2 |
The whole anon bit had more than a few BadWeBers upset last week including the likes of FMJ who publicly called for his ousting. I noticed that Blake did not respond to that call. If my information is correct(the source was of the highest caliber) then Anon is indeed a CCS and knowing who he is doesn't make that pill any easier to swallow. In fact it sheds a whole new light on the dealeo. I also noticed that he has since posted on other pages with no mention of the words he penned the other day. I can't speak about all the folks who had the proverbial dung slung at them but I know for a fact that Chop has given as much or more than he has received from the Buell community. Even if he does under the Anon moniker he still should apologize to those he offended or lose his ability to post as such. | ||
| M1combat |
I can't speak for Blake, but I typically take it with a grain of salt if it doesn't seem like it's proper CCS speak. If an admin posts afterwords and doesn't out the anony, then I figure it's probably a CCS. One more thing... When Anony says something a little "colorful" I tend to just look the other way just like I do with anyone else. One MORE thing... There ARE people who are approved to post anonymously who are NOT corporate employees as such but do work/contract/etc for HD/BMC in some fashion or another... Personally, I believe that those people should not be allowed to post anonymously... They should just not post anything that would require the use of the anony feature. Just MO to those of you who fall in this category  . | ||
| Bomber |
annony posters have great days, less-than-great-days, and worser-than-that-days, like anyone else, I suspect -- given the tolerance shown for many posters on this board (including myself, for instance), a lil slack is in order for annonies as well, I'm thinkin | ||
| M1combat |
"Not sure that's an answer, but that's what the practice has been since we started. Now that we are headed over 7,000 active participants, it may bear revisiting. " I kind of think it ought to be limited to just a few people. For me at the least the anonymous post feature is something that REALLY sets this board a cut above the others. I would hate to see it go... | ||
| Slaughter |
I'd like to see the "Anonymous" function retained - understanding that it might allow comments to be posted which otherwise would never make it online... ...HOWEVER... I'd like to see a clear delineation between DIFFERENT anonymous posters - serialize the ANONYMII - so we know if we're dealing with 2, 3, or 5 different anonymous personalities. Color code or Anony1...Anony2... well, you get the picture. (Message edited by slaughter on August 08, 2005) | ||
| Jb2 |
What if they change color codes behind our backs? Still sounds like a shell game to me. Let there be one and only one CCS/Anon poster. | ||
| Regkittrelle |
I'm not a fan, obviously, of "anonymous" postings. I do, though, see some benefit if strict guidelines are followed. Specifically, a) As soon as an anonymous post offers an opinion, they loose the right to post anonymously. "Anonymous" allows far too large a shield for hiding behind b)The poster is, indeed, a credible source. That is, the facts they offer up can be counted upon to be valid And, btw, I'm not just referring to a possible Buell source. I may be missing something here, but would M1Combat, Slaughter...or anyone... explain how non-CCS "Anonymous" posts benefit this or any board? | ||
| Tramp |
the wheel's being reinvented here by the "out anon now" lobby...clearly, the anon tag is one any of us can use, with permission. i think the MYTH that 'anon' is erik buell has to be brought right up front, here, as just that. a myth. i am adept in IDing a pen by their diction, phraseology, misspellings, etc., and I can say for certain that the "anon" of recent is three different people, two of whom are very, very regular posters here on badweb, and are NOT employees of BMC. i have NO problem with the use of the 'anon' function, myself. i think it's a very valuable tool for badwebbers to get a point across without the attendant prejudice that their username might otherwise invoke. | ||
| Regkittrelle |
Good info, Tramp, but I can't agree as to the "valuable tool" aspect. The validity of any point, or issue, is tied to the individual making it. If the 'net has proved anything it is that disinformation is a growth industry. This has grown to the degree that often the value of truth is secondary to the entertainment content. I'm not calling for "outing anon." What I'm suggesting is that when an anon posts seemingly factual information, we can believe it to be so. If Blake, Court, or whoever, has vetted the source and granted anon status, that's cool with me. But that has to be stated. I don't see why this or any board should be exempt from good journalistic practice. | ||
| Doncasto |
What Reg says! Never liked the anonymous option, never will. It has been an occasional source of inside information, but has often been used for "sniping" attacks on BWBers and derisive personal comments. I am now, and have always been for either locking it down or getting rid of it. Predictably, Don Casto | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
explain how non-CCS Non-CCS posters may be people that are working for a Non-BMC/HD company that has direct access to the current or future model year products and as such are under the same confidentiality contract as actual BMC/HD employees. These people are privy to the same information that BMC/HD employees are due to what their jobs are from a technical standpoint. Opinion based on information that is not available to the general public poses a problem. Lets use the new publicly available oilpump gear as an example. They were available only for racers. That led to the opinion that "all" of the oilpump gears in the XL/XB platforms are bad and will cause engine melt down in so many miles. Even though its only been a few of the motors that have run into the problem for everyday use. That is a case of "insider opinion" causing misinformation. To seperate out an "anony" by an identifying method, when its a legitimate post defeats the purpose of trying to protect someones job who is mearly trying to properly inform the general public about things they are under contract to not talk about. As M1/Don has mentioned, there are people under that contract that simply choose to not speak of anything that is not publicly available knowledge rather then cause strife, or the possibility of misconstrued information. | ||
| Henrik |
The Anon function has worked well as a way of allowing BMC folks or others with important information to chime in with factual info as well as trouble shooting advice - without the added corporate lawyer BS getting in the way. That, I believe, is of great value. I must however also agree, that the sniping from Anony positions of late have been unfortunate. I would like to see the "Real" Anony function retained for the value stated above. But I also think the gentleman rules of Anony posting must be reviewed and enforced. Henrik | ||
| Eeeeek |
7,000 active users, Court? I don't think so. That would be like me saying I've got over 1,000 active users on SacBORG just because over 1,000 people have signed up. I suspect there are closer to about 100 active users, if that. As for anony, there were clearly at least two of them. One of them, at the least, should be exposed. Vik | ||
| CJXB |
but has often been used for "sniping" attacks on BWBers and derisive personal comments. That is simply not true, I've been on badweb long enough to know that. Like Bomber said, everyone has a bad day now and then, and there are plenty of posts much worse and folks don't get so offended !! As for some of those offended, I've seen really nasty, insulting posts over at Sacborg, geezzz get over it already !! Go ride, do something fun so that silly internet arguments don't take up so much of your valuable life/time !! CJ  | ||
| Anonymous |
CJ, Note that on SacBORG: A) That's expected. B) You are held accountable C) This isn't SacBORG, although it sure did seem like it. You'll note that in the "debate" in question I was called in several times for three days before I finally made an apearance. I'm going to start using the anonymous feature to deliver my retorts since it's acceptable. Vik...I mean anonymous. | ||
| Cruisin |
I like the Anonymous feature because USUALLY it's somebody giving info or help that they normally would not be allowed to do if their name was known. Perhaps some sort of approval process? Anonymous option available if a moderator has approved it for that user? That way someone could sign up for an account and specify that they'd like anonymous posting priv's. With it has to be a valid reason (work for BMC, etc) and at that point a moderator could approve it. Then we would know that typically the people posting via the Anon name are legit, and the moderators don't have to hunt down every Anon post to see if it's a legit use of that feature? Just my thoughts... | ||
| CJXB |
Vic, my point is that this "debate" has been rather lengthy and all involved have behaved basically the same and not at their best !! So why whine more about one poster than another, anon or not ??!! I'm just saying there are better ways to spend time than "debating" extensively on the internet, way more fun too actually !! If you enjoy it, go for it but I don't get the complaining, I'm allowed my opinion right !? CJ | ||
| Jon |
Blake has been from the website for the last three days or so. He shoudl be back on line tonight to chime in, clarify, etc. Occassionally a person will post as Anon who isn't supposed to. Blake will expose a poster who isn't authorized. Let's see what he says tonight. Jon | ||
| Ryker77 |
all people have to do is create FAKE email accounts and create FAKE user names. I've seen this happen on car chat boards. Most of the time it was for profit and the person was pimping his own products. If badweb does change I would hope it would change to a better formated board. I like being able to see when a member became a member on the main screen. Number of postings too. This way you would quickly be able to tell the new guy. | ||
| Chasespeed |
Cruisin, I like the sound of that.... Because, I am held to no confidentiality with anything that would concern ANYTHING on this board...... But then again, I have never been one to hide behind anything, I come out and say what I have to say, do what I have to do etc.... Dont like it, dont read it, listen, whatever.... BUT, I am also not privy to any "good " info from Buell or HD BUT, like was stated, for the most part, the anony side of things seems to be pretty well regluated....so....BUT, maybe your suggestion would bear looking into, IF its not too much of a pain for Blake.... My 2 cents Chase | ||
| Regkittrelle |
My point is being missed by some of you. "Anonymous" has a valuable aspect to it. But...and this is the BIG ONE... the source has to be credible, and verified. Example; On this board it would be very simple for me to assume an anon position. I could, also very simply, couch my post in such a way as to make you believe I work for the Buell Motorcycle Company; this is nothing more than simple wordsmithing. Thus convinced that I am a credible source, you would tend to strongly believe any technical information that I post. If I tell you that a given nut should be torqued to 14 ft/lbs, you're probably going to believe it. As would I in your position. If someone is giving out that type of information, I want to be very sure they know what they're talking about. I don't need their name and pedigree. I simply need for the the Big Kahuna(s)here to state that "Anon. is a credible source." Just another way of stating what Crusin wrote. As re those that hide behind Anon just to offer up an opinion... Why? As soon as you use "anon" you invalidate your opinion. | ||
| Glitch |
Wes, just check out the profile of the poster you're worried about. You registered June 05, 2005 Have 275 posts Would you have us suspend your account because you didn't fill out your profile completely? Be the example, show your full name ect. We hide your e-mail so the spam-bots can't get you, other than that what more do you need? | ||
| Bomber |
Reg -- you raise a good point, no doubt -- the credibility of the Annoy posts is very often backed up by the moderators (generally Blake) fairly regularly (although perhaps not when you've been surfing in these waters) -- and when they are not credible, they are outed just as regularly (though, again, you may have been elsewhere when this has happened) not asyin all is perfect, as there's always room for improvement, yes? | ||
| Glitch |
Well Reg since I won't "out" an approved Anonymous poster, you'll just have to live with the way Blake handles his board. I was the Anonymous  popcorn guy. I thought it was funny, and now I've been exposed, see? that's how it works. Sorry if you don't like it or feel it's makes the post of Anonymous worthless. I feel there are those here that post (with their user name in plain view ) worthless posts. I see their user name and move on to the next. Unless Blake changes things (I doubt he will) you'll just have to move on the way I do when I see a poster I don't trust. | ||
| Slaughter |
Reg - I think that anonymous-on-demand is wrong - even if the person may eventually be "outed" Non-credible sources should NOT be allowed to post as anonymous. I really think that anonymous status should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and should NEVER be a selectable option at time of posting. Let's say I had some legit inside information on the Moon's makeup but worked for Kraft Foods in Velveeta production - and wanted to post as anonymous. I should be allowed to do so - but ought to be patient enough to be able to wait a day or two until approved to do so. I don't care what the 10-11 regular posters on here or SACBORG think - there's NO earthly reason to think these BBS's are so critical that an immediate reply as an anonymous poster is meaningful in the grand scheme of things. I'd send an email to the sysop to explain my position and for that thread/subject, I should be allowed to post as anonymous and only under those circumstances. |
