| Author | Message | ||
     Jon |
Reg, You point is well taken. Would you mind either posting an example or what you are talking about or at least e-mailing the same to Blake or a custodian? | ||
| Chasespeed |
Hey now, not ALL my posts are worthless(liek this one)  Chase | ||
| Smokedaddy |
Court, Are you sure there are some: -7,000 active participants- here? I find that very hard to believe ... you did say active didn't you? -SD: | ||
| Reepicheep |
It is impossible to ever be absolutely sure of any Anon identities. That's the point. But it is possible to build a level of confidence in the reliability of a source over time. We do that. Ryker, making people create fake emails would be a step backwards. It would be harder for custodians to tell valid versus invalid anon usage. And for the record, with the shots taken by Anon in the other thread, the reason *I* did not "custodianize" them was because I saw little difference between them and what the targeted parties were doing. Chop was (IMHO) hurting people artfully and subtly by expert and relentless trolling. Anon took the more direct "internet punch in the nose" approach. I, for one, saw no innocents. The whole thread could have been ditched, that would have been the expedient route, but then lots of cool information would have been lost. We could edit out just the objectionable anon posts, but anon was not the only party pi&&ing, and the thread would have become incoherent if I cleaned out every personal attack (both subtle and overt) from both sides. And doing so could have taken hours, and only stirred up more noise, and by the time I finished there would have been another 20 posts to vaccuum. So I just gave a heavy sigh and left it alone. I Can't speak for other custodians, but that was where I was at. I think another custodian eventually pulled the most direct attacking anon post, which was not an unreasonable call, but I don't think it helped much, as witness this thread  I think Chop's posts were just as hurtful, if not more so, then the worst of Anon. Chop came to a Buell enthusiasts board and posted to a thread to congratulate the Buell Elves for a great cover story from a respected industry magazine, and basically seemed to be intoning that something *other* then just building a great motorcycle must have been responsible for the positive article. What if the bike in the article had been your *lifetime* work? But all in all, lets keep it in perspective. People talk smack in internet forums, especially naturally competitive people. Take it with a grain of salt and move along. | ||
| M1combat |
Reg - I'm not an Admin, but the way it works is that if ANY post is made anonymously and the poster doesn't have VERY good reason to have done it that way then they are exposed. As far as I know there are no if's, and's or but's and so far I have found the anonymous feature to be well regulated and a VERY nice addition to this board. I'm not certain (maybe an admin can chime in) but I think that ANYONE posting from a certain IP (that IP being the public IP to either HD or BMC) automatically gets treated as "CCS". If not, then the admin will look into exactly who posted the post and why. 99% of the time they get outed. The 1% that they don't... I don't know, but I do know that it's very rare  . The reason for anyone from HD or BMC to post anonymously is due to legality only. I don't believe that they would specifically use that as such to hide behind anything and quite frankly, sometimes people need to be slapped a little. We can certainly respond to a specific Anony post so personally I don't see any problem with the anonymity in and of its self. I HAVE seen an anonymous post that specifically stated that it was indeed Erik so that does happen. I think it would be VERY difficult to prove that it was indeed Erik, but very easy to prove that it was from BMC at the least. In any case, WRT the anony posts in the cornering thread it seems to me that everyone has their good and bad days. I could care less who it was exactly that made a comment that got under my skin. I would really only be concerned with the content. That's just me though. There are certain people here that would love nothing better than to have been attacked (in their mind) by Erik. That's little IMO. So the post from Anony in that case was maybe a little off base... So what  . | ||
| CJXB |
I, for one, saw no innocents. Yep !! there are no if's, and's or but's and so far I have found the anonymous feature to be well regulated Yep !! | ||
| Reepicheep |
It is never that clear M1. The anonys are smarter then to post through their corporate logging proxy web server, at least if they want to stay employed past sundown. Its a fuzzy process, but one that is aggressively policed. The more time we dwell on it here, the less useful it will become to the board. | ||
| Smokedaddy |
My turn, I feel the anonymous attribute is ridiculous and an un-reliable feature for its perceived intent on the BBS, unless of course the anonymous individual is indeed verifiable by the administrator of this system. If that is the case, to me, that means that anyone given access to the anonymous status is undeniably an insider therefore credible, otherwise the attribute needs to be dropped. Cheers, -SD: | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
...So I just gave a heavy sigh and left it alone. I Can't speak for other custodians, but that was where I was at... ditto. | ||
| Smokedaddy |
Oh, I also have met a few of you and I can't believe what thin skins a lot of you "seem to have". You would never of survived in my little part of the world. Pretty weird, -SD: | ||
| Smokedaddy |
...... and maybe someone in power needs to RE-configure the “time limit allowed” to delete their OWN personal message ...... it might “help eliminate” some of the messages posted out of frustration and lack of forethought by some ...... -SD:>0 | ||
| Eeeeek |
And yet here you are arguing, CJ. Let's recap that thread: Chop and I were called out, by name. Chop didn't come randomly in there looking for a fight, he was requested. I came in three days later and got personally attacked by some coward using the anony feature. Does that hurt me? Nope. Does it hurt the reputation of the person who normally posts as anonymous? Damn straight. I am a little disappointed to read Reep's take on this. You're defending a coward because you don't like what Chop was saying? At least you knew it was Chop posting. Vik | ||
| CJXB |
And yet here you are arguing, CJ. <sigh> Let's recap that thread: Oh Lord, please let's don't !! | ||
| Court |
Back to the topic.....Reg's question regarding anonymous posting. I'll discuss it with Blake when he returns. I see value to "checking out" folks who have a valid reason. Concomitant with the "right" being conferred, I suppose we should keep a collar on anonymous posters. Recent events were most irregular. I probably should not have used the term "active". Although Blake recently posted a list of folks and countries that have been active in the last month and it's absolutely amazing. I'm really proud of what we have done on Badweb. Ten years ago, there were but three of us, now present on Badweb, flogging it out on RIDE. What a trip it's been! The one luxury folks ALWAYS have it the address bar....if it's really bad, bothers you and change seems improbable, enter another URL. Thanks for the comments Reg. Court | ||
| Eeeeek |
OK, then back to Reg's original point: When you let any random jackass use the anony feature, you take away the credibility of the "good "anony who's provided so much help over the years. I was under the impression that the anony users were closely scrutinized to ensure there was a valid reason for it being used. Now, I hear it's OK to use anony for attacks on people who's opinions aren't popular? Good grief! Am I the only one who thinks that's a little insane? Vik | ||
| Firemanjim |
I am going to have to disagree with CJ in the statement that all behaved basically the same.I was appalled at the mean, spiteful, and off color statements from anon.I followed this thread from the first and have to agree with Vik --all he and Chop did was disagree in a clear and unconfrontational way.I am a Buell fan from way back but certainly do not have blinders on to some of the shortcomings of the brand. I think it was poorly handled all the way through.I am STILL waiting for an apology,and if one is not forthcoming that particular anon should be banned. I suppose it's lucky Blake never got around to activating my admin status cuz I was majorly pizzed. | ||
| Choptop |
I think Chop's posts were just as hurtful, if not more so, then the worst of Anon. Chop came to a Buell enthusiasts board and posted to a thread to congratulate the Buell Elves for a great cover story from a respected industry magazine, and basically seemed to be intoning that something *other* then just building a great motorcycle must have been responsible for the positive article. What if the bike in the article had been your *lifetime* work? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ya know what... its just that attitude and slant on things that has kept me away from this board. Alllllllll I said was, I dont agree with the article. I NEVER, again NEVER questioned anyones personal riding ability, compared them to child molesters, attacked them personally...on and on. ALLL I did was say I dont agree with the article. I did not put down Erik Buell's lifetime of work, or the effort he has put into the company or his motorcycle. allll I said was I dont agree with the article. and from that I'm just as bad as someone who slings personal insults? *shakes head*.... Un-friggin-believable. its sad really. One can be a Buell enthusiast, one can support the brand, own the bikes, race them, help others do so by lending effort, cash, time, helping hands..... and still not think they are the best bike in any particular area. You CAN just like the damn motorcycles, but not think they are the bestest ever !!!! Heck, I own lots of bikes, and I dont think ANY of them are the bestestssssss ever at anything. Doesnt mean I dont like them. and it SURE as heck doesnt put me on the same level as someone who slings insults if all I do is say that I dont think they are the best. again, thats ALLLLLL I did was say that I dont agree with the article. allllllll of the other stuff was in RESPONSE to insults, challenges to ability... on and on. again, thats the main problem I have with this board. Is the absolute zealotry that clouds alllll other aspects of discussion here. I refer people to BadWeb all the time when they are looking for tech info on Buells. I also warn them to pretty much ignore everything else, JUST for this reason. You cant even MURMOR that you dont think Buells are the bestest EVER without getting compared to child molesters, told you can ride, told you putting down someones lifetime work... it just doesnt hold up. its too bad too, cuz this site has lots of good info, but having to filter out the blind faith and over-reaction makes it nearly not worth it. | ||
| Choptop |
as far as the MAIN subject of the thread... anon. postings are a great way for insider info to be passed along. as soon as they get into the realm of opinions, sarcasm, personal attacks..... ANYTHING like that... all bets are off. people are free to sign up for accounts and use a screen name to hide their "real" name (and there are ways to not be known to the other posters on this board). even if you ARE a AAP or a CCS... as soon as you start slinging opinion.... you should use yer own derned account, and NOT the anon. feature. | ||
| Regkittrelle |
Several interesting positions being taken here, tho variation on two themes: "Yes" to anons, "No" to Anons. If a vote were taken, "No" would be my answer. I cannot see any justification for an anonymous post OTHER than a credible source setting the facts straight. How can you give any credance to an unsigned opinion? And, personally, I'd give a lot more attention to a mild rebuke from a known person, than to a gross insult from an anon. And just how cowardly is it to attack Jim, Chop, Vik et al from behind a firewall? As with so many cases, that type of attack sez volumes more about the attackor than the attackee. I'll keep my mind open on this, but I've yet to hear of any real justication for an anon's existance? "Custodians" what say ye? Jon: ANY anonymous contribution would be my example | ||
| Jb2 |
I'm with Chop and FMJ on this one as I followed it all the way through. I couldn't believe what was posted or that it went so long untouched by the inner circle of admins. It gave me the impression that one dare not be skeptical of Buell or BIKE but that it was okay for a BMC employee to make some pretty nasty personal statements about those who might have a different opinion. I saved the BS to my PC and re-read it a couple of times to see if I could find the "no harm, no foul" take that CJ and others found. Sorry, I disagree. Those were some pretty schitty statements that brought back memories of KX... (shhhh) Well if you've been here from the very beginning you know what I mean. (Message edited by jb2 on August 08, 2005) | ||
| Regkittrelle |
"I think Chop's posts were just as hurtful,..." That indeed might be ...cheep. But, the difference is, we know who Chop is. We can mitigate, or not, the seriousness of any attack based upon prior knowledge. We know where to find him, internet-wise. And...this is an important one... Chop (or anyone)with full knowledge that we know these things is more inclined to move a shift dog in his brain before he lets the clutch out on his mouth. "...if not more so, then the worst of Anon." This is absolutely true, because there is no "worst" of an anon's verbal actions in the same way there is no "best." Without attribution "worst" or "best" does not apply any more than the word "substance." | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
This and several other threads on the various boards are like the train wreck you don't want to see, but know its coming and can't help watching... | ||
| Eeeeek |
KXKIDD..funny, I was thinking about him as I was reading through that mess. Do you guys think Chop, Snail or I are like KXKIDD? hehehhe...If he returns, I appologize in advance. Vik | ||
| M1combat |
"even if you ARE a AAP or a CCS... as soon as you start slinging opinion.... you should use yer own derned account, and NOT the anon. feature." Now that I agree with... However, I think that people from HD/BMC can ONLY post anonymously. That's it. They can't post any other way. It's black and white. Post as anony or don't post at all. As far as anyone coming in here and ONLY saying "I don't agree with the article"... Yeah... right. I seem to remember someone saying that the moto journalists that came up with the article were "overly Optimistic" and all that. That's reasonably subtle, but it implies that there was some impropriety or another going on with the people doing the testing. That comment being made before anyone had even read the article... In another instance, I remember someone stating something about the opinion of a bunch of "professionals" (notice the quotes). That implies that maybe they weren't really up to the task and we were really just hearing the opinion of a bunch of yahoos who would like to increase the readership of their magazine. As a matter of fact... I seem to remember someone saying JUST THAT. So don't come in here and say "all I said was...". That's not the case . After reading the article, I would say those guys are damn SURE professionals who deserve nothing like quotes around their status. To get back to the topic though... The anony feature is a good one. It should stay. Should some BMC employees tone down their post before they hit the button? Yes. But only because really need to be impeccably professional about their dealings with their customers. NOT because they don't sometimes have a right to be upset. That said... It seems to me that Vik is at least supportive of the Buell brand, but has a bad taste in him mouth because of his experience. Fine. Sorry to hear that. I still say that pretty much everyone in the thread is guilty of some sort of mud slinging... whether it be overt, subtle or anonymous makes no difference. | ||
| Jb2 |
Vik, To clarify I meant Anon, not you or Chop or Snail. | ||
| Choptop |
No M1, no implication of impropriety. To back that up look at subsiquent posts where I say thinkgs like.. I've ridden better handling bikes. end of story. no one ever questioned what I was trying to "get at", nor did I say anything that lead in that direction. If you took that to be my meaning, you never even said anything about it. the "professional" (in quotes) was not meant to question the writers at BIKE. If you look at it in context, it was used when anon. said my opinion and comparo would mean nothing, as the professionals have spoken. I then said.. hey, I'm a professional, since I've won money racing and get paid to produce motorcycle related media (just like the blokes at BIKE), therefore, I too am a "professional". no other implication was intended, or when you look at my posts in context, cant I see how they can be reached. look back at my posts. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ So don't come in here and say "all I said was...". That's not the case ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ it is indeed the case. here is an VERY early post I made in the thread... I've said that in our opinion, having ridden a good deal many well set up race bikes, that there are better handling bikes out there than the Buell. Your opinion may vary... | ||
| Choptop |
I still say that pretty much everyone in the thread is guilty of some sort of mud slinging... whether it be overt, subtle or anonymous makes no difference. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ nope. and I will defend this one till the death. I am VERY stubborn when I know I'm right. I did not sling any mud. I disagreed with the findings of the article. i siad I've ridden better handling/cornering bikes. I answered to questions of my riding ability. I offered up my bikes for all to ride. If I called anyone names, please point it out. | ||
| Loki |
Personally, I have no use for the anny option. Others have a legit reason for it. Misuse of it damages the whole idea behind it. Might a way to protect its viability be... When registering for this board and providing all the critical info. That at that time a request to be able to post as an anny be submitted. Thus requiring the Blakemen (et al) verify the justification and approve/disapprove it. Locking the function down to an approved list. Thus only approved username/passwords could activate this feature. They would be able to log in where ever and whenever and be able to post either way. Public or shadowy. This would allow us, the mere mortals, to have a level of trust and faith in what comes forth. ...just don't know if the current software could support this. | ||
| Regkittrelle |
"I think that people from HD/BMC can ONLY post anonymously." Certainly, M1. The key is to make sure that they are the proper HD/BMC employee. Just simply having an IP from the company doesn't work. Furthermore, none of us non-employees should be granted anon rights. | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
anon. postings are a great way for insider info to be passed along. as soon as they get into the realm of opinions, sarcasm, personal attacks..... ANYTHING like that... all bets are off. Chop: i, as a custodian, agree. i would add that zealots come in all varieties, some pro-Buell, some anti-Buell. pro-Buell zealots come in all varieties, some constructive, some destructive. same can be said for anti-Buell zealots. the odds are good that anti-Buell zealots who come to a pro-Buell site are likely to take heat from pro-Buell zealots. same as if a pro-Buell zealot went to an anti-Buell site and had something pro-Buell to say. not sure I'VE just said anything, but i agree that the Anon insults were insulting. i said as much in my only post on that thread, to Anon: "not funny. not cool." disagree that the insults from Anon on that thread rise anywhere near the level of the insults that are commonplace on the few "free speech" m/c sites i've visited. not speaking for Blake - he'll do that soon enough for himself, i reckon - but must be damn tough to run a BBS while trying to maintain a balance between freedom and control. hard enough to get a consensus among TWO people, let alone thousands. in my opinion Blake does an exemplary job running this board. i've bitched him out on several occasions (in the custodian pages, away from public view) over issues i've disagreed with him about. i don't perceive my opinion of the man or the way he runs BADWEB to be clouded by a zealous mind. i DO think he does a great job of running this board. this place ain't always perfect, but there are always people in the background (and sometimes in the foreground) TRYING to make it all things to all people. i like it here, most of the time. the times i don't, i change the channel for awhile. Anon, not sure who you are (or who ALL of you are), but YOU have got to be bigger than all of US when you post. tough job, but someone's got to do it. especially tough job, i bet, when you're tired and weary and feeling like the anti-Buellers are biting. well, sorry man (or woman), but you've gotta be bigger than us. you have to show this in your words, EVERY time you post. and PLEASE keep posting. we'll figure out the rest as we go, pro-Buell, anti-Buell, or in-between, but keep on keepin' on and giving your many fans the inside scoop when you can. this place is better for it. hope i haven't offended anyone, have really tried to be tactful and diplomatic in my choice of words here. not speaking on behalf of Blake or the other custodians, only for myself. FB |
