For me the BMC threads have been the most informative and revealing threads I have ever read and been involved in on UKC. The serial releases of more and more information about what has been going, prompted by UKC forum posts, have been amazing and would never have happened were it not for forum activity. Congratulations to UKC for providing this forum,
I am sad that the thread has been locked.
One take-away for me from this series of threads is that postings made by anonymous people can be pain in the ass and the anonymity should be stopped. For example UK Shark has his name publicly available in his profile. Offwidth does not. In the interests of transparency I think that such anonymity should be removed.
I changed my own profile to do this. What do other forum members think?
I think it was temporary over the w/ end as Alan et al couldn't guarantee moderation
I don't think Offwith is at all anonymous considering his stated relationship with the BMC / President.
I've got a better idea of his personality / conflicts of interest / relationships to those concerned than I do for most named posters here.
A specific name doesn't really mean anything unless people know who you are. Knowledge of someone's role /position is much more important.
Disagree. Plenty of reasons people might want to be anonymous. Certain jobs come with the risk of people trying to track you down online for unpleasant purposes - police being an obvious example of a job where I imagine you might want to maintain a discrete internet presence.
I imagine some would not be able to comment publicly on things happening within their industry under their own name without risk of their employer taking issue with it. A poster a while back, who works in healthcare, mentioned that some fairly innocuous Facebook comments about covid had led to a colleague telling them to be quiet lest it impact their career. Posting anonymously on here they gave some very interesting insights into the state of front line services that I imagine they would not have felt comfortable doing under their own name.
Haven’t been reading the BMC threads though so I don’t know the context behind your post.
I think the OP know exactly who Offwidth is. This thread seems like a pretty thinly veiled attempt to discredit him and by extension Lynn Robinson.
It’s a useful level of anonymity if you work for a large organisation with spiteful and vindictive senior management, who have juniors trawling through social media because brand perception management is more important than the dumpster fire of their mistakes coming home to roost.
Its also often only skin deep - send someone a PM which includes an identifying email address and you’re likely to hear back from them through theirs.
I’ve no problem with the comments Offwidth has made or his position in terms of his partial anonymity.
Unless someone is claiming but not revealing privileged information, their identity is secondary to their points.
I do wish someone would produce a condensed summary of all these threads for people like me without the spare attention span to digest it all...
> I do wish someone would produce a condensed summary of all these threads for people like me without the spare attention span to digest it all...
Must be tough writing enough posts to be top poster, and having to read all this stuff as well!
Start your own forum with those rules then, see how you fair.
If this was a BMC set up web debate, then you have a point.
> Must be tough writing enough posts to be top poster, and having to read all this stuff as well!
Lazy as charged, milud. Top poster is easy this time of year because most regular posters are out climbing
> What do other forum members think?
I think the reason for locking the thread should be respected.
> For me the BMC threads have been the most informative and revealing threads I have ever read and been involved in on UKC.
For me, it was the thread with all the cow puns or that one about the best pie.
> For example UK Shark has his name publicly available in his profile. Offwidth does not. In the interests of transparency I think that such anonymity should be removed.
> I changed my own profile to do this. What do other forum members think?
I am retaining my anonymity because I'm secretly very famous and important and also an international spy and part time ninja. Offwidth is exercising his right to be anonymous so that none of you find out he's actually a lion tamer from Hull with 2 (yes, 2!!!!) Wooden legs.
You have to be the only person here who didn't know who Offwidth is. What is the offwidth on the Gorilla Warfare boulder called?
I thought you were talking about true annons for a minute, posters without a user name who used to pop up on here, occasionally entertainingly and in a way which added something extra I used to think.
You could look at Offwidth's website and email him to find out who he is if you want to know, or decide not to mind about it....
Doxxer!
What did the cow puns thread reveal to you ? ( Bearing in mind its original purpose)
> What did the cow puns thread reveal to you ? ( Bearing in mind its original purpose)
To be aware of livestock at the crag for a start - they CUD be a hazard!
> What did the cow puns thread reveal to you ? ( Bearing in mind its original purpose)
I hoped we had mooved on from this.
The only time I think anonymity is an issue is when posters trade on academic credentials, but these can’t be verified because they are using a pseudonym. I can think of at least one person whose name I’ve tried to determine via legit googling, but if I do indeed have their real name, then their real name does not correspond to any person in the relevant department at a university anywhere near where they are allegedly based (which may mean nothing: a lot of academics travel a long way from home to teach in term). Bearing in mind that any research academic in any British university will have an official faculty web page, it leads me to wonder if the person in question is passing themselves off as rather more of a recognised expert on various matters than in fact they might be.
I guess it doesn’t really matter so much, it just rankles me a bit.
> I hoped we had mooved on from this.
You're right. I'm being udderly ridiculous.
You have got me intrigued!
There is also the point of whether or not you think posting on UKC matters at all.
With very few exceptions, if you have to fall back on your academic credentials you’ve lost all legitimacy. Unlike medical or legal credentials (for example), there’s no professional standards body and there are many different ways to climb the greasy pole.
> it leads me to wonder if the person in question is passing themselves off as rather more of a recognised expert on various matters than in fact they might be.
I judge people by what they say, not by them being a 'recognised expert'.
> > it leads me to wonder if the person in question is passing themselves off as rather more of a recognised expert on various matters than in fact they might be.
> I judge people by what they say, not by them being a 'recognised expert'.
If the topic under discussion is a technical one, then I would have thought that a poster's background would be useful in assessing the weight to be given to their opinions. This is based on the assumption that you don't consider yourself an expert in everything. Although, this being UKC, I imagine you probably do.
For non technical discussions, I'm thinking "I judge people by what they say" really means "I judge people by how much they agree with my preconceived opinions" .
> If the topic under discussion is a technical one, then I would have thought that a poster's background would be useful in assessing the weight to be given to their opinions. This is based on the assumption that you don't consider yourself an expert in everything. Although, this being UKC, I imagine you probably do.
> For non technical discussions, I'm thinking "I judge people by what they say" really means "I judge people by how much they agree with my preconceived opinions" .
Sometimes it can be about if an argument 'hangs together'. I like to think there's something of a middle area where something can make logical sense, and be seen to by people with different politics and world views.
Gove's "we're sick of experts" line is clearly still working its magic.
> Although, this being UKC, I imagine you probably do.
Of course...
A great deal of technical stuff can be correlated by reference to other sources. Google is very helpful.
Good try Chris. I used to be known as Husband Robinson and as a 'certain relative' in some BMC 30 posts and letters, as they also tried to exaggerate my anonymity. They certainly knew where to send the legal threats!! Beginner detectives can try and work out the ways I can be identified through my username/profile here and on the other channel. I thought it was about 4 but I was being dim: others have pointed out several different methods that with similar ideas meant it's at least in double figures.
I regularly pointed this out and also gave reasons, when it used to infuriate Coel (he was bright enough to realise that trying to 'out' users is explicitly against UKC rules). l could change back now I'm retired, except my name is the same as another user (I'm truly sorry if he gets any flack from those who don't like my political digging to expose dirty tricks).
The Uni profile issue is interesting, I'm intriqued as well. I know you can play guerilla warfare with overbearing marketing teams (my profile was only there for one year in 36 but I did appear under my main roles elsewhere). Also these days people leaving under dispute tend to be shamefully 'disappeared' from public facing information (I believe it's important for academic freedom that public redirected links should remain when academic staff leave, as long as the departing individual wants them).
On congratulating UKC I'd broadly agree but I do think they really need to look at some posters plain speculating about named individuals, that come close to libel.. to defend site risks if nothing else. If people make damaging statements about named individuals it needs to be based on fact.
> The Uni profile issue is interesting, I'm intriqued as well. I know you can play guerilla warfare with overbearing marketing teams (my profile was only there for one year in 36 but I did appear under my main roles elsewhere). Also these days people leaving under dispute tend to be shamefully 'disappeared' from public facing information (I believe it's important for academic freedom that public redirected links should remain when academic staff leave, as long as the departing individual wants them).
Without wanting to drag this off topic, this seems to be a huge issue at UK universities in particular. The clueless people that are put behind management of their websites treat them as nothing but marketting and do not even consider the repurcussions of changing paths or removing pages altogether. There are pages for projects people did in the 90's still online on various universities around the world, usually the US or Germany. If you are unlucky enough to stumble across links to similar stuff in the UK, they are pretty much 100% guaranteed to be broken links.
> For non technical discussions, I'm thinking "I judge people by what they say" really means "I judge people by how much they agree with my preconceived opinions" .
I suppose that depends on if they say "I think this" and leave it there, or if they say "I think that", and provide reasons with links to evidence or data to support their line of thought.
> The clueless people that put behind management of their websites treat them as nothing but marketting
Oh I don't know about that "nothing", they're a good little earner for makers of third rate tin-pot CMS codes as well, along with the Change Management professionals who oversee a change in CMS every 8 years or so, and the Rebranding Consultants who get paid a six figure number for making a monochrome version of the heraldic crest and dropping the word "University" from the brand name so you rocket up alphabetic lists.
Project websites disappearing is a great shame - I was gutted when Armadillo Aerospace pulled their web hosting; a very honest and cool look at VTVL rocketry before it was back in fashion. The "Stinkymeat" project from the 1990s remains online however. Then again my project website from 1994 is gone; tied to an old dial up ISP account.
The be fair to the management, the often treat the knowledge and abilities of their academics as "nothing but marketing" as well - they're all too happy to pull out snippets like "world leading" and "world class" for the marketing materials, but will basically ignore any and all comments from those "world class" individuals on absolutely every aspect of operations and strategy...
Drag away .. the OP is either stupid or playing games to highlight me as a serious problem when my website leads directly to my name and Lynn's and we co-edited a current definitive guide to one of the most popular climbing areas in the UK (Rodney was outed by Neil for using his son's account in what looked a blatant attempt to dishonestly appear independent in a BMC governance discussion).
The damage being done to academic links is a genuinely serious problem in the UK that happens as we are the only major western nation without tenure for senior academics and virtually the only western country with no code (implicit or explicit) of academic freedom. In the market system that exists in the UK, based on horribly flawed political dogma, there are clear incentives to reduce interaction between 'competing' groups in different institutions. Such an academic freedom code should include a requirement on institutions for staff who leave to be traceable (if the individuals want that). I lost count how many times I wanted to talk to the author of a relatively recent paper and knew where they had worked but couldn't trace them without asking a number of other academics if they could help. Email redirects on departure should be a standard right.
> In the interests of transparency I think that such anonymity should be removed.
This is not technically possible. If people want to be anonymous, they can be, and there is nothing we can do about it. However, the credibility of opinion is built up by having a long-standing posting record. There are very few occasions where this isn't relatively clearly associated with an identifiable individual.
Personally I am firmly in the camp that I am happy to put my name to my opinions. I do know that there are others who aren't, and others still who would like to but aren't able to.
Alan
I would suggest that it is just as insulting to the OP, he probably just did not know of the connection..Not everybody looks at your website etc and goes delving into these things.I am assuming you did not know the OP as you did not call him out on this. Disappointed in you for not considering that, but saying he is stupid is just not right. and feels wrong to me.
The important thing is that you disclosed the connection in the discussion.
> [...] when my website leads directly to my name
Please to meet you "Missing Plug-in ⇨"
> Please to meet you "Missing Plug-in ⇨"
Exactly. Adobe 'Flash' has been dead-and-buried for a long time now.
> Exactly. Adobe 'Flash' has been dead-and-buried for a long time now.
Technically not although its not long to go now with remaining support being dropped end of this year.
Lol, to be clear it isn't Coel I have in mind.
As for the whole "I judge people on what they say, not their position" - yes, fine. And that is wise. But there are some people on here who use a rather hectoring tone, and part of the hectoring comes hand in hand with "I'm a clever clogs with a uni post so I know what I'm talking about" implication. Which would be a false inference even if they were a clever clogs, but I suspect one or two people aren't as clever in their clogs as they want others to think.
> I judge people by what they say, not by them being a 'recognised expert'.
So Trump over Faucci then?
> Please to meet you "Missing Plug-in ⇨"
I've been missing a plug in for a while now!
I credited myself once on here with being an "honest poster who uses their real name" and was challenged by several others, whose posting record I respect, but who post under pseudonyms.
I've continued to use my real name, but I have to be quite careful with political statements as I'm a known party activist in my local area whose posts here could be misrepresented and used against the party.
I'm retired, but I can see that those at work would need to be careful of saying anything that could be seen as criticising their employer. Also, perhaps less commendably, there must be quite a few on here who wouldn't want their employer to know that they were posting during working hours.....
So I don't think it's a simple issue.
Martin
Still works on the Puffin mobile browser and other browsers that enable Flash plugins and they will continue to work until December. Unsurprisingly we don't have the time for rewriting web pages at the moment. My email is listed on 'the other channel' with my name in it.
The second BMC Members Open Forum webinar took place on 20 March. Recently-appointed BMC CEO Paul Ratcliffe, President Andy Syme and Chair Roger Murray shared updates on staff changes, new and ongoing initiatives, insurance policy changes and the current...