Update on this whole mess, if you’re interested
————-
I wasn’t aware that The Bylaw Blog, which covers issues related to NCAA compliance, existed until about three weeks ago when a buddy of mine with an interest in such things asked me if I could figure out who this anonymous Division I compliance officer is. Because, as the older people in my life would say, I’m “good with computers.”
The Bylaw Blog author does a decent job of hiding his identity, but not a great one. I sent back my answer 35 minutes after getting the request. And I’m owed a lunch – and didn’t think much of it beyond that. But a funny thing happened since then – NCAA gumshoes started showing up at campuses, asking about some party in Miami. The Bylaw Blog became more relevant and is now cited at many sites I follow, and its author’s resignation to being revealed someday clears my conscience on publishing what my research found:
The author is a compliance professional employed at a Division I athletic department. Sooner or later someone will figure out who writes this, but until then, my opinion is completely my own as long as it is not attached to any organization. So I’ll attempt anonymity, for as long as the internet allows.
So – my research indicates that the likely author of The Bylaw Blog is … John Infante, Asst. Director of Compliance at Loyola Marymount. He’s a graduate of Indiana University and their law school and interned in their compliance department as well.
How did I come to that conclusion? Well, there are clues at the site which pierce the veil of anonymity afforded by private domain registration and the like. No, I don’t want to disclose my specific research here. Based upon the information I developed and the circumstantial evidence that goes along with it, I’d peg my confidence in Mr. Infante’s authorship at 95%+. I should note that Mr. Infante’s authorship and association with The Bylaw Blog has not been confirmed by me and that my conclusion as to his involvement is my opinion based on my own research.
Pingback: Tweets that mention And here I reveal the author of The Bylaw Blog | Every Night Should Be Saturday Night -- Topsy.com
Don’t mean to mess with your business, but why the need to reveal the source? Especially if it may be helpful in driving reform? What’s gained by releasing this? I can think of a lot that’s lost…namely the By-Law blog.
way to go douchebag – he’s shutting down the site. first you have a fucking unoriginal name for your website (really, couldn’t get any further away from edsbs than this?), now you force a good blog out of business
go fist yourself
Awww man. Looks like ya killed it.
http://www.bylawblog.com/2010/07/it-was-fun-while-it-lasted/
Congratulations about your detective work. You’ve done a disservice to us all. The Bylaw Blog was a fantastic resource to have and now it’s gone. Well done.
PS.
You are dick. Thanks for outing a great resource. You are a drag on the Internet.
Go to Hell.
What he said. Hey Cap’n Ken way to take the collective IQ if internet blogs down a few points. It’s pisses me off that you are using precious oxygen that could be used by someone with an IQ higher than 50.
Thanks for ruining the blog site, douche bag. You got a scoop, a steaming scoop of dog shit.
Congratulations, Cap’n Ken. You selfishly exposed the author of the Bylaw Blog for no reason other than to draw attention to your own (uncleverly named) blog. Sad.
Well, I hope that lunch is well worth it. The internet just lost one of its finest blogs.
Seriously. What was the point of this? To show the world what a brilliant little budding Sherlock Holmes you were?
Patton Oswalt’s right: The difference between “coulda” and “shoulda” is one that all too few people understand these days.
Why would you do this? Ignoring the ethical question of whether it is OK to reveal the identities people who are posting their own anonymous opinions on the Internet and clearly wish to remain anonymous, why would you take an action that was almost certain to reveal the identity of one of the best resources on NCAA compliance on the web? Especially during the agent scandal? Doing so benefits nobody and harms him and everyone who reads his work.
Way to go, Inspector Dick. Not only did you probably get a guy fired and blacklist him from getting a job anywhere else, you managed to stop the only source of information we have about compliance issues that we have. Hope you’re proud of yourself.
thanks a lot bro
you’re a complete douchebag…
way to ruin a great blog you fucking twat.
your whole shitty website stinks like corn dogs…
Thanks for all the kind words. I’ll let the corndog jokes and 6th-grade name-calling pile up some more before talking about the motivation here. Enjoy yourselves.
It has absolutely nothing to do with that.
You’ve put in jeopardy the -only- source anybody outside of NCAA compliance has into the THOUSANDS of rules and regulations by which the college athletics we follow are supposed to abide. It’s the only insight we have into these things, and now it’s possibly being taken away.
That’s pretty much the exact definition of a selfish, stupid move.
I normally don’t partake, but you are a fucking retard (6th grade joke) and a faggot (7th grade now). I really hope you and yours get monkey-raped every Saturday night and you weep in agony and horror, which is the only way your extremely stupid blog name would be true. Fuck you sir.
You’re an idiot.
You’re a self-centered asshole. Not only are there now people who may no longer have a website they enjoy, but there’s also a well-meaning person whose job may be in jeopardy. Happy now?
Don’t let the cacophony of immature insults drown out the obvious point – all you’ve done is help remove a very valuable blog from the internet. One is hard-pressed to believe that your blog will be replacing said value.
And before you get meta or take the time to think of a clever justification for doing so, understand that the demonstrating that the “anonymous” blog isn’t a Fort Knox isn’t very compelling.
In the words of Bill Murray in Quick Change: ” You could’ve given us help, but you’ve given us so much more.” Thanks for costing everyone a useful resource as some sort of “look at me” stunt.
Jealous that his blog was more relevant and got more hits than yours? choke on a dick.
Hey, it’s “Choke on a Dick” guy from my bit on LSU’s Nike sellout. How you been?
not the same guy but i’m glad he shared my sentiments
I wouldn’t worry about revealing your intentions at a later date. This momentary bump in your traffic won’t last more than a day or so, and somehow I doubt the ones who wonder what sort of misguided notion you had in your head will ever come back.
All you’ve done is ruin a perfectly good resource, in the name of furthering your own WordPress blog.
Well, you’re right about people who are so corndoggedly pissed off right now not coming back. But the point isn’t about traffic or anything like that. There’s something here that touches on several things I do and care about. So I’ll continue on whether or not any of these folks care.
And anybody who does care can decide if they think it’s misguided or my fault that he decided to pull the plug.
>But the point isn’t about traffic or anything like that.
THAT’S BECAUSE YOU HAD NO POINT.
Oh, didn’t I? Touche, sir!
What you did has no moral or ethical justification. You revealed the identity of an individual who gave valuable insight on a topic about which laypeople understand very little who did so only because of his anonymity. As a former journalist, you should understand and respect the necessity of anonymous sources, which is basically what Infante was.
Well, if you want to go the journalism route – which makes sense – this wasn’t a source of mine, so “protecting anonymous sources” isn’t an accurate description. Why wouldn’t you look at it from the journalist perspective of investigating who is behind anonymous writing? That’s not the motivation here, but it’s a legitimate journalistic role.
The purpose of journalism is to provide information to the public. You have taken away a source of information from the public. Revealing the identity of someone who posts information online that solely serves to inform the public without damaging anyone is not good journalistic practice.
I didn’t say that you should have protect Infante’s anonymity. That would imply that you were proactively aiding him, What I said was that you shouldn’t have proactively revealed his identity. You took action that has directly led to the elimination of a valuable source of information and you deserve the vitriol you’re getting because of it.
Talk about self-serving. Enjoy the extra $10 you’ll make today on the added traffic. Well worth someone’s career.
What a cunt.
You suck.
So let me get this straight:
You conduct an “investigation” that nobody was interested in, one that in fact ruins a great source of information that a countless amount of people relied on – and now you act smarmy and indignant when people are upset with you.
Congratulations, you’re officially a piece of shit.
It takes a special kind of hubris to not see the problem in what you did. The block quote from Bylaw Blog made it very clear that the author would “attempt anonymity, for as long as the internet allows.” What he said wasn’t that he was okay with being outed, but rather that he knew that at some point he probably would be. After all, he was smart enough to predict that at some point, some ambitious two-bit hack with a poorly written blog would decide to out him.
You had to know that he didn’t want to be outed, but moreover, that outing him would effectively kill his ability to continue his publishing. I’m dying to hear the rationale here. I would LOVE to hear the benefit that would offset the elimination of a valuable resource, destroying a guy’s work, and probably putting his job in jeopardy. If you can point to one positive result here, I’ll back off and congratulate you on your success.
But you can’t. Because you’re a hack. You’re searching for your 15 minutes of fame, gleefully ignorant of both the damage you have caused and the fruitlessness (even counterproductivity) of your efforts. My only consolation here is that people still like and respect Mr. Infante, blog or no. I doubt people can say the same about you.
“Hubris”? Sir, we prefer commenter language such as “eat a bag of dicks” around here. I do appreciate the use of “hack”, though.
I certainly see the ultimate “problem” – the guy shut down a blog people found very useful. However, to believe the issue here is that some guy (me) with an unknown site published his name is extremely short-sighted.
I will get more into all the things around what led me to post this (I really should be chasing down funny Les Miles quotes right about now), so I invite you back for that. But the mere fact that some guy with an unknown site publishing a name means the NCAA goes back to being an uncrackable, non-understandable, analyst/critic-silencing black hole is part of it. That’s actually become a bigger part of it now, because – wow – even when you disclaim that your opinions are your own and not representative of the NCAA or any institution, you apparently can’t say a word about the NCAA if you name is known, and given what commenters here are saying, your job is also in jeopardy.
If you would feel more comfortable with my calling you a “no talent ass-clown,” I can do that. My vocabulary is flexible like that.
Your moral flexibility is surpassed only by your inability to grasp causality:
Bylaw Blog: “Hey guys, I present you with this thing that you all like. But I can only provide you with this thing as long as no one knows my name.”
You: “John. His name is John, everyone.”
Bylaw Blog: “Peace out”
Everyone: “Eat a bag of dicks”
You: “What? I just said a guy’s name. How was I supposed to know what would happen?”
As to your second ‘argument’ (if we define “argument” as a bunch of words strung together) about what this says about the NCAA, that’s the whole freeking point. The NCAA is one of the most impenetrable and opaqueorganizations in the country. There are very few guys who can bridge that gap for us, and John was one of them. It’s be like some guy in the Washington Post’s mailroom outing Deep Throat, but saying ,”why does it matter? He can still talk to Woodward in parking garages, so I don’t see a problem.”
But then again, I suppose all you did was publish a name.
Thanks, Cap’n [donkey appendage]. For absolutely no reason, you have taken down one of the best, unbiased sources on the internet. For a few extra hits on your pathetic and parochial blog, you have taken a valuable source of information away from thousands and possibly millions of football fans: in other words, a lot more than will ever read your fecal spatterings. [Bleep] you, and I hope that even “your” fellow LSU fans turn on you.
This is my one and only visit to your unclickworthy cesspool, and the entire college football fanbase is now dumber for what you have perpetrated upon someone whose boots you are not worthy to lick.
Enjoy the site hits while they last, asshole.
You tweet about your own blog in the third person? Seriously?
Rarely
Wow, you’re even more of a douche than I thought. And, honestly, I thought you were one of the biggest douches the Internet had ever given us. Yet, you outdid yourself. Congrats douche.
PS – You’re a douche.
Not only did you “out” a private citizen who didn’t really need to be outed, but you also could have gotten the man fired. From his post, it would sound like the school is at least annoyed with this. At the very least, he’s used up goodwill that he worked hard to build.
How will you feel if they fire him? If you don’t feel bad, you’re an even bigger asshole than you seem.
So let’s recap. Because you can, you decided to publicly name a guy who runs a blog. So right off the bat, you are an immature asshole. Do you think you’re the first one to figure it out? Doubtful. Just the first one with no morals.
You feel OK doing this, because they guy supposedly said he figured he’d get discovered some day. First, that’s a misquote. He said he’d do this as long as he could, and CERTAINLY was hoping it was longer than this. Second, it seems clear you didn’t spend ONE second considering that this might get him trouble at work.
Guys shuts down blog that many, many people enjoyed reading and provided a public service.
Congratulations.
Wow, what a major mistake. I’ll spare you the name calling but Cap’n, do yourself a favor; admit your screw-up and start apologizing.
It’s unfortunate that Mr. Infante decided he needed to shut down his blog once it was obvious he wasn’t anonymous. I didn’t expect that – some could read his About page and conclude he would shut down if no longer anonymous, but I don’t read it that way and believed his disclaimer about the opinions being his own should suffice (and unless you’re talking about the NCAA, I guess, it really should – plenty of people in other industries write about industry topics separate from their job roles).
So, yeah, I’m sorry he felt he needed to shut down his blog because I published his name.
Even if you didn’t think that he would stop posting after losing his anonymity, why would you out him when a) nothing positive would come out of the revelation, b) there was the clear potential for a negative outcome to him personally based on other cases where writing a blog has led to getting fired or other problems at work, and c) he had clearly stated that he wished to remain anonymous.
Good questions. Answers in shortish form – with the note that I really am sorry the result was him deciding he needed to shut down and that wasn’t my intent:
a) Yes, chances were slim of anything “positive” coming from this specifically related to The Bylaw Blog. But that’s a limited view. I find it, for example, to be positive to remind people that “anonymity” is rarely that. That’s a broader concept, but one I’m interested in.
b) Yet there are plenty of people in a lot of industries that write under their own names about industry issues. They, like Mr. Infante, disclaim their sites as representing their own opinions. I did not believe (based on reading what he said about it) he would not / could not operate if his name was known.
c) Again, I carefully read how he described himself and his work. I did not take what he wrote to mean without anonymity he could not continue.
a) unacceptable. It’s not positive to remind people that anonymity online is impossible, when it’s perfectly possible.
b) short-sighted
c) again, short-sighted.
a) I didn’t say it was impossible; I said it was rarely possible – as demonstrated by this. Completely separate from the fallout here, that’s an area of interest for me. I get that you don’t like the reveal, which is fine.
b) Short-sighted where? That apparently you dare not discuss the NCAA under a real name? Yes, that’s short-sighted. If good is to come of the blog’s removal, shining light on the apparent fear of everybody touching the NCAA could be that.
c) Actually, well considered. The fact is I didn’t publish the name believing it would cause him to cease, and I based that belief on reading what he himself wrote. It could well be he miscommunicated or I misunderstood, but it was based on reading what he said.
Do you recognize the utter lack of logic that you employ here? You are reminding people that anonymity is rarely anonymity by causing it to be such. The reason that people aren’t really anonymous on the Internet is that someone like you might out them for no reason. This isn’t a moral service, this is being part of the problem.
That was not your judgment to make. Many people have suffered consequences at work because of their blogging activities. You obviously have no knowledge of how his workplace functions and thus should have let his anonymity remain. And even if he did mean that he would be able to blog if he lost his anonymity, there was still the possibility that he could be wrong.
Infante clearly expressed a desire to remain anonymous. Therefore, you would have done injury to him even if work-related issues didn’t factor into this discussion.
In review, by writing this post you:
1. Decided to ignore the wishes of the author of the blog and destroy his anonymity, thus inherently doing something negative to Mr. Infante.
2. Decided to remove the anonymity of Mr. Infante despite the possibility that doing so would (and as it so happens, may have done) further injury to him at his workplace. Any reasonable person would know that removing the anonymity of someone who blogs about a topic about the rules and functions of their organization could face workplace consequences. Failing to know that this possibility existed is abject stupidity and if you knew about this possibility, then you were knowingly doing something wrong.
3. Your justification for your actions was that you wanted to bring attention to the fact that anonymity is not guaranteed on the Internet. Ignoring the fact that you failed to make mention of this in your original post, you managed to bring attention to a problem by being part of the problem. Your actions were analogous to showing a homeowner that their garage was a fire hazard by setting their garage on fire.
We’re going to have to take this discussion out of the ever-shrinking nested comment boxes …
It might be beyond the scope of this, but I disagree with your take on anonymity and what people realize about it and how best to illustrate. For example, I know you’re posting from the University of Michigan (but you’re not going for anonymity). Do people who come here and say “fuck you” from the offices of a major U.S. charity/health organization realize I know where they are coming from? Stuff like that interests me for reasons well beyond sports.
I think I alluded to it in the post just a bit, but as the NCAA investigations spread and more sites I read begin quoting “the anonymous NCAA compliance officer”, that makes his status relevant. So the fact that he’s not actually anonymous (seriously – it was easy to find; I’m sure the NCAA knew) is also relevant.
You can disagree with my judgment, and as I said my intent and my expectation was anything but him shutting down. I’m comfortable with my decisions and my actions. I’m not happy with the result.
Here’s my question: what point were you trying to prove, and why didn’t you email John Infante about it to confirm it was him and/or to ask for permission? Wouldn’t getting his permission to print his name have eased your conscience more than a blurb on his website?
And what if you were wrong? I mean, congrats for figuring out with 95% certainty that it was him. Of course, if the 5% were correct and it was somebody else, you may have ruined a person’s reputation BY MISTAKE.
You are so full of shit, pal.
George likes his chicken spicy! George is gettin’ upset!!
You are a cockgobbler.
This will be my first and last trip to this horribly-named blog. Just wanted to chime in and let you know that you’re a huge douche.
What was the point of this?
I think you owe the author a sincere apology. Then you should apologize to your family for sucking at life so hard.
Fuck you asshole.
Nice work, Inspector Moron. Now the Bylaw Blog is gone (at least for now) and you have proven nothing other than your own unjustified sense of entitlement and love for self-aggrandizment.
Next time you embark on an “investigation,” first sit back and ask yourself “What am I trying to prove? Why am I trying to out somebody who provides valuable insight into how the NCAA operates? Will my silly little ‘investigation’ cost this person his or her job?”
And you’re a huge douche.
What a half-assed apology. If you don’t call or email Mr. Infante and apologize, you are half a man. And not, “I’m sorry he felt he needed to shut down his blog . . . ” I mean apologizing for what you did.
It’s very clear you did not spend one minute thinking of the consequences of your completely unnecessary action. You are screwing with somebody’s job. I have two children and this, Ken, was the act of a child.
I expect that my 9-year-old can’t always see the next steps. That’s why he still lives with mom and dad and goes to school. I expect more from an adult. You obviously have quite a lot to learn about life. Do try to get better at it.
Good job, asshole. Way to ruin a good thing.
You’re fat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpcDAaJFpcY
Fuck you man, way to be a complete asshole!
Thank you everyone for entertaining me as I read this thread. Some of the posts are hilarious.
( eat a big of dicks? lol)
After reading through your responses to the comments on this page, all I can conclude is that you’ve decided that you possess some sort of moral authority to wield across the internet as you please. “I find it, for example, to be positive to remind people that “anonymity” is rarely that. That’s a broader concept, but one I’m interested in.” Who the fuck do you think you are?
Maybe I think it’s positive to remind people that drunk driving is bad, so I’ll spike everybody’s drinks at the next office function and then shake my finger at them after they die in a car crash.
Hubris is the word, but on top of that, I find it absolutely unbelievable that after reading all of this, you still continue to defend yourself as you are. Grow up and look in the mirror, prick.
Oh, and the fact that you named your blog “Every Night Should Be Saturday Night” just reeks of hackery.
It’s an homage; referenced here if you care:
http://www.ensbsn.com/about/
But I know you don’t.
I think I’m somebody who has an interest in things that happen online. It’s absolutely fine if you don’t agree with what I find interesting and important.
On a real basic level, we’re talking about somebody who apparently depended completely on his anonymity, but failed to come anywhere close to actually achieving anonymity. The broader concept and what’s illustrated here – if anonymity matters so much to you, you should be pretty careful about achieving it. The fact that he believed he needed to stop posting once he was actually known – which is very unfortunate – becomes a real clear illustration of the issue.
I doubt many people who are big on college sports and the NCAA have much of an interest in issues around a person’s online presence, but it matters to me. It’s both the anonymity issue and the social-networking / oversharing thing that’s gotten attention with the NCAA being drawn to investigate because of a Tweet about free-flowing drinks.
Few of you will get that or care. So I’ll just hope for better insults. The “bag of dicks” stuff is still my favorite, but that’s not even new.
So, to prove your point, you decide to out a guy as an example of how to preserve internet anonymity?
I mean, why not educate the author of the Bylaw Blog on how he could be better at covering himself (if he wanted to) as opposed to outing him and possibly ruining his life. It’s great to talk about semantics and whether or not he should have been anonymous, but this isn’t a controlled case study. It’s somebody’s life. Good job?
On a real basic level, we’re talking about somebody who apparently depended completely on his anonymity, but failed to come anywhere close to actually achieving anonymity. The broader concept and what’s illustrated here – if anonymity matters so much to you, you should be pretty careful about achieving it.
Since he failed “to come anywhere close to actually achieving anonymity,” it never occurred to you to adopt a white-hat attitude and privately let him know where he came up short?
The public’s justifiable anger with you isn’t that you discovered who the blogger was, but that instead of doing something constructive to ensure this layman’s continued insights, you instead outed this educated, exclusive commentator’s insight into sports compliance.
You didn’t blow the whistle on wrongdoing, you blew the whistle on a terrific person.
Chuck – if the impression I was given from reading his site was that end of anonymity = end of the blog and trouble for him, I wouldn’t have published what I so easily found. But like I said, I read carefully what he wrote about himself, his blog and his anonymity. I hate that he felt the need to shut down.
OK, closing comments on this now. Looks like everybody’s gotten their “bag of dicks” insightful comments out of the way, and the ones that were actually useful have been addressed. I think the issues have been addressed, but of course not likely to many folks’ satisfaction. Comments are always open on the About page should you be most fully motivated.
Pingback: Sports Links for Reading | The (Convoluted) Mind of a Single Man