Who is the CU Skeptic?
Posted by Trey Reeme on October 12th, 2007
The CU Skeptic has launched a blog.
He writes:
We aren’t going to be holding hands and singing kum-ba-ya over here. The “common thread” that resolves many disagreements in the cu world does not exist here.
Now don’t get me wrong, I really enjoy many of the cu blogs, and the people behind them are top notch. However, these blogs are have their roots so deep in the cu world, that they can’t be (outwardly) skeptical of the industry as a whole. They have to buy in. Their jobs/businesses are at stake.
Skeptic, I like your sass. I love your first post. But after thinking it over, I don’t care for your anonymity.
Please don’t abuse the blank check your anonymity affords you. The snarkiest commenters are usually anonymous; you’ve got a lot of power to make people lose sleep at night. Kathy Sierra is a sad case study of what anonymity can do in the blogosphere.
So welcome to the blogosphere. Hope that you change your mind and let folks know who you are. If you don’t, please stay responsible.
BTW, I absolutely agree:
At their current state, credit unions as a whole are no different than banks to the end user. Each have their share of sellouts and standouts, but in my eyes that’s the bottom line.
But that doesn’t mean that we have to accept that as the way it has to be.
Trey,
Thanks for the kind words about my writing and the few views I’ve posted thus far.
As for anonymity, it’s tricky. I fully understand that anonymity is a privilege of the web, but just because it is abused by some, doesn’t make it off limits for all.
Anonymity has berthed both super hero and villain. I hope over the coming months to show that it can be used responsibly, and when used in such a way, can be an effective agent for change.
I also have full confidence in the community’s ability to hold me responsible for my actions. Based on my words and demeanor I will either be welcome in cu blogs or ignored or blocked as spam. I have no reason to continue in my efforts if I’m marked as spam, so it’s actually in my best interest to be overly careful in regard to my responsibility.
I can understand the hesitation towards acceptance, but for now, I am going to stand my ground on this.
I look forward to being part of cu discussion, if you’ll still have me.
Consider yourself accepted for now, CU Skeptic -
Thanks for responding, and looking forward to what’s to come from ya. Awwww, love is good.
Who is the CU Skeptic? I have no idea, but after analyzing the first long post, the Gender Genie (http://bookblog.net/gender/genie.php) thinks it’s a he, not a she. The score for the Diamonds in the Rough post was 474 for Male, 190 for Female.
As for being anonymous, I see no problem with that. There is no prerequisite to be “responsible”—just legal (which was the issue in the Kathy Sierra case).
Trey, if The Skeptic proves to be “irresponsible” (whatever that means) you won’t read the blog. And in all likelihood, neither will a lot of other people who read this blog.
Here’s my bet: That in the end one of two things will happen: 1) the Skeptic won’t update the blog very often (as happens with so many would-be bloggers), or 2) the CU Skeptic will really turn out to be the CU Realist.
My money is on #2.
CU Skeptic – here is some free marketing advice.
Here is a YouTube ad for your blog: Start – The gigantic Kool-Aid Man from the old commercials, busting through the wall of a credit union with a big “Oh yeah!”
Customers and staff are terrified. A blogger/staff member in the corner drops his mouse. Kool-Aid Man proceeds to pour out all his kool-aid (innards) onto CU floor. Pause for dramatic effect. Then “That’s right, no more kool-aid folks. It’s time to get real.”
That would be so awesome.
Ron, I’m with you. I have no problems with the pseudonym—some of the greatest writers and thinkers have used pseudonyms in the past, and not just because their real names were unpronounceable. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pseudonyms for a list.
As I commented on the CU Skeptic blog, I think he’s going to find quite a few people who share his feelings, but I disagree that all the current CU bloggers are only painting a rosy picture. Trey does a good job of pointing out the “bad actors” in the industry.
What I think CU Skeptic will do is question whether CU’s are still relevant. I think they are. I hope they are. But if they’re not, I say we move on. Better sooner than later.
@Skeptic – welcome aboard! Personally I am not troubled by the anonymous nature of your blog. Our industry needs to, in my opinion, have a wide variety of opinions represented. If anonymity gives you that kind of freedom, have at it!
The blogosphere is a great (and emerging) tool to offer opinions that you will not find anywhere else in CU-land. And I think you will find a receptive audience if your intention is to offer a constructive point-of-view to the discussion. (Although as you indicated in your initial post … you aren’t quite sure where you are headed with this, so it’s too early for me to judge as well.)
As to Matt’s comment, I think CUs are quite relevant, but I think we’ve been sold a bill of goods about what “relevant” really means. Personally, I fear if we do not turn back, we are headed toward a CU system that in essence will be a tired parody of itself. If that happens, I’m out the door with you, friend.
@ Christopher: Man, you are one creative dude.
Sorry, it’s Friday and I’m daydreaming a little.
For those of us who don’t know, what is “the Kathy Sierra case” all about?
Wikipedia entry on Kathy Sierra
@Christopher: No need to apologize, it was purely a compliment. :)
I am a little excited. I am glad that everyone is waiting to see what he has to say (have we all agreed that it is a “He” yet?) before passing judgment.
I wonder what he will bring to the table for discussion.
Anonymity is a very interesting topic. Over in EverythingCU land, we allow anonymity, but we verify to make sure all participants are employees of CUs. So when the readership sees messages coming from anonymous people, they can rest assured that it is indeed from their peers. We’ve had some great discussion on topics that would otherwise go unspoken, especially in regards to internal company policies, where if not anonymous, they would fear for their jobs if it got back to their bosses.
But in public forums, anonymous commenters can degenerate a conversation to the point of pointlessness.
I’ll be interested to see if Facebook ever addresses some of these issues within its sphere.
I totally respect the desire for anonymity. It can be hard to say things that need to be said when you’re not in an entirely safe environment.
And I can appreciate wanting to be anonymous while finding your feet. (I have a tale about my early days blogging, before there were so many cautionary tales available.)
One of my favorite academic blogs
- which I still read -is from an anonymous community college dean. He’s said that he stays anonymous in part because he likes to talk about big crazy ideas, and doesn’t want to worry about faculty freaking out that he’s going to do that right now right there.that was supposed to be a side comment, not a strike-through. sigh.
This just in! If you click on the ABOUT on the CU Skeptic – confirmed male in his 30’s.
At first I thought, “Bastard, you can’t say that and not reveal who you are.” Then I thought “Brilliant!”
Bring it Anonymous!
Just to clear things up a bit…
I did list myself as a “sub 30 year old male”.
(I wanted that to mean I’m a guy under 30…but obviously I wasn’t crystal clear about that.)
Sure, why not. At first I was, well, a bit skeptical. But after thinking about it, I look forward to seeing what insight he has to offer. He does,after all make some good points.
And I completely understand the anonymity issue as long as he uses it constructively, and not just as a mask to bash people and companies.
My only hope is that CU Skeptic offers more than just criticism. It’s always easy to sit back and complain about what isn’t working. The challenge is to provide solutions and remedies whenever possible. I’ll be tuning in.
Meh, the Movement doesn’t need any more skeptics.
Kudos to you, skeptic, you certainly got tounges wagging. I’m not so sure CU blogs are painting everything rosy, but rather projecting more positive things to continue and drive the credit union movement forward. Anonymity or not-you got my attention.
Hey, I’ve been anonymous on this board for years sometimes to the frustration of Trey and his peeps, but actually we usual end up agreeing at some point and he gets kudos for bringing up some great topics. Bring in on, Anon!