<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Technosailor - Latest Comments in Contrived Transparency</title><link>http://technosailor.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://technosailor.disqus.com/contrived_transparency/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:17:19 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Contrived Transparency</title><link>http://technosailor.com/2008/04/28/contrived-transparency/#comment-928695834</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Hey Eric- nice to see local press around these parts. ;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I think you're article addresses transparency as it should be addressed. The problem is, as Ike, suggests more one of tactical transparency which is simply put on to achieve a purpose and real transparency which builds trust and authenticity.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Aaron Brazell</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:17:19 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Contrived Transparency</title><link>http://technosailor.com/2008/04/28/contrived-transparency/#comment-928695832</link><description>&lt;p&gt;You didn't go far enough, Aaron.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The "tactically transparent" hurt the rest of us through guilt by association.  I don't want to see an entire profession tainted by the actions of a few using slash-and-burn techniques.  It makes us all look bad.  Healthy skepticism is always warranted, but those taking advantage of trust risk stunting new relationships for us before they start.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Ike</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:28:41 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Contrived Transparency</title><link>http://technosailor.com/2008/04/28/contrived-transparency/#comment-928695833</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Okay, now I'm feeling embarrassed, because I actually used the word in my latest post on Examiner:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-301-Online-Communities-Examiner" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.examiner.com/x-301-Online-Communities-Examiner"&gt;http://www.examiner.com/x-3...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But I meant it! I don't tell clients they need to be transparent because it gives them an advantage, I tell them they need to be up-front because then they don't look like assholes...&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric Elkins</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:31:57 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Contrived Transparency</title><link>http://technosailor.com/2008/04/28/contrived-transparency/#comment-928695831</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Every time people do something innovative or genuine or sincere that then nets them a serious financial or social gain, it gets exploited by all the others just trying to make a buck or get their 15 minutes. Happens in every industry and walk of life.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The funny thing is that most of the time it's pretty "transparent" what their real intentions are.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Brandon Eley</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:15:38 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Contrived Transparency</title><link>http://technosailor.com/2008/04/28/contrived-transparency/#comment-928695830</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks, Chris.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Aaron Brazell</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:14:07 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Contrived Transparency</title><link>http://technosailor.com/2008/04/28/contrived-transparency/#comment-928695829</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Besides regretting not seeing you for more than 20 seconds in the hallway (or so it felt), I think you're on to something. In fact, I've been enjoying the hell out of your blog lately. Keep it up, Aaron. I'm enjoying your work here.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Chris Brogan...</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:09:12 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Contrived Transparency</title><link>http://technosailor.com/2008/04/28/contrived-transparency/#comment-928695825</link><description>&lt;p&gt;That's exactly why I hate that word in the contemporary online context.  Intentional or not, every online identity choice has layers of prompts between the communicators. If the "appearance of transparency" is the motivator of the online communication choice, how can that be characterized as anything but an opaque layer?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hey, that sounds obtuse and meaningless! How do I get "opaque" to be the buzzword?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Deb on the Rocks</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:07:31 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>