Hi,BackgroundI've noticed that a lot of the Avsims commercial members use signatures that present what commercial company/interest they represent. This is good since I may then judge if any post by a commercial member on a specific topic might be in the sphere of influence.ProblemI've lately read a thread in the FSX forum that got locked down. No problems with that. My problem is that one of the posters in that thread was a commercial member. But there is no information available about what commercial interest he represents. There is a link in his sig to a blog, but I'm not sure if this blog reflects his relation with a commercial interest or what. I really can't find out his commercial interest and if it's in any way related to the discussion in the thread. Is this guy an executive officer or a beta tester? How should I judge his response on a post by another commercial member?ProposalAll commercial members should have to have very clear information in their signature about what commercial company/interest or companies/interests he/she represents and in what role.IMO a commercial member is somebody that have an economic interest in the FS community market and have some kind of official and representing role on behalf of a commercial company. IMO a beta tester should be considered as a commercial member if he/she receives any kind of compensation for his effort, such as a free license of the final payware product.Some thoughts on topicThe solution might be that I in each thread ask the poster what commercial interest he represents. I've done this once and received the answer via a pm, not as an answer in the thread. His commercial interest was as a beta tester for a specific add on. IMO I shouldn't have to ask this question and the commercial member should have to answer the question in the thread.Best regardsUlf BjarkeWith absolutely no commercial interests in the FS market or community

Ulf,There was a rather lengthy thread on this very topic back in December.I've linked to it here so that you can read some of the commentary made there. Granted, I would imagine the spark which prompted you to write is different than that which started the linked thread, but the discussion may have some parallels to observe. -Greg

With all due respect, you should treat a commercial member as you would any other. I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't want any "special treatment" or "special considerations". My opinion is my own and I'm not afraid to express it. (Those of you who know me can definitely attest to that! :()Most commercial members here aren't afraid to speak their mind. Take it as their mind though, not the organization's. Developers will specify when they are talking about their company.

...My opinion is my own and I'm not afraid to express it. (Those of you who know me can definitely attest to that! :()...

I appreciate that very much. :( Thank you.

Most commercial members here aren't afraid to speak their mind. Take it as their mind though, not the organization's. Developers will specify when they are talking about their company.

I agree - a lot do give information about their relation to a company. Should i consider all other commercial members as beta testers? The answer is probably yes.Thanks a lot for your view on this.

With all due respect, you should treat a commercial member as you would any other. I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't want any "special treatment" or "special considerations". My opinion is my own and I'm not afraid to express it. (Those of you who know me can definitely attest to that! :()Most commercial members here aren't afraid to speak their mind. Take it as their mind though, not the organization's. Developers will specify when they are talking about their company.

Nah - I think I agree with "Duckbilled" in the December Thread:"1. All commercial members should be required to list the company they represent. I have seen a few that are listed as commercial members but I couldn't figure out which company they were from.2. All of their comments should be considered the views of the company the represent. I have seen a few that state that their views do not represent the view of company X. IMHO, if you are going to make public statements and you are affiliated with a vendor, your words should be considered as the opinion of that vendor. You really can't have it both ways. You are either here for business purposes are private purposes, not both."I think that's pretty straightforward and honest, and it goes directly to "UlfB"'s excellent post.Just my 2 cents(and some borrowed from Duckbilled!)I also have no commercial interest in FS - even though I proudly display PMDG banner, as I like their aircraft.Cheers!

I would like to see who works for whom to know who has problems enough with their customers that they come on here and complain about how they are mistreated by those who pay them. It would come in handy to know just who to avoid so as not to be added to their list. It's interesting that I never see successful developers with happy customers like Aerosoft, Orbx, Real Air or Lotus Simulations on here hiding behind anonymous names crying about how mistreated they are. My guess is they are too busy turning their clients into salesmen to complain against those who aren't.You bet, take the masks off.

2. All of their comments should be considered the views of the company the represent. I have seen a few that state that their views do not represent the view of company X. IMHO, if you are going to make public statements and you are affiliated with a vendor, your words should be considered as the opinion of that vendor. You really can't have it both ways. You are either here for business purposes are private purposes, not both."

I respectully disagree with the above, unless it excludes those instances where the "Commercial Member" is NOT writing about his/her company's products.I would estimate that perhaps 90% of my own posts here at AVSIM and elsewhere have absolutely nothing whatever to do with Eaglesoft DG's products, or my work there. Should Eaglesoft then be forced to bear any responsibility for my posts while asking questions about scenery or artwork, or answering other poster's questions about FS, gauge design, or scenery?That is precisely why I've quite deliberately phrased my signature's disclaimer the way I have...If I'm wearing my Eaglesoft DG hat when posting, either a specific statement in the post or the context should make it perfectly clear. Otherwise, I'm simply wearing my "Flight Simmer's Hat..." :(

I respectully disagree with the above, unless it excludes those instances where the "Commercial Member" is NOT writing about his/her company's products.I would estimate that perhaps 90% of my own posts here at AVSIM and elsewhere have absolutely nothing whatever to do with Eaglesoft DG's products, or my work there. Should Eaglesoft then be forced to bear any responsibility for my posts while asking questions about scenery or artwork, or answering other poster's questions about FS, gauge design, or scenery?That is precisely why I've quite deliberately phrased my signature's disclaimer the way I have...If I'm wearing my Eaglesoft DG hat when posting, either a specific statement in the post or the context should make it perfectly clear. Otherwise, I'm simply wearing my "Flight Simmer's Hat..." :(

Point noted, but if that is the case - 90% as Joe Simmer - I would suggest the correct thing to do, so no one 'reads' anything into what you are saying, is for you two maintain 2 (two) accounts. You'd be on as a simmer 90% of the time, and there would be no issues at all. When answering as a Commercial Member w/ Eaglesoft in your signature/profile...you'd then answer as Eaglesoft.You are 100% right - Eaglesoft should not be "forced to bear any responsibility for (your)posts while asking questions about scenery or artwork." Remove all doubt in 90% of your time here by posting as a fellow simmer with a lot of in-depth experience.Just IMHO and all.Cheers!

I would like to see who works for whom to know who has problems enough with their customers that they come on here and complain about how they are mistreated by those who pay them. It would come in handy to know just who to avoid so as not to be added to their list. It's interesting that I never see successful developers with happy customers like Aerosoft, Orbx, Real Air or Lotus Simulations on here hiding behind anonymous names crying about how mistreated they are. My guess is they are too busy turning their clients into salesmen to complain against those who aren't.You bet, take the masks off.

I think that is quite fair and I certainly try to let everyone know who I am.Would it also be fair to assume the same from forum members?... That all forum members post with their real names or at least put it in their profile so that we know who we are talking to as well?spacemonkey54 (just making that up) doesn't really tell me who I am talking to or if they are even a legit customer.Look, I really don't care that much, but I think if it is asked of the goose it should be reciprocal from the gander.Jim

I think that is quite fair and I certainly try to let everyone know who I am.Would it also be fair to assume the same from forum members?... That all forum members post with their real names or at least put it in their profile so that we know who we are talking to as well?spacemonkey54 (just making that up) doesn't really tell me who I am talking to or if they are even a legit customer.Look, I really don't care that much, but I think if it is asked of the goose it should be reciprocal from the gander.Jim

Here here Jim. :(

Point noted, but if that is the case - 90% as Joe Simmer - I would suggest the correct thing to do, so no one 'reads' anything into what you are saying, is for you two maintain 2 (two) accounts.

That would be reasonable, except that AVSIM specifically prohibits having more than one account......and, I have zero choice about being branded as a "Commercial Member." The only approved alternative is the carefully worded disclaimer in my signature.

Here's a question: what if the commercial member in question does not have an 'employer' but sub-contracts to whichever publisher happens to get to him/her first between contracts? On the face of it, that commercial member would almost never be able to post at all, because under these rules they would be seen as representing every publisher they ever had sub-contracted for.-Dai

Or....if a user has question about a commercial members affiliation either ask or do your homework. :(

I think that is quite fair and I certainly try to let everyone know who I am.Would it also be fair to assume the same from forum members?... That all forum members post with their real names or at least put it in their profile so that we know who we are talking to as well?spacemonkey54 (just making that up) doesn't really tell me who I am talking to or if they are even a legit customer.Look, I really don't care that much, but I think if it is asked of the goose it should be reciprocal from the gander.Jim

I wondered how long it would be before a commrrcial member raised this. I post as "mgh" in accordance with AVSIM's rules. What real difference would it make if I added "John Smith" to my posts? That would add no further information, any more than your adding the three letters "Jim" to yours does. What matters in forums like this is what people post - not who they say they are.

I wondered how long it would be before a commrrcial member raised this. I post as "mgh" in accordance with AVSIM's rules. What real difference would it make if I added "John Smith" to my posts? That would add no further information, any more than your adding the three letters "Jim" to yours does. What matters in forums like this is what people post - not who they say they are.

If I sign it Jim and my signature is Jrhoads... it doesn't take much deduction to figure out who I am.My point stands. if it is expected by one, the shoe should fit all. So is your name John Smith? Personally I do not think it is. But you know my name do you not?Like I said, I have no real dog in this hunt, but I find it very intriguing that people want to remain faceless yet demand that commercial members be absolutely identified.Jim Rhoads <<<---------