Website Review: HeroComm (HeroComm.com)

Comments

1. bowler says:

   September 16, 2008 at 12:27 am

   Reviewing web site, Hero.Comm.com 14 September, 2008.

   “Jason” wrote:

   I’ve actually had discussions with someone about the “anonymity factor” of the website. This is one rare instance (the only one I can think of) in which I would say I do not have an issue with that in this case. I personally have no idea who participates in the management of this resource. But the information appears to be so well researched and presented, it really speaks for itself.

   “Jason” wrote:

   I think that if you expect your comments, concerns, or perspectives to hold any weight, yes, I think actually having a real name and identity attached to them does have fundamental meaning.

   When someone takes it upon themselves to initiate a dialogue, it’s hard for me to take that person seriously when they are not confident enough about their own words, opinions, questions, or ideas to take responsibility for them.

   Which is it?

   Log in to Reply
2. Jason De Bord says:

   September 16, 2008 at 11:52 pm

   If one carefully reviews (in their entirety, in context) the two statements quoted above (both written in the last few days; the second with an obvious recollection of the first), my statements of opinion are clear.

   “Which is it?” does not apply.

   The two statements are opinions related to two entirely different circumstances and situations.

   In the first instance (second quote), I was responding to the questions and criticisms of a person who has taken it upon himself or herself to initiate a one-sided dialogue, under the condition of anonymity, with a reluctance to answer any questions himself or herself in exchange. It is akin to someone arriving at a town hall meeting wearing a ski mask and demanding that his or her grievances be heard and immediately addressed, all while refusing to introduce himself/herself or answer any questions.

   In the second instance (first quote), I was reviewing the work product of a group of known enthusiasts in the Star Trek community who have made a significant contribution to the hobby, in the form of sharing the fruits of a wealth of information, access, and research – all presented in a manner in which anyone can evaluate the data on its own merits. Merely the finished product is presented anonymously/uncredited, and they explain why they have made this choice. More, the people responsible for the website are readily available via a fixed e-mail address and username on various forums to discuss, privately or publicly, the merits of their work, analysis, and findings. If I desired, I could contact the group directly and probably learn the identities of one of more of the participants in this endeavor (and I probably know one or more of them already regardless), but I have elected not to, because for my purposes, the work speaks for itself. But now I am starting to sound redundant, in that you also left out more than half of the quote above under critique, which continues:

   Jason De Bord wrote:

   But the information appears to be so well researched and presented, it really speaks for itself, and the group is highly regarded in the Star Trek community. Though anonymous, they are accessible and open to Q&A. I would recommend also checking out the discussions on the Trek Prop Zone forum and the “HeroComm Q and A” discussion topic. Much of the content of these and other discussion forum topics are well archived on the HeroComm site as well (see “Our Board Postings“).

   The hobbyists behind HeroComm provide their own analogy, likening the work product to an annual report produced by a well-run organization. So, at that theoretical town hall meeting in the prior example, it would be akin to a report or study prepared by a non-profit group being made available to all interested parties for reference and open discussion, with any and all questions addressed at the following meeting in written form, following private review, discussion, and deliberation by the group.

   Below is an applicable excerpt from the HeroComm.com website already referenced with a direct link in the review article (and quoted and linked to again directly above):

   Excerpt from HeroComm:

   9) POSTED 11/17/07 – on the Trek Prop Zone board:

   Distant rumblings elsewhere have come to our attention, so it seems an appropriate time to answer some of the questions that are being bantered around about us – but curiously never asked directly to us. We’ve boiled down the essence of some of the more relevant and common ones here below, but be wary… to cover things in enough depth it turned out to be a long (but hopefully not too long-winded) read. Our apologies in advance:

   What makes HeroComm qualified to authenticate props anyways?
   We would assume that anyone in any other field or profession would say the same thing: in-depth experience with both originals and fakes, an exhaustive knowledge of the topic’s history, an extreme attention to detail (including some that few are aware of), a pure devotion to the subject and those who are affected by it, and an utter lack of bias. Any group of prop fans sharp enough to be the first to sort out the features of all ten comms (it’s easy enough now to forget that little more than a year ago that huge challenge wasn’t even on anyone else’s radar), trace down the exact sources for all the moire patterns and other parts, plus assemble a full tell-all thousand-pic screen cap library has got some significant observational, deductive, and manpower resources in their favor. We’ve done our homework and paid some dues. And since sorting fact from fiction is what we’re all about, that effort naturally extends to those props purported as originals.

   The HeroComm project represents what could be seen as the next step forward in prop research. Starting out decades ago were learned individuals, those lucky enough to have gotten rare experience or information became de facto experts over others. Next with the Internet came chat boards, where everyone could throw their 2 cents into the pot. But both of these have their problems. Individual experts can too easily have their judgment and conduct clouded by ego or by personal gain. And the withholding of information and the decrees without backing have frustrated us all. With boards, the reasoned and the irrational get equal time and space, and so often nothing gets sorted in the end. We saw the opportunity for something better; a system that combined the best of both while leaving out the worst.

   A careful examining of various boards showed those who were bright cordial open team players. Picking our early team was easy, and it has only grown since. As a consequence what you now have at your disposal on our pages is not one expert’s opinions but a great many, all sorted and supported by the best evidence that can be constructed – with the result being everything known about the communicator laid bare for your pleasure. Our approach may strike some as impersonal (even though everyone who sends one gets a fast and personal email reply), but you already expect the same from any well-run business or organization. You never read “I” in an annual financial report or corporate brochure. If one of our members has a negative personal slant towards something, it is balanced or omitted by the rest. This, plus being able to tap into a deeper pool of shared resources and skills is the strength of an organization. Like we say on our Contact Us page, “everyone knows more than any one.” As we see it, the disgruntling we’ve heard no doubt has some of its roots in a simple chafing of old vs. new. Naturally we think that new is better. How about you?

   There is certainly no more momentous or dare we say it sacred a task we can perform than opining on the authenticity of a prop. We do not grant ourselves the luxury of EVER being wrong with an ID. As a result, we have not nor ever would let personal feelings towards a prop’s owner (or of its advocates) taint our posted opinions in any way. That would be an egregious disservice to you and to Wah, something you should never forgive us or anyone else for were it ever to be done.

   So, sure, it takes chutzpa, some cojones, to pony up to the bar and say, “yes, we’re good enough to ID a comm prop with 100% certainty every time.” But we know as well that credentials will only get you so far; one also has to deliver. And that we’ve done too with the material that has presented itself to date. But with every month and year may come new challenges, and as with any expert, only time will tell if the temerity to stick our collective chin out is well enough deserved.

   Is any current or former member of the Chang Gang going to make and sell props or kits?
   No. It has been said before but often ignored, so let it be said again. No! Having a completely non-commercial interest was a condition for acceptance into our fold. If any member does, then you rightfully get to call HeroComm a bunch of liars. Wouldn’t that be fun?

   A number of the Chang Gang have expressed a strong interest in making their own replicas for personal use, and in one instance, the online buying patterns of an alum has been amusingly scrutinized as proof of commercial intent. Those assertions are unequivocally in error.

   With that said, it also must be acknowledged that the future can be awfully long (hopefully for us all) and terribly unknown, and circumstances decades from now can change for our individual members, whose actual lives we do not control. Should in some distant unforeseen day situations change for someone, it can be guaranteed that, given the high caliber of our members, the appropriate licensures would be obtained by that person in advance. Our guys are the by-the-book sort. If such a person fails to do so, then they should by all means be called upon by the proper authorities.

   Jason De Bord

   Log in to Reply