BR Forums Feedback

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 07 Oct 2009 02:43

Come on Swamy, are you not being too touchy? He was merely being sarcastic.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 07 Oct 2009 02:53

Parijat: I mean no offense, but let us just leave it here. Just consider it as a feedback to RayC.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Oct 2009 05:55

ksmahesh wrote: Why Shiv and others were not asked to ignore each others. .

mahesh - I would not have ignored posts that I felt were complete cooked up rubbish and people who felt my posts were similar could not ignore it. I believe the forum was at stake. And it was IMO

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 07 Oct 2009 06:26

Mr. Mahesh appears to have a serious problem. His other ID was used to launch an unprovoked, gratuitous personal attack when I was trying to clean up the POK-2 thread and quell the riots there. I banned that avatar, and pointed out to other admins that it seemed to be an "expendable" ID assuming the postor was not completely devoid of any intelligence. Well... they searched and sure enough found out that I was accurate in gauging that the postor had some intelligence - that he had at least one other ID. No comment is needed here on how many we found.

My other diagnosis is that Mr. Mahesh is someone who has been banned by BRF in the past for misbehavior. There are several like him around, most of whom got themselves banned and not by me, after resorting to abusive behavior when they found that they were losing debates, who fancy that they can come here and try to get "revenge" for the dent in their Honor and Dignity, instead of trying to learn basic discipline and growing up.

The last few days have been a disappointment on BRF quality..I wonder why some members (including some moderators - eq N3) have a obsessive need to write only pengrezi

Now I see that Mr. Mahesh is continuing his gratuitous hate campaign, removing all doubt about his motives for being on the forum. As far as I can recall, I have not used "Pingreji" on the forum in weeks, and if I did it in the past, it has never been to bother anyone. As for "obsessive need", it is perfectly evident that Mr. Mahesh indeed has some obsession, but I can't see that anyone else does.

If Pingreji was used outside the "BENIS" thread, and specifically on the MIL forum, it was to avoid having posts on some topics show up in search engines needlessly - a fact that would take a little thinking to understand, and that may indeed be well be beyond Mr. Mahesh's capabilities. Unlike Mr. Mahesh and his many IDs, some of us post in the names our parents gave us, but have no wish for needless publicity.

My understanding is that using multiple bogus IDs is grounds for instant and permanent IP ban. Why should Mr. Mahesh have an exception to this, I do not know.

He can "investigate" me all he wants, since he seems to have a surfeit of time and hate. Meanwhile, he can also enjoy stewing in whatever his problem is, and if he posts abusive garbage like he did with his bogus ID before, on this or any other thread, I will again do what is necessary to keep him from disrupting the forum.

I do hope this is quite clear since it is not in "Pingreji" and meets his standards of the Queen's English, what-what.

What next? A call for "investigation" for using smileys? There are some here who seem to go postal at seeing smileys as well.

Mr. Mahesh is right on one thing. The forum does need a cleanup. I will be trying my best to clean it up. There was way too much tolerance on the POK-2 threads for peddlers of nonsense, abuse and other garbage, and that must not happen again.

archan · Post by **archan** » 07 Oct 2009 06:55

Rahul M wrote:
ksmahesh wrote:...............
if a repeat of this sneaky tactics is ever detected it will mean a ban for this ID too.

having duplicate IDs is expressly forbidden in the forum rules. A person that has no respect for the rules has no place on the forum IMO. ksmahesh will be banned permanently along with his alter ego.

PS: there have been cases when good users have voluntarily given up a dual identity they had. We understand, and have honored their request for locking up one identity and letting them keep their preferred one. We would still do the same if anyone wants to fess up. However using two identities and then getting caught will lead to a ban. Jai ho.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 07 Oct 2009 09:49

SwamyG wrote: RayC: As a moderator you could have said that BRF does not want to be seen as a place for religious discussion. So any such attribution by out side analysts is not welcome. As a moderator you could have set the tone neutral. You did not have to go the route you chose to go.

Apparently you have not read the Forum Guidelines. Please read it since that is the first thing one should do before becoming a Member of BRF. If people cannot understand simple sentences as is in the BRF Guidelines, then one has to tell the old old story in a different way so that it does not slip their memory when they post.

I could have said many things, but one thing I sure don't want to do and that is being an 'echo'! Anyone, who has read the Forum Guidelines would realise if I repeated it then I would merely be an echo.

It has been raised many a time that this forum has no religious or political agenda and it is neutral ground.

Therefore, to feel that because Mr B Raman has called BRF a Hindu forum, it should be taken as a compliment is a subtle way to state that Mr B Raman is a Hinduvta man and his endorsement of BRF as a Hindu forum is something that BRF would be elated about. Could it not be a tongue in cheek statement which brings no credit to the Forum and paints it as a bigoted coterie that is out of synch with the national ethos, just because a few posters overdo the religious angle?

May I state such a comment does not do justice to BRF or Mr B Raman. And I daresay both are quite neutral in their fields of expertise and it is unfair to attribute any leaning to either.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 07 Oct 2009 09:53

You could have said the above which is well worded than your earlier choice of words that I highlighted.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 07 Oct 2009 09:59

SwamyG wrote:You could have said the above which is well worded than your earlier choice of words that I highlighted.

I could have said many things but for folks who do not read or care about the Forum Guidelines, one has to wake them out of their reverie and lethargy.

No more from you please.

Matter closed.

archan · Post by **archan** » 07 Oct 2009 10:31

People give way too much credit to those views of Raman ji. While we have great respect for his work, those views have not resulted in the creation of GD. GD was created because there was a good reason to not allow certain threads on BRF in order to not dilute its focus on military/strategic issues. However many users wanted threads like Love and Marriage, and wanted to post about a host of unrelated issues in Nukkad, now we have the EVM etc. Ther was a suggestion to not create GD and completely remove such threads which were not military, strategic or economic. However we realize that people do need such threads from time to time. So it was decided to make a GD forum for things that aren't quite in line with BRF's three main focus areas.
Now if you login and see the GD forum, will you find something that we would like to hide from the rest of the world? no. Going by your logic, we would be having threads on Hindutva, Dharma, "chalo kar seva", and whatnot. Instead what we have is things like Games, PS2, EVM..

Of course people are free to disagree with the decision, but it is what it is. If you want to keep believing in the overestimated "log kya kahenge" syndrome affecting BRF, then feel free to....but I have to mention that you are giving undue credit to some views which are not really as important as you think.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 07 Oct 2009 10:39

Manasvi wrote:
Why So?

Because of arrogant behaviour seen here. A typical hindu behaviour after finding small achievements is to become arrogant. For example, the hindu party BJP's Pramod Mahajan's charm offensive lost its steam when arrogance set in. same with advaniji. Bal Thackeray's Shiv Sena came down from 50+ seats in loksabha to below 20+ - because of a typical hindu arrogance and general bravado.

Your posts and replies reminds me of Bal Thackarey's editorial in Samna. Thackarey per se is not a bad man, i am only talking about your posts and replies and pl dont take this as personal jibe. this is totally issue based and the comments are made in good faith as a well wisher of BR.

in addition to above hindu quality of arrogance there is another typical hard-core hindu attribute of suppressing the voice = hiding behing GD forum due to one person being taken as Oracle the other way round - a typical VHP / Bajrangdal type reaction. Suppression of posters' thought being expressed is similar to Shiv Sena's harrassment of Valentine Day Celebrators. So BR is becoming hinduised with the help 'hindu' word haters.

The other advani like quality is suppression of even constructive criticism of Admins (i am not using the word moderator - because there is no moderation or facilitator's role seen here) by many well wishers of BRF. This is typically hard core Hindu practice. BR is Hinduized in its real concern. The closing of GD forum to general viewing due to B Raman's comment is another reaction to log kya kahenge - a typical hindu trait.

A constructive criticism should always be welcome that it give a chance to Admins to feel the pulse for free and it is democratic.

the unwanted noises lately being notices at BR by undersigned is posters are constanly at cross roads with the mods.

Samuel's suggestion about mods (?) using two handles. I echo his voice. But before that lets go to definition of Moderator in my next post.

Before that i would like to mention : The true facilitators i have seen here in BR are/were Ramana, Rakesh Koshy, Calvin and Shiv in old-gold days. they have in their own way truly facilitated and truly moderated the forums and in many ways helped newbies to think more rationally - that too with touch of love in form of requests and suggestion to change the style and make it more civilized.

Nowadays, some admins behave like policemen.

I would not like to comment on what is ‘typical’ Hindu behaviour or whether finding small achievements Hindus become arrogant. It is not my call, but Amartya Sen has said that Indians are argumentative. Now, if that is a fair call or not, I would not really know since I have not read the book nor have any desire to read it!

While you maybe self acclaimed well wisher of BRF, I daresay I am not in a self destruct mode or a suicide bomber in the guise of a Moderator to blow up BRF. Don’t take it personally, as I am not taking your well intentioned post personally, but my professional upbringing is what is at play where there was no time to be PC or being a ‘fussyocky’ (I believe in Tahiti it means ‘sweet tongued flatterer’).

On the one hand you say Bal Thakarey (though my aunt is a Thakeray) is not a bad man and on the other hand you equate me with him and by a sleight of hand paint me as a dictator or policeman! I enjoyed it. You want to have your cake and eat it too! As a Sardarji told us – Ae bhi wah wah, tan bhi wah wah! I am also saying everything in good faith.

As far as GD Forum is concerned and who is hiding behind who or what, it is not my call. Policies are way beyond my jurisdiction! I am but a worker ant or a worker bee. No one is taken as Oracle in this forum. It is the posters who suggest so!

BRF is not a Hindu forum or a Hinduvta forum. No one is against the word ‘Hindu’ either. Since you have not taken the time out to study the thread, there is a specific thread on Hindu mythology and none has spun it out of oblivion. However, it does not mean that BRF supports any religion. It was merely for education and if posters go gung ho, can you gag everyone and be labelled dictatorial or policemen?!

Under no circumstances, BRF desires to be labelled as partial to any religion. It is our aim to be universally accepted so that 100 flowers bloom metaphorically speaking!

Indeed there should be democracy, but if you suggest licence and anarchy, we beg to differ.

Posters are at crossroads with Moderators is the sure sign that this is a democratic forum.

I think Rahul has already mentioned that the Mods who participate in a thread do not moderate that thread unless there are offensive thoughts on the Nation or offensive language used. Therefore, why have two handles to cause more confusion?

Well everyone can’t be Mahatma Gandhi, nor can they be Rakesh Koshy, Calvin and Shiv. Neither can anyone replace Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.

May I request you that this discussion is leading nowhere and we can stop.

And I have no clue about the BJP luminaries you quote and their activities. I am sure they know what they do or don't.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 07 Oct 2009 10:55

Manasvi

Point registered and noted.

Let it be all that required to be said.

No more flogging a dead horse if you don't mind!

There are ways to prevent that democracy is not derailed!

Let us go our ways, you having had you say is what we would prefer.

Thank you!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 07 Oct 2009 11:07

Manasvi wrote:Ray Sir,

Thank you.

(If you have not criticised few things the discussions would have not become interesting but i had found it harsh i expressed my views)

Micchhami Dukkadam - Forgive me if I had caused any personal hurt - Manasa Vacha Karmana - by my mind, by my saying or by my doing.

Thank you.

My aim was not to be harsh, but these are harsh times when the BRF is going topsy turvy.

To imagine a Webmaster quitting for reasons well known to many and then accusations flying thick and fast!

Very hurtful times and we have to gird up our lions inspite of being accused of being Bal Takersays and policemen!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Oct 2009 11:13

......we have to gird up our lions........

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 07 Oct 2009 11:19

Rahul M wrote:
......we have to gird up our lions........

Yep

Did you not remember Ajit and Mona Darling ham ko sab loin kahte hain? Or words to that effect.

Manasvi,

Have you noted?

No moderators allows another moderator to go scot free when they commit errors!

They guard the guardians!

Tough life. On one side the posters and on the other side the Moderators moderating the Moderators.

That is how fair we try to be.

But we are also human!

We also err!

archan · Post by **archan** » 07 Oct 2009 11:33

oh wait, so he was complaining of not enough Hindutva on the forum? oops I thought he felt there was way too much of it and we need hide some of it in the GD!

oops, sorry!

We get complaints on both sides!
Regarding thread on BJP or loss or gain or whatever to it - sorry, can't do. Not for BJP not for Congress and not for MyFavParty. I also remember locking a thread on Maharashtra elections right after the general elections were over! am I biased against Maharashtra?

Politics, elections can have their dedicated threads only very occasionally. In the past it was a complete no-no. But people think they can take liberties on those ground because 1 thread was hosted on the general elections. Well, not quite.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 07 Oct 2009 11:40

Facilitate - To make easy or less difficult; to free from difficulty or impediment; to lessen the labour of; as, to facilitate the execution of a task.

Moderate - To restrain from excess of any kind; to reduce from a state of violence, intensity, or excess; to keep within bounds; to make temperate; to lessen; to allay; to repress; to temper; to qualify; as, to moderate rage, action, desires, etc.; to moderate heat or wind.

Nearly same!

Me supporting any religious angle? Catch me doing that. I am a like a Santhal; my religion is the elements that I can feel and see! Though the goodness of each religion I take note of.

As Archan has said, I am overwhelmed with overdose of the issue what you accuse me of!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 07 Oct 2009 11:43

Manasvi wrote:there is no wanting of certain thread to continue or discontinue due to one's leaning to certain political ideology. it was about how the things have happened in the past that may be instrospected. i am, for record, an apolitical and spiritual person - has nothing to do with politics or religions.

If so, can we close the discussion?

Thank you!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 07 Oct 2009 13:09

See how irrelevant stuff vanishes and more so when it is requested not to carry on with the redundant, especially when you point has been registered and noted!

Quit trying to become a martyr!

Take this as a caution!

I have no desire to flog a dead issue which has no relevance any more once it has been noted and registered by those who run this forum! They are surely going to take action.

I have positive vibes and that is why things are going on endlessly in spite of so many Thank you from my side.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 07 Oct 2009 15:21

Manasvi wrote:i voluntarily surrender my id.

pl disable my ID at once and possibly delete all my posts.

good bye BR.

request facilitated

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 07 Oct 2009 18:45

Wake up Call!

The small, vocal and insenstive subset of Moderators of BR, why the sudden surge of intolerance? I also notice a sense of superior uber class behaviour in quiet a few. Totally unwarranted. Is it some Empire Strikes Back initiative?

Even polite requests for showing a bit more care, deligence and politeness are being dismissed. There is also a self righteous streak of claiming how hard the work is, how fair everything is, how moderators are all scrutinized and moderated. Well, the result on the forums hardly speaks up for all these claims.

Please pull up your socks and deliver. If you are not capable of handling the job, ship out. Stop parading mockery and gunslinger mentality of brandishing bans and warnings and claiming this is our forum, we will do as we please as an excuse.

That is just juvenile behaviour. It is like - "I bring in the stumps and the bat, so only I can decide how many times I can bat before giving myself out." Grow up.

Important disclaimer: This applies to a small, vocal and arrogant minority amongst the moderators, there are quite a few of the group who hold up the orignal intent and standards of this website and forum. I have been long enough here to recognise the said standards and intent and patient enough with the vocal and juvinile minority that is bringing the standards down.

This is a feedback, not a request or plea. Take it or ignore it. If some of you claim, who claim to have held or currently holding important day jobs and are familiar with management, you would know what a feedback is.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 07 Oct 2009 21:02

A timely wake up call!

Indeed the standards are going down.

Is it a matter of pride that being called a Hindu forum when the BRF does not bat for any religion in its official capacity? If Mr B Raman finds it so and he is a commentator who is widely read and respected, such a comment will stick. I assure you that it does not please me to be a Hinduvta prompting forum, even if it pleases you. I am an Indian. My family and my profession has taught me to be so and I am proud of that fact. My religious affliction is immaterial when it is a question of my country!

Nor do we in BRF permit any suggestion to wage war against the State, no matter how frustrating the situation may be. Both these aspects have crept in and have been nipped in the bud. Yet, since it cannot be a 24x7 surveillance, things do slip by. Therefore, to be hurled epithets because we are subscribing to the avowed secular credential of the country and to the integrity of the country is equally unfair. If someone feels that it is incorrect to avow by the country’s secular credentials and it integrity is an error, please say so.

As far as shipping out is concerned, it is for the management to decide. Please do not assume that position without accountability. Polite requests are politely answered. However, tongue in cheek or left handed compliments are read and understood for what they are worth. To my mind, straight talk is better than hiding behind façades or indulging in charades!

If indeed you feel that there is a gunslinger attitude, then don’t blame us. Rahul Mehta is the one who has brainwashed some of the small coterie you speak of. I have handled all sorts of firearms including tank guns and artillery. I understand their lethality and don’t usually resort to it, but when necessary, I have no hesitation to use it, notwithstanding your discomfit.

I too have been on this forum for a long time. I am no babe in the woods! I felt it quite ponderous and stifling and a trifle pseudo intellectual.

The new panel started off as being very liberal. What has come to pass?

The result is that it has come to such a sad state that a Webmaster quit; yes, not a member, but a Webmaster!!! I am not commenting on who was right or who was wrong since I did not care for that thread as it was another pseudo intellectual exercise where everyone was an expert on borrowed news and views and drawing room conversations! The fact that the forum has become over liberal is why there is so much of dissent all over, flying thick and fast.

You comment on Moderators moderating Moderator as bunkum. Please educate us as to why a Webmaster quit? I take it that you have 'inside' information. Spill the beans!

Now, who is juvenile is a moot question.

I, at least, explain my action. Thus, get into a debate. I have always been for a fair and level playing field, even in my service!

It is easier to take action without any explanation.

I don't require you advise on feedback. I am sure you would not have had my experience. I got it from 30,000 under fire! Feedback was most important to us since lives were involved and not merely profits, production figure and such stuff! Nothing so mundane and plebeian!

I don't have to reply but I am hardly the one to accept accusations or supercilious pontifications behind the computer screen lying down! Never did it when it mattered my career and won't do it in a forum either!

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 07 Oct 2009 21:57

archan wrote:GD was created because there was a good reason to not allow certain threads on BRF in order to not dilute its focus on military/strategic issues. However many users wanted threads like Love and Marriage, and wanted to post about a host of unrelated issues in Nukkad, now we have the EVM etc. Ther was a suggestion to not create GD and completely remove such threads which were not military, strategic or economic. However we realize that people do need such threads from time to time. So it was decided to make a GD forum for things that aren't quite in line with BRF's three main focus areas.

Does it boil down to retention of members or higher traffic? I understand it is very difficult to decide which topics are kosher and which ones are not. For example one might think there is no place for economy related threads too in these forums. Can it be restricted to just Military (and not even Strategy) discussions?

In business, when a company ventures into ancillary areas than its core competencies it can either be successful or a failure. After some time on that roads, business sell off those ancillary areas indicating they would like to focus on their core areas.

If the non-core areas in BRF are taking more time and effort to maintain, plus bringing down its 'brand image'; then the management has to take the harsh decision of letting go the non-core areas. You might lose members (free customers), but then that is life.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 07 Oct 2009 22:02

Ajatshatru wrote:
If Mr B Raman finds it so and he is a commentator who is widely read and respected, such a comment will stick.
RayC Sir, with all due respect, you make much of the role of B Raman in this case. How much he is widely read and respected may be a question open to debate but even if what you say is true ‘such a comment will stick’, should BR now bend backwards to prove something to the contrary simply because B Raman chooses to hurl an allegation against BR? And could one be really sure he did not make such a comment with some ‘ulterior motive’?

You further wrote ‘Therefore, to be hurled epithets because we are subscribing to the avowed secular credential of the country and to the integrity of the country is equally unfair’.
One man’s chalice is another man’s poison. Who decides what are truly ‘avowed secular credentials’? And if I might add, we all here at BR, irrespective of our religious affiliations, trying our utmost in own personal capacity to uphold the ‘integrity of the country’ in the best way we can. I personally would like to believe most of us here are patriotic to the core.

Just my two cents

I assure you that those who observe the strategic scene, do not discount Brig Kapila or B Raman.

The BRF is primarily a Military Forum.

I don't think we are bending backwards. We are merely trying to get the Leaning Tower of Pisa to be upright!

If Mr Raman did make it for 'ulterior motives' as you suggest, I presume his view would be more credible than ours, given that some of the posters are gung ho.

I have no idea of what is the real meaning of secularism as enunciated by the Constitution. All I understand is it means peace amongst all. Not really a bad idea or is it?

Apparently, you did not read the post that suggested insurrection! We have to read all that, even if you failed to read it.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 07 Oct 2009 22:40

Ajatshatru wrote:
If Mr Raman did make it for 'ulterior motives' as you suggest, I presume his view would be more credible than ours
If B Raman, for whatever reasons, chooses to indulge in ‘you farted’ theory vis-à-vis his particular comment on BR, the response perhaps should be to just laugh and call his bluff and not tie ourselves in knots by trying to fit in the ‘avowed secular credentials’ as defined by some people like B Raman.

You would agree when I say that this forum does not need/require a ‘secular credential’ certificate from people like him nor would I like to believe he carries any more credibility than BR.
.

That is your view.

But then that is not those who follow the strategic aspects!

archan · Post by **archan** » 07 Oct 2009 22:44

Ajatshatru wrote:
nor would I like to believe he carries any more credibility than BR.
.

I would (in certain matters of course), simply because he has been in the thick of things and has worked in intelligence - something most of us haven't. However, discussing possible motives (based on guesses/reading-between-lines) behind his writings is of little use IMO as he is not here to elaborate. We should avoid getting too much into such discussions... is my opinion. So I request that this line of discussion be ditched. Thanks.

archan · Post by **archan** » 08 Oct 2009 00:23

Please note that I *requested* (as opposed to trying to enforce) that a certain line of argument not be pursued. The certain line, in my perception is a) relates to opinion of someone who is not a member here, b) based on "feeling" or guessing their motives, c) can do no good even if the motives are found out, the chance for which is slim any way.
I have no issue with any other feedback/criticism - see Raja Ram's post above. All that is great feedback.

Compounding the problem may also have been a perceived notion that Arun may have been hounded out of the forum because, amongst other things, anti-establishment views are recently may be seen more and more as anathema, by some Moderators, to general character of this forum.

The thing is, a person feeling this way will continue to do so no matter how much explanation is provided to them because they simply won't believe that explanation. So it is all FWIW and let everyone think what they want.

archan · Post by **archan** » 08 Oct 2009 00:40

Jai ho!

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 08 Oct 2009 07:48

RayC,

I have not commented nor do I wish on B. Raman or his comments or your response. I do not care of your political affiliations nor secular credentials. I am aware of your record of service. I greatly respect it. Please note that you have no information of my experience, record or what I have done or not done. Please do not assume that I have no capacity or intelligence. I do not care if you respect me or not. It does not affect me in any way. You have attributed to me ideologies without knowing anything about me. This is certainly not acceptable. You sir, do not know me at all. I have not attributed to you any ideology or any isms. I am not interested in the same.

My feedback is not directed to individual moderators by name and I have certainly not complained against you nor have criticized your action. You may have commanded 30,000 people sir, but you cannot command me.

The webmasters and moderators have provided this thread here inviting feedback. Then you are going to get some. Some will be positive, some will be negative and some will be warnings. Palatable or not, it is incumbent for moderators to deal with it. So deal with it. Without whining and condescending posts, if you can.

With all your experience of man management and handling feedback, I am sure you will recognise that feedback has to be analysed and action taken. There are only three options. Objectively look at the feedback, if it is a constructive suggestion and can be implemented, do the same. If it is constructive criticism and can be corrected, implement correction. If it is not constructive suggestion or constructive criticism, do nothing and ignore the feedback. It is your prerogative as a group to look at any feedback including mine and decide.

That is all there is to feedback. There is no point getting worked up about those giving the feedback. And yes if you cant handle feedback, dont ask for it in the first place. If you do, then prepare to deal with it or ship out.

The silent good work of the majority of the moderators are being impacted by irresponsible few. For what it is worth, I have always considered you amongst the majority. I hope I was not wrong.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Oct 2009 15:31

amit wrote: Yet here on BRF we read comments that such secrecy is unnecessary and hides incompetence blah, blah.

Add to that the "Hurrah" comment made by someone "Time for a survivor type vote on ourselves" and how it was necessary to clean up "our" own house on BRF. "Our own house?"

Who are the squatters?

However, it was a serendipitous statement. It did get cleaned up.

amit · Post by **amit** » 08 Oct 2009 19:32

Sorry to barge into serious a discussion but need some feedback. Is anyone having problems with the post reply box while using IE7? The text is jumping about all over the place and the typed line is going below the box? I had this problem with one of my computers and thought it was a computer glitch. However, I'm using my wife's computer and the same problem. Yet in my office laptop I use firefox and there's no problem.

Just to clarify one of my computers with IE7 is XP and the other is Vista so shouldn't be a OS problem. Any feedback welcome!

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 08 Oct 2009 19:33

What is with deleting posts by the way. How is truth/statement/evidence preserved this way especially if we keep going back to it many threads or months or years later. Isn't the whole idea here to keep going and sanitize the past, so a certain look and feel and view comes across?

S

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Oct 2009 19:43

from previous page of this thread.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 59#p748359

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Oct 2009 06:52

Rahul M wrote:from previous page of this thread.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 59#p748359

Thanks Rahul. Fixed the problem. I should have been able to figure it out myself.

Too many meetings and coffee dulls the brain - it starts to fizzle!

archan · Post by **archan** » 09 Oct 2009 07:17

samuel wrote:What is with deleting posts by the way. How is truth/statement/evidence preserved this way especially if we keep going back to it many threads or months or years later. Isn't the whole idea here to keep going and sanitize the past, so a certain look and feel and view comes across?

S

Which ones are you referring to?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Oct 2009 08:50

samuel wrote:What is with deleting posts by the way. How is truth/statement/evidence preserved this way especially if we keep going back to it many threads or months or years later. Isn't the whole idea here to keep going and sanitize the past, so a certain look and feel and view comes across?

S

I saw your comment above in its original place before it was moved here and will post my take here.

The "whole idea here" never was to keep going AND to sanitize the past. The whole idea is to keep going, that is all. Past and all. Unlike the production of 14 MeV neutrons in some devices sanitization is not a design goal.

Having said that the early history of BRF was to sanitize all the past discussions in that all were ultimately deleted.

Later there was archival of selected threads based on admin whims.

The current trend is to get forum feedback on archival - so "sanitizing the past" is possible in two ways:

1) There is no specific interest that a particular thread be archived and it gets rejected
2) Flamebaits and other garbage get sanitized at admin discretion.

The particular posts that were deleted (which I referred to earlier) were posts by a RaviCV who appeared on this forum claiming to have insider information on India's nuclear establishment, and his posts ultimately had far reaching effects on BRF while Ravi CV simply vanished.

What is even more mysterious to me is how his posts vanished. Many posts made by Ravi CV on BRF - which is an open internet forum were simply deleted in what could only have been admin action on posts that were not flamebaits and were certainly not being widely considered as "garbage"

I have done a thought experiment (in my own mind) of a voice vote among admins and former admins who might have deleted RaviCv's critical posts that had far reaching consequences on BRF. My mind throws up a few suspects. I can think of the identity of the admins/s in question but have no idea about the motivation for deletion. I would love to know if someone can own up.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 09 Oct 2009 09:05

Shivji (or other present or past admins) - what has been policy of a person having multiple handle(s)? I know some post here with their own names (with some loss of privacy and could be target of unwanted publicity) while others want to keep their identity not completely open, and post with a "person type name", but yet generally one does not use multiple identities. I know there was at least one case where an admin used another handle ... which I thought was rather peculiar... Does BRF has a guide line about membership rules as not to use multiple handles?

Just curious.

archan · Post by **archan** » 09 Oct 2009 09:20

Two handles are a no-no - not for members, not for moderators. If someone is found to have two IDs, they can be permanently banned. There have been cases when good user have voluntarily surrendered their secondary handles, or requested that their old ones be deactivated because they would like to be known as someone else from now on. That is fine. However if someone gets caught, well..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Oct 2009 10:17

I believe now as Abdul as I did as admin that two handles are undesirable.

Two handle people are almost always trolls and even the good people can sometimes be tempted to say some things with one id that they do not say with the other.

More often a dual identity has been used to say something and "have a supporter" with id number 2. Over my years as admin I shaheedized several such schizos.

Oh and Amber G - if you are thinking that Ravi CV was possibly a dual id - I don't know the answer to that. Did not think about it that way.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 09 Oct 2009 17:04

IMO - purely from what might be mistaken for a "thought experiment" and is probably a gut feeling based on what snippets I caught from unguarded statements in posts:

From time to time, BRF ppl, being enthusiastic to the point of being "fans" on certain topics, go and ask "Insiders" something. I used to think these were in deep dark Yindoo conspiracy places deep under South Block, but now I think these are at the usual brown-nosing sessions after someone has made a presentation in the back room of the IndoPakistan Halal Military Cafe and is packing up his viewgraphs. Or, much more intense, inside the IPHMC between the Chicken 65 and the Masala Dosa.

Some have mentioned talking to, say, Dr. Santanam while he was jogging in a park New Delhi. I have no idea whether Dr. Santanam jogs, or if he does so in New Delhi, but I read it here. Are there actually parks in New Delhi?

OK, now the Insider has Security Clearance. Signed the OSA. He thinks about the question for the microsecond necessary for such brilliant ppl to realize this. Realizes that s(he) is talking to a Fan, in some cases not even an Indian Citizen, who will promptly spread the info faithfully on every internet forum and email group where s(he) has access. Even better where s(he) may be an Admin with 1 ID. Or 3 IDs.

So the Insider uses the Fan to spread a pov that the Insider holds, but is demonstrably divorced from reality enough to cause no more than among the dark-glasses types who invariably record every word the Insider says and checks them against the OSA.

Result: Fan rushes back, often within an hour, and posts on BRF as INSIDE INFO. TOP SECRET, can't divulge source, Source Not Allowed to Speak to Media But Spoke to ME Because I Am Special.

The Fan's Fan Club rushes in to commend the Fan for a Great Post, Awesome Stuff, and starts the usual merry Mob Dance. Someone completely disrespectful like moi says

Great "takleef" as ramana calls it, results. Someone goes

again. Slums are burnt. Passionate pleas to WebMaster.

The point to remember here is that ALL Insiders are bound by the OSA. There is no Statute of Limitations on that, until said Secret is Declassified. Even then the Insiders prefer to shut up because in pointing to revealed former Secret, they may give away something to which it is relevant today.

So - ALL "confidential source revelations from Insiders" must be discounted immediately, however much one may WANT to believe them.

I believe the RaviCV incident ( I remember only a few posts b4 there was a big HooHa and everything disappeared) was no more than this. The posts appeared the usual pompous garbage that conformed to some fool getting some nonsense whispered in his/her ear.

Because an anonymous ID does not stop the RAW, CBI, or any other 3-letter agency from enforcing the OSA in a very Deterrent way. If nothing else, they can ask me, and loooooong before they say the word "torture" I will happily look up the IP and hand it over. Surely the admins of the RaviCV day were no more heroic than I feel, and certainly no less wise than I am.

So.. there was nothing in the RaviCV revelations that should be believed. Which is why I don't remember what he posted, though I do remember reading the posts several times to see what all the HooHa was about. Answer was "naaaah!"

As for any Far-Reaching Impact on BRF, I would not know, except that there was the very entertaining email exchange where a good deal of info on the quality of parentage of certain entities was exchanged, wonderful new names were awarded to each other etc., and 1 or 2 "knowledgeable experts" disappeared in the usual huff after the Kattabommanesque Farewell Speeches and Ominous Predictions of Doom. Kind of like Mother BRF giving Castor Oil to Bacche from time to time to clear out the system.

Do you want to extend that reasoning to more recent Impassioned Revelations? You are welcome to do so.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 09 Oct 2009 20:09

Phew ! You gave me a scare there. But I see now. I am NOT "NSA" Narayanan

but Oothappam Secrets Advisor narayanan.

You are "absolutely" right. To avoid getting sent to jail, the "Insider" would have to marry the "Fan" on the spot, and then the "Fan" if an Indian citizen, would have to marry everyone who browses BRF.

Not even "doctor-patient privilege" can keep the Insider out of jail, and if I had any such Clearance, this horror would be very much in the front of my mouth whenever I opened it, all through my life. Imagine if, say, (never mind, it's too horrible to imagine).

Also, since you can access this, what is your opinion on the definition of "Indian Citizen" as in "whom can they arrest if they get mad?" My guess is that although OICs are not allowed Security Clearances except by Parliamentary diktat, OICs are very much subject to being defined as "IC" in this case. The only escape would be to give up the OIC and never never come to India again. This is just to make the day for any ppl in this category who think they are exempt from Indian law.

Someone once told me that in the US, even if one is, shall we say, a member of certain agencies needing to go abroad without actually advertising true source of paycheque, they tell such ppl that the US can do nothing to protect them from the authorities in the country of their birth. Sure, they may send former President to Negotiate For Release etc. if the arrest is quasi-political, but otherwise, it's 'bye-'bye.

Iran for example, did not recognize the US citizenship of that woman who was arrested (and later released for political gain). Same with North Korea where "Slick Willie" had to go and promise Direct Talks and all kinds of $$$ before the women were released.