Opinion Piece on Social Policies

[Ferzerp]

Virge's post directly contradicts this post:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32301070&postcount=150


edit: or at the very least he is playing on the word "marketer", but doesn't an employee, if ever promoting a product or speaking highly of it, become a defacto marketer regardless of his actual job title?

 

[sandorski]

So he's got nothing. Figures.

 

[thilanliyan]

I didn't really buy into all this(even though I though there were some kind of issue between ABT and AMD)...but the behaviour in this thread. is starting to concivince me otherwise.

You're reading too much into posts in this thread. Heck you even thought YOU were being called out for some reason, when it was obvious you weren't.

Some people (including me) are waiting for evidence of what has been claimed. I'm not in the habit of believing something without proof, or in conspiracy theories. So far nothing has come out that actually supports what people at ABT and some people at ATF are claiming.

 

[railven]

Virge's post directly contradicts this post:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32301070&postcount=150


edit: or at the very least he is playing on the word "marketer", but doesn't an employee, if ever promoting a product or speaking highly of it, become a defacto marketer regardless of his actual job title?

To your first part, read the actual thread over at ABT. The blog piece is written very "PC" and in the forum you'll find the accussations of ATF harboring shills and the moderators knowing about it and protecting them.

As for your edit: is that what you think a marketer is? So, if someone recommends Intel for you are they an unassociated pitch person for them? Just because someone works some where doesn't mean they like the product, and if they do actually like the product doesn't make them a sales person when they recommend them.

You ever notice the difference at stores from employees who get comissions on sales versus those that don't? You can tell which get commissions by how hard they push a product on you. Just a basic analogy.

 

[Ferzerp]

If I work for BrandX and start telling you how great BrandX is, yes, I am marketing for BrandX regardless of my position within BrandX.

Are you disagreeing that the two mods comments are in direct conflict with one another?

 

[djsb]

This thread gives new meaning to the term "Red Scare."

 

[Lonbjerg]

You're reading too much into posts in this thread. Heck you even thought YOU were being called out for some reason, when it was obvious you weren't.

Some people (including me) are waiting for evidence of what has been claimed. I'm not in the habit of believing something without proof, or in conspiracy theories. So far nothing has come out that actually supports what people at ABT and some people at ATF are claiming.

No, no i just observed that no matter if Appopin had a point or not...some posters behaviour seem to play right into his claims.
If you notced I kept my distance to this debacle after IDC replied a direct questio...no having enough information have an informed opinion.

 

[sandorski]

No, no i just observed that no matter if Appopin had a point or not...some posters behaviour seem to play right into his claims.
If you notced I kept my distance to this debacle after IDC replied a direct questio...no having enough information have an informed opinion.

Same things happen to Trolls too.

 

[railven]

If I work for BrandX and start telling you how great BrandX is, yes, I am marketing for BrandX regardless of my position within BrandX.

See, this is where the line is starting to get fuzzy and where I'm personally interested in where we, as forumers, stand. Do you think that is marketing? Or promoting? Or even simply just recommending?

If to you a marketer is simply an employee recommending their product as preference, well then we can't go any further. You've clearly made up your mind on this.

I, however, have continually argued against this. Most often marketers don't directly work with the product. I've read countless articles from companies where the marketing team would make claims and the engineering team would have to try to make the claims true or throw stones at the marketing team - most often in some situations both teams didn't even know each other (I'm reminded of Sony's early Playstation brand where the promotion team never met the engineering team EDIT: And before the SCEI branch was formed, they were each in different divisions of Sony.)

Are you disagreeing that the two mods comments are in direct conflict with one another?

You have to look at the context of the posts. Virge is responding directly to this:

But i have absolutely no doubt they know some of the forum members among us are AMD marketers.

IDC is responding to AMD employees, not marketers. Unless you want to draw the similiar conclusion ABT did that all AMD employeers correlate to marketers (which it seems you are.)

 

[Ferzerp]

Unless you want to draw the similiar conclusion ABT did that all AMD employeers correlate to marketers (which it seems you are.)

I do agree that an AMD employee posting about AMD products is participating in marketing for AMD unless only pure facts are posted. For example, saying a 7970 reference card stock runs at 925Mhz is not marketing, but saying a 7970 is superior to a 680 is marketing. Saying a BD is just as good as a 2500k is marketing, but saying an 8150 has 8 integer units and 4 floating point units is not.

edit: If you want to follow the definition of marketer as "individual employed in the marketing deparment of a company", then the nvidia focus people weren't marketers. I don't think either of us would claim that.

 

[Mistwalker]

And OF COURSE I'm an encourager. YOU should have been an encourager, LOL. Many others here should have been encouragers of this process.

This is potentially one of the most insulting things I've read on this forum.

The goal, which was ostensibly about enforcing transparency demanded by AMD's own internal policies, is admirable enough. I think it's worth supporting. If that is achieved, then yes, some good will have come of all this.

But the process? Of making repeated accusations and insults against both ATF as a whole and a number of its members, along with guarantees that they HAVE PROOF IN HAND (which was NEVER produced)?

If, IF there are people breaking company rules or intentionally misleading people on these forums (or anywhere), then them being outed will mean something good came of all this. If not, then not only has ATF been libeled over and over, but it's been done alongside blatant lies and deception on the accuser's part. Even if some posters are outed, many have been singled out with accusations--direct or implied--that could well end up baseless.

No, Keys, I don't think the "accuse and apologize where necessary along the way" should have been encouraged. If proof existed the accusations would not have been necessary. However worthwhile the goal, it's been a disgustingly handled affair.

Now, you tell me if it's at all possible that JFAMD is the only AMD employee/affiliate to ever post on Anandtech or any other tech forums.
I want to know who they are. A screen name, and a "I am an AMD employee or and affiliate under it or in a sig. Required by AMD or face sanction.

I think it's more than possible, it's probable that there are AMD employees/affiliates on the forums (ditto for Nvidia). Do you think such should be required even if they aren't in marketing? What if they work at a manufacturer of chips that happen to be used by one card maker or the other?

If you want full transparency I would hope it be applied to all sides equally, which would be fair if not unfortunate for its necessity.

 

[railven]

I do agree that an AMD employee posting about AMD products is participating in marketing for AMD unless only pure facts are posted. For example, saying a 7970 reference card stock runs at 925Mhz is not marketing, but saying a 7970 is superior to a 680 is marketing. Saying a BD is just as good as a 2500k is marketing, but saying an 8150 has 8 integer units and 4 floating point units is not.

Where do we separate preference and personal ignorance? I personally think the opposite of what you described, since fraud is something any marketing team has to be aware (hell just look at how the GTX 680's Turbo Boost is being treated even though nVidia made no specific claims.)

There are a lot of caveats I can go into about your example. BD is "just as good" for the masses and you can't deny that. Anyways, that's beside the my point - so I'll just assume for you anyone who works for a company regardless of position can not say positive things about the products the company sell because they now marketers? So their opinions on the product are void. Gotcha.

edit: If you want to follow the definition of marketer as "individual employed in the marketing deparment of a company", then the nvidia focus people weren't marketers. I don't think either of us would claim that.

I didn't say they had to work in the marketing department. To me a marketer is someone who is tasked with the sole purpose of marketing a product. If James in Q/A division is tasked with handling questions in tech forums, he is acting as a representative of the company, and his opinions can be looked at marketing as they will endorse the product.

If Kevin who works with James posts in a forum about resistors and other technical jargon and just happens to like his company's products so he recommends them - to you he is a marketer.

And this is where my logic works (and I'd figure just about anyone) if you ask Kevin a question and he gives you an answer such as "well it has x-and-y components, trust me." I'd quickly ask "prove it" and ask for a source. If he doesn't provide a source, I ignore him, if he does and it doesn't reveal his employer clearly he follows the products (and their components) outside of his job (possibly his personal interest/hobby.)

I just can support the notion that all employees are marketers. Their opinions may be bias, but trust me the moment an AMD Employee comes in here slamming AMD there is a certain circle of people who put his every word on a pedestal and this has nothing to do with shills and just bias.

 

[busydude]

IDC is responding to AMD employees, not marketers.

This is where, I feel, Apoppin went off on a tangent. His behavior has been absolutely disgusting.. quoting people from here and insulting them in his own forum is down right pathetic and unprofessional.

Does he have any proof of AMD shills in this forums? He says he has, but I can only believe his words if he has any proof of his claims.

How convenient is that he is doing this only after being "blacklisted", he is lying through his teeth if he claims his article..er.. blog.. er.. web blog is not sensationalist. Here I thought conspiracy nuttism is only possible in politics.

 

[Ferzerp]

There are a lot of caveats I can go into about your example. BD is "just as good" for the masses and you can't deny that. Anyways, that's beside the my point - so I'll just assume for you anyone who works for a company regardless of position can not say positive things about the products the company sell because they now marketers? So their opinions on the product are void. Gotcha.

If they're hiding their affiliation, yes. They are being deceptive. In fact, in more professional boards with higher level content, you will often have employees of tech companies that get discussed participating in the conversations, but they know better than to hide that affiliation because it allows for the proper perspective on what they say.

It is extremely poor form (and makes me suspect of an intent to deceive) if you comment on your employer's (or client's) products or services without disclosing that you are affiliated with that company in some way.

 

[railven]

If they're hiding their affiliation, yes. They are being deceptive. In fact, in more professional boards with higher level content, you will often have employees of tech companies that get discussed participating in the conversations, but they know better than to hide that affiliation because it allows for the proper perspective on what they say.

Ars Technica is such a site, and they disclose their affiliation to elevate the conversations. They discuss subjects at a level a forum such as this can only dream about. I've never seen them accusing each other of shilling or promoting their employer - kidding me only fanboys fighting fanboys pull that crap.

It has nothing to do with the open statement of their employers and more so to do they discuss things on a more technical level, not who scored higher on Crysis 2.

It is extremely poor form (and makes me suspect of an intent to deceive) if you comment on your employer's (or client's) products or services without disclosing that you are affiliated with that company in some way.

Is that only in favor or against? Would you require someone slamming Brand-X to disclose that they work for Brand-X? I highly doubt it. But, I guess if they like Brand-X so much, enough for them to land their dream job working for said company, they must be shilling for it.

 

[Mistwalker]

Is that only in favor or against? Would you require someone slamming Brand-X to disclose that they work for Brand-X? I highly doubt it. But, I guess if they like Brand-X so much, enough for them to land their dream job working for said company, they must be shilling for it.

Let's be realistic, in this day and age publicly criticizing your own company's products (however valid those criticisms might be) is very liable to get you disciplined or fired.

Supporting a product whose company you work for does not necessarily make you a marketing shill, but you can't deny there IS a conflict of interest--when you give advice there are influences that may not include the asker's best interest. If you're prepared to argue the benefits of BrandX on its own merits, does it matter whether you admit to working for the company? Facts and empirical data would still win the day, and being upfront about your affiliation should add to one's credibility rather than the opposite.

 

[thilanliyan]

No, no i just observed that no matter if Appopin had a point or not...some posters behaviour seem to play right into his claims.
If you notced I kept my distance to this debacle after IDC replied a direct questio...no having enough information have an informed opinion.

Some posters here were accused of being shills over at ABT weren't they, without any actual proof being shown? Wouldn't you be pissed and react if you were wrongfully accused when the topic comes up over here?

If there are actual shills they would likely be keeping quiet IMO, which is a much smarter way of doing things.

 

[blckgrffn]

Can people even give unbiased advice? People may not even be aware of all the factors impacting the advice they are giving.

It's the Internet. It's pseudo-anonymous. Keep that in mind when ingesting information.

Heck, you should be careful when you read a newspaper, magazine, etc.

 

[railven]

Let's be realistic, in this day and age publicly criticizing your own company's products (however valid those criticisms might be) is very liable to get you disciplined or fired.

I completely agree. With social media becoming a growing form of communication, employers are ever more hawk-eyed making sure employees aren't bad-mouthing their company. Even more of a reason why this is one of those rare examples where being anonymous benefits someone trying to express an honest opinion.

Supporting a product whose company you work for does not necessarily make you a marketing shill, but you can't deny there IS a conflict of interest--when you give advice there are influences that may not include the asker's best interest. If you're prepared to argue the benefits of BrandX on its own merits, does it matter whether you admit to working for the company? Facts and empirical data would still win the day, and being upfront about your affiliation should add to one's credibility rather than the opposite.

And this I agree with completely. At the end of the day, regardless who the person works for - sources will outright decide the case. Someone can lie through their teeth (even lie about their affiliation with a company) if nothing supports their claims - that person is useless in the conversation and is best ignored.

While I agree there is a conflict of interest, to me it will boil down too just how hard is this person pushing the product. If they start making unreasonable claims - /ignore. Otherwise, if they discuss the product on its merits, as you said, I have no reason to think they have any affiliation with the product outside of they genuinely like it.

 

[railven]

Can people even give unbiased advice? People may not even be aware of all the factors impacting the advice they are giving.

Human nature has proven that you can't. You'll always have preference and it can break down to the stupidiest of reasons - such as color, mascot, and etc.

It's the Internet. It's pseudo-anonymous. Keep that in mind when ingesting information.

Heck, you should be careful when you read a newspaper, magazine, etc.

I've seen more damage come from members of a community who openly admit their affiliation than members who hide it. The ones who hide it and are bat-poop crazy are ignored to the point where they become someone's signature for a good laugh. The ones that disclose their affiliation are for some reason revered and defended by those that support that team even though there is no garauntee what they say is even remotely true (JFAMD/Rollo).

 

[lifeblood]

I've seen more damage come from members of a community who openly admit their affiliation than members who hide it. The ones who hide it and are bat-poop crazy are ignored to the point where they become someone's signature for a good laugh. The ones that disclose their affiliation are for some reason revered and defended by those that support that team even though there is no garauntee what they say is even remotely true (JFAMD/Rollo).

I think this whole issue has been badly blown out of proportion. Really, how much benefit did Rollo and JFAMD bring to their respective companies? Rollo's attitude probably drove away more people then his arguments drew, he was simply too big of an ass. I was going to buy a BD based partially upon what JFAMD said, but one page of benchmarks from the review showed as false all the months of JFAMDs hype. Both lost all credibility, and both their companies got indirect black eyes because of it.

Look at this topic, it has been painfully embarrassing to read some of these posts. A number of people have really lowered themselves in my eyes, particularly those that went between this site and ABT to fan the flames. IMHO, AMD should blacklist ABT, but they won't. They will give them free hardware as a pacifier to get appoppin to shut up, not because they are guilty, but this mess is bad publicity. This has also been bad for Anandtech. Their name has been dragged through the mud without any proof of wrongdoing. I'm sure the mods wish this topic would die as well (or maybe their too busy rolling on the floor laughing at the stupidity).

Should people being compensated to make posts have to identify their affiliation? Sure, absolutely. Are they a big problem when they don't? I don't think so. You don't have to lurk here long to figure out everybody's biases.

 

[bononos]

Honestly, the employees are too busy working to post online all day. Let's stop bullshitting around that fact. That's why they rope in free workers like you.

I gotta agree with this. I don't think Intel/AMD/etc engineers should have to post their workplace affiliation. Marketing folk might be an exception.

Its the freebooters who have nothing to do except to continue to show their appreciation by posting positive reviews.

 

[bononos]

I think this whole issue has been badly blown out of proportion. Really, how much benefit did Rollo and JFAMD bring to their respective companies? Rollo's attitude probably drove away more people then his arguments drew, he was simply too big of an ass. I was going to buy a BD based partially upon what JFAMD said, but one page of benchmarks from the review showed as false all the months of JFAMDs hype. Both lost all credibility, and both their companies got indirect black eyes because of it.

........

Rollo did great by spreading FUD about his 'favourite' company. His status as a long timer and key opinion leader on forums made him very influential. He managed to push Nvidia brokenware until it was no longer tenable for way longer than what Nvidia could do in the open thru official media channels and without having to pay for it in bad reputation/publicity. On his bad days Rollo's attitude drove away possible customers but in balance Rollo was an asset for Nvidia.

 

[Keysplayr]

Human nature has proven that you can't. You'll always have preference and it can break down to the stupidiest of reasons - such as color, mascot, and etc.



I've seen more damage come from members of a community who openly admit their affiliation than members who hide it. The ones who hide it and are bat-poop crazy are ignored to the point where they become someone's signature for a good laugh. The ones that disclose their affiliation are for some reason revered and defended by those that support that team even though there is no garauntee what they say is even remotely true (JFAMD/Rollo).

Would you rather have never known that Rollo was part of AEG or that JFAMD was an AMD employee?
I understand the term "Ignorance is bliss" and it is a happy place. But not a place I would want to be. "Knowledge is power" is where it is at.

Scenario: An engineer is working on a project at AMD. Proud of their work and proud to be a part of their company. They want their company to increase technologically, financially, have a better reputation (especially if this person worked on bulldozer), maybe even wants their stock options to be worth more.
He/she belongs to several online forums and always talks up AMD. Nobody on the forum knows that this person is an engineer, or PR director, manager, or mail room clerk at AMD. AMD's social media policy encourages it's employees to post in forums as long as they are transparent about it stating their affiliation. Now, when this engineer goes home, turns on his PC and enters the forums, he/she is still an employee of AMD. Still proud of their company, still want their company to increase technologically, financially, have a better reputation (especially if this person worked on bulldozer) and still wants their stock to be worth more.

Now consider how many thousands of employees work for AMD worldwide.
Even if 1/10th of 1% of these people post in forums, that is a ton of people that nobody knows about, and you could be talking with right now on a forum here or somewhere else.

I am not ok with this. You can be all you wish, but I prefer not to be in the dark. I do not want ignorance for the sake of bliss. I prefer to know who I am dealing with just as you know right now that you are speaking to a member of Nvidia focus group. And you know this because it if fully disclosed. And I don't even work for Nvidia. Actual Nvidia employees are absolutely NOT permitted to post in online forums and this is strictly enforced with sanctions. This, is exactly what AMD needs to do. Don't know why anyone would object to this either. At least without a good reason.

 

[ViRGE]

Would you rather have never known that Rollo was part of AEG or that JFAMD was an AMD employee?

Do keep in mind that Rollo was booted for being a genuine POS troll, not because of his NVFG status.