Greg, you can take (and have taken) your crusade to ridiculous extremes.  I
daresay EVERYONE who you would respect has some "potential conflict of
interest".  Have you disclosed to every customer every stock you hold, and
the stock holdings of every mutual fund you own?  Have you disclosed every
trinket or favorable treatment you've received from any vendor at any time?
Anything like that can be construed as a "potential conflict of interest".
You argue in overbroad generalities and don't draw any lines.  Therefore,
your arguments have no merit because they are of no use to anyone.

Again, how does my being an MVP constitute even a "potential" conflict of
interest?  How does your standard of "potential conflict of interest" apply
to everyone?

Sooner of later, you're going to have to admit that a conflict of interest
must be determined by the person involved, and not by your arbitrary,
overbroad--even silly--generalizations.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:05 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

As long as Inovis' HR department has no rules regarding accepting gits, etc.
then you are personally and *technically in the clear with regards to your
job. However it does not change the basic definition of "conflict of
interest". You are employed at a company and paid by that company but are
accepting gifts from another company which may cause your loyalties to go
astray. Perhaps you are so concerned with providing this "peer support"
that you do so on the company's time or with company equipment (Inovis).

This is the whole reason why companies have conflict of interest rules and
put caps and limitations on gifts.

> > You can be offended all you want, it does not change the FACT that 
> > accepting a direct gift from a vendor creates an obvious problem 
> > with basic conflict of interest rules. I don't make these rules up 
> > all I have stated is that a real or perceived conflict exists. If 
> > the argument held no water, then there would be no reason to be 
> > offended.
> 
> Prove it. And don't use the words "obvious" or "apparent"
> 
> I'm paid to be a Windows Sysadmin. I'm a Microsoft MVP. Explain to me 
> exactly how that's a conflict of interest. The reality is that you 
> can't, because it isn't.
> 
> Now, if I was selling Microsoft and Novell solutions and held my MVP 
> status, there could be some validity to the argument that there is a 
> *perceived* conflict of interest. There ISN'T a conflict of interest 
> until it affects my judgement or my recommendations to a customer. 
> Then again, MVP status is awarded for contributions to peer technical 
> support, which has nothing to do with selling anything.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
> Sr. Systems Administrator
> Inovis Inc.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:10 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
> > 
> > 
> > You can be offended all you want, it does not change the FACT that 
> > accepting a direct gift from a vendor creates an obvious problem 
> > with basic conflict of interest rules. I don't make these rules up 
> > all I have stated is that a real or perceived conflict exists. If 
> > the argument held no water, then there would be no reason to be 
> > offended.
> > 
> > > It's not exactly a gift.  It's a recognition for a
> > contribution pefrormed.
> > > There are, admittedly, strings attached, although there are
> > none that I
> > > consider to be ethical issues.
> > > 
> > > I completely resent your entire assertion that I am somehow
> > unethical
> > > because I accept the title and gifts associated with being
> > an MVP.  I will
> > > defend my standards of ethics against anyone's, including
> > your poorly
> > > defined and indefensible set.  In fact, I was nearly fired
> > from my current
> > > job because I defended ethical behavior, but the system
> > worked and I am
> > > still here.  (This was completely unrelated to anything 
> > > surrounding Microsoft or MVP.)
> > > 
> > > So, let's get back to the real argument.  Please either (1)
> > prove how being
> > > an MVP is unethical, or (2) go away and let this thread
> > rest.  I tire of
> > > your repeated extrapolations, digressions, and less-than-brilliant 
> > > treatises.
> > > 
> > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
> > > Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
> > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > Greg Deckler
> > > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:51 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
> > > 
> > > The flaw here is that that "Cisco Certified" has clearly
> > defined things that
> > > must be met and requires a payment to the vendor to
> > achieve. You must PAY to
> > > get the required material. You must PAY to take the tests. 
> > You must PAY for
> > > the certification.
> > > 
> > > MVP is a gift. There are no explicit requirements and there
> > is no exchange
> > > of currency.
> > > 
> > > This is the CLEAR difference between certifications and
> > gifts like MVP.
> > > 
> > > > Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met,
> > as in MVP or
> > > > Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an
> > earned title
> > > > that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view 
> > > > the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title
> > warrants a
> > > > level of trust and respect.
> > > > 
> > > > Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions 
> > > > regarding is unethical.
> > > > 
> > > > Rules of ethics are necessary in this business.
> > > > 
> > > > Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use 
> > > > of brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. 
> > > > Anyone whose priority is to *always* win the "fight" must
> > sacrifice the truth
> > > > and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics.
> > > > 
> > > > Just another opinion :-)
> > > > 
> > > > Best Regards,=20
> > > > 
> > > > Dan Bartley
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
> > > > 
> > > > I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit 
> > > > reading.=20
> > > 
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > > Web Interface:
> > > 
> > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> ext_mode=&lang
> > =english
> > To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode
> =&lang
> =english
> To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]


_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to