# The Never Summer Review Forum



## scotty100

I think the reviews by the team members should definitely be posted on this forum. If it means just individual threads in the board review section then so be it. But they should absolutely be put up to enable knowledge and info sharing back to the community. For those who perceive bias, easy solution - don't read the reviews.


----------



## snowklinger

see what happens? :dunno:

christ.

I may post alot but it's overmatched by my time in the alpine, thank god. Fucking internet jockeys...

I'm still gonna go split with the Wolfman some day you fucking buttpunchers.


----------



## BigmountainVMD

I don't know how much space is available for sub forums, but I think it would be nice to see a page for each company, even the little guys. I think it would make for a solid, functional review system, that is not based on the "search" function. Especially if you had a set of guidelines for what to include in each review. Nothing worse than trying to get a review and finding it incomplete.

If a particular company sub-forum does not get filled out... well that is simply because no one felt like taking the time. This could even push more companies to support the forum and it's members. If a rep from a company checks out the site and notices a lack of response in it's review section... they might think of tossing out a couple samples for some honest feedback.


----------



## readimag

I get why this totally imploded from the beginning, people have strong ties to the board they love and want to see it rep’ed also. I agree that you can have sub forums for all the companies and if a new board company comes it is not to hard to make a new one. In the end you can’t make everyone happy and someone is always going to feel butt hurt and that is just life. What really kills me about the internet is people get all “internet angry” at one post and just fly off the handle at people. Most people in a real face to face conversation don’t act like this minus BA who I am convinced does act the same here as in real life. I hope this move by Never Summer is also picked up by some other companies and others get to partake in the demo of pre released merchandise.


----------



## triumph.man

who is BA?


----------



## brucew.

That sucks, I was looking forward to reading the reviews as I get ready to start thinking about a new board. It will be an even bigger loss if we lose some of the contributing members from that project.


----------



## jdang307

Snowolf said:


> Oh but haven't you heard? You can't get honest feedback by giving out a board. The only way you can get honest feedback is if a blogger gets paid commission by companies for reviews. This can't be done for free of course because that might undermine some blogger's livelihood.
> 
> Crazy talk.....


So no Proto HD review on the forum anymore? That sucks. I was looking forward to it.


----------



## Nivek

I was approached. I denied. I also wasn't told I'd be a part of this "team". If I had known that's what I was being approached for the denial wouldn't have been because of company conflict, but because this isn't a good idea. Giving product for reviews is a sponsored review. No way around that. The idea of splitting the board review section up so that it isn't overwhelmed by one brand is a great idea, just like it was with the 2014 preview thread. That's all I'll say for now, bitch at me if you want, you wont get a response.


----------



## jdang307

NS should take the boards back afterwards. There. Conflict of interest gone 

Donate them to needy kids

:laugh:


----------



## sabatoa

Nivek said:


> I was approached. I denied. I also wasn't told I'd be a part of this "team". If I had known that's what I was being approached for the denial wouldn't have been because of company conflict, but because this isn't a good idea. Giving product for reviews is a sponsored review. No way around that. The idea of splitting the board review section up so that it isn't overwhelmed by one brand is a great idea, just like it was with the 2014 preview thread. That's all I'll say for now, bitch at me if you want, you wont get a response.


I'm not going to bitch, I just have an honest question because I'm not in the industry and I want to understand how this works.

Outside of test fests and the like, how are reviewers getting hold of the product if samples aren't sent to test? Not every brand requires people to send the board back, do they?

Again, not bitching. I'm honestly uninformed about it.


----------



## sabatoa

jdang307 said:


> *NS should take the boards back afterwards*. There. Conflict of interest gone
> 
> Donate them to needy kids
> 
> :laugh:


Is that the industry standard?

The main issue I see with this argument is that it insinuates that the reviewers couldn't be trusted and I don't think that is a fair assumption to make about people we "know" and should be able to trust. Especially before they were given a chance to prove otherwise.


----------



## scrotumphillips

sabatoa said:


> Is that the industry standard?
> 
> The main issue I see with this argument is that it insinuates that the reviewers couldn't be trusted and I don't think that is a fair assumption to make about people we "know" and should be able to trust.


I don't think it comes down to trust, but you can't expect the most accurate reviews when someone is getting a board for free.

If I am given a board, I am going to prefer that over some other board without even trying. If Burton starts giving me free gear, their gear is going to automatically become the bee's knees in my mind.


----------



## sabatoa

scrotumphillips said:


> I don't think it comes down to trust, but you can't expect the most accurate reviews when someone is getting a board for free.
> 
> If I am given a board, I am going to prefer that over some other board without even trying. If Burton starts giving me free gear, their gear is going to automatically become the bee's knees in my mind.


What if you have access to free gear from most other big companies? Wouldn't that make you (and I do mean you specifically) less likely to be bought off with a simple board? It seems such a cheap cost for your integrity.


----------



## jdang307

scrotumphillips said:


> I don't think it comes down to trust, but you can't expect the most accurate reviews when someone is getting a board for free.
> 
> If I am given a board, I am going to prefer that over some other board without even trying. If Burton starts giving me free gear, their gear is going to automatically become the bee's knees in my mind.


Why? How is BA able to talk shit about boards given for free, but you can't?

If you won a prize and got a free board, yeahh you're going to love it. You just won the lottery. You're excited.

If you are given a board to review then review it. Hell if someone gave me a board, and told me to tell them what I think, I might even nitpick it more than normal.

I think we need to put the bias accusations away, until there is actually bias. Like, there is a major flaw with a board but every tester ignored it.


----------



## sabatoa

jdang307 said:


> Why? How is BA able to talk shit about boards given for free, but you can't?
> 
> If you won a prize and got a free board, yeahh you're going to love it. You just won the lottery. You're excited.
> 
> If you are given a board to review then review it. Hell if someone gave me a board, and told me to tell them what I think, I might even nitpick it more than normal.
> 
> I think we need to put the bias accusations away, until there is actually bias. Like, there is a major flaw with a board but every tester ignored it.


:3tens:

10char


----------



## Nivek

sabatoa said:


> I'm not going to bitch, I just have an honest question because I'm not in the industry and I want to understand how this works.
> 
> Outside of test fests and the like, how are reviewers getting hold of the product if samples aren't sent to test? Not every brand requires people to send the board back, do they?
> 
> Again, not bitching. I'm honestly uninformed about it.


Actually that is exactly what separates good review sites from bad ones. Bad ones are in it to get the free shit. If you want to keep something, that decision should be made after you've ridden the product. That way the review is done already and is as unbiased as it can be.

Only picking Mervin cause they have high value, but if you consistently get like 10 Mervins to review that Mervin does not expect back, and you start giving them bad reviews what are the chances the next year they're willing to send another $5000 worth of boards? Expecting the free product influences your review. Don't wanna bite the hand that feeds.


----------



## jdang307

Nivek said:


> Actually that is exactly what separates good review sites from bad ones. Bad ones are in it to get the free shit. If you want to keep something, that decision should be made after you've ridden the product. That way the review is done already and is as unbiased as it can be.
> 
> Only picking Mervin cause they have high value, but if you consistently get like 10 Mervins to review that Mervin does not expect back, and you start giving them bad reviews what are the chances the next year they're willing to send another $5000 worth of boards? Expecting the free product influences your review. Don't wanna bite the hand that feeds.


I see how that can happen. It's not even wanting to keep the board for yourself, but getting more boards to review for the next year to keep the site going?

What a flawed system. Industry standard should be, send the damn board back.


----------



## sabatoa

jdang307 said:


> I see how that can happen. It's not even wanting to keep the board for yourself, but getting more boards to review for the next year to keep the site going?
> 
> What a flawed system. Industry standard should be, send the damn board back.


But even sending the board back won't solve your issue about future reviews. Under the current system, a reviewer basically has to like or kinda like almost every board if they expect that company to continue sending them samples.

Even if they send the sample back, a bad review causing a company to stop sending samples basically limits the content of the site and then the guy's livelihood. Basically then we can only trust hobbyist reviewers like aGNARchy who don't depend on their site to make a living.

:dunno:


----------



## ARSENALFAN

I don't think we are getting anywhere with these posts and may as well just lock this one down too.

1. I really like Snowwolf's reviews and have even PM'd him in the past for advice which he has graciously given me. I appreciate that.
2. I hope that we continue to see reviews on the forum, as that is one of the most interesting aspects. There is no doubt NS has a good product.
3. The bottom line is that the "team" loves their free boards and who wouldn't? 
4. I think my personal view on a product could be tainted if I was being given $700 in product for free, and I consider myself a pretty ethical guy. If NS wants the biggest fanboy in the world, just send me a pm and let me know when my first board will arrive. I can just see the smile on my face bombing down the run on a free board.
5. NeverSummer is putting review links on their site which get directed to this forum. So there is some kind of businesslike relationship going on, and when it comes to business, money talks (free boards/free advertising) and bullshit walks.
6. I can tell you that my opinion on the "Cobra" for instance was heavily influenced, if not solely influenced, by Snowwolfs recommendation. I don't have the luxury of test riding a board, so was ready to buy it solely based on his review. I have to admit that I look at it in a different light now that I know free product is involved, even though I am confident Snowwolf is a stand up guy and has everybody's best interest in mind. 

7. So there is no right or wrong. The team gets boards and are stoked. The rest of us get a review which may or may not be influenced by graft. 
8. There is a reason why almost every company these days does not allow graft: it causes headaches like this.
9. I really like this forum and hope the bickering ends soon.


----------



## sabatoa

ARSENALFAN said:


> I don't think we are getting anywhere with these posts and may as well just lock this one down too.
> 
> 1. I really like Snowwolf's reviews and have even PM'd him in the past for advice which he has graciously given me. I appreciate that.
> 2. I hope that we continue to see reviews on the forum, as that is one of the most interesting aspects. There is no doubt NS has a good product.
> 3. The bottom line is that the "team" loves their free boards and who wouldn't?
> 4. I think my personal view on a product could be tainted if I was being given $700 in product for free, and I consider myself a pretty ethical guy. If NS wants the biggest fanboy in the world, just send me a pm and let me know when my first board will arrive. I can just see the smile on my face bombing down the run on a free board.
> 5. NeverSummer is putting review links on their site which get directed to this forum. So there is some kind of businesslike relationship going on, and when it comes to business, money talks (free boards/free advertising) and bullshit walks.
> 6. I can tell you that my opinion on the "Cobra" for instance was heavily influenced, if not solely influenced, by Snowwolfs recommendation. I don't have the luxury of test riding a board, so was ready to buy it solely based on his review. I have to admit that I look at it in a different light now that I know free product is involved, even though I am confident Snowwolf is a stand up guy and has everybody's best interest in mind.
> 
> 7. So there is no right or wrong. The team gets boards and are stoked. The rest of us get a review which may or may not be influenced by graft.
> 8. There is a reason why almost every company these days does not allow graft: it causes headaches like this.
> *9. I really like this forum and hope the bickering ends soon.*


:eusa_clap:

Yeah, right on. Go shred guys. I would if I could.


----------



## ARSENALFAN

I didn't see the other thread until now. Very sad indeed. I will miss the contribution.


----------



## hoqay

Nivek said:


> Actually that is exactly what separates good review sites from bad ones. Bad ones are in it to get the free shit. If you want to keep something, that decision should be made after you've ridden the product. That way the review is done already and is as unbiased as it can be.
> 
> Only picking Mervin cause they have high value, but if you consistently get like 10 Mervins to review that Mervin does not expect back, and you start giving them bad reviews what are the chances the next year they're willing to send another $5000 worth of boards? Expecting the free product influences your review. Don't wanna bite the hand that feeds.


I come from the tech world, where this exact issue is extremely common.

Nivek's second point is certainly correct and it happens very often in tech. Review sites that consistently give bad reviews to products from a certain brand will stop getting pre-release versions of those products to review. The real danger isn't that the reviewer will give an absolutely glowing review to a horrible product, but that a reviewer will ignore certain minor flaws that might taint an otherwise favorable review. This might not even be a conscious action.

I've studied bias in the context of social science research, and unfortunately the nature of human bias is such that it is often undetectable by the person. Even after my short time here, I fully trust that people like Snowolf and Leo would never purposely give a good review to a bad product. However, it's far more likely that the reviewers might unknowingly leave out some minor details that cast a slightly negative light, after their brains have justified them as insignificant or extraneous. Again, this is not the fault of the reviewer, it's simply the nature of the human brain.

I'm certainly not saying that these reviews shouldn't be done, and I for one thought this NS deal was a great idea. I'm simply saying that it's perfectly reasonable to be concerned about bias in this situation. It's not about buying someones integrity (which I'm 100% NOT concerned about), but rather about introducing bias into their thought process by giving them free stuff.


----------



## duh

ARSENALFAN said:


> 6. I can tell you that my opinion on the "Cobra" for instance was heavily influenced, if not solely influenced, by Snowwolfs recommendation. I don't have the luxury of test riding a board, so was ready to buy it solely based on his review. I have to admit that I look at it in a different light now that I know free product is involved, even though I am confident Snowwolf is a stand up guy and has everybody's best interest in mind.


Don't be afraid of that Cobra. It's a great ride.


----------



## scotty100

Nivek said:


> I was approached. I denied. I also wasn't told I'd be a part of this "team". If I had known that's what I was being approached for the denial wouldn't have been because of company conflict, but because this isn't a good idea. Giving product for reviews is a sponsored review. No way around that. The idea of splitting the board review section up so that it isn't overwhelmed by one brand is a great idea, just like it was with the 2014 preview thread. That's all I'll say for now, bitch at me if you want, you wont get a response.


So how does it work with the bindings you get to review on the Angry Snowboarder site? Is getting product in that instance considered a "sponsored review"? Genuinely interested, not out to troll or cause more angst on what is perceived corporate bribery vs remaing true to core values etc.


----------



## Towkin

Wow, this idea blew up quicker than I thought it would...

Full disclosure: I currently have 2 NS boards (Proto and Cobra). Also had a Heritage and wife had an infinity. Awesome Boards and great company. With that said...

This idea was doomed from the start. It SEEMED (true or not) NS tried to grab every high count poster on the forum and give them a board to test, effectively controlling the forum. Sounds like a good idea on paper, but if I was a random person looking for a board and saw the NS "team" dominating the forum I would immediately discredit anything they wrote, regardless if the reviews were honest or not. I think they were already effectively controlling the forum just using Snowolf for reviews, but they went for the kill and it backfired.

What makes regular reviewers more creditable is that they receive free equipment from many different vendors all the time, by default this make them less likely to give a biased review.

On a side note, I'm not on the NS team, but I LOVE my Cobra (thanks Snowolf for the review), I feel like I can do anything on that board. The proto has already been proven to be a beast and totally lives up to the hype.


----------



## scrotumphillips

jdang307 said:


> Why? How is BA able to talk shit about boards given for free, but you can't?
> 
> If you won a prize and got a free board, yeahh you're going to love it. You just won the lottery. You're excited.
> 
> If you are given a board to review then review it. Hell if someone gave me a board, and told me to tell them what I think, I might even nitpick it more than normal.
> 
> I think we need to put the bias accusations away, until there is actually bias. Like, there is a major flaw with a board but every tester ignored it.


You getting the free board is going to bias you subconsciously.

It doesn't really affect me at all because I don't read the review section at all and I already know what I like. But free gear will bias your opinions, it just happens.


----------



## ippy

Im actually a big fan of reviews. I know the wider opinion is that reviews are next to useless due to the lack of serious information about the dude riding it vis a vis the person reading the review and trying to map their own styles, history and bias onto it. What better way to try and overcome the bias than having a tonne of people demoing the board and offering their own unique take on it? Youll get a multiplicity of perspectives and youll counter each persons intrinsic bias (not from being hooked up, but from the years of preferences and what theyre looking for in a board). 

I think this was just brought in a little too suddenly (via the leak) and a little too exclusively focusing on one brand. And one brand in particular that gains a lot of traction here. So it was always going to be extremely controversial. 

I think it just needs a little more care and a bit more rounding in the brands or boards chosen. Ive mentioned this elsewhere, but the idea in principal is sound, its just that the first step should be to not simply ASSUME that the team and the process is legit, but to SHOW how it works and leave it to the people reading those reviews to start to work out how it functions in practice. 

Step 1: Legitimise the idea and show its value. 

After that you can start building up the portfolio with specific brand relationships. But first, alas, the sceptics need convincing. And being sceptical isnt a bad thing, sceptics arent haters. They can be brought around if it shows itself to work. 

Good luck with teh relaunch. Sincerely.


----------



## Nivek

scotty100 said:


> So how does it work with the bindings you get to review on the Angry Snowboarder site? Is getting product in that instance considered a "sponsored review"? Genuinely interested, not out to troll or cause more angst on what is perceived corporate bribery vs remaing true to core values etc.


The only binding I have reviewed that I kept was the 2013 Mission Restricted's. And I wasn't planning on reviewing those and got them from a friend of a friend completely unaffiliated to Angry Snowboarder before I was asked to write the review. I have kept 3 products in my 3 years working with Angry, a couple face masks and some pants.


----------



## Leo

Nivek said:


> Actually that is exactly what separates good review sites from bad ones. Bad ones are in it to get the free shit. *If you want to keep something, that decision should be made after you've ridden the product.* That way the review is done already and is as unbiased as it can be.
> 
> Only picking Mervin cause they have high value, but if you consistently get like 10 Mervins to review that Mervin does not expect back, and you start giving them bad reviews what are the chances the next year they're willing to send another $5000 worth of boards? Expecting the free product influences your review. Don't wanna bite the hand that feeds.


That's almost exactly what happened in the case of my 2012 Evo review. That board was a loaner from NS for me to ride and review/give input. A call tag was sent out for it when I was done. I ended up missing the delivery truck. At which point, NS asked if I liked it enough to keep it.

Your Mervin analogy is missing a few variables. What if you actually like most of their boards? What then? What if Mervin actually likes if you don't like a board and can give them specific details on why you dislike it?

This seems to be the common theme with this debacle. People against this are viewing it as negatively as possible. They leave no room for the bright side.

I was going to save this for the review, but eff it now. I'm not particularly stoked on the new Proto. I prefer the old one. I bet now people are going to accuse me of saying that because of this stupid drama.

Funny because I told the people I ride with, some members on this forum like Sabatoa, that I wasn't stoked on the new Proto.

Who knows though? This is only after a day on the board. My opinion could change.

Rest assured, I'll be letting NS know the exact reasons why I prefer my old Proto if it should remain that way as I ride this board more.


----------



## crash77

Somehow this needs to be re-evaluated, restructured, or whatever the hell word that is appropriate. The little guy is gonna lose big time on this. In saying "little guy", I mean, some of us who share a passion for this sport, unfortunately, don't live particularly close to a hill nor do we have access to numerous board shops. This information was and still is very valuable to us. Somehow, some way this needs to be fixed ASAP.


----------



## Nivek

Leo said:


> Your Mervin analogy is missing a few variables. What if you actually like most of their boards? What then? What if Mervin actually likes if you don't like a board and can give them specific details on why you dislike it?


What if they really like them? Then what happens if they do end up getting a deck that isn't good? They are going to have a damn hard time not overlooking some of its faults from fear they won't get stuff next year and thus not getting the board they love. Still, no one wants to bight the hand that feeds.

Basically my thing about all this is reviews should be seperate from doing R&D for a brand. I wont be doing any of the reviews with the brand I work R&D with for this very reason.


----------



## Leo

Nivek said:


> What if they really like them? Then what happens if they do end up getting a deck that isn't good? They are going to have a damn hard time not overlooking some of its faults from fear they won't get stuff next year and thus not getting the board they love. Still, no one wants to bight the hand that feeds.
> 
> Basically my thing about all this is reviews should be seperate from doing R&D for a brand. I wont be doing any of the reviews with the brand I work R&D with for this very reason.


But now you're overlooking another point...

Biting the hand that feeds... yes, most of the other DT members do not get free gear elsewhere. However, they are people who bought NS boards previously with the exception of a couple. 

As for myself, you know damn well I get hookups through my work. But yea, it is cool as eff to me to be getting free NS boards. Would I be bummed if they stopped giving me boards? Well, of course. But if their reason for doing so was because of a negative review I gave, then I'd be angry.

I really have no fear of them ceasing to send me boards. I'll just default back to obtaining free boards from brands my employer carries.


----------



## Leo

Let's not bring up points about the psychology of getting free gear without bringing up the points about the psychology of defending your purchase.


----------



## backstop13

I would think there would be a point too where good reviewers are reviewing so many products that the bias is taken out. Why be biased towards one particular brand if you've got 3+ other brands to review? I'm sure there are talented reviewers out there who give shit away because they literally have no need for that many products. :dunno:

I think it's a good idea and I'm looking forward to the reviews. The only thing I would have liked to have seen (and maybe I just missed it so my apologies if that's the case) is a dedicated female rider who can give honest feedback on the infinity, onyx, and raven. I'm looking for a board for the wife and was going to use those reviews when buying.


----------



## crash77

backstop13 said:


> I would think there would be a point too where good reviewers are reviewing so many products that the bias is taken out. Why be biased towards one particular brand if you've got 3+ other brands to review? I'm sure there are talented reviewers out there who give shit away because they literally have no need for that many products. :dunno:
> 
> I think it's a good idea and I'm looking forward to the reviews. The only thing I would have liked to have seen (and maybe I just missed it so my apologies if that's the case) is a dedicated female rider who can give honest feedback on the infinity, onyx, and raven. I'm looking for a board for the wife and was going to use those reviews when buying.


There was a female reviewer on the roster.

I think her name was Shredler or something like that.


----------



## snowklinger

Leo how does the new proto ride different?!!?!?!?

don't say "cuz harmonic thingys"


----------



## hktrdr

sabatoa said:


> Is that the industry standard?
> 
> The main issue I see with this argument is that it insinuates that the reviewers couldn't be trusted and I don't think that is a fair assumption to make about people we "know" and should be able to trust. Especially before they were given a chance to prove otherwise.


The fundamental issue with most 'reviews' is who effectively pays for them. There is a reason that organizations from Consumer Report to serious restaurant reviewers either purchase/pay for all the items they review or return them after the review:
Only if the reviewers are not funded by the producers can one eliminate the conflict of interest and (perceived) bias.

This holds for almost any 'product' - note the ignominious role played by the credit rating agencies in the recent financial crisis or by equity research analysts during the .com boom - both these groups were effectively paid by the issuers/companies for their 'reviews' and the results were predictable.

Note that this even the case for *indirect* funding - e.g., car magazines do not get 'free' cars that they get to keep after their reviews. However, economically they depend on advertising from the exact same manufacturers and they can ill afford to 'bite the hand that feeds them'. As a result, most reviews are overwhelmingly positive.



sabatoa said:


> What if you have access to free gear from most other big companies? Wouldn't that make you (and I do mean you specifically) less likely to be bought off with a simple board? It seems such a cheap cost for your integrity.


Sounds nice but practically completely impossible/not workable. Who is going to 'anoint' the reviewers that are going to get all this free gear? And it provides even more motivation for manufacturers to provide 'incentives' in order to secure positive reviews - say NS sending over 20 instead of 10 boards, Mervin including a few Cyrus decks in the review batch, etc.


----------



## Leo

snowklinger said:


> Leo how does the new proto ride different?!!?!?!?
> 
> don't say "cuz harmonic thingys"


I'm afraid to say...

I might get burned at the stake for reviewing it.


----------



## backstop13

crash77 said:


> There was a female reviewer on the roster.
> 
> I think her name was Shredler or something like that.


thanks crash, must have missed it.


----------



## hktrdr

snowklinger said:


> Leo how does the new proto ride different?!!?!?!?
> 
> don't say "cuz harmonic thingys"


Different camber profile with less pressure going to the tips (similar to EC2 vs. C2 for Mervin). Have not tried it myself, but our reviewers/buyers complained about the lack of pop compared to the old Proto (again, same as for EC2).


----------



## hktrdr

Leo said:


> Let's not bring up points about the psychology of getting free gear without bringing up the points about the psychology of defending your purchase.


And there is that. Another reason that any review that is not transparently paid for by consumers should always be taken with a good pinch (handful?) of salt.


----------



## Leo

hktrdr said:


> The fundamental issue with most 'reviews' is who effectively pays for them. There is a reason that organizations from Consumer Report to serious restaurant reviewers either purchase/pay for all the items they review or return them after the review:
> Only if the reviewers are not funded by the producers can one eliminate the conflict of interest and (perceived) bias.


Organizations like Consumer Report have PAID employees to go out and do these unbiased researches. 

Serious Restaurant reviewer status means one of two things:

A. You are employed by a magazine or similar media
B. You have a very popular blog

In both cases, you are PAID. Albeit via advertisements if it's a blog.

What's my point? You can't compare reviewers like snowboarders to these PAID people.



hktrdr said:


> holds for almost any 'product' - note the ignominious role played by the credit rating agencies in the recent financial crisis or by equity research analysts during the .com boom - both these groups were effectively paid by the issuers/companies for their 'reviews' and the results were predictable.
> 
> Note that this even the case for *indirect* funding - e.g., car magazines do not get 'free' cars that they get to keep after their reviews. However, economically they depend on advertising from the exact same manufacturers and they can ill afford to 'bite the hand that feeds them'. As a result, most reviews are overwhelmingly positive.


Where is your source for this? If my memory serves me right, I remember reading several car magazines mentioning they have so-and-so car in the company garage. Now whether or not it was bought by said company, who knows? I'm more inclined to believe they obtained that exotic sports car from a manufacturer.



hktrdr said:


> Sounds nice but practically completely impossible/not workable. Who is going to 'anoint' the reviewers that are going to get all this free gear? And it provides even more motivation for manufacturers to provide 'incentives' in order to secure positive reviews - say NS sending over 20 instead of 10 boards, Mervin including a few Cyrus decks in the review batch, etc.


You misunderstood him I believe.

I for one have access to lots of free gear. Well, admittedly not so much the case lately as I'm phasing myself out of my current job. But for the past three years, I worked for a snowboard retailer. Long story short, I haven't paid for a board out of pocket in almost 4 years.


----------



## comclovin

This is definitely an interesting debate, and one I often struggle with on my site. I usually opt to purchase gear I review, but if I can land reviews through demo's that's definitely a preference. With the NS boards, I generally hit up the factory to grab a board to review if any are available. I'll spend a week or two on the board, and bring it back once I'm done. If I like a given board I purchase one for that season. During a review I carry a notepad ironically, and when I find something worth noting, I'll stop riding, make a note and continue with my run, or perhaps wait until the end of the run to make notes. Regardless, every reviewer is going to be different, and hopefully most of them can remain objective during reviews. 

Just my two cents.. 

On a completely different note, I'm looking forward to seeing the reviews!


----------



## Leo

hktrdr said:


> And there is that. Another reason that any review that is not transparently paid for by consumers should always be taken with a good pinch (handful?) of salt.


No, no... that wasn't my point.

My point is that I'm more likely find a reviewer to be more credible than a consumer. Even if the reviewer was given the product. Unless said reviewer only reviews that one brand.


----------



## hktrdr

Leo said:


> hktrdr said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fundamental issue with most 'reviews' is who effectively pays for them. There is a reason that organizations from Consumer Report to serious restaurant reviewers either purchase/pay for all the items they review or return them after the review:
> Only if the reviewers are not funded by the producers can one eliminate the conflict of interest and (perceived) bias.
> 
> 
> 
> Organizations like Consumer Report have PAID employees to go out and do these unbiased researches.
> 
> Serious Restaurant reviewer status means one of two things:
> 
> A. You are employed by a magazine or similar media
> B. You have a very popular blog
> 
> In both cases, you are PAID. Albeit via advertisements if it's a blog.
> 
> What's my point? You can't compare reviewers like snowboarders to these PAID people.
Click to expand...

I completely agree, but you are missing my point: Unless the consumer (and not the manufacturer) effectively pays for the reviews (like in the Consumer Report example), there is always going to be conflict of interest and a potential/perceived bias.
That is not a slight on or fault of the reviewer (you or anybody else), but simply a direct result of the structure/system.



Leo said:


> hktrdr said:
> 
> 
> 
> holds for almost any 'product' - note the ignominious role played by the credit rating agencies in the recent financial crisis or by equity research analysts during the .com boom - both these groups were effectively paid by the issuers/companies for their 'reviews' and the results were predictable.
> 
> Note that this even the case for *indirect* funding - e.g., car magazines do not get 'free' cars that they get to keep after their reviews. However, economically they depend on advertising from the exact same manufacturers and they can ill afford to 'bite the hand that feeds them'. As a result, most reviews are overwhelmingly positive.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your source for this? If my memory serves me right, I remember reading several car magazines mentioning they have so-and-so car in the company garage. Now whether or not it was bought by said company, who knows? I'm more inclined to believe they obtained that exotic sports car from a manufacturer.
Click to expand...

You misunderstood. Generally car magazines certainly do no not purchase the cars - but they do not get to keep them either. What happens is that the vehicles are provided (free of charge) by the manufacturers or dealers and returned after the tests.



Leo said:


> hktrdr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds nice but practically completely impossible/not workable. Who is going to 'anoint' the reviewers that are going to get all this free gear? And it provides even more motivation for manufacturers to provide 'incentives' in order to secure positive reviews - say NS sending over 20 instead of 10 boards, Mervin including a few Cyrus decks in the review batch, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> You misunderstood him I believe.
> 
> I for one have access to lots of free gear. Well, admittedly not so much the case lately as I'm phasing myself out of my current job. But for the past three years, I worked for a snowboard retailer. Long story short, I haven't paid for a board out of pocket in almost 4 years.
Click to expand...

No, I was clear on what he said. My point is that this does nothing to address the inherent conflict of interest.


----------



## hktrdr

Leo said:


> No, no... that wasn't my point.
> 
> My point is that I'm more likely find a reviewer to be more credible than a consumer. Even if the reviewer was given the product. Unless said reviewer only reviews that one brand.


I understood your point. What I was saying was that *both* types of reviews have potential for bias. As a result, I would never rely entirely on *either* one.


----------



## Leo

You're missing my point again. And then you'll miss mine... and then we'll just do the tango... then you'll buy me dinner... finally, I still won't give you the booty.

Seriously though, I was emphasizing that snowboard reviewers aren't paid. So it's unreasonable to expect them not to accept free gear for reviews (not saying you expect it, general statement here).

I bring up the purchaser bias because it very well could be a bigger bias than a hooked up reviewer.

So we fall into a hole that goes absolutely nowhere.

In the end, we should all just fucking chill out. God I can't wait to ride this week.


----------



## hktrdr

Leo said:


> You're missing my point again. And then you'll miss mine... and then we'll just do the tango... then you'll buy me dinner... finally, I still won't give you the booty.
> 
> Seriously though, I was emphasizing that snowboard reviewers aren't paid. So it's unreasonable to expect them not to accept free gear for reviews (not saying you expect it, general statement here).
> 
> I bring up the purchaser bias because it very well could be a bigger bias than a hooked up reviewer.
> 
> So we fall into a hole that goes absolutely nowhere.
> 
> In the end, we should all just fucking chill out. God I can't wait to ride this week.


And you are absolutely correct, that most snowboard reviewers are not comparable to professional, paid reviewers like Consumer Report.
However, most snowboard reviewers *are paid*, be it with free gear, advertising on their sites/blogs, or otherwise. 
They are just *not paid by the consumers* - and that is where the conflict of interest comes in.

[Side note: I have always thought that your Agnarchy project was as close to unbiased as it got for snowboard reviews - and I have stated that several times on this forum in the past.]

And I have no idea whether the purchaser bias is bigger or the bias that comes from being paid by the manufacturer - as I said, I do not trust either type of reviewer fully...


----------



## Leo

Yea, 99% of the aGNARchy stuff is from demos. Other than the couple NS boards on there for review that I got to keep, I think David Z has gotten one board for free.

The rest, outside of Test Fest, is stuff we return.


----------



## BurtonAvenger

I just want to touch on the issue of free gear and reviews as it totally needs to be put into perspective.

Anyone can get free gear in snowboarding if they know who/how to talk to people. It's really not hard to do. I've seen the worst of the worst get full head to toe hook ups just because they annoyed the right people. This is why there are an abundance of crappy sites pushing to be the "next big thing in snowboard reviews", they want free stuff. Plus lets face the facts snowboarding isn't cheap. 

Now here's my personal belief on free gear and I've said this numerous times as well. If you're going to be getting hooked up you need to pay it forward never pay it back. By that I mean hook up the less fortunate, donate it, make sure it ends up in the hands of someone that will use it and values getting it. Use your judgement to make the best decision you can to keep the forward paying cycle going. Don't look back only look forward. I'm not going to cite specific examples because that's not my nature but those in the know can vouch for what I've personally done with gear, those out of the know will just assume I build forts out of it in my living room and then write articles. 

When you're sitting at the top looking down, which is where I'm at, you can see what does and doesn't work. Over the last 3 years where I've made it a point companies were better off to send gear, the outlines they received specifically stated that all gear would be returned if they provided a return shipping label or scheduled a pick up. It works and others should follow suit, sadly most don't. This changes the dynamic in my opinion. 

With advertising it's an even harder topic to talk about without someone just becoming accusatory and saying you're bought off. There's a reason I have lawyers work on my contracts and put the proper legalese in there to protect myself as well as them in terms of editorial content. It's just a safety to fall back on in case they get upset and pull funding over saying board x from brand y rode like a turd. Now even with that in place I have had brands try to get me to endorse products for free gear or the thought of advertisements, I stick to the rule if they're willing to buy you off that means they don't exactly believe in their product.

I do fully believe the system is flawed in snowboarding with reviews. I also personally hate doing them but until I see a system created that benefits the end user fully I'll continue to try and refine and perfect this flawed system and lead by example. The 2014 reviews I'm about to bust into are going to be a game changer for the online review world. Finding a way to be informative, innovative, and unbiased is tricky but thanks to a lot of help from two dedicated videographers and a lot of research I think this broken system will start to be slowly repaired. Top Gear UK not that horrible U.S. version has been a huge influence for me.


----------



## Cr0_Reps_Smit

BurtonAvenger said:


> those out of the know will just assume I build forts out of it in my living room and then write articles.


This is definitely what he does. 

Though those forts become part of the snowboarder refugee camp where wild shredders of gnar in their natural habitat can seek shelter.


----------



## hoqay

Leo said:


> I bring up the purchaser bias because it very well could be a bigger bias than a hooked up reviewer.


I would bet money that the bias towards defending your purchase is much stronger than the bias towards favourably reviewing products because in the former, your own ego is at stake. Defending the ego is a fundamental part of being (a normal functioning) human, and for most people would sit at a much higher priority than ensuring the future flow of free product. 

That said, if reviewers are going to be getting free product (as they should, IMO), the reviewer bias still needs to be addressed by acknowledging that it exists, and explaining (as Snowolf did above) how it will be mitigated.

I think very verbose reviews are a good start, but IMO, all review products should either be returned or donated. That would go a long way to eliminating any personal stake in the outcome of the review.

Actually come to think of it, how awesome would it be to have an official "SBF Donation Program" where all review equipment is given to kids who can't afford their own equipment. Could be great publicity for the forum, and great publicity for the companies donating equipment for review. It might also deter the companies from withdrawing from the program due to bad reviews, because then they would be the assholes who kept equipment from needy kids


----------



## Leo

Hey BA,

I completely understand where you are coming from. But how is it fair to me if I'm reviewing a product, generating tons of sales, and not getting compensated a dime?

I won't lie. Although I love helping riders get on the right gear, I am not going to do it for completely free in terms of reviewing. Even at my job, the reviews aren't completely free. The only free review I do is on aGNARchy and that's because my buddy runs it.

With that said, I'm not saying every board I am sent to review should be mine to keep. But that's not to say I'm not happy to accept gear.

I'm not a full time reviewer with a huge site to run so you and I are very different. I respect what you do and I personally know about the things you've done for riders. So in your shoes, what you're saying makes all the sense in the world.

I dunno bro, this is getting to be too heavy.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Karpediem

hoqay said:


> Actually come to think of it, how awesome would it be to have an official "SBF Donation Program" where all review equipment is given to kids who can't afford their own equipment.


Most the boards would likely fall in the range of 155cm to 165cm...to give those to kids would probably not work, unless they were some fat kids and if that's the case they should probably get running shoes instead. 
A second review team could be put together to review the reviewers, so once they are done they send the boards to the second team...we might need a third review team though....:icon_scratch:


----------



## Leo

Karpediem said:


> Most the boards would likely fall in the range of 155cm to 165cm...to give those to kids would probably not work, unless they were some fat kids and if that's the case they should probably get running shoes instead.
> A second review team could be put together to review the reviewers, so once they are done they send the boards to the second team...we might need a third review team though....:icon_scratch:


My friends have free reign over my NS quiver.

David Z has ridden and reviewed two of them. He liked both but preferred the Evo over Proto.

No bias for him, yet he thinks they are both solid boards.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## backstop13

Snowolf said:


> I have given boards away as well. Last week, I brought up a test board from LibTech that was given to me and gave it to my student in a multiweek program that an alternative high school that deals with drug addiction conducts at Meadows.The kid has gone a full year drug free and is learning to snowboard. It was our third week together and he is doing great and is so stoked about riding but has very little money. His only obstacle in his riding progression is fear. I made him a deal. If he would go up to the top of Cascade with me and give it his all, the board was his. That little fucker was linking turns like a champ on the blue run and he did it from the highest lift at Meadows. Another instructor friend had and old beat to shit pair of Cartells in his locker and he donated them. That kid was a happy mother fucker leaving with his very own snowboard that day. This week we will ride together again and I promised him his first park lesson.


Good shit. I always enjoy reading stuff like this.


----------



## Extremo

hktrdr said:


> Sounds nice but practically completely impossible/not workable. Who is going to 'anoint' the reviewers that are going to get all this free gear? And it provides even more motivation for manufacturers to provide 'incentives' in order to secure positive reviews - say NS sending over 20 instead of 10 boards, Mervin including a few Cyrus decks in the review batch, etc.


Can anyone confirm that bloggers aren't getting paid by the companies they review for?


----------



## BurtonAvenger

Leo said:


> Hey BA,
> 
> I completely understand where you are coming from. But how is it fair to me if I'm reviewing a product, generating tons of sales, and not getting compensated a dime?
> 
> I won't lie. Although I love helping riders get on the right gear, I am not going to do it for completely free in terms of reviewing. Even at my job, the reviews aren't completely free. The only free review I do is on aGNARchy and that's because my buddy runs it.
> 
> With that said, I'm not saying every board I am sent to review should be mine to keep. But that's not to say I'm not happy to accept gear.
> 
> I'm not a full time reviewer with a huge site to run so you and I are very different. I respect what you do and I personally know about the things you've done for riders. So in your shoes, what you're saying makes all the sense in the world.
> 
> I dunno bro, this is getting to be too heavy.
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


Are you writing reviews for your day job? Does your job description entail that you get paid to write those reviews? Does the company pay for you to get to and from on hill demos, lodging, lift tickets, etc. etc. If that's the case yeah I think you're being compensated. Lets be honest your job kind of facilitates you with a paycheck so keeping them happy is probably a must. 

With what I do reviews are only there to bring in people and hope they stay around for the original content. I've said it before and I'll say it again I hate doing product reviews the industry needs to be doing more demos, but that won't change any time soon. I would much rather devote time to making things like Parks and Wreck or Life of the Snow Carny. I've had long talks with this with companies about why I do reviews and the fact that it's not fun. The toll a season of doing this takes on your body is huge when you start pushing the envelope. Now granted you do reviews, get some rider interviews, talk tech, post an edit or two, and maybe if you're lucky you get them to advertise (at least in my situation). That's when you have to have properly worded contracts that stipulate if they are going to submit product for reviews they are hands off for the company to control. They have to take their licks. Snowboard mag ran into this when they sent out a media kit saying that for 6 grand you could buy a platinum pick, they never recovered from this. But that's another story.






Extremo said:


> Can anyone confirm that bloggers aren't getting paid by the companies they review for?


Are you talking people that specifically only write reviews for companies that purposely use them as online marketing tools like what was supposed to be set up with the NSDT or are you just talking people that do reviews in general? Kind of an open statement with a few different answers. 

I can show you the level of debt I'm in from not making money trying to turn my site into a business if that helps answer your question. 

Once again spending too much time on this I should be out the door riding right now.


----------



## Extremo

BurtonAvenger said:


> Are you talking people that specifically only write reviews for companies that purposely use them as online marketing tools like what was supposed to be set up with the NSDT or are you just talking people that do reviews in general? Kind of an open statement with a few different answers.
> 
> I can show you the level of debt I'm in from not making money trying to turn my site into a business if that helps answer your question.
> 
> Once again spending too much time on this I should be out the door riding right now.


Honestly. I mean if we're going to raise the issue of legitimacy. Brands paying bloggers for reviews while other brands refuse to pay raises some serious conflicts of interest when we're talking about incentives and objectivity. If that's your issue here with the NSDT how do you reconcile this for bloggers doing the same?

I'm not really against anyone making money this way. It just raises a point I've never considered before when reading anyone's reviews. I'd just personally like to know who is paying for a review and who isn't.


----------



## hktrdr

Extremo said:


> Honestly. I mean if we're going to raise the issue of legitimacy. Brands paying bloggers for reviews while other brands refuse to pay raises some serious conflicts of interest when we're talking about incentives and objectivity.


Totally agree.



Extremo said:


> If that's your issue here with the NSDT how do you reconcile this for bloggers doing the same?


No difference here - I (and it appears many others) have exactly the same issue with those blogs as with the NSDT initiative: Paying reviewers (or giving them free gear - same thing), introduces a conflict of interest and might create a bias.



Extremo said:


> I'm not really against anyone making money this way. It just raises a point I've never considered before when reading anyone's reviews. I'd just personally like to know who is paying for a review and who isn't.


Again, absolutely agree.


----------



## scotty100

Extremo said:


> Honestly. I mean if we're going to raise the issue of legitimacy. Brands paying bloggers for reviews while other brands refuse to pay raises some serious conflicts of interest when we're talking about incentives and objectivity. If that's your issue here with the NSDT how do you reconcile this for bloggers doing the same?
> 
> I'm not really against anyone making money this way. It just raises a point I've never considered before when reading anyone's reviews. I'd just personally like to know who is paying for a review and who isn't.


A good point, well made. In terms of potential conflict of interest, transparency should be paramount regardless of the source of the review, be it an amateur/enthusiast forum, blog or media publication.


----------



## backstop13

hktrdr said:


> No difference here - I (and it appears many others) have exactly the same issue with those blogs as with the NSDT initiative: Paying reviewers (or giving them free gear - same thing), introduces a conflict of interest and might create a bias.


Again, maybe I'm ignorant, but I fail to see why this matters. The regulars here who know about the NSDT should be reading their reviews with a grain of salt, realizing that the review may contain some bias. As Leo mentioned earlier, the same can be said for those who buy boards and then independently review the board with a bias slant due to defending their purchase. To sum it up, if your taking every review you read at face value, regardless of the product, your doing yourself a disservice.


----------



## BurtonAvenger

I'm heading back out the door but there is an FCC ruling that pertains to your questions. I'll have more time probably late tonight.


----------



## wernersl

Snowolf said:


> Another thing to consider about objectivity:
> 
> Leo has a group of riders that all jump on a review board and give him feed back. They have no stake and no motivation to lie about how the board felt.
> 
> Now here is my case and 3 of the riders I hand picked.
> 
> We are all instructors working with a group of other instructors. I have always swapped boards with my coworkers and gotten their feedback. This year, I am doing it more formally. I am having them ride the board and fill out a one page "quick review" sheet for me. These mini reviews will go into my overall review. On Friday, the night resort manager took out the 2014 Raptor for a couple of runs and gave me his feedback. I plan on getting at least a couple of other people I work with on the board and reviewing it. They have zero motivation to be bias!


Id be happy to help compare this to my 2012 Raptor! Now....to get up there....thats a different story! Ill be tuned in. Im actually really looking forward to seeing this NSDT come to fruition. Especially your reviews, Wolf. Hell it was your words that convinced me to look at the Raptor in the first place!


----------



## jdang307

wernersl said:


> Id be happy to help compare this to my 2012 Raptor! Now....to get up there....thats a different story! Ill be tuned in. Im actually really looking forward to seeing this NSDT come to fruition. Especially your reviews, Wolf. Hell it was your words that convinced me to look at the Raptor in the first place!


Umm. I think the NSDT has gone Kaput. At least here. Maybe elsewhere?


----------



## BurtonAvenger

This is probably the easiest way to sum up a lot of questions you guys have. FTC's New Rules for Bloggers: A Quick Guide | PCWorld I just don't have the time to deal with it. But this is the gist of the situation and me personally I've never been paid to post a review. I've had people try to buy advertorial space but my answer every time is fuck off.


----------



## david_z

Extremo said:


> Can anyone confirm that bloggers aren't getting paid by the companies they review for?


Technically this is supposed to be disclosed, although I have no idea who could possibly enforce it 

I can't speak for other bloggers, since I'm not privy to their arrangements. But no brands are paying me for reviews; I attend demos or beg companies to send me a demo board to ride for a few days before I send it back, or take some laps on a friend's board.

In the interest of full disclosure, Leo's shop that I have ridden with at Test Fest has paid me a fair but nominal fee to "work" the Test Fest and submit brief video reviews which they may use on their site but this money is not from any particular brand, it's basically amounts to a per diem to cover my gas & lodging expenses.


----------



## pdxrealtor

BA - 

You keep saying you don't have the time for this yet you keep coming back to post the same thing in regards to time. If you don't have the time then why are you here?

If it doesn't matter like you say it doesn't matter then move on. Get on with your daily duties and forget about it. After all your website/daily duties are far greater than this site!!! As you've so boldly pointed out. 

The fact that you're still hear after not having time, repeatedly, shows what others have said and what I see. 

You have a vested interest in not seeing this review team come to fruition! 

From reading this entire thread I see, as what others....even noobs, have seen. 

You have ulterior motives which are monetary. I don't fault you for it, at all. 

However you need to understand that if it's not this play that cost you what you've spent the last several years building up it will be another. 

Another play which you have no control over. 

Then you WILL be forced to do what you should be doing in this situation and that is shifting with the paradigm. 

Everyone in the self employed industry works hard to secure a money maker but everyone in that same industry who is self employed must work just as hard to to stay on top of their game and figure out a way to make themselves more valuable than the competition. 

This, from what I can pick up, is where you are at. 

Sure this time you might have the support of the forum leaders to help you through it but next time you won't. And if you have the passion I think you do you you better shape that shit up for the next time that a forum like this doesn't have your back. 

I, like many other guys here, were looking forward to the NS reviews. I also know that the 'guy behind this' would not steer me wrong because he got free gear. 

You sir (BA), cannot be blamed for protecting the empire that you've built. It is admirable. 

But you can be blamed for being like every other corporate fuck stick whose rose from the bottom to the top. 

Like I said above---- the idea might be dead on this forum but it will rise in another and the next time it does you might not have so much control. 

I feel sorry for the people who are truly losing out here.........and no matter how hard anyone tries to tell me people are losing out because of the projected format I will never agree.


----------



## Argo

Why not just do like other forums do, make sub forums for all the snowboard companies you can think of. People can post reviews in them. If companies give free shit out to review then great. I get free shit, I also don't mind giving my opinion on what it rides like or what the clothing feels like or how great the bindings are or how warm/water proof the hoodie/outerwear is.... 

It works for MTBR pretty well among other forums.... Jus do it and don't get all defensive when people talk shit about it. The less you respond to the shit talkers, the less they talk. 

I personally could care less about getting a never summer, got a free one last weekend and we are selling/trading it.... I just read all of the threads and it seems that all the butthurt exploded in a bad way and it wasn't BA with the initial public explosion..... Private bickering in PM is one thing but all the public BS is another.


----------



## cjcameron11

I am so confused as to why this is still going on.


----------



## pdxrealtor

$$$$$$$ Need I say more?


----------



## Karpediem

cjcameron11 said:


> I am so confused as to why this is still going on.


Because...


----------



## rfrich74

pdxrealtor said:


> BA -
> 
> You keep saying you don't have the time for this yet you keep coming back to post the same thing in regards to time. If you don't have the time then why are you here?
> 
> If it doesn't matter like you say it doesn't matter then move on. Get on with your daily duties and forget about it. After all your website/daily duties are far greater than this site!!! As you've so boldly pointed out.
> 
> The fact that you're still hear after not having time, repeatedly, shows what others have said and what I see.
> 
> You have a vested interest in not seeing this review team come to fruition!
> 
> From reading this entire thread I see, as what others....even noobs, have seen.
> 
> You have ulterior motives which are monetary. I don't fault you for it, at all.
> 
> However you need to understand that if it's not this play that cost you what you've spent the last several years building up it will be another.
> 
> Another play which you have no control over.
> 
> Then you WILL be forced to do what you should be doing in this situation and that is shifting with the paradigm.
> 
> Everyone in the self employed industry works hard to secure a money maker but everyone in that same industry who is self employed must work just as hard to to stay on top of their game and figure out a way to make themselves more valuable than the competition.
> 
> This, from what I can pick up, is where you are at.
> 
> Sure this time you might have the support of the forum leaders to help you through it but next time you won't. And if you have the passion I think you do you you better shape that shit up for the next time that a forum like this doesn't have your back.
> 
> I, like many other guys here, were looking forward to the NS reviews. I also know that the 'guy behind this' would not steer me wrong because he got free gear.
> 
> You sir (BA), cannot be blamed for protecting the empire that you've built. It is admirable.
> 
> But you can be blamed for being like every other corporate fuck stick whose rose from the bottom to the top.
> 
> Like I said above---- the idea might be dead on this forum but it will rise in another and the next time it does you might not have so much control.
> 
> I feel sorry for the people who are truly losing out here.........and no matter how hard anyone tries to tell me people are losing out because of the projected format I will never agree.


Personal vendetta much? Were you actually wringing your hands and cackling as you wrote this?


----------



## Cr0_Reps_Smit

pdxrealtor said:


> BA -
> 
> You keep saying you don't have the time for this yet you keep coming back to post the same thing in regards to time. If you don't have the time then why are you here?
> 
> If it doesn't matter like you say it doesn't matter then move on. Get on with your daily duties and forget about it. After all your website/daily duties are far greater than this site!!! As you've so boldly pointed out.
> 
> The fact that you're still hear after not having time, repeatedly, shows what others have said and what I see.
> 
> You have a vested interest in not seeing this review team come to fruition!
> 
> From reading this entire thread I see, as what others....even noobs, have seen.
> 
> You have ulterior motives which are monetary. I don't fault you for it, at all.
> 
> However you need to understand that if it's not this play that cost you what you've spent the last several years building up it will be another.
> 
> Another play which you have no control over.
> 
> Then you WILL be forced to do what you should be doing in this situation and that is shifting with the paradigm.
> 
> Everyone in the self employed industry works hard to secure a money maker but everyone in that same industry who is self employed must work just as hard to to stay on top of their game and figure out a way to make themselves more valuable than the competition.
> 
> This, from what I can pick up, is where you are at.
> 
> Sure this time you might have the support of the forum leaders to help you through it but next time you won't. And if you have the passion I think you do you you better shape that shit up for the next time that a forum like this doesn't have your back.
> 
> I, like many other guys here, were looking forward to the NS reviews. I also know that the 'guy behind this' would not steer me wrong because he got free gear.
> 
> You sir (BA), cannot be blamed for protecting the empire that you've built. It is admirable.
> 
> But you can be blamed for being like every other corporate fuck stick whose rose from the bottom to the top.
> 
> Like I said above---- the idea might be dead on this forum but it will rise in another and the next time it does you might not have so much control.
> 
> I feel sorry for the people who are truly losing out here.........and no matter how hard anyone tries to tell me people are losing out because of the projected format I will never agree.



I can honestly tell you that I know for a fact that BA wasn't even around the area when all this shit went down and doesn't have any ulterior motives like you are hinting at. I ride with the guy all the time and he called this a bad idea way before anything went down and told me personally that he was keeping out of it. It wasn't till after shit actually went down that he sent Snowolf a PM about whatever personal stuff they talked about. The thing everyone seems to be missing is that if BA never sent that PM this shit would still be full retard and it has nothing to do with BA.


----------



## sabatoa

Cr0_Reps_Smit said:


> I can honestly tell you that I know for a fact that BA wasn't even around the area when all this shit went down and doesn't have any ulterior motives like you are hinting at. I ride with the guy all the time and he called this a bad idea way before anything went down and told me personally that he was keeping out of it. It wasn't till after shit actually went down that he sent Snowolf a PM about whatever personal stuff they talked about. *The thing everyone seems to be missing is that if BA never sent that PM this shit would still be full retard and it has nothing to do with BA*.


I agree with this and wish SW and BA would kiss and make up already.


----------



## david_z

Cr0_Reps_Smit said:


> The thing everyone seems to be missing is that if BA never sent that PM this shit would still be full retard and it has nothing to do with BA.


Exactly. Now I think BA is more than capable of defending himself. But maybe I learned my lesson last time when I thought "Maybe I should jump in and try and right this ship before it goes bonkers..." but like so many other veteran forum members, just sat idly by and watched the disaster unfold.

This was full blown shit show long before whatever private correspondence went down. BA had maybe 2 or 3 posts in that original thread -- all of which if I remember correctly were defending against accusations that Echelon "bought" reviews from him.

Until anyone presents evidence to the contrary, I have to assume that the decision to yank this NSDT concept was made irrespective of whatever he might've said in private. 

Whether BA has some interest in preventing this sort of thing is beside the point. You could certainly argue that anyone who generates revenue in any manner, from web traffic, could be adversely affected by this concept - myself included - although if you saw my adsense checks you'd probably laugh. OTOH, it is also a great opportunity for others, provides a wealth of knowledge for the industry and the community, and also presents potential for future collaborations with (other) companies down the line, so I think on balance there's not really the incentive to sabotage this program that some people are claiming.


----------



## Donutz

rfrich74 said:


> Personal vendetta much? Were you actually wringing your hands and cackling as you wrote this?


Not funny and not appropriate. This is not the time for cheap shots.


----------



## killclimbz

This thread has run it's course. There has been some pretty good feed back among the fighting. I think I know how we need to proceed with this, if we are given the chance.

Thanks guys.


----------

