WARNING - Thread contains rants...

[sgtnewby]

I figured that instead of highjacking other threads to convey how we feel about the latest censorship of our opinions in regards to news of local security companies, I'd start a thread for all to express their opinions. As I have expressed in another thread, when you provide a service to the public, you open yourself up to public scrutiny. Members of this forum, do not just talk smack about security companies. They also give credit, where credit is due. I for one, thought this forum was a place where opinions could be expressed, and information shared. Apparently, this is only the case if we are all shiny happy people holding hands. Anyone else have thoughts? Rant away!

[talon]

I figured that instead of highjacking other threads to convey how we feel about the latest censorship of our opinions in regards to news of local security companies, I'd start a thread for all to express their opinions. As I have expressed in another thread, when you provide a service to the public, you open yourself up to public scrutiny. Members of this forum, do not just talk smack about security companies. They also give credit, where credit is due. I for one, thought this forum was a place where opinions could be expressed, and information shared. Apparently, this is only the case if we are all shiny happy people holding hands. Anyone else have thoughts? Rant away!

While I don't really have a "dog in this fight" so to speak, I do think that censorship in any form is bad. I believe that the free flow of ideas and opinions make us all better for it.

I do understand however, that forums are private in nature and therefore the owners or moderators can make up rules governing the use of such.

I would hope that censorship would only be used for topics that are of no relevance to the forum or to police rude and or unprofessional behavior.

My 1 1/2 cents.

[sgtnewby]

While I don't really have a "dog in this fight" so to speak, I do think that censorship in any form is bad. I believe that the free flow of ideas and opinions make us all better for it.

I do understand however, that forums are private in nature and therefore the owners or moderators can make up rules governing the use of such.

I would hope that censorship would only be used for topics that are of no relevance to the forum or to police rude and or unprofessional behavior.

My 1 1/2 cents.

I understand this as well. However, it is a security forum. Some security companies that have been discussed lately are local to MN, which I find interesting being that is where I live. There are security companies here with good reputations, and some with bad reputations. I just don't think we should be restricted to discussing only good companies and what makes them good. And as far as I'm concerned, you have as much a "dog in this fight" as anyone else does. You're a member here, and your opinion counts.

[Nauticus]

I understand this as well. However, it is a security forum. Some security companies that have been discussed lately are local to MN, which I find interesting being that is where I live. There are security companies here with good reputations, and some with bad reputations. I just don't think we should be restricted to discussing only good companies and what makes them good. And as far as I'm concerned, you have as much a "dog in this fight" as anyone else does. You're a member here, and your opinion counts.

But we know what makes a security company bad. I would say that most security companies in the entire world are bad, not just where you live. So why pinpoint which are bad? I think we should give props to the good ones instead.

[CTEXSEC1]

But we know what makes a security company bad. I would say that most security companies in the entire world are bad, not just where you live. So why pinpoint which are bad? I think we should give props to the good ones instead.

Exactly. Especially with the company/person in question here. I am fairly certain that everyone on the planet knows what people in MN think of this company and its owner/mgr/whatever. So...posting multiple threads (30 counts as multiple) is just ridiculous, childish, and beyond unprofessional.

As far as the constant foot-stamping and tantrum throwing about "censorship" goes, this is a private forum with private ownership. They can make rules as they see fit. This is especially important when it comes to beating a dead horse. It is beyond obvious that some members, despite having nothing to gain, continue to attack one company/owner relentlessly. Yes, it appears to be a hack job operation, but the constant barrage of criticism smacks of vendetta. The comments have no professional value as they appear. They are personal. Yea, it is under the veil of "this guy is making the industry a joke," but the underlying truth is that someone cannot survive the day without bringing up more drama about an already known fact.

Also, this is obviously not "censorship," since the request to stop demeaning one particular company has been ignored and whined about by a select few on this forum. If they were truly censoring, the crybabies would have been banned by now.

[5423]

... this is a private forum with private ownership. They can make rules as they see fit.

Not only can they make rules, but they are responsible for making and requiring adherance to certain rules.

In other words, the owner(s) of this forum can and will be held liable for what we say. I repeat: What we say can bite them in the a$$.

Its called FCC, among other things.

So whether Geoff, Curtis, or Nathan agree with the rules of conduct as laid down to us or not, they're there for the forum's protection.

[Taktiq]

I also agree that we should have the right to offer negatives in addition to any positives in regards to a particular company. But, I believe it should only extend to first-hand knowledge and definitely should stop when the negatives border on slanderous. If there's negative info, no one should name names but, needs to be as specific as possible. Unfortuantely, that doesn't happen as threads tend to get out of hand and become venting sessions of info of friends of friends.

BTW CTEXSEC1...nice avatar;)

[Minneapolis Security]

I don't think the FCC has any interest in regulating what is said on the internet about a local security company and more then they care what a traveler says about their stay at a Holiday Inn Express. Good, bad, or ugly.

[CTEXSEC1]

I also agree that we should have the right to offer negatives in addition to any positives in regards to a particular company. But, I believe it should only extend to first-hand knowledge and definitely should stop when the negatives border on slanderous. If there's negative info, no one should name names but, needs to be as specific as possible. Unfortuantely, that doesn't happen as threads tend to get out of hand and become venting sessions of info of friends of friends.

BTW CTEXSEC1...nice avatar;)

That would be the mature thing to do, wouldn't it?

Thanks, btw. I wasn't sure where I had seen that before. Now I know.


I don't think the FCC has any interest in regulating what is said on the internet about a local security company and more then they care what a traveler says about their stay at a Holiday Inn Express. Good, bad, or ugly.


Probably not the FCC, but a suit could easily be started over the constant slander of a company. What it boils down to is quite simple: we get it. Build a bridge.

[CorpSec]

The board can do what they want. I think that saying that nothing negative can be said about ANY company goes to far. But, that is my own opinion and with it and 25 cents you could not get a cup of coffee.

The new policy limits an already struggling board's revelence. Say I am interested in people's experiences with the new C-Cure 9000 suite of products? Why would I ask here when people can only say good things about it?

Say I have been thinking about getting a new pair of Bates boots, why would I ask here?

In my opinion the new policy is throwing out the baby with the bath water.

[caguard]

Would be really nice to have state by state sub forums, that way people are not bothered by people asking questions about security companies 1000 miles away.

[CorpSec]

Would be really nice to have state by state sub forums, that way people are not bothered by people asking questions about security companies 1000 miles away.

There are few enough people here already with the way it is. With the new policy, it effectively eliminates anyone from anywhere asking for opinions on any company, product, or service.

So, people should not be asking about any company, product, or service whether it is in their own state or "1000 miles away".

[talon]

There are few enough people here already with the way it is. With the new policy, it effectively eliminates anyone from anywhere asking for opinions on any company, product, or service.

So, people should not be asking about any company, product, or service whether it is in their own state or "1000 miles away".

Good points.

[FireRanger]

I honestly don't think that the new policy truely restricts our ability to say something negative about a company completely, it only does so in a public fashion. As I have stated in another thread and have yet to be told by management that it can't be done. If you disagree with or have a negative view you could do the following;

A thread gets started asking about YourHomeTown Security Co. You can reply with, I worked for them, didn't like the experience if you want to know more PM or E-Mail me.

or you can reply with "Yeah I worked for YourHomeTown Security Co. in '04 at a Hospital in Philadelphia. If you want to know more about my experiences with the company PM or E-mail me."

The above IMHO says nothing negative about the listed company, because it doesn't say WHY you didn't like the experience. Perhaps you like armed work and the company in question doesn't do armed work, or allow you wear a gold plated desert eagle .50 pistol on your duty belt. Perhaps you are a complete warmbody who is useless and the named company wants only HSLD types regardless of post or assignment. So you don't like their above average standards.

Yes the new policy does to some degree restrict your ability to list your points off view, but it does so in a way to protect the forum. I belong to another forum and they have had this policy in place since probably the begining of their forum. I am not surprised that this has come to head, especially since a thread about a MN company had a link to an offsite news webpage. On that page was one comment directing people to SIW to find out about the negatives of said company. That sort of behaviour does throw a negative light upon this forum because now the whole world can truely see what is said on SIW not just people researching a specific company or security issues in general.

Anyways, its late and I am sorry if none of this makes sense, in short while I do not agree with the policy I understand the need for it and won't cry over any spilled milk.

[SecTrainer]

Let's put it another way. It's an abuse of privileges on a public forum like this to play whup-ass on a particular company or individual and it isn't fair to members who need the board for legitimate purposes because it puts the whole thing at risk. Better to observe some proprieties than to have the board shut down, no?

And of course there's nothing stopping anyone who wants to start their own Crap-on-Avalon forum, or blog maybe, and it doesn't even have to cost you a dime. When it's your own personal sandbox you can crap in it or do whatever blows your skirt up - and at your own personal risk. Just don't do it in someone else's sandbox where the rest of us have to deal with it. I don't want to come to SIW someday and get a "404 - Page Not Found" message - and don't think it can't happen.

[integrator97]

While I don't really have a "dog in this fight" so to speak, I do think that censorship in any form is bad. I believe that the free flow of ideas and opinions make us all better for it.

I do understand however, that forums are private in nature and therefore the owners or moderators can make up rules governing the use of such.

I would hope that censorship would only be used for topics that are of no relevance to the forum or to police rude and or unprofessional behavior.

My 1 1/2 cents.

We're sorry, but you account is a 1/2 cent overdue. Until you fulfill the requirements of 2 cents worth in full, we will have to limit your posts to 500 words or less. If you have already paid your 1/2 cent due, please disregard this notice. :D

[5423]

Integrator, talon's purposely maintaining his balance at 1 1/2 cents; he heard somewhere that if he reaches a 2 cent balance-due, IRS will send a couple of goons to tune him up.

Sorry 'bout the detour; we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...

[davis002]

You just gotta love arbitrary censorship! The private security industry is plagued with all sorts of problems! Not that anyone who reads this forum will know, because the position of SIW is to pretend the problem doesn't exist and censor anyone who dares speak negatively about a security company.

I guess censorship works great for the Chinese, so why not SIW? I propose we add some red to the SIW logo. That would be the next logical step.

[Nauticus]

You just gotta love arbitrary censorship! The private security industry is plagued with all sorts of problems! Not that anyone who reads this forum will know, because the position of SIW is to pretend the problem doesn't exist and censor anyone who dares speak negatively about a security company.

I guess censorship works great for the Chinese, so why not SIW? I propose we add some red to the SIW logo. That would be the next logical step.

You didn't actually read any of the posts in this topic, did you? Because if you did, you wouldn't have posted something so ridiculous.

[talon]

We're sorry, but you account is a 1/2 cent overdue. Until you fulfill the requirements of 2 cents worth in full, we will have to limit your posts to 500 words or less. If you have already paid your 1/2 cent due, please disregard this notice. :D

.............:p

[davis002]

You didn't actually read any of the posts in this topic, did you? Because if you did, you wouldn't have posted something so ridiculous.

Which post(s) are you referring to? Like the one where you suggest that most security companies in the world are bad, and we should all "give props" to the good companies? Are you bringing the acoustic guitar or the marshmallows? SIW is a lot of things, and one of those is not a campfire.

[CTEXSEC1]

Which post(s) are you referring to? Like the one where you suggest that most security companies in the world are bad, and we should all "give props" to the good companies? Are you bringing the acoustic guitar or the marshmallows? SIW is a lot of things, and one of those is not a campfire.

What professionalism. :rolleyes: It amuses me that you throw such a temper-tantrum and, in the same breath, criticize a company for its lack of professionalism.

For your benefit, I quoted the posts you probably should have let sink in:


I do understand however, that forums are private in nature and therefore the owners or moderators can make up rules governing the use of such.

I would hope that censorship would only be used for topics that are of no relevance to the forum or to police rude and or unprofessional behavior.


But we know what makes a security company bad. I would say that most security companies in the entire world are bad, not just where you live. So why pinpoint which are bad? I think we should give props to the good ones instead.


Exactly. Especially with the company/person in question here. I am fairly certain that everyone on the planet knows what people in MN think of this company and its owner/mgr/whatever. So...posting multiple threads (30 counts as multiple) is just ridiculous, childish, and beyond unprofessional.

As far as the constant foot-stamping and tantrum throwing about "censorship" goes, this is a private forum with private ownership. They can make rules as they see fit. This is especially important when it comes to beating a dead horse. It is beyond obvious that some members, despite having nothing to gain, continue to attack one company/owner relentlessly. Yes, it appears to be a hack job operation, but the constant barrage of criticism smacks of vendetta. The comments have no professional value as they appear. They are personal. Yea, it is under the veil of "this guy is making the industry a joke," but the underlying truth is that someone cannot survive the day without bringing up more drama about an already known fact.

Also, this is obviously not "censorship," since the request to stop demeaning one particular company has been ignored and whined about by a select few on this forum. If they were truly censoring, the crybabies would have been banned by now.


Not only can they make rules, but they are responsible for making and requiring adherance to certain rules.

In other words, the owner(s) of this forum can and will be held liable for what we say. I repeat: What we say can bite them in the a$$.




I also agree that we should have the right to offer negatives in addition to any positives in regards to a particular company. But, I believe it should only extend to first-hand knowledge and definitely should stop when the negatives border on slanderous. If there's negative info, no one should name names but, needs to be as specific as possible. Unfortuantely, that doesn't happen as threads tend to get out of hand and become venting sessions of info of friends of friends.

BTW CTEXSEC1...nice avatar;)


I honestly don't think that the new policy truely restricts our ability to say something negative about a company completely, it only does so in a public fashion. As I have stated in another thread and have yet to be told by management that it can't be done. If you disagree with or have a negative view you could do the following;

A thread gets started asking about YourHomeTown Security Co. You can reply with, I worked for them, didn't like the experience if you want to know more PM or E-Mail me.

or you can reply with "Yeah I worked for YourHomeTown Security Co. in '04 at a Hospital in Philadelphia. If you want to know more about my experiences with the company PM or E-mail me."

The above IMHO says nothing negative about the listed company, because it doesn't say WHY you didn't like the experience. Perhaps you like armed work and the company in question doesn't do armed work, or allow you wear a gold plated desert eagle .50 pistol on your duty belt. Perhaps you are a complete warmbody who is useless and the named company wants only HSLD types regardless of post or assignment. So you don't like their above average standards.

Yes the new policy does to some degree restrict your ability to list your points off view, but it does so in a way to protect the forum. I belong to another forum and they have had this policy in place since probably the begining of their forum. I am not surprised that this has come to head, especially since a thread about a MN company had a link to an offsite news webpage. On that page was one comment directing people to SIW to find out about the negatives of said company. That sort of behaviour does throw a negative light upon this forum because now the whole world can truely see what is said on SIW not just people researching a specific company or security issues in general.
Anyways, its late and I am sorry if none of this makes sense, in short while I do not agree with the policy I understand the need for it and won't cry over any spilled milk.


Let's put it another way. It's an abuse of privileges on a public forum like this to play whup-ass on a particular company or individual and it isn't fair to members who need the board for legitimate purposes because it puts the whole thing at risk. Better to observe some proprieties than to have the board shut down, no?

And of course there's nothing stopping anyone who wants to start their own Crap-on-Avalon forum, or blog maybe, and it doesn't even have to cost you a dime. When it's your own personal sandbox you can crap in it or do whatever blows your skirt up - and at your own personal risk. Just don't do it in someone else's sandbox where the rest of us have to deal with it. I don't want to come to SIW someday and get a "404 - Page Not Found" message - and don't think it can't happen.

I even took the liberty of putting emphasis on the especially relevant parts.

As far as this goes:


You just gotta love arbitrary censorship! The private security industry is plagued with all sorts of problems! Not that anyone who reads this forum will know, because the position of SIW is to pretend the problem doesn't exist and censor anyone who dares speak negatively about a security company.

I guess censorship works great for the Chinese, so why not SIW? I propose we add some red to the SIW logo. That would be the next logical step.

Are you five? Seriously, act professional. If you don't like Avalon or Dan Seman because you wish you too had a gold-plated Desert Eagle, send him a letter. You evidently already know his address, etc.

[davis002]

What professionalism. :rolleyes: It amuses me that you throw such a temper-tantrum and, in the same breath, criticize a company for its lack of professionalism.

Are you five? Seriously, act professional. If you don't like Avalon or Dan Seman because you wish you too had a gold-plated Desert Eagle, send him a letter. You evidently already know his address, etc.

Are you familiar with argumentum ad hominem?

[Nauticus]

Are you familiar with argumentum ad hominem?

Instead of trying to save face, I suggest reading the posts that he highlighted. Some bring up the counter argument to yours, some give reasons for it being the way it is, and some even agree with you but they put it in a professional way with content. I'm not insulting your character when I say that your post was unprofessional and I could have expected better from a five year old. I know you're preaching "censorship = COMMUNISM!!", but if you ask me, we don't need 30 threads about the same company that everybody already knows may be failing.

There's a company in BC that I could make posts about every time they do something horribly wrong (which is often), but I don't. It's not relevant in the grand scheme of things. If you want to criticize and slander companies, go someplace else to do it. You are part of a community here with people with extensive experience in security and everything related to it, and SIW is a great pool of knowledge to learn from. Honestly, the people here have better things to do than slander Avalon over and over again.

[CTEXSEC1]

Are you familiar with argumentum ad hominem?


There is a vast difference between indicating someone acting unprofessionally and attacking them personally. Your "points" have been nothing but childish, unprofessional, and outlandish.

[integrator97]

Have I missed something here? Has someone from on high come down and censored anything? Because I haven't seen it, just speculation. So I don't think we should accuse our hosts (SIW & staff) of censorship if they haven't committed it. Unless I did miss something. :confused:

[CorpSec]

I frequent many websites and see companies, products, and services absolutely trashed all the time! I am not talking about small mom and pop outfits either, I am talking about people tearing apart the new Apple Ipad, Microsoft products, large hotel chains and car makers.

This is the first website that I have seen that restricts negative comments about companies, products, and services.

It is protected speech. There is nothing wrong with giving your opinion about a company on the web, even if it is a very negative opinion.

Think of it this way, if it was easy to regulate what is said on the internet about a company, don't you think the international companies (Apple, Microsoft, Hilton, Wal-Mart, etc, etc) with BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars and hundreds of lawyers would have found a way to stop the negative comments and shut down the websites that allow negative dicussion of them and their products?

[CTEXSEC1]

This is the first website that I have seen that restricts negative comments about companies, products, and services.

It is protected speech. There is nothing wrong with giving your opinion about a company on the web, even if it is a very negative opinion.

Think of it this way, if it was easy to regulate what is said on the internet about a company, don't you think the international companies (Apple, Microsoft, Hilton, Wal-Mart, etc, etc) with BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars and hundreds of lawyers would have found a way to stop the negative comments and shut down the websites that allow negative dicussion of them and their products?

1. What is being restricted? Is it the criticism of a company? Or is it the CONSTANT whining about the same company over and over and over?

2. It is not protected speech. Much like my ability to tell you to stop saying something or leave my home, this is a private forum and the owners have a right to restrict whatever goes on here. Your 1A right does not extend to private domains. Sorry.

3. Corporations have sued for libel and slander, google it.

Again, the point is that this a professional forum for professionals and some are acting like children on a playground.

[sgtnewby]

Look, people from MN (dispite popular belief) do not only discuss Avalon. We discuss many other companies too. They just happen to come up a lot. Whatever states everyone else is from, I'm sure there are companies talked about from there too, by members from those areas. I don't read about them, because frankly, I don't care. And why would I care or get concerned about what anyone else has to say about a company where they live. If it's about a company in MN, I'm interested, wether I have worked for them or not. **DISCLAIMER** I have never worked for Avalon, nor do I know anyone that has

I don't read every single thread on this forum. If it doesn't interest me, I skip to another thread. I do not cry and whine in a post about how I do not want to read about that certain thread. That, is immature. Nobody said I have to read every thread. Nobody else has to either.

But, I'm glad to see people venting, that's why I started this thread. So, wether I agree with you or not, keep your opinions comming...

[Minneapolis Security]

Maybe we could end this thread with lots of kind words about Avalon and Dan "the man with a golden gun" Seman? Anyone have something good to say? Anyone? Ok, i'll start. Google won't search for Dan Seman because it knows that you don't find Dan Seman, he find you!

Dan Seman doesn't sleep, he waits. I am sure there are other people who have some fun facts to share about him as well.

[Minneapolis Security]

Here is another idea, the site owners could program it to block out the words Se***, and Av***n. That way, it is safe for the kids? We could eventually ad other words as needed? Eventually, only good words would remain, and we could all be happy. :)

[SecTrainer]

Maybe we could end this thread with lots of kind words about Avalon and Dan "the man with a golden gun" Seman? Anyone have something good to say? Anyone? Ok, i'll start. Google won't search for Dan Seman because it knows that you don't find Dan Seman, he find you!

Dan Seman doesn't sleep, he waits. I am sure there are other people who have some fun facts to share about him as well.

Okay, now this is getting juvenile enough that you might have nuked your own thread.

I recommend you read your own sig line - the line by John Wayne in The Shootist - and especially the first phrase of the second sentence: "I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them."

It's a fine motto - providing you live up to it.

[SIW Editor]

As N.A. noted, there haven't been any changes on censorship, and I'm moving this thread the Burn Barrel because it's not even about security.

Basically, what we have found over the years is that there are a couple forum users who simply want to use these forums to bash a competitor repeatedly.

That is not the reason I established these forums 5 years ago (and had to fight to get them on the site, because it does expose us somewhat). The reason I established these was so that security industry professionals of all types -- whether officers, techies, LP, management, installers, etc. -- could share information.

Look, we are OK with people posting criticism, but when you start to take this forum and just try to use it as a vendetta blog against a company, you're not using it for its intended purposes and I may whack back your posts and if you do it enough, I may decide that we don't need you here.

That's not censorship, and it is not about wanting you to always "say nice things". I recognize that not everyone is satisfied with every product, every company or every service. It's OK to address the problems, but what I don't like are these "broken record" posters. We also don't like posts that are libelous. I recommend everyone re-read the terms of service and also spend some time searching the meanings of libel and defamation.

I must say that I find it very positive that most of our members seem to understand the situation here and don't see this as censorship. In fact, if you haven't already, just go back and look at pages and pages of negative/critical posts that are on this site...even this thread itself! For the forum users who do not understand this situation (again, very glad that most users do understand), I just want to say that you are more than welcome to call me or email me at anytime. My contact information is all over this site.

Geoff
SecurityInfoWatch.com

[Minneapolis Security]

Okay, now this is getting juvenile enough that you might have nuked your own thread.

I recommend you read your own sig line - the line by John Wayne in The Shootist - and especially the first phrase of the second sentence: "I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them."

It's a fine motto - providing you live up to it.

SecTrainer

It should be pretty obvious that I am joking. My problem, and many other peoples problem, is the restriction on posting negative information about a company, its services, products, or its management, etc...

I am all for posting good experiences as well. Good product reviews are very helpful. But so are bad product reviews. They both serve a valuable purpose.

[SecTrainer]

SecTrainer

It should be pretty obvious that I am joking. My problem, and many other peoples problem, is the restriction on posting negative information about a company, its services, products, or its management, etc...

I am all for posting good experiences as well. Good product reviews are very helpful. But so are bad product reviews. They both serve a valuable purpose.

The good, the bad and the ugly, eh?

How about this instead: The good and the bad, yes...but not the ugly.

We become "ugly" - at least, as I see it - when we single out or "target" a particular company or individual in an ongoing effort to harm their reputation or to encourage other members to view them in a bad light. When we cross that line (and it's so obvious when we do), we're just as guilty of unprofessional behavior as the "target" we're trying to smear.