"Microsoft Regional Director"

We can debate semantics but if you describe yourself with a job title attached to a company then I suggest that you have an association which looks rather like ... employment.

It's not a job title, it's some Microsoft program, like their MVP program.

The RD site linked from Troy's site isn't loading for me at the moment, but if you search "what is the microsoft regional director program" you get back information making it clear that it's not for MS Employees.

https://rd.microsoft.com/en-us/

> The Microsoft Regional Directors program recognizes industry professionals for their cross-platform technical expertise, community leadership, public speaking[...]

What a strange naming choice though...

You can be sure that the confusion is not accidental.

As I see it, it's a way for MS to profit from free labour for it's support service and a marketing stunt to benefit by association from the good reputation of this researcher and his initiative.

Even if it is not the case, people like the one previously will think: it is Microsoft employees that are managing this website, they know security.

Its not semantics at all, you just are excusing your own misunderstanding. He didn't describe himself with a job title, and he even explicitly states directly after listing those awards, that he is not an employee of Microsoft.

Extending your logic, I have a CCIE, so if I ever state I'm a CCIE, I'm an employee of Cisco? I have a masters degree by coursework from a university, so I I ever state I have an Msc, I'm an employee of the university? I have an electrical licences issued by EnergySafe Victoria, so if I say I'm an A-Grade Electrician, I'm an employee of EnergySafe Victoria?

Remind me what CCIE stands for?

I don't think many people would be confused into thinking a Microsoft Certified Application Developer or an AWS Certified Cloud Practitioner are actually employees of those particular companies

Yes, those are better names. That doesn't make him a Microsoft employee.

I'm not saying it makes him an employee. I'm saying those are bad attempts to argue that it's not a confusing title.

> I'm saying those are bad attempts to argue that it's not a confusing title.

You might want to reread, nobody was arguing that.

> We can debate semantics but if you describe yourself with a job title attached to a company then I suggest that you have an association which looks rather like ... employment.

"Debating semantics" is arguing about which definition to use. There is no valid definition under which you can say that Troy is a Microsoft employee.

You can't say "I'm not wrong, You're just debating semantics", all you can say is "I was wrong because I was confused by a misleading title I wasn't familiar with."

cupofnotjoe pointed this out and got a bunch of responses from people with poor reading comprehension who entirely missed his point.

Edit: I use 'you' in the general sense here, not specifically the person I'm responding to.

I'm going to sum this up as

> Its not semantics at all, you just are excusing your own misunderstanding. He didn't describe himself with a job title, and he even explicitly states directly after listing those awards, that he is not an employee of Microsoft.

Yes, I agree. (I believe you think I am arguing against this; for clarity, I am not).

> Extending your logic, I have a CCIE, so if I ever state I'm a CCIE, I'm an employee of Cisco? I have a masters degree by coursework from a university, so I I ever state I have an Msc, I'm an employee of the university? I have an electrical licences issued by EnergySafe Victoria, so if I say I'm an A-Grade Electrician, I'm an employee of EnergySafe Victoria?

I think these are poor examples and reinforce that the confusion was reasonable. That is the only point I've been arguing in this thread.

If I say "I'm a Cisco Regional Director" or "I'm a Walmart Regional Director" is you immediate though that I don't work for Cisco/Walmart?

Nobody is really disputing that Microsoft chose a confusing award name. However that name being confusing doesn't mean he is an employee or anything really like an employee.

Directly adjacent to the post it says "Hi, I'm Troy Hunt, I write this blog, run "Have I Been Pwned" and am a Microsoft Regional Director and MVP who travels the world speaking at events and training technology professionals"

That reads to me like he's a Microsoft Employee. It's obviously important/significant enough to include it prominently on his website.

All your examples are not things that commonly are job titles, so you are not "extending logic".

The things he mentioned are of the same class, so yes, it does "extend the logic".

Just because the name for something is confusing, that doesn't change the nature of the thing named.

They are not of the same class. The class is "job title", implying employment. "Regional director" is a job title. The others are not.

"Microsoft Regional Director" is not a job title. It is an award that Microsoft gives out only to non-employees.

You might think the award has a confusing name, and you would be correct. What you cannot be correct in asserting is that an award makes someone an employee because that award has a confusing name. That isn't a question of "semantics", if you assert that award makes him an employee, you are simply wrong.

I'll repeat what I said in a related thread: I'm not saying it makes him an employee. I'm saying those are bad attempts to argue the title isn't confusing.

And I'll repeat myself: those weren't attempts to argue the title isnt confusing.

I'm not sure what you're rebutting. This is roughly the thread as I understand it:

1. "Extending your logic, I have a CCIE, so if I ever state I'm a CCIE, I'm an employee of Cisco? [other examples follow]"

2. "All your examples are not things that commonly are job titles, so you are not 'extending logic'."

3. "They are the same class"

4. "No they aren't, those are not job titles, thus they don't imply employment"

...

#. "those weren't attempts to argue the title isnt confusing."

I don't know what you're reading but #1 is doing just that; roughly translated: "Why would 'Microsoft Regional Director' imply he works for Microsoft? If I have a CCIE does that mean I'm an employee of Cisco?"

The thread is this.

#1 Troy works for Microsoft.

#2 No Troy doeys, as he clearly states.

#3 Being a Microsoft Regional Director makes him an employee and any claims otherwise are based on some arbitrary semantic distiction, not a real difference

#4 No, there is a real difference. That award is like these other awards and none of them take you anywhere near being an employee.

#5 the arguemnt in #3 is flawed because MRD is confusing and the example title others aren't. (Which misses the point, that using non-confusing examples is much better than using other confusing examples if you want to explain something.)

#6 that doesn't affect the argument being made in #4

#6 repeat ad nauseum

Troy is not a Microsoft employee, no ammount of semantic wiggling will make him a Microsoft employee, no matter how confused people are by the title of the MRD award. That confusion may be justifiable, but doubling down when your error has been explained is not.

None of the things mentioned are common job titles, so no, they are not the same class.

"Microsoft Regional Director" is not a job title, it is an award. You thinking it sounds like a job title doesn't make it a job title, it makes you confused. Being given an award does not make you an employee, especially when that award is only given to non-employees.

You ar correct, "Microsoft Region Director" is an award, not a certification like the others mentioned so they aren't quite the same class, but the analogy still holds. Neither being given an award nor a certification makes you an employee.

Well TBH, if you say that you are a cisco security engineer, I would assume you are from Cisco. Same for ACME whatever.

He made it clear that he is not MS but this is the only time I saw such a misleading "title"