Trusted SF Member
Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Location: Asheville, NC, US / Uberlāndia, MG, Brazil
|Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:11 pm Post subject: Guidelines for the Discussion of Cryptographic Products
Due to an increasingly hefty volume of program-specific support requests, we took the
initiative of stating our own requests - directly to the parent company of one particular
product. Our sole intention was that of establishing a mutual act of support, via the
expertise of an actual company representative - be it a developer, or a technical support
specialist. This request was incredibly reasonable, which consisted of either one of the
following two options, or both:
- Mutual forum-based assistance, in regards to product troubleshooting
(in all fairness, let's have someone from the parent company give us a hand in troubleshooting)
- Evaluation copies of the product in question, in regards to our staff's knowledge of such
(if not, at least grant us an evaluation copy, so we can properly address requests for troubleshooting)
Pellucidly so, these requests were made, but to our dismay - no response or acknowledgment,
whatsoever. This is unfortunate, as we are compliant to the support of any reputable product,
granted that the parent company shares this like-minded approach and assists us in the process.
Indubitably, any venerable entity will exhibit a flair for prompt support, for any product of their
own spawn. It is in good taste to assure any user of immaculate functionality. This could have
been an achievement, had our efforts been impartially matched by the opposite party.
Because of such, we have established an unambiguously idiot-proof set of criteria, that we
request compliance to, when posting in regards to any given cryptographically-related product.
No, we aren't turning communist; we are merely satisfying the convenience of allowing the free
discussion of products, while upholding our robust outlook of which rendered this act, initially.
What is valid and allowed:
- Mere mentioning (sporadic dispersal; random discussion)
- Simply suggesting (recommendations with rationale)
- Structure review (discussions related to the internal workings of a product)
- Opinionated miscellany (any form of the above, in the form of generic conversation)
What is invalid and disallowed:
- Any form of advertisement (posting for this sole purpose or any blatant free plug)
- Requests for troubleshooting (as aforementioned, no act of support will take place,
aside from companies who lend us a hand, in one of the two requested ways)
Please note the difference between our definitions of suggesting and advertising, as the
former assumes that a member has provided a valid opinion for suggestion, while discussing
product solutions as a segment of a cryptography discussion. This portrays the purpose of
our forum - the cryptography utilized and how it is utilized. Advertising assumes that a member
has only posted for the sole purpose of boasting a product's use and provides no rationale of
comparison. This member will also likely not take interest in the primary matter of cryptographic
discussion. The distinguishing mark is that suggesting is done on the behalf of cryptography,
while advertising is done on the behalf of money pocketing.
We are not in favor of limitation, but have been posed with no other satiable choice. Even then,
these limitations have in mind the flexibility of discussion for our users, most importantly. As we
stand solidly on our basis of reason, we will not jeopardize the viable integrity of the forum, yet
we equally contemplate each decision around the issue of member welfare.
Sincerely, we wish to have never had this problematic issue arise, but as it is a reality, we have
dealt with it in the most ethically professional manner possible. In conclusion, we appreciate the
cooperation of each member, and hope for the continuance of a smooth experience here at SFDC.