Digiweb influence on the broadband forum?

Boston

You'll talk about specific scenarios without indicating you're talking about a specific scenarios.

basically the problem is that often you state opinion as fact, and when the 'facts' you state are in relation to other ISPs people are going to have a problem with that. Now maybe you are right most of the time, thats not the point. Its not good enough to say "x is better then y" and say go to Google to disprove me. Of course you're free to do that, but except threads like this and expect people just to think you're pulling 'facts' out of the air. Its up to you to present your arguments, and if you don't do so, you can hardly point the finger at Joe public.

paulm17781 wrote: »

Watty, all people are asking is you place something like "Systems tester* - Digiweb" in your sig so people know your advice, correct or not, is coming from a Digiweb employee. Rather than do this, you leave an ambiguous comment there and won't make it clear for all. This to me wreaks of a bias you are aware of and want to keep your employer hidden so you still seem like just an informed poster and not an employee who may have an agenda.


* I don't know what you actually do.

If a person can make a valid statement and back it up, what does it matter who they work for? If the support for the statement presented is inaccurate there are more then enough people willing to back it up.

CuLT

paulm17781 wrote: »

I'm a sys admin for a software company. I don't post on any forum that is relevant to my career nor would the software we sell be relevant (large corporate customers are our focus). However when a mod and an employee of an ISP refers to the likes of Blueface

Going to have to stop you there-- can you prove to the Internet that you (for example, to illustrate) work for this company and that you don't work for, say, a competitor of Digiweb? Because you, or any other poster who is not verifiably upfront about their real life identity is subject to this discrimination. And if you can, do you think it is reasonable for us to require this of every other poster on the broadband forum who makes any criticism or positive remarks?

If undue bias is being shown by any poster, it usually becomes evident. You can't be surreptitious about this sort of stuff. Do you think one or two employees posting about how magnificent 3 broadband is would have mitigated in any way the overwhelming negative responses?

The only reason watty is even being called into question is because he has made it clear that he works for Digiweb, so any positive comments about their technology seem to criminalize him in the eyes of certain posters, which is overwhelmingly what would happen with anyone else in the same scenario.

ie - there are only negative consequences.

watty

Boston wrote: »

If a person can make a valid statement and back it up, what does it matter who they work for? ...

... You'll talk about specific scenarios without indicating you're talking about a specific scenarios....

Specifics? Can you be specific about the posts that irk you?

paulm17781 wrote:

Watty, all people are asking is you place something like "Systems tester* - Digiweb" in your sig so people know your advice...

So now it's not sufficient to say who I work for. Would you like weekly reports too?

Really this is a Witch hunt.

All that this will result in is not just me being less likely to help people out of holes and help people stop digging holes but dissuade others too.

No-one needs advice about a working broadband / internet connection.

paulm17781

CuLT wrote: »

Going to have to stop you there-- can you prove to the Internet that you (for example, to illustrate) work for this company and that you don't work for, say, a competitor of Digiweb? Because you, or any other poster who is not verifiably upfront about their real life identity is subject to this discrimination. And if you can, do you think it is reasonable for us to require this of every other poster on the broadband forum who makes any criticism or positive remarks?

I'm not going to post it publicly as I have no need to. As it turns our our company use Digiweb for some services. If anyone in Digiweb needs proof who I am, I can happily get that to them. I also praise Digiweb generally. It comes back to I don't work for a company in this area, it doesn't matter what I say, I praise companies as I see it. If I consistently made posts with nothing to back up my fact about competitors and didn't make it clear I may have an agenda. I'd see that as a problem. When I was involved in a "lobby group" I made sure the relevant board here were aware of my position. I don't see why Watty can't do the same or why you feel it is a big problem for him to do so.

As I said, I think Watty's facts are generally good. He clearly has an in depth knowledge of radio systems. The problem is he gives out about others companies quite frequently. I always thought this was just his opinion (maybe it is) now I know he works for Digiweb it changes my perspective on what he says, half of it seems to be advertising.

paulm17781

watty wrote: »

So now it's not sufficient to say who I work for. Would you like weekly reports too?

See, overly defensive. All you need to do is make it clear you work for this company but you won't. You are refusing outright to make it clear. As I said "I do stuff in Digiweb" isn't a clear indication you work for them.
To me, this goes right back to Praetorian's point.

watty

It's been clear for months for anyone reading the sig and following the Links.

I made it clearer.

I refuse to have anonymous users of the Internet tell me what the exact wording of my sig should be. So until I get some request from smod or higher it is gone.

A small group of people appear to be demanding from me something more than anyone else on the Forums does and question my integrity.

Have I lied or told people they should cancel their UPC/eircom/3/IBB and go to Digiweb? No. In fact I have explained to people how to set up routers for 3 & UPC cable etc etc... In the case of some Blueface posts I was giving techinical reasons why users should use UPCs built in VOIP service, not Digiweb's Metro.

I'm defensive because this really is an unwarranted attack.

I shall resume helping people on forums with technology issues at some later date when I have discussed this with smods / higher folks.

paulm17781

Watty, I'm not trying to attack you. I apologise if it comes across that way. I just think if you're posting opinions (I reiterate well informed opinions) on a public message board, it should be clear to people you work for a company in the industry. If I posted on a "mobile network operators software" board, I'd have in my sig who I worked for. It is only fair people have an idea that your opinion may be biased. Not making it clear implies you're hiding something.

watty

paulm17781 wrote: »

The problem is he gives out about others companies quite frequently. .

Actually generally I make no comments about price, customer service nor even claims by specific companies. My comments, explanations and opinions are almost entirely about the limitations of the technologies, especially where the marketing obscures this. My theory is that if people have an expectation that matches what the technology can do they won't be disappointed, and also I explain more than my Boss likes about how to connect or share or configure it for your PC, gadget, game console or LAN. He'd naturally prefer if I only helped people get the most out of Digiweb Services.

I joined Digiweb in April 2006, the tenor of my posts has not changed since, though I might have been doing more Broadband posts, mirroring the increase in questions.

rmacm

@paulm17781

I dunno about you but it's been pretty clear to me from wattys signature as to who he worked for. I mod Nets & Comms should I put the company I work for in my sig as well? (Yes I work for large telecoms company). If you've picked watty out as an example you'll have to apply it to everyone who posts on a forum that is related to the area they work in e.g. programmers on the Programming forum who work for MS commenting on both MS and competetiors software.

watty

paulm17781 wrote:

Watty, I'm not trying to attack you. I apologise if it comes across that way. I just think if you're posting opinions (I reiterate well informed opinions) on a public message board, it should be clear to people you work for a company in the industry.

IMO I made it clear some while ago last year who I worked for. As a result of this thread, I made it clearer. For some people my wording was not sufficient.

I shall agree sufficient wording with the people that run boards. This is not a democracy here, nor will I have my signature picked by anonymous public.

I'm glad you are not trying to attack me paulm17781, If we meet in real life we can have a cuppa and laugh about it.

Boston

watty wrote: »

Specifics? Can you be specific about the posts that irk you?

I've signed two NDA's that I'm fairly serious about so I can't and haven't pointed them out. I'm aware that this is exactly what I accuse you of, posting without providing support.

thebman

I thought it wasn't 100% clear earlier that you worked for Digiwe but it was reasonably clear.

I mean you had a link to digiweb or something that in your sig and why would somebody have that if they weren't working for Digiweb. On the other hand, you know, some people are really stupid but hey that's not really your fault either now is it?

Then you change it as a result of this thread I believe to I do stuff for digiweb. Now seriously, I don't think you can be much clearer other than actually using the wording I work for digiweb or stating exactly what you do there, I think asking you to change from the I do stuff to digiweb to anything else is just picking at a sore for no reason.

Let it fooking heal people. It was clear enough IMO and if other people don't think so then I do question their judgement and its probably right that Watty went to the mods about this as he is either in the wrong or being bullied here and I believe it is the second.

And no I don't work for a telecoms company if people are questioning this post, I work for a website and I don't promote them here because I stay clear of those topics for the exact reasons Watty probably should but he's decent enough to go through this pain to help people out for some reason. Really harsh whats going on here, I feel I have to say it and emphasise it.

paulm17781

watty wrote: »

I'm glad you are not trying to attack me paulm17781, If we meet in real life we can have a cuppa and laugh about it.

That'd be good.

I now know who you work for, I didn't previously, I'm more making the point in the interest of "fairness". You definitely know your stuff but when I heard you worked for Digiweb I did feel there could be a slight bias. Perhaps there is but it is one toward what you think is the better technology. Fair enough, I just think people should know there is a potential conflict of interest.

@Rmacm, if there is a potential for a conflict of interest then yes. I read C&T, IoffL, Cable & IPTV and Broadband. None of these have anything to do with what I do for a living, they are only hobbies so I post my opinion. When you work for someone who may stand to gain from what you're posting. Surely people should be aware that there may be a slant there.

Boston

brim4brim wrote: »

I thought it wasn't 100% clear earlier that you worked for Digiwe but it was reasonably clear.

I mean you had a link to digiweb or something that in your sig and why would somebody have that if they weren't working for Digiweb. On the other hand, you know, some people are really stupid but hey that's not really your fault either now is it?

Its a real leap to conclude that only employees of a company would have links to a company in their signatures. Its hardly fair to call people stupid for not coming to that conclusion when in reality that conclusion would normally be wrong.

rmacm

paulm17781 wrote: »

That'd be good.
@Rmacm, if there is a potential for a conflict of interest then yes.

Perhaps although I'm not sure if Digiweb are gaining anything solely from watty's posts and I don't think it was fair to single him out.

paulm17781 wrote: »

When you work for someone who may stand to gain from what you're posting. Surely people should be aware that there may be a slant there.

Hmm well I don't think my employer is going to gain from anything I post unless someone on here is interested in buying a few million quids worth of telephone exchanges.

watty

The only people I know with links like that either work for the company or run it. A sig link is regarded as acceptible advertising. There is no reason for that kind of link if you have no connection with the company.

e.g. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55556822&postcount=15
has been posting on Satellite for years. He simply has a link to his company web page. In my naivety I thought this was quite common. No-one has ever complained it isn't clear who he represents. We have even discussed the possibility of him Modding Satellite.

Boston

watty wrote: »

The only people I know with links like that either work for the company or run it. A sig link is regarded as acceptible advertising. There is no reason for that kind of link if you have no connection with the company.

Thats an opinion not a hard fact. What is a fact is that many Irish ISPs have policies which prohibit their employees from identifying themselves as such on forums/mailing lists. I know of two examples where both NTL and Eircom have had told specific employees not to post on boards. Point is you have to presume something about a poster.

I had a link in my signature at one stage to a great surfing spot in the west. I don't surf. I had another link to lolocaust forum, I'm not a member.

Vexorg

This thread is now finished and it is unfair to single a mod out just because he posts in a forum and works for a company that has an interest in that area, in Watty's case the job may have come about as a result of his expertise in this area. Many of you know Watty considerable better than I do, but if he was a shill or promoting Digiweb, we would have reported posts and complaints coming out our ears, and I am sure the other 450 mods would not be too happy that a Watty was exempt from the rules that they all had to play by.

So lets make it very clear - We are satisfied that watty does not have an agenda and asking for proof is not acceptable as it is impossible to give other than we trust him. The only alternative open to watty/us in this situation is that he does not post and to be honest he is too valuable a contributor for this to be an option.

While I appreciate that is not a witchhunt - if we start down this line we face the same questions being asked of a significant portion of our mods as a large number also have business/work interests close to the topic of discussion and to add to the already considerable number of conspiracy/hidden agenda/X has influence over boards.ie theories is showing a lack of trust in us and disregard for any values we might have.

If anyone is unhappy with this decision and wants to take this up offline with me I am happy to take pms.

Vex.