Melanie Javens - CEM Insurance - Access to forum - Polygraph Place Bulletin Board

Thanks for stopping by our bulletin board.
Please take just a moment to register so you can post your own questions
and reply to topics. It is free and takes only a minute to register. Just click on the register link

Polygraph Place Bulletin Board

Professional Issues - Private Forum for Examiners ONLY

Melanie Javens - CEM Insurance - Access to forum

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Melanie Javens - CEM Insurance - Access to forum
detector Administrator	posted 05-13-2009 01:07 AM Hi Folks, I've had a request by Melanie for access to the private forum as a vendor to the profession. Since she isn't an examiner, I want to run it past you all first as I've done on other occasions in the past. Yes?, No?, Maybe...with conditions? Concerns? If you have a comment that needs to be made confidentially, just email it to me at detector@polygraphplace.com ------------------ Ralph Hilliard PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related http://store.polygraphplace.com IP: Logged
rnelson Member	posted 05-13-2009 08:59 AM nuked. r [This message has been edited by rnelson (edited 05-13-2009).] IP: Logged
Toneill Member	posted 05-13-2009 10:13 AM Melanie has been a fixture in our field for as long as I've been involved in it and brings to the polygraph field specific knowledge regarding her field "Liability Insurance" for polygraph examiners. I believe that Melanie may have valued experience to offer the polygraph group related to many liability issues we often never hear of and are hopeful not to experience. So I'm in favor! Tony [This message has been edited by Toneill (edited 05-13-2009).] IP: Logged
ebvan Member	posted 05-13-2009 10:33 AM Ralph, would it be possible to have her prepare a brief post regarding polygraph liability issues and post it through you in order to allow us to evaluate her contribution. I am a bit concerned that having someone who makes decisions regarding claims made by and against polygraph examiners to have full access to our gloves of style of commentary. I worry that this might inhibit a full discussion of some issues. ------------------ Ex scientia veritas IP: Logged
skipwebb Member	posted 05-13-2009 12:09 PM What if Sheridan Press who publishes the APA magazine and Journal requested to get on the board? What if the CPA firm who does the taxes and audits the books of the APA or the AAPP wanted on? Could we be going down a slippery slope here? IP: Logged
skipwebb Member	posted 05-13-2009 12:13 PM I forgot probation & parole folks and sex treament folks and ATSA members????? IP: Logged
rnelson Member	posted 05-13-2009 01:04 PM was encouraged to un-nuke this. -----------------------------------At the risk of sounding negative: Would we want our auto insurance agent to lurk while we BS with our pals about motorcycle or automotive performance or engage in personal incident review? Would we want our health insurers to lurk while we enjoy punch-and-cookies with our friends during off-work hours? Or would we want our homeowner's insurer present we we BBQ on the back porch? I think this decision should be made with consideration for the benefits or hazards, direct and secondary, that would result. With instrument people, there are potential secondary benefits in terms of improved instruments and software as they learn more about what we do, what works, and what doesn't work. Plus, occasional direct benefits to all from questions and discussions about features and capabilities. The potential hazards to the instrument manufacturers' presence here are the degradation of forum content into marketing and hyping, and the polarizing of us examiners around our instrument loyalties. Thankfully, the instrument people have been great about mostly lurking. We want them to lurk, because we all benefit from their lurking, and there is no hazard. What direct or secondary benefits occur from an insurer lurking? What hazards? What happens to the forum discussion content if people worry about oversight or monitoring from their insurer? We all know what happens when there is a mole-scare in the forum – deafening silence. The forum is useful because it's a little like Vegas – what happens here stays here. Of course, if something really bad were to become known to forum members, I'm sure the information would be relayed to those who need it. That is because we all know there is a kind of moral obligation to sometimes act on information. What is Melanie's obligation to use information obtained from the forum? .02 r ------------------ "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room." --(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964) IP: Logged
Ted Todd Member	posted 05-13-2009 08:08 PM I have know Mel for years and trust her without exception. I think she and her company have a vested interest in the future direction of our profession. Additionally, I don't care if she does catch me giving Sackett a ration of crap in our forum! Ted IP: Logged
sackett Moderator	posted 05-13-2009 08:49 PM Funny Ted, big guy that you are, now that Mel's not within kicking your butt distance... Jim IP: Logged
skipwebb Member	posted 05-14-2009 07:01 AM I think we all agree Mel is great and many of us have enjoyed tossing back a few frosty mugs with her over the years and consider her a close friend. That wasn't the question. I don't think we can base this kind of decision on individual personalities. Once the decision is made for one exception, it becomes more difficult for the next. Everybody knows someone well and could vouch for them personally as "safe" but adding non-polygraph examiners would change the caliber and spirit of the information posted on the board at some point. Hell I don't discuss comparison question technique and CM with my wife in the unlikely event she is required to take a polygraph someday. I want her to be able to pass (unless it's over whether or not she shot me accidentally) IP: Logged
ebvan Member	posted 05-14-2009 01:12 PM This forum is now and always has been a place for examiners to go for candid discussions regarding polygraph. The APA hasn't been able to put one together that anyone appears to care about and no-one else but Ralph has really tried. I choose to come to this forum because I believe that its members have been properly vetted regarding their qualifications to participate in the types of discussions we have on a regular basis. We are often too far separated to get together for bull sessions. I like being able to ask questions and offer answers and opinions without worrying about filtering my responses for consumption by anyone who is not directly involved in the development or administration of polygraph. I have nothing against Melanie, I cannot think of a single thing to say for or against her. I haven't met her. I don't even know her last name and I am not one of her customers. I would like to hear what she has to say regarding polygraph liability issues from an insurers standpoint. But, I don't recall any threads that would have appeared to benefit from the introduction of an insurers point of view. Almost all discussions concerning liability deal with the application of EPPA or legal requirements/sustainability of different types of waivers. Given my choice I would restrict access to this particular forum to those persons directly involved in the development of polygraph technology or the administration of polygraph. I think it is the best course of action to preserve the open communication we now enjoy in this forum. All that being said, I don't think Ralph ever gets enough credit for all the work he does and for providing us this cool place to hang out, cuss, discuss, poke and joke at and with each other. People should realize and appreciate that from the view of the opposition over at AP.org Polygraph place is THE OTHER FORUM. He isn't afraid to step out front on an issue and has done a lot to earn my respect and gratitude. I will certainly respect his final decision and applaud his decision to ask for our input before deciding. So, Examiners raise your cups (Coffee, Cola or adult beverages depending on your inclination, personal preference and time zone)to Ralph. Thanks for all you do. This ones for you. IP: Logged
rnelson Member	posted 05-14-2009 02:03 PM Cheers to Ralph! This forum has been a great asset to the polygraph profession. This is in part because of the way he runs it, including reasonable efforts to control access, almost completely hands-off moderation, and a position of independence that means we're not contaminating any official APA forum with our silly pictures, word-games and other important nonsense. Polygraph examiners all over the country and all over the world know a lot more about each other and a lot more about differences and similarities in field practices from the opportunity to read and participate here. Innovations and improvements have been inspired, and friendships have emerged. What could be better than all that. Thanks Ralph. r ------------------ "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room." --(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964) IP: Logged
pal_karcsi Member	posted 05-14-2009 04:50 PM Nop, no intruders. ------------------ Hól vagytok székelyek, e földet biztam rátok. Elvették töletek,másé lett hazátok. Vesszen Trianon ! IP: Logged
BrunswickT Member	posted 05-15-2009 10:24 AM Being rather new to this forum, I do not know Melanie. I personally am insured through another company. That being said, I am inclined to agree with the thought that a member of the insurance industry could submit an article through Ralph. I would welcome an insider's perspective on any litigation, civil/criminal that has impacted on a polygraph examiner. Understanding the details of past claims could give us an angle on avoiding those pitfalls down the road. I don't see the need for anyone to have access to the forum in order to provide that type of intel. IP: Logged
detector Administrator	posted 05-22-2009 05:20 PM Thank you everyone for your candid input. There is wisdom in many counselors. I believe the guiding current here is contribution = yes, access = no and I have conveyed as much to Melanie. Thanks again. Ralph IP: Logged

All times are PT (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | The Polygraph Place