# New Post Guidelines [Not Site Policy, But a Disagreement]



## Jammer (7 Nov 2009)

Ladies and Gents,
After a series of PMs with Petamocto, it would seem that he wishes that ALL serving members of MILNET.ca cease and desist commenting on anything that doesn't directly affect you. If it does, please put a positive spin on it. He want's the CoCs to see that you are a happy and contented camper. As for the rest of you, carry on as if you were normal.
Questions can be directed to that callsign for clarification and tips on how to do this.

Jammer Out


----------



## SeanNewman (7 Nov 2009)

This is absurd.  You tell me to take a conversation to PM discussion and then post here anyway?

All I am saying is that regardless of what the rules of this forum may be (you can post about whatever you want), this website is not our employer and does not pay us.

Since we work for the CF, we need to make our choices based on those rules, not forum rules.

I'm not trying to be almighty, I'm not trying to act like I'm anyone's boss, and I'm not acting like I know everything.  Just reminding people that they have responsibilities to stay inside their arcs as a matter of integrity and being a professional soldier.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Nov 2009)

If you guys don't stop, I'm tellin' teacher!

 :blotto:


----------



## George Wallace (7 Nov 2009)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Since we work for the CF, we need to make our choices based on those rules, not forum rules.



WRONG.


As a member of the CF, even a former member, especially when dealing with persons who may have had access to 'sensitive' material, one must abide by the rules of the CF.  This means that matters of Security, PERSEC and OPSEC must always weigh important in all of your actions inside and outside of the CF, on and off this site.  As this site is the site of a former CF member, and frequented by many Serving and former members of the CF, as well as many who are dreaming of joining the CF, or just want information on the CF, we on the site try very hard to observe Security, PERSEC and OPSEC in our posts here.  There are site rules that we expect you to follow.  Being a member of the CF does not preclude you from following the site rules, as being a member of the CF does not preclude you from the Civil Laws and Regulations of Canada, or any country you may be in at the time.  

You are expected to follow this site's (forum) rules like all others who visit this site.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2009)

I am long retired so I have no dog in this fight, but:

•	I know that _some_ senior officers (I have no idea how many – I know of a very small number), some *very* senior, check Army.ca on a periodic basis;

•	I think that most are happy that Army.ca is here, that it is very well moderated, and that it gives you a place to express *your personal* views. You remember the old adage, I hope, about the problems that exist when soldiers *stop* bitching;

•	I suspect that, most often, when they read opinions that are highly critical of what they are doing or trying to do they say, _“the rank and file doesn’t understand; we have to explain it again,”_ but, now and again, one or two *might* say, _”let’s revisit whatever, the troops are pretty unhappy; let’s make sure we really are right.”_ The latter is going to be rare because, naturally, most senior officers believe they make good, sound decisions; and

•	Most of you serving members understand and respect the rules: those of the CF regarding ‘communicating’ with the public and those of this site, found in the guidelines.

On that basis I suggest you reread, comprehend and follow the site guidelines and then stay in your lanes. If you do both you are highly unlikely to say anything that will violate the letter or spirit of the CF’s policies, or annoy very senior serving officers or embarrass yourself.


----------



## Jammer (7 Nov 2009)

Be sure to check with your CoC before the next election to verify who you have to vote for.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Nov 2009)

I refuse to comment on this thread, because it fails to affect me.

 >


----------



## SeanNewman (7 Nov 2009)

George,

I appreciate your post, but I don't think you really understand what the gist of the argument is about since you argued *for* what I was arguing for, for most of your post.

Yes, technically you have to follow the "rules" of this board if you are going to post here, but that's not the point.  

The point is that if this site says "You can do _____" but CF regulations say "You can *not *do _____", how in the heck do people think that rules of the website supersede that of our employer?


----------



## Scott (7 Nov 2009)

Petamocto,

If you don't like it here - leave. Don't risk it, just leave. You've come to the attention of many here with your indignation, I suggest you wind your neck in a bit.

Jammer,

Keep it to PM's. The membership isn't interested in your bunfight. We have a hard enough time with attention whores on this site and I thought, based on your posts, that you were above all of that.

Scott
Army.ca Staff


----------



## SeanNewman (7 Nov 2009)

Scott,

Thank you for your post.

The thing is that I really do like this site and see a lot of value in it...if everyone self-polices.

For people to stay connected and share experiences it's great.  It's also a great place for newcomers to the CF to get questions answered about what life in the CF is like.

The only reason all of this started was that I felt like some on the board were getting a little too liberal with what they "could" write about.

Just because the rules of the website allow people to post anything, it does not mean that we should be posting things like "This is what I think about why we should/should not be in Afghanistan...".

If you want to punish me for reminding soldiers of the rules that govern them then that is unfortunate.  I believe I have done it politely and responsibly, without insulting the forum that we like.

It is not at all meant to disrespect the moderators and owners of the site, and I appreciate the effort they go through to keep it up and running.  However, at the end of the day we still have to follow rules of those we work for.

To all,

I do not apologize for *what* I am saying because I strongly believe that CF rules should take precedence to soldiers over a website's rules.

However, I _do_ apologize if the manner in which I have tried to make this point came across in the wrong way.  It was not my intent to appear as the Sheriff of this board (if that's how it was taken).


----------



## Scott (7 Nov 2009)

Petamocto,

How long have you been frequenting the site now? A month? Two? In my over five years here I have seen very few instances of the wrong info being leaked out, OPSEC/PERSEC violations. For the most part the staff are more than capable to deal with it immediately and take action to make sure it does not happen again. In other cases the membership serves as our eyes and, via the report post function, alerts us to potential trouble.

So while I do appreciate your advice I can state that it's mostly moot points.

Where did anyone say anything about punishing you?


----------



## SeanNewman (7 Nov 2009)

Scott said:
			
		

> Where did anyone say anything about punishing you?



One PM from a concerned friend just advising me how things like this have gone in the past.

I'm not really talking about OpSec-types of things.  I have full confidence that those sorts of things get sorted out by the moderators and their actions save lives.

The "reminder" (for lack of a better word) of the original post that started all of this was me saying essentially "Who in the heck do we think we are as soldiers for publicly posting our opinions on strategic matters?".

Not OpSec, not duties and responsibilities as moderators, etc.  I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort.


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Nov 2009)

> I do not apologize for what I am saying because I strongly believe that CF rules should take precedence to soldiers over a website's rules



This is silly.

What forum rules contravene CF Rules? If anything, we get hammered too much here for "This isn't the Army; you're not my boss!" We enforce PERSEC, OPSEC and other matters here pretty diligently; for the ones we miss use the "Report To Moderator" button. Same goes if we are discussing vehicle capabilities, weapons systems or tactical stuff that we don't want enemies (or potential enemies) seeing. On the other hand, if you can read it on Jane's, or Newseek, or McLean's - it's probably OK to discuss here.

Now, if the Forum "allows" people to post whenever they want to login, and the boss doesn't want you to play on the computer during working hours, that's between you and them. The same goes with trashing your employer, slagging the government of the day or whatever - if it doesn't violate site guidelines, but might get you in trouble - do so at your own peril. It's not my (our) concern...


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2009)

This is sort of an annual event, isn't it?

We seem, every so often, to wrap ourselves around one of these axles: duties of moderators, OPSEC/PERSEC concerns, copyright and so on. There is, always, some 'good' in these discussions if for no other reason than to remind us that we are just people expressing ourselves in *public*.

There are rules - here and in the CF - and we all ought to obey all those that apply to us. For all of us here that means obeying Mike's site rules. Others, who serve other masters, may have other rules - do not ever dare chew gum in my presence, for example, it is an offence warranting corporal punishment, at least.

Maybe this could be moved to the Army.ca Admin section where it belongs.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (7 Nov 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Maybe this could be moved to the Army.ca Admin section where it belongs.



And perhaps have the thread title changed?
I clicked on this thread because I thought there was a change in the posting guidelines. 

Oddball


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Nov 2009)

Done, as I thought the same thing.

...and thanks, Edward. I was going to let loose with a "not this kife again" but I guess a gentle reminder every once in a while about "things" is good.


----------



## scas (8 Nov 2009)

So if I get this right.. We can't post our personal views about the military in general on this site anymore? What is the problem about asking why are we here or there? So what


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Nov 2009)

scas said:
			
		

> So if I get this right.. We can't post our personal views about the military in general on this site anymore? What is the problem about asking why are we here or there? So what



Did you actually read the thread?


----------



## SeanNewman (8 Nov 2009)

SCAS,

With brevity in mind, here is as concise as I can make the core of this discussion:

View 1: This website allows you to post opinions about anything (not OpSec), so when posting here you should go by those guidelines.

View 2: Even though this website may allow opinions on everything, people in the CF still have to follow rules of their employer because this is a public media outlet.  You can still give opinions on things in your arcs (like what you think of the new C9 if you've used it, etc), just not on things that only the CDS should be talking to the media about (or in some cases troops are even giving opinions on things he wouldn't).


----------



## Jammer (8 Nov 2009)

How in heavens name do you expect a young troop to know what is right/wrong to talk about?
Perhaps you could come up with an exhaustive list for the great unwashed to follow.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (8 Nov 2009)

Sorry to butt in here but surely I, and others on this site, DO have a right to discuss the why's and wherefore's of Afghanistan seeing as it is us who are likely to get killed over there? 

As long as it does not cross the line into mutiny or open revolt, what is the problem? We are the professional army of a democratic country. This is not the wehrmacht.


----------



## Jammer (8 Nov 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> How in heavens name do you expect a young troop to know what is right/wrong to talk about?
> Perhaps you could come up with an exhaustive list for the great unwashed to follow.



Sarcasm infused...only one pot of coffee downrange this morning.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Nov 2009)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> As long as it does not cross the line into mutiny or open revolt, what is the problem? We are the professional army of a democratic country. *This is not the wehrmacht.*


I agree.  We aren't a perfect army now, are we?


 >


----------



## SeanNewman (8 Nov 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> How in heavens name do you expect a young troop to know what is right/wrong to talk about?



What answer do you think is more right?

1 - In order to inform them, I tell them that they can't just write opinions about whatever they want; or

2 - You tell them that since they can't possibly know all the rules of the CF, they should follow the website rules instead.


----------



## Loachman (8 Nov 2009)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> View 2: Even though this website may allow opinions on everything, people in the CF still have to follow rules of their employer because this is a public media outlet.  You can still give opinions on things in your arcs (like what you think of the new C9 if you've used it, etc), just not on things that only the CDS should be talking to the media about (or in some cases troops are even giving opinions on things he wouldn't).



http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/9.html#anchorsc:7

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: 

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Rights and freedoms in Canada

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. 

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: 

(b) *freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication*;

PART VII

GENERAL

Primacy of Constitution of Canada

52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and _*any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect*_. 

And that includes the NDA, and any regulations made under it - like QR&Os.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Nov 2009)

In accordance with the CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, I _believe_ and _express my opinion_ that I will have a second cup of coffee this am.


----------



## SeanNewman (8 Nov 2009)

Well, if you want to play the "Reference Game", then let me bring to your attention the extra laws that apply to us:

CF administrative orders, particularly Volume 1, Chapter 19, Para 19.14:

No officer or non-commissioned member shall do or say anything that:
(a) if seen or heard by any member of the public, might reflect discredit on the Canadian Forces or on any of its members;

Or, DAOD 2008-2 if you prefer, that lays out that the MND is the only person who can speak for the activities of the CF as a whole.  Yes you can comment on things that you are damn sure of their factual acuracy, but you can NOT give opinions on things you don't have the facts on.

Not to the media, not on this board, not anywhere.

You are in the wrong on this one, and you are violating laws by suggesting it is okay for soldiers to give opinions on this board about whatever they want.


----------



## Jammer (8 Nov 2009)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> What answer do you think is more right?
> 
> 1 - In order to inform them, I tell them that they can't just write opinions about whatever they want; or
> 
> 2 - You tell them that since they can't possibly know all the rules of the CF, they should follow the website rules instead.


...here we go again.
Don't turn around...oh oh oh oh...D, D, D, Da Commissar is in town...oh oh oh oh...


----------



## SeanNewman (8 Nov 2009)

Jammer,

It is unfortunate that we can not discuss this more maturely.  Quite poor form to result to name calling, etc.

At the end of the day, I am honestly quite stunned that you - wearing a rank of leadership in the CF - are being so adamant about not having to follow its rules.

And what is your reasoning to not have to follow them?  Because not all soldiers can know them all?  Well that's great advice; just tell them they don't have to follow rules they don't know yet instead of leading them down the right path.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Nov 2009)

Actually Petamocto, I think you are making quite an ass of yourself.  Discussing politics is well within the realm of all Canadians.  The fact that we can speculate about what decissions the Canadian Government may make is a sign of our freedoms.  If you, for some warped reason, feel that the Code of Service Discipline, QR&Os, CFAOs, DAODs, LFCADs, or whatever other CF Policy/Regulation/Dictate should stiffle these freedoms, then feel free to do so.  We, however, have just as many rights to disagree with your opinions.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Nov 2009)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> No officer or non-commissioned member shall do or say anything that:
> (a) if seen or heard by any member of the public, might reflect discredit on the Canadian Forces or on any of its members;
> 
> Or, DAOD 2008-2 if you prefer, that lays out that the MND is the only person who can speak for the activities of the CF as a whole.  Yes you can comment on things that you are damn sure of their factual acuracy, but you can NOT give opinions on things you don't have the facts on.



WHAT?!?

This is the stupidest statement I've read this week,.....what if the "factual acuracy" brings discredit to CF?

But Petamocto said that as long as.........


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Nov 2009)

..and based on a "Report to Moderator" message I'm going to lock this until this evening so that folks can have a good think about what they wish to say without the personal attacks.

See ya around 22:30.


----------



## Loachman (8 Nov 2009)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Well, if you want to play the "Reference Game", then let me bring to your attention the extra laws that apply to us:
> 
> CF administrative orders, particularly Volume 1, Chapter 19, Para 19.14:
> 
> ...



Those are not "laws".

Those are "regulations", made pursuant to the NDA, which is the "law".

There are good laws, and there are bad laws.

That is why we have courts and a Constitution.

Now, what part of "_*any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect*_" do you not understand?

The Constitution and Charter trump the NDA.

This is why sections of the NDA and regulations pertaining to "sexual deviancy" (as it was worded in the seventies) no longer exist.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Nov 2009)

You do know that most of us do have our bosses read this site. Some of our bosses even know who we are. Believe I am sure if there was an issue _something_ would have been said before now.

EDIT: Sorry Bruce did not see your lock.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Nov 2009)

This topic is now unlocked. I did not 'clean' up any of the posts but I would hope those involved have now had time to think about the way they wish to present their arguements.

Best behaviour folks.


----------



## SeanNewman (10 Nov 2009)

Bruce,

I understand your intent, but Jammer and I aren't teenagers who post out of rage and I am sure that just as I thought carefully about what I was writing that he did, too.

As for you stating "that's the stupidest statement I've read all week" about a CFAO, then I'm not really sure where else I can go with this argument.

Someone says something is okay, I present the rule from the CF that it is not, and then get told it's stupid.  Who was it that needed the break, here?


----------



## Jammer (10 Nov 2009)

I have to agree with Petamocto.
To label a statement as stupid is perhaps a tad bit harsh. We disagree on one level, but fundamentally we know where each other is coming from.


----------



## gcclarke (10 Nov 2009)

It comes down to how to interpret the regulations in question. Quite frankly, this particular website does a rather good job of enforcing reasonable discussion. And I rather doubt that anyone would interpret any reasonable discussion on any issue as reflecting discredit upon the CF or its members. Even if, during the course of said discussion, a member expresses an opinion that is not fully in line with current government priorities. Nor do I believe that any reasonable person would confuse someone posting upon here as "speaking for the Canadian Forces as a whole". Unless of course said poster had been confirmed to be the Minister of National Defence, but that's another issue.

Even if I state that I think that we should have gone ahead and pushed through with the JSS procurement process, rather than rejecting the bids that were provided, everyone is probably smart enough to figure out that I'm speaking as Mr. Clarke, a concerned citizen utilizing his freedom of speech, rather than Lt(N) Clarke speaking on behalf of the Canadian Armed Forces. 

Now, if I were instead to state that everyone in cabinet are fools for getting us our new ships, and I should know because I'm a Naval Officer, well, that likely would be reflecting discredit upon the Canadian Forces. But I'm not saying that. And, for the most part, neither are others posting upon this board. 

It is perfectly reasonable to discuss issues, even those relating to the CF and governmental policy that affects the CF.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Nov 2009)

I said the statement was stupid, and I still say it.

There is nothing personal there, as I'm probably good for about 3 stupid statements per day,........and I like me.


----------



## SeanNewman (10 Nov 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> I have to agree with Petamocto.



Damn you and your courteous chivalry!  After such a respectful and dignified truce, I must respectfully bow to your character.


----------



## Jammer (10 Nov 2009)

...and to you my good sir...harumph, harumph...well played indeed.


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Nov 2009)

Awwww.... kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya... I feel all warm and squishy now.


----------



## the 48th regulator (10 Nov 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Awwww.... kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya... I feel all warm and squishy now.



Way to go Jams, Peto, and Bruce, you all made Kat make full use of his VAC issued Depends..

dileas

tess


----------



## George Wallace (10 Nov 2009)

Well Tess.  Shyte does happen.    :nod:


----------



## helpup (10 Nov 2009)

Warm and Squishy,,,,,, thanks here I sit when I should be home with my wife......... Thanks for the interesting read to all involved.  Points were made on all sides, and another successfull dis-cussin ( not a typo) is done


----------



## Jammer (10 Nov 2009)

I'm sure we can put this to rest for the time being.
There is duty tommorrow that will require our undivided attention.


----------

