The Ethics of Full Disclosure on ScubaBoard

[Caveeagle]

I have been surprised at how transparent and neutral a couple members here have been, even though they openly have a financial stake in the thread topic. A member here that is a gear manufacturer for a 'newer' brand, openly complemented a competing brand and elaborated on some of their positive attributes.

I agree that people with a vested interest should disclose their (potential) bias in their sig line, but would hate for these folks to start getting slammed and pushed out of the forums.. I really like the fact that I can see direct input from suppliers and service providers. I don't think I have seen a post from the 'Poseidon' guy in a while.. That's too bad..

I suspect there is even a higher 'bias' from people like me.. that really get no financial kick-backs.. But have pretty strong opinions on gear options. I am a very strong promoter of self service and personable ownership of equipment maintenance. So any gear supplier that refused to sell me an 0-ring, will not get a lot of support from my posts. Now I'm not going to slam gear from S****P**, just because I don't like them.. I just prefer to discuss to relative benefits of gear that suits my style..

 

[DavidFL]

Removed; should have read the original article about Sears and Craftsman to the end.

 

[Bob DBF]

I believe that an upfront disclosure is valuable, I also don't believe that it is our job as mods to go play detective to see whether someone is on the level. Obvious cases of misrepresentation, sure, but trying to find out if Bob and Fred have a financial arrangement is way outside my pay-grade as a mod.

I don't know Fred, but I wish I had a financial relationship. Got any suggestions?

Since I have made a number of bad choices in SCUBA gear, and life as far as that goes, if I had listened to others perhaps I would have made the right decision or just a different bad one. Ultimately the choice is mine and it would behoove me to independently research my choices.

The way to deal with shills for a product is the same way the board deals with shills for an idea. Look at the response should one advocate deep air, solo, or DIY cave diving as an example. I saw a poster outed years back that found it better to work under his own flag than be summarily discounted at every post.

Of course if the MODs were busy running down shills, the pub could expand to the rest of the board.


Bob
----------------------------
..can't get away from advertising.

 

[cool_hardware52]

2.) When they post, make a point to look hard at their post and present the other side. There are threads intelligently debating whether Suuntos are too conservative, diaphragm vs. piston regulators, etc... Have different staff intervene, so it doesn't look like the poster has a 'stalker' out to oppose him.

I'd be opposed to any proactive effort that attempts to artificially present "the other side" They are doomed to fail. Who is qualified to make that determination anyway?

IMO it properly remains the job of the reader to tease out the (or their) "truth" Trying to outsource this is more dangerous than a free flow of info, good, bad, biased, etc.

I'm pretty confident of my abilities to separate useful from biased info in most of the Scuba Realm. I am after all a professional and have been all to exposed to the various "Sausage making" aspects of the business.

There are however other boards where I am a newbie, rank beginner, seeker of knowledge etc. How do I separate the signal from the noise on these other subject matter boards?

Simple, I lurk, observe, look at past posts of those I'm tempted to assign greater weight too, see who is genuinely helpful, and who lives to see themselves in print.

If I ask a question and multiple people direct me to a given member it distinctly increases the chances I should at listen to what that member has to offer on the topic. One shill is easy to own and operate, much harder to gain the respect of a cross section of members.

What I don't do is crash land on a board, ask a question and run with the first answer. People that do that kinda get back exactly what they invested, i.e. next to nothing of value.

If I need answer *right now* that I can trust and base a large spending decision on joining a forum today probably isn't the answer.

I don't think there is a way to artificially "fix" that either.

Tobin

 

[drrich2]

Even if you don't plan on hawking your product or think it matters, you should still indicate who you work for or your affiliation in your signature. That removes any appearance of deception and frees you to comment as you see fit.

For a business owner, it's permissible to indicate business affiliation in online forums, social media, etc...

For employees, it may not be. By identifying themselves as working for a company, they become seen by some as extensions of that company, and thus if they post something that causes problems for the employer, well...

Every year I have to sign a document indicating I'm aware of just such a policy where I work (not scuba-related). Therefore I don't state where I work on Facebook, for example. Some of what I find funny or insightful isn't gladly received by all political views. Imagine that...

Richard.

 

[drrich2]

I'd be opposed to any proactive effort that attempts to artificially present "the other side" They are doomed to fail. Who is qualified to make that determination anyway?

I see your point, but public forum posting lends itself to just that sort of open challenge and debate. If I post endorsing split fins, or jacket BCDs as superior to BP/W, or air-integration is great (or useless crap), etc..., someone will promptly pop up to present the other side and make a case for it.

How it might differ if concerned staff chose to make a point to do this with strongly suspect 'offenders' I don't know. In some cases, the regular membership will step up just fine.

Richard.

 

[cool_hardware52]

I see your point, but public forum posting lends itself to just that sort of open challenge and debate. If I post endorsing split fins, or jacket BCDs as superior to BP/W, or air-integration is great (or useless crap), etc..., someone will promptly pop up to present the other side and make a case for it.

How it might differ if concerned staff chose to make a point to do this with strongly suspect 'offenders' I don't know. In some cases, the regular membership will step up just fine.

Richard.

Again, who do you empower to 1) Decide a countering view is merited? 2) What that "counter" should contain?

I'd suggest it's entirely appropriate for staff to privately contact a "suspected biased shill" and ask them to be more transparent. Hard to proven they are "employed" to shill, but such a contact would put them on notice.

Tobin

 

[The Chairman]

Sometimes that "defender" is a MOD who bans members who are critical of whatever they are protecting.

This is unmitigated BS. I've never heard about it and I would never have stood for it. It's easy to assign such nefarious motives to the mods, but it's just a grasping at straws. Almost all perma bans are discussed ad nauseum in the back. One mod won't get their way, and that includes myself. We won't tolerate that kind of crap.

 

[The Chairman]

The one person I don't push is me.

But you answered questions about the Spree all the times. FWIW, the best thing you ever did for the Spree was to not dis the other boatsor to push yourself. It was a smart business move and I've often cited your approach as being good for the tribe.

 

[boulderjohn]

Dive businesses and operations that are fully clear about their identity and who participate actively in threads, giving good advice and being otherwise helpful, do both ScubaBoard and themselves a great service. I have patronized a number of businesses because I like the way they they participate in this forum.