Forum independance?

Discuss Christopher Ward watches
5oclockhero
Senior
Senior
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2021 3:02 pm

Forum independance?

Post by 5oclockhero »

At the commencement of this post I should state that I have no 'inside information or company secrets' and anything that I have posted has simply been my own views or gathered from reading open source material, usually just by searching google. (Neither have I logged into the forum launch previews).

I came to the forum via just such a web search, but following a post taken down today I searched and found a link to the forum from the official CW Web site. I'm sure this isn't news to most of you. It says the following ;

"Founded soon after we launched, the forum is editorially independent and free of influence from Christopher Ward."

Since I've been a member I've been caught up in the hype and excitement surrounding new releases. Nowadays I assume this is just part of marketing strategy. Around the launch of the sealander range i engaged in forum conversation that I consider innocuous and received a PM from the moderator for discussing new unlaunched models. Yesterday I read here that following a Forbes launch article (which may or may not be planned) pirctures of the latest CW watch were on Google. I had a look and also noticed a detailed news article on another website, which I mentioned in a post this morning.

I notice that the OP referring to the pics and my post were both deleted very quickly.

I must say that this all seems very sinister behaviour from a small company that clearly is heavily controlling this forum. Whilst I can appreciate that CW might not want their launch information leaked in advance, it seems very petty to be attempting to censor a few enthusiasts when this information is easily available for anyone to view.

If CW is truly concerned that a few dozen watch fans might google a new release once they've teased a release date then they either need a better marketing strategy to capture that hype or maybe they shouldnt be operating a discussion forum ? Just my two-penneth but horses and stable doors come to mind....
These users thanked the author 5oclockhero for the post (total 2):
rc51ownerStif
User avatar
jkbarnes
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 8:39 pm
CW-watches: 3
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Forum independance?

Post by jkbarnes »

CW is NOT heavily controlling to forum. They don’t control it in any way.

What they do control is the ability to provide the forum with previews of upcoming products. And as one might expect, those previews come with conditions. And mind you, those would be the same conditions placed upon anyone given advanced a screening of upcoming releases, not just the forum.

The moderators take these conditions seriously and moderate content in a manner that reflects that. Personally, I’d rather them be a bit overzealous so as not to run afoul of our ability to get previews.

It’s not censorship and it’s not CW controlling the forum.
These users thanked the author jkbarnes for the post (total 9):
JasperCatajax87thomcat00Viognierste007dbTophROF68LavaineThermexman
Andrew
“I know. You know I know. I know you know I know. We know Henry knows, and Henry knows we know it. We're a knowledgeable family.” ~ The Lion In Winter

C65 Trident Vintage | C65 AMGT LE | C63 Sealander (36mm)

Find me on Instagram @jkbarnes
ctafield

Re: Forum independance?

Post by ctafield »

I think it was my post that was deleted? All it suggested was to google the watch name. People interested in the watch will do that anyway... I hardly think I gave away any magical secrets, and I certainly never leaked any information from the preview at all. Pretty heavy handed in all honesty.

Don't get me wrong, I work in an industry that suffers a lot of leaks, and I understand how they can affect things like marketing plans. But attempting to wipe information off the internet never works, and almost always backfires.
These users thanked the author ctafield for the post:
golfjunky
User avatar
golfjunky
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 6341
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:32 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Forum independance?

Post by golfjunky »

they look ok on the flipboard
Current collection = Omega Seamaster 2225.80.00, Omega Speedmaster 'Moonphase' 3576.50.00, Breitling Aerospace Evo, Vintage Azur, Vintage Seiko Sprtsman, Grand Seiko SBGX059, Omega SMP NTTD 210.92.42.20.01.001, Casioak Milkyway, Casioak Tiffany Sky.
User avatar
missF
CW Forum Poet Laureate
CW Forum Poet Laureate
Posts: 9094
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:59 pm
CW-watches: 5
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Forum independance?

Post by missF »

5oclockhero wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:44 pm ... very sinister behaviour...
Really?? :?
User avatar
jkbarnes
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 8:39 pm
CW-watches: 3
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Forum independance?

Post by jkbarnes »

We have this debate after every preview, it seems. And on a few occasions some members even wound up getting banned! :shock:

I won’t disagree that perhaps the moderators are a bit draconian in trying to ensure the forum doesn’t look like it’s revealed preview info. My point was that I’m willing to accept that as the price of getting previews and that it does not reflect CW controlling this forum, as asserted in the OP.
Andrew
“I know. You know I know. I know you know I know. We know Henry knows, and Henry knows we know it. We're a knowledgeable family.” ~ The Lion In Winter

C65 Trident Vintage | C65 AMGT LE | C63 Sealander (36mm)

Find me on Instagram @jkbarnes
User avatar
golfjunky
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 6341
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:32 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Forum independance?

Post by golfjunky »

there is even a pukka CW link to the ****** one in the images section.
Current collection = Omega Seamaster 2225.80.00, Omega Speedmaster 'Moonphase' 3576.50.00, Breitling Aerospace Evo, Vintage Azur, Vintage Seiko Sprtsman, Grand Seiko SBGX059, Omega SMP NTTD 210.92.42.20.01.001, Casioak Milkyway, Casioak Tiffany Sky.
5oclockhero
Senior
Senior
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2021 3:02 pm

Re: Forum independance?

Post by 5oclockhero »

I used the word sinister because that's how it felt. An inoffensive and unimportant comment about a watch launch being removed from the internet !

I understand that the forum is granted some special advance access on occasions, however as I made clear I wasnt part of that group and I don't have anything to reveal other than what is already out there in Google-land.

I just think its all a bit silly. Don't stick things up in Loupe and tease launches and then get upset when your fans talk about it !
These users thanked the author 5oclockhero for the post:
Stif
User avatar
jkbarnes
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 8:39 pm
CW-watches: 3
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Forum independance?

Post by jkbarnes »

5oclockhero wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:17 pm I just think its all a bit silly. Don't stick things up in Loupe and tease launches and then get upset when your fans talk about it !
Valid point. It is hard to argue with that.
Andrew
“I know. You know I know. I know you know I know. We know Henry knows, and Henry knows we know it. We're a knowledgeable family.” ~ The Lion In Winter

C65 Trident Vintage | C65 AMGT LE | C63 Sealander (36mm)

Find me on Instagram @jkbarnes
User avatar
missF
CW Forum Poet Laureate
CW Forum Poet Laureate
Posts: 9094
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:59 pm
CW-watches: 5
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Forum independance?

Post by missF »

I don’t think I’m really tech minded enough to see the removing of information from the internet - in this case - as a problem. I don’t really think there’s a principal at stake here. A few posts have been taken down but not with the intention of challenging the first amendment, threatening the integrity of the internet, or demonstrating the unrestrained power of the mods...

I would hope that anyone who has a post removed from the forum would get an explanation from the moderators. I’m pretty sure that explanation would sound a bit like Andrew’s first post, above.
Macdaz
Senior Guru
Senior Guru
Posts: 414
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 9:58 pm
CW-watches: 13
Location: UK

Re: Forum independance?

Post by Macdaz »

jkbarnes wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:06 pm We have this debate after every preview,.
We do and I really don’t see what is so hard.

CW grant previews and early accesses to a forum of valuable enthusiasts. In exchange for this, CW ask that we don’t discuss things openly until the embargo is lifted. - A perfectly reasonable request. Like a friend telling another close friend something and asking them to keep it to themselves for a short time. Just because the details are leaked by somebody else and are available online does not mean we abandon the favour asked of us. If we respect our friend and want to retain their confidence we do what they have asked. Just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should.

If we want to maintain these privileges we need to keep our side of the bargain, EVEN if others do not keep their word. If we don’t CW will make new friends and share things with them instead. I really value the relationship between the Forum and CW and I wouldn’t want to lose it.

It’s really that simple.
These users thanked the author Macdaz for the post (total 12):
nbgajax87asqwerthjkbarnesthomcat00rkovarsViognierste007dbChris375ROF68 and 2 more users
SMP|Victorinox Groundforce|Mako/XL|Steinhart OVM|Smiths Everest|C60 Trident 600|C3Malvern|C8 Pilot Mk2|Vostok 1965|C8 Flyer Mk1|Seiko Monster|C7 Rapide|Steinhart Aviation|C65 GMT|C9 AM GT LE|C60 Bronze|C8 Al Deere|C65 SC|C63 GMT|C65 Chrono|C63 Auto
User avatar
Richard D
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 3265
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2018 5:59 pm
CW-watches: 0

Re: Forum independance?

Post by Richard D »

Interesting use of ‘independance’ rather than independence.
These users thanked the author Richard D for the post:
jkbarnes
Richard


The whole is other than the sum of the parts.
Kurt Koffka
User avatar
A1soknownas
Senior Guru
Senior Guru
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:40 pm

Re: Forum independance?

Post by A1soknownas »

I noticed the suff last week after a 10 second search. and before you mentioned. It has been online since the 13th December.

I was tempted to make comment but out of respect for the privileged preview I kept quiet although I didn't attend and had nothing to honour.

I understand why your post was taken down as the forum through the preview decided not to leak anything.

If you and I can find it unprompted so can others if they were inclined to look so they might not need a post telling them in my view.
These users thanked the author A1soknownas for the post:
jkbarnes
User avatar
NationOfLaws
Senior Guru
Senior Guru
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri May 13, 2022 2:06 am
CW-watches: 5
Location: Kansas City, MO

Re: Forum independance?

Post by NationOfLaws »

Richard D wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:41 pm Interesting use of ‘independance’ rather than independence.
I’ll never get why people insist on nitpicking spelling and grammar rather than engaging on the topic at hand or just ignoring it. You clearly understood the intent of the post.
These users thanked the author NationOfLaws for the post (total 3):
wookiechew23Stifdsb18
User avatar
NationOfLaws
Senior Guru
Senior Guru
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri May 13, 2022 2:06 am
CW-watches: 5
Location: Kansas City, MO

Re: Forum independance?

Post by NationOfLaws »

And to contribute to the topic: these forums are independent the way that watch review sites are independent. They don’t receive financial backing (I don’t think) and aren’t staffed by current CW employees, but the admin team has a cozy relationship with the company that they want to retain. I don’t personally have a problem with it.

If you’d like to post this stuff on the Christopher Ward subreddit, for instance, the moderator there wouldn’t remove it unless under legal threat. I know that to be the case because I am the moderator there.