|
Post by K6KD on Nov 26, 2018 16:13:01 GMT -8
The following is a message being posted to groups outside this forum, directing anyone interested to this thread. It is provided here for your information.
----------------------
I’m John, K6KD. I have maintained an X-Reflector Directory at xrefl.net for several years. The directory currently has 370 reflectors listed, originally only XRF reflectors, but now those XLX reflectors whose admins want them addressed with an XRF prefix. The directory has, in my opinion, helped maintain some order by avoiding conflicting reflector numbers in an open source world where no firm control mechanisms exist.
Supporting the directory is the primary purpose of a forum I maintain at xrefl.boards.net Within that forum is a thread for reflector admins to request new reflectors be added, or changes made to an existing entry. That thread was created in 2014 and now has approximately 1,500 messages spanning 100 pages.
I am also an admin for a group of X-Reflectors and XLX reflectors we call the Constellation. We host several nets, and I often fill in as a net control when needed.
The reason I bring this up is not to try and toot my own horn, but to explain I have some standing in the community as I bring up an unfortunate matter. That matter involves refuting a number of comments made against the Constellation and us admins by an amateur radio operator with whom we had an unfortunate experience.
The person involved hosted a net on the Constellation until we requested he leave. He maintains tight control over a Facebook group which he uses to spread false information about us. When other members of his group have responded to refute his allegations, he simply deletes their messages or the entire thread. So there needed to be another way to respond.
My fellow admins and other friends involved have in the past encouraged me to remain silent, not giving this person any attention. However, he does reach a fair number of people on the group, and I decided it was finally time to respond and possibly point people to other on-line sources such as this one that provide open, honest forums for the community.
Out of deference to the admins of this board, I think it best to not get into the particulars here, but instead point to a thread I created on my forum. The link to that thread is: (this thread)
Thanks for your attention.
73 John K6KD
|
|
|
Post by K6KD on Nov 26, 2018 16:19:36 GMT -8
By John, K6KD, and admin and maintainer of the X-Reflector Directory at xrefl.net
Over the past several months, there have been a series of dishonest statements made about a system of reflectors we refer to as the Constellation, and about us admins of the system. These statements have been made by Jeff Bishop, VE6DV, on his Facebook group. When members of that group disputed his comments, he turned off commenting, or deleted comments and threads.
Over the past several months, my friends encouraged me to simply ignore this, suggesting Jeff does not warrant the attention. I do not like false, dishonest statements to go unanswered, so this thread is the result.
The following is an interchange on Jeff’s group before he deleted the messages:
—————————
User Is there are XLX313A? If so, what does that connect to?
Jeff VE6DV That reflector is for a defunct group of reflectors which gets very little activity. Our groups used to be welcome there but were asked to no longer use their network because of talking about other ways to use D-STAR on our weekly net such as call sign routing, D-STAR on HF etc. If you look at their reflector dashboard it is a ghost town.
Another User No, Jeff, they aren't defunct. And the people in your groups weren't asked to leave, you were, because for months you were promoting to pull people away from the Constellation. Call it what it was and stop being a spin doctor. You were offered admin status with quadnet, so you began promoting and pulling users away from the Constellation during the nets which were hosted by the very same Constellation you were poaching users from. You were taking a dump on the guys who were good enough to give your net a home without asking for anything in return.
Jeff VE6DV I never took a dump on the owners of the other reflector system as you so eloquently put it. I was actually very careful during my net to not say anything in regard to people not using their reflectors. I would take check early checkins for the net on a quadnet smart group and then move the actual net to their reflectors for the duration. After the net I would thank both the KoD as well as Quadnet for the use of their systems and that would be the end of it. People would approach me and ask me directly about call sign routing as well as smart groups so I would let them know how they can use them. I never encouraged anyone to move away from their reflectors and I was also never approached by their admin team to stop what I was doing. However they have a hatred for anything related to call sign routing and sent me the letter that we were no longer welcome on their system. Quadnet then put together what we are using today. I still have their email if anyone would like to read it.
—————————
I will address Jeff’s points one-by-one: Jeff: “That reflector is for a defunct group of reflectors which gets very little activity.... If you look at their reflector dashboard it is a ghost town.”
Fact: We have active nets listed on xrefl.net In response to his often made statement that the Quadnet Array is most active outside of REF001 and REF030, I have analyzed on several occasions during the summer and most recently 25 Nov 2018 the number of connections on both systems. Last Heard statistics can vary widely, especially during nets. Additionally, they do not reflect stations listening but not keying up. On the other hand, looking at the number of connections gives a more stable indicator of the popularity of a reflector. The attached pdf [see the bottom of the message] shows the comparison of connections at several times. In all cases, the Constellation modules had significantly more connections than the quadnet modules and linked smart groups. In some cases, the Constellation had approximately double the number of connections.
Jeff: “Our groups used to be welcome there but were asked to no longer use their network because of talking about other ways to use D-STAR on our weekly net such as call sign routing, D-STAR on HF etc.”
Fact: There is absolutely no truth to that statement. First, no station including Jeff was asked to leave the Constellation. We only asked that his net cease operation on our system. Various topics are often discussed and we have never indicated such topics to be off-limits. The reason behind our action is pretty accurately expressed by “Another User” above, which I will address below to refute Jeff’s comments.
Jeff: “I never took a dump on the owners of the other reflector system as you so eloquently put it. I was actually very careful during my net to not say anything in regard to people not using their reflectors.”
Fact: Jeff did not overtly ask people to leave the Constellation, but his actions over a several month period leave no doubt as to his motivations and tactics. Some context:
*The Constellation has had a collegial atmosphere that involved the admins promoting all the nets, and each net controller promoting the other nets. It was absolutely never required, but simply a courtesy.
*After Jeff was elevated to admin status on the quadnet, he stopped promoting other nets. Nothing was said, but it was noticed. He did announce on his nets that he was only on the Constellation for the nets, that he would disconnect a few minutes after the nets, and encouraged everyone to come to a smart group (which by good practice involved unlinking from a reflector system). By the way, all the rest of us continued to promote Jeff’s net.
*One of the nets on the Constellation deals with power sports, including auto racing. Jeff set up a special event for a NASCAR race and encouraged all to come to the smart group. The net controller of that net asked Jeff if they might both co-sponsor the event on the Constellation. Jeff refused, and stated his main purpose is getting as many people as possible onto the smart group.
*We decided after observing these activities for several months, that Jeff’s continued presence running a net on the Constellation was not beneficial and asked him to terminate the net. Jeff also assumed his leaving the Constellation was a factor in reducing traffic. The fact is, because Jeff failed to promote other nets, we noticed most stations that had been linked to the system during Jeff’s nets very seldom linked at other times, so we correctly assumed the overall impact would be minimal.
Jeff: “However they have a hatred for anything related to call sign routing and sent me the letter that we were no longer welcome on their system.”
Fact: “Hatred” is a ridiculous, false characterization. I along with other admins do not prefer call sign routing for technical and operational reasons, not relevant to this discussion. In fact, we have had, and hopefully still have despite Jeff’s actions, a good relationship with the QuadNet Team. Prior to them getting their D-STAR/DMR transcoding facility, we had excess capacity, and offered them use of a module, which they used for several months. I had appreciated what their team did when the only other means of connecting stations was via the closed source legacy reflectors. But the main point here is Jeff’s statement is false and totally unsupported by facts. The letter sent to Jeff made no mention of topics and only referred to his actions as described above.
Bottom line
If you just look at the big picture, Jeff’s allegations do not even pass the smell test. Does it make sense that we would ask someone to leave because of the technical topics they discuss?
In addition to being an admin on the Constellation, I often act as a net control. I maintain the X-Reflector Directory at xrefl.net which lists over 300 X-Reflectors. Associated with that directory is a forum I run here which includes a thread for admins to ask that their reflector be added or modified. That thread has 100 pages so far.
The great majority of hams I have encountered are honest, honorable people. Unfortunately there are exceptions. The worst type is someone who seems like a nice guy on the surface but has a dark side.
People who choose to use his Facebook group should realize not only his misstatements, but also his overt actions to eliminate dissenting opinions. There is clearly anger and bitterness. There are many other Facebook groups, Groups.io, and Yahoo groups where admins do not promote their specific agenda and serve the community with openness and honesty.
|
|
|
Post by K6KD on Nov 29, 2018 7:48:35 GMT -8
Just a quick follow-up:
The above messages were seen widely including by members of the QuadNet Team. They reached out to ensure there were no problems between their team and our group, Kings of Digital, which administers the Constellation reflectors. I assured them that from our perspective, the relationship was good and as we had stated, we did not want the actions of one person to damage the relationship. They discussed the situation among themselves and decided that negative comments on the Facebook group in question would stop and they wanted to bury the hatchet. I responded that I/we had planned only on a one time response, not an on-going campaign.
In summary, I think this post was unfortunately necessary, but the result was acceptable.
73 John K6KD
|
|