# Debating: Tone and Content on Army.ca



## MattyH (14 Jul 2007)

I find the tone here to be pretty combative at times, especially as I have moved through the recruiting parts of the site on my way to signing up. I get the impression that there is this attitude that one needs to put the new guy "in his place" which should be looked at as problematic, at least in this setting where this forum is a resource for non-members or potential members as well. I would just say that if someone new... like me... comes out with something that is factually wrong or off the mark, then explain why and do it with grace, as this shows leadership and sets the example going forward. As a new guy, I can guarantee you that I will screw up about ten million times over the next 20 or 30 years and that should be taken into consideration on this forum by members and it should be encouraged by the administration as well.


----------



## the 48th regulator (14 Jul 2007)

MatthewHopkins said:
			
		

> OK I am going to take a break from the site. I realize I am coming off as an *** but that is not my intention. I was trying to get information and got pissy and for that I apologize.
> 
> I have been given some misguided information from people who probably meant well but didn't know what was going on and it has been rather frustrating, to say the least. I find it difficult to find solid advice on the net from those who have gone the officer route and that is probably because they are making changes all the time. So for those who are/were offended, I apologize as it wasn't my intention to put anyone down.
> 
> So I will take a break, read along and keep my mouth shut for a while and once again, if anyone is offended by me, I apologize because that really was not my intention.



Guess your break was not intended to be a long one eh?  I have taken Pee breaks that took longer....

dileas

tess


----------



## MattyH (14 Jul 2007)

I took a break from the computer and I came back to keep reading. I don't see the need to carry a grudge or make matters personal. I got pissy, took responsibility for my actions, and am suggesting a way to make things better going forward.


----------



## the 48th regulator (14 Jul 2007)

Right,

So your post here has nothing to do with todays actions.

Why did you not post this earlier?

Trying to fix nothing, you are trying to bait.

Please Mathew, take your previous advice



> So I will take a break, read along and keep my mouth shut for a while and once again



I may be a jolly Mod, but I do not feel like dancing this evening.

dileas

tess


----------



## MattyH (14 Jul 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Right,
> 
> So your post here has nothing to do with todays actions.



My post has to do with the tone of the forum in general, but today was an example of where I let it get me angry. I'm not going to argue with you. I simply stated my point of view on the matter after taking a breather. I see no reason to have various exchanges that get heated and nasty, including this one, when matters can be discussed with respect.


----------



## SupersonicMax (14 Jul 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Guess your break was not intended to be a long one eh?  I have taken Pee breaks that took longer....
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



I find this post rude and provocative towards MH...  I feel that sometimes, the rules don't apply to mods...

Max


----------



## muskrat89 (14 Jul 2007)

> I feel that sometimes, the rules don't apply to mods...



There is a "report" button for posts that may contravene the guidelines. Complaints about Moderators, general or specific, can be directed to Mike Bobbitt.

Other than that, methinks everyone needs to chill out - have a mojito  8)


----------



## the 48th regulator (14 Jul 2007)

MatthewHopkins said:
			
		

> I find the tone here to be pretty combative at times, especially as I have moved through the recruiting parts of the site on my way to signing up.





			
				MatthewHopkins said:
			
		

> Airmich has not been through IAP/BOTC, is not in the Army, is not on the wrestling team, and chose to weigh in on a few different threads where I have posted despite the fact that she has no experience whatsoever. Just because you can weigh in on a thread doesn't mean you should. A simple rule in life... if you don't know what you're talking about... don't. Watch and learn from people who do, which is why I'm here trying to get some more answers.
> 
> How about hearing from someone who has actually gone through the training I am about to go through?





			
				MatthewHopkins said:
			
		

> I get the impression that there is this attitude that one needs to put the new guy "in his place" which should be looked at as problematic, at least in this setting where this forum is a resource for non-members or potential members as well.
> I would just say that if someone new... like me... comes out with something that is factually wrong or off the mark, then explain why and do it with grace, as this shows leadership and sets the example going forward.





			
				MatthewHopkins said:
			
		

> Airmich has not been through IAP/BOTC, is not in the Army, is not on the wrestling team, and chose to weigh in on a few different threads where I have posted despite the fact that she has no experience whatsoever. Just because you can weigh in on a thread doesn't mean you should. A simple rule in life... if you don't know what you're talking about... don't. Watch and learn from people who do, which is why I'm here trying to get some more answers.
> 
> How about hearing from someone who has actually gone through the training I am about to go through?






			
				MatthewHopkins said:
			
		

> As a new guy, I can guarantee you that I will screw up about ten million times over the next 20 or 30 years and that should be taken into consideration on this forum by members and it should be encouraged by the administration as well.



Well, here is a bit of leadership advice, you are what we call "All over the map" with your advice and opinions.

You say one thing and do something the next.  You act one way, and change your guise but are still the same.

I see you trying to push buttons, then stepping back with the "hey show respect I was offering opinions, I already admited I was wrong before" thinking that it cleans the slate.

I will give you one more post.

Oh, sorry Max the word pee offended you?  Okay I have taken urine breaks that were longer.  All better now?

dileas

tess


----------



## SupersonicMax (14 Jul 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Oh, sorry Max the word pee offended you?  Okay I have taken urine breaks that were longer.  All better now?



I said your post was provocative and hence, could be considered as trolling.  Just an example out of dozens I could find on this forum (not necessarily all from you).  I'm just picking this one because of the nature of the topic.

Max


----------



## xena (14 Jul 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Oh, sorry Max the word pee offended you?  Okay I have taken urine breaks that were longer.  All better now?



Actually, 48th, with all due respect that IS a little unnecessary.  It is a comment that I as a guest, would expect to get chastised for.


----------



## the 48th regulator (14 Jul 2007)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I said your post was provocative and hence, could be considered as trolling.  Just an example out of dozens I could find on this forum (not necessarily all from you).  I'm just picking this one because of the nature of the topic.
> 
> Max



As opposed to pointing out that 3 hours earlier his tone and content was out of line.  Then after having an epiphany, he comes back to offer ways of improving the site for administrators to be attentive to the aggressive nature some people?

Excuse me if I sounded toocoarse for your liking, it was my shock that clouded my thoughts, next time I will post with my pinkie finger up.

Xena,

Show me an example, please.

dileas

tess


----------



## SupersonicMax (14 Jul 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> As opposed to pointing out that 3 hours earlier his tone and content was out of line.  Then after having an epiphany, he comes back to offer ways of improving the site for administrators to be attentive to the aggressive nature some people?



I believe (personal opinion, tell me if you agree or not) that as part of the Directing Staff, you should be the first one to adhere to the Conduct Guidelines of the forum.  I never said I agreed with what he said.  All I expressed was my disagreement in the way you handled the situation as DS.  

Lead by example 

Max


----------



## the 48th regulator (14 Jul 2007)

So I comented that his time away was short, compared it to a pee break, and that is offensive.

Here Max, I will lead by example.  Maybe young Mathews and yourself will take on this little project.

Look up the word Integrity.  In fact look it up first in our search function, and you will see I like to use it.

When you find out what the definition means, begin to make it your mantra that you will always act with it.

What I saw from him, was a post that lacked any iota of it.  Trolling you say, as opposed to his post?  My post was looked upon as a trolling post, becasue I used the analogy of the time taken for a pee break was longer than his cool down.  

This was wrong and offensive??  Would you not agree that you are the one, making my post much worse than his?

dileas

tess


----------



## kratz (14 Jul 2007)

Please note. Most members are either not posting a comment, thus tactfully agreeing with the DS. 

Those members that are posting are presenting points that others may not be willing to mention to the DS.

As long as it is not personal, this is a thread worth discussing.


----------



## SupersonicMax (14 Jul 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> What I saw from him, was a post that lacked any iota of it.  Trolling you say, as opposed to his post?  My post was looked upon as a trolling post, becasue I used the analogy of the time taken for a pee break was longer than his cool down.



I could not care less of the words you used to express your, or any idea.  I find the problem is the provocative tone of your post.  In fact, I find your post projects an image of "Do as I say, not as I do".  Again, I'm talking about your posts here, not MH's.  All I'm saying is that the DS/Mods _should_, just as the regular members are requested to do, respect the Conduct Guidelines.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Look up the word Integrity.  In fact look it up first in our search function, and you will see I like to use it.



What does it have to do with the conversation?

Max

Edit:  Semantic


----------



## peaches (14 Jul 2007)

As I just stated in another thread, I do not come on here too much anymore.  

This site, I thought, was to discuss issues and capabilities with other military folks, yet if you say anything out of the ordinary, or you ask a question about something it is not too long before George Wallice comes along to tell you your an idiot, or that your should "look things up and not ask stupid questions", like it's costing him money, or somehow affects him personally....

I have seen countless times new people posting something and getting pounced for nothing.  As military folks we are supposed to be on the same team.....  sometimes I wonder....


----------



## Franko (14 Jul 2007)

Everyone that is involved in this thread take a cooler for a bit and relax.

People are taking things a bit too personally and getting a bit heated.

If this continues the members will be placed on an enforced 24 hr cooling off in read only mode. 

This will not be allowed to dive into a flame war.

*The Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Mike Baker (14 Jul 2007)

peaches said:
			
		

> This site, I thought, was to discuss issues and capabilities with other military folks, yet if you say anything out of the ordinary, or you ask a question about something it is not too long before George Wallice comes along to tell you your an idiot, or that your should "look things up and not ask stupid questions", like it's costing him money, or somehow affects him personally....


And you want to know why? It is because it has been asked before, that is why. The Mod's on here are great, they point you in the right direction to what you are asking. They don't want 10-15 posts on one subject. They keep the site the way it is suppose to be, the best of it's type. If you don't like it, just don't come here, that is how easy it is...


Rant off......


----------



## SupersonicMax (14 Jul 2007)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Everyone that is involved in this thread take a cooler for a bit and relax.
> 
> People are taking things a bit too personally and getting a bit heated.
> 
> ...



I'm not taking anything personal here, and I'm far from being raged!  I'm just bringing a point that was tickling my thoughts for a while.

I hope that if the enforced cooling off occurs, everyone involved (including DS/mods) will suffer the same consequences!

Max


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Jul 2007)

Mike Baker, Recce by Death already asked for people to back off, you ranting is not helping matters.

Thread locked until tomorrow

Army.Ca Staff


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Jul 2007)

I have not been involved in, nor am I current on, any of todays shenanigans but, "holybat man #&%# ".....everyone in it is looking pretty silly chasing each others tails.

Its locked for now.


EDIT:
Sorry EX, same time I guess.


----------



## muskrat89 (14 Jul 2007)

One point, while trying to remain neutral (sort of)... here's what riles the Mods..  Every time a thread like this gets started, or responded to, it seems like people climb out of the woodwork to say "yeah, the DS are mean" or something to that effect. 

In the old days, once in awhile - I thought the BSM was being mean to someone. I never would have piped up, in front of the Battery, and said "Hey BSM - the rules don't apply to you??"  The proper way to approach this is to talk to another Snr NCO, or begin with your immediate CofC. Can you imagine someone "calling out" the CSM, OC, or even the Sect Comd - in front of everyone else?? C'mon.

The Moderators are human. I will say it one last time - let them do their jobs. If you don't like how the site is moderated, if you feel you have been treated unfairly, if you have witnessed someone else being treated unfairly, if you have seen any possible violation of  the guidelines..... PM a Moderator, use the "Report" button, or PM Mike Bobbitt. It is that easy, and that is the appropriate way to handle your angst with "the man".. or the "woman" (Vern)  

Eventually, I got to stand in the BSM's shoes. Things look different from there. Was he ever wrong? Probably. Wrong as much as I thought (which wasn't that often)? Not even close. All that being said, anyone that chose to tangle with him "in front of everyone" got what they got.

By bickering with Mods or other posters, you are NOT helping the problem.


----------



## muskrat89 (14 Jul 2007)

ooops.. sorry Ex and Bruce   :-[


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Jul 2007)

Ok reopening this thread...now you kids play nice or it will be locked again.

Army.Ca Staff


----------



## peaches (15 Jul 2007)

Mike Baker said:
			
		

> And you want to know why? It is because it has been asked before, that is why. The Mod's on here are great, they point you in the right direction to what you are asking. They don't want 10-15 posts on one subject. They keep the site the way it is suppose to be, the best of it's type. If you don't like it, just don't come here, that is how easy it is...
> 
> 
> Rant off......




This is the exact type of posting I am talking about.  When someonwe new on here asks a question, or makes a post about something that has already been discussed, they should be gracefully pointed in the right direction.  Instead they are sometimes barraged with nasty comments, there's no need for it.

We are in the military, we are supposed to be on the same team.....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Jul 2007)

Unfortunately peaches not everyone responds to direction well at all. Can you imagine how much more smoothly this site would run if new and old users used Search more often or actually read the Guidelines? I guarantee there would be less people on Warnings, less people Banned.


----------



## armyvern (15 Jul 2007)

peaches said:
			
		

> This is the exact type of posting I am talking about.  When someone new on here asks a question, or makes a post about something that has already been discussed, they should be gracefully pointed in the right direction.  Instead they are sometimes barraged with nasty comments, there's no need for it.
> 
> We are in the military, we are supposed to be on the same team.....



And as a volunteer mod, it does get a bit tiresome to have to "point people in the right direction" constantly, vice actually participating in discussions, because those new users fail to use the "search" function that they are informed about upon joining.

Besides being a volunteer mod, I am also a paying subscriber. So, being a mod, I* PAY * to have the privilege of redirecting new users who choose to ignore their membership notifications, and fail to search etc.

Am I the only one who sees the irony in that?


----------



## Yrys (15 Jul 2007)

Depends.

If you're masochist, there nothing ironic in that, you're just paying for your vice  ...

(but I doubt that you are, except for your spouse that forgot your anniversary )


----------



## Franko (15 Jul 2007)

Yrys......Here are some stats for you to look at, perhaps it may open a few eyes here.




> *General Statistics*
> 
> Total Members:  	14898
> Total Posts: 	            562865
> ...



All the DS are volenteers. We do our job because we enjoy the site and want to help out members and guests here.

There is alot of work behind the scenes here, as I just put up here.

Now you know why not only members but the DS at times get a bit pissed when the same bloody question has been asked literally over 100 times and the member didn't take 10 minutes out of their life to find their answer through the search function.

Regards


----------



## punisher_6d (15 Jul 2007)

Most other forums I frequent the mods don't comment at all.  Here, they are usually part of most threads.  My 2 cents.


----------



## navymich (15 Jul 2007)

Punisher_6D said:
			
		

> Most other forums I frequent the mods don't comment at all.  Here, they are usually part of most threads.  My 2 cents.



You will find here though, that if a mod is being a commenter and taking part in the thread, he/she typically takes off their mod hat.  If something happens in the thread requiring a mod, another one will step in.  Takes out some of the conflict of interest.


----------



## Yrys (15 Jul 2007)

What fun whould it be for them, if they couln'd interect ? It's like catholic priests that can't get married,
but have to offer counsel to married people. Interactions is better for everyone. Mods have more feeling
for the mood af the site , then, it's seem to me!

And Armyvern has something around 20% of her online time in warning board... Don't you think that show
enough dedication that she can move around and put grins in a lots of face by her interactions ?

Cheez, do you want to be a mod, THE only mod left ? I'm sure some mods would quit rather then not be able to be
a active part of Army.ca.

/shaking my head at your comment, Punisher_6D !


----------



## armyvern (15 Jul 2007)

Punisher_6D said:
			
		

> Most other forums I frequent the mods don't comment at all.  Here, they are usually part of most threads.  My 2 cents.



Well, seeing as how I am a paid subscriber to this site, and a VOLUNTEER mod, you're quite right I'm going to particpate in threads. That only seems fair now doesn't it??

But, as was already pointed out ... if I happen to be engaged as a member in a thread ... I'll not be the one who's also moderating that thread. That's fair isn't it? 

In short, yes the mods participate in threads here, but they don't moderate in those threads they post in. Their mod hats are off.


----------



## punisher_6d (15 Jul 2007)

I'm not quite sure why you are shaking your head?  My point is that most web boards do not allow their mods to interact and state opinion in any conversations.  This can create serious bias in threads and confusion for regular members.  If you can't read between the lines, I'm truly sorry and I will leave it at that despite your cynicism.


----------



## Yrys (15 Jul 2007)

If you don't like the rules,  either talk to Mike Bobbit or go to "most web boards".


----------



## navymich (15 Jul 2007)

Punisher_6D said:
			
		

> My point is that most web boards do not allow their mods to interact and state opinion in any conversations.



The mods on this board have so much experience, military and/or life, that it would be a shame not to be able to share it with the members of the boards.


----------



## Roy Harding (15 Jul 2007)

Punisher_6D said:
			
		

> Most other forums I frequent the mods don't comment at all.  Here, they are usually part of most threads.  My 2 cents.



I am an online participant in two military forums (Army.ca and SOCNET) - both are very well run (the professionalism shown on SOCNET is on a par with army.ca, the mods are, perhaps more impatient and severe with "newbies" there than here).  On both of these, the mods participate in the discussions.

I am also a participant on three woodworking forums (Sawmill Creek, Woodnet, and Fine Woodworking).  The first two are volunteer type boards, much like army.ca, and the level of discourse is professional, polite, and intelligent, if at times heated - the mods there ALSO participate.  Fine Woodworking is a COMMERCIAL site, designed to push people to Taunton Press publications, it is a fine forum, but it doesn't hide its' commercial nature - the mods there do NOT participate (I assume they are employed as moderators/website managers by the website owner).

I have only briefly perused other forums (including Globe and Mail "comments" sections) - I find them cluttered by ignorant, disrespectful, obnoxious, and generally ill-informed idiots.  

My experience (as limited as it may be) indicates that most *non-commercial* boards worth participating in include the mods in the discussions.  This is, in my opinion, a worthwhile endeavour as usually those who are interested enough to volunteer to moderate, are _also knowledgeable enough_ to offer insightful and valid discussion (whether that discussion is woodworking or military in nature).

I'd be interested to know which non-commercial forums you participate in that show such a level of professional conduct as those five I've mentioned above, and DO NOT allow their moderators to participate.


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Jul 2007)

Yrys said:
			
		

> If you don't like the rules,  either talk to Mike Bobbit or go to "most web boards".



Yrys, answers like that won't make anything go forward.  People bring up points and immediately get hammered because they try to bring up issues on the forum (which are, in my opinion, often tabou here).  

Max


----------



## Yrys (15 Jul 2007)

I'm sorry for the abruptness of my answer. But if a debate was to be open about changing rules here,
EVEN if everyody including mods agree about something, nothing would change if Mike B. didn't agree to it.

So why not cut the process short and talk to the supreme rule maker here?


----------



## MattyH (15 Jul 2007)

The answer isn't to have the mods stop posting. If they are here, they should be participants. I moderate a forum on Facebook about politics and that argument was made against me as well but the reality is that the moderator is able to facilitate discussions and move things along IF they are coming in with the mindset that they are there to facilitate and help the forum along. The moderator can encourage a positive environment or a negative environment and this thread is a good example of how negative and nasty a discussion can get on the internet. Does anyone think that any good can come from this thread now? If so, I'd like to see people bring that forwad.

ArmyVern, I understand that it is frustrating to have to rehash stuff but the way I handle it on my forum is that I just let it go. If someone wants to talk about why Bob Rae shouldn't be allowed in Politics... and the discussion was already brought up... I don't let it bother me. It doesn't change my day at all. At the end of the day... it's just the internet. One suggestion I have... and I found this worked well... to keep the forums fresh, I delete those that are 3 months old. It allows new people to ask their questions and state their opinions, and keeps discussion fresh and keeps the trolling down. In other words, people don't go back in time to crack on people because they said XYZ six months ago and have learned new information that changes their original point of view. If someone isn't allowed to grow, learn and change... then there is no sense having Army.ca where people are, I think, looking to learn.

It happens on every online forum that people take things too far. Most people will interact with a different attitude when they are looking in the eyes of another human being. If I remember correctly... only 15% of communication is words. The rest is body language and the tone of voice. That needs to be taken into consideration too. You won't REALLY know the people you interact with online in the same way as you know someone you meet in real life. That's just the way it is. If you want to be online and discuss, be aware that your understanding of other people is extremely limited by a variety of factors.

Example: On one thread here I got crapped on for asking what housing for officers was like and was crapped on for an elitist attitude. Did those people realize that when I was a kid, Officers and NCMs were given separate housing arrangements on base? They might not have or they might not have cared. The point is... my question had nothing to do with bashing someone else but took on a life of its own when someone got their back up over a misunderstanding. Rule of thumb... and keep in mind I'm not perfect for this... if someone says something that you find completely stupid, ask a clarifying question or two. You will either find that (a) they are completely stupid or (b) you are having a misunderstanding. In that case, it was a misunderstanding. I imagine that if people would calm down, there would be a lot less of them.


----------



## muskrat89 (15 Jul 2007)

> which are, in my opinion, often tabou here



Maybe it IS taboo. Because it is a PRIVATE site! NONE of us have ANY rights here. I don't know why that is so hard to swallow for some people. I would not go to your house and tell you that you are folding your towels wrong. Or disciplining your children excessively. Or grooming your dog improperly. I would not go to your office and question every policy that I disagreed with or that didn't make any sense to me.

My God this gets exasperating


----------



## MattyH (15 Jul 2007)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Maybe it IS taboo. Because it is a PRIVATE site! NONE of us have ANY rights here. I don't know why that is so hard to swallow for some people. I would not go to your house and tell you that you are folding your towels wrong. Or disciplining your children excessively. Or grooming your dog improperly. I would not go to your office and question every policy that I disagreed with or that didn't make any sense to me.
> 
> My God this gets exasperating



Maybe we need to clarify, then, what the mission of this site is because my understanding was that it was meant to be a resource for potential recruits, soldiers, and veterans to learn from co-workers from past and present. Is this site meant for ALL soldiers? I hope it is but there's nothing that says it has to be. It would be good to know, all the same.


----------



## muskrat89 (15 Jul 2007)

> Maybe we need to clarify, then, what the mission of this site is because my understanding was that it was meant to be a resource for potential recruits, soldiers, and veterans to learn from co-workers from past and present. Is this site meant for ALL soldiers?



1) Where did you read that?

2) It is not limited to soldiers

From the Conduct Guidelines (that everyone si supposed to be familiar with)


> Army.ca is an Unofficial Site
> 
> Army.ca is in no way connected to DND or the CF. *Army.ca does not represent policy of the Canadian Forces in any way, and does not claim to do so.* Opinions expressed on these pages are the sole responsibility of the individual posters, who may or may not be members of the Canadian Forces or other military or civilian organizations.



Also from the Conduct Guidelines:


> If you feel you have been treated inappropriately, please send me (Mike Bobbitt)  a Private Message (PM) including details on the incident.


 There is only one method listed, to lodge a complaint. I don't see anywhere where Mike listed "Complain, whine, wail and gnash your teeth in the open forum"


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Jul 2007)

Just reinforces my point that people _ do not read_ the Conduct Guidelines


----------



## Yrys (15 Jul 2007)

MatthewHopkins said:
			
		

> If someone isn't allowed to grow, learn and change... then there is no sense having Army.ca where people are, I think, looking to learn.



Huh ? If people weren't allowed to grow and change here, they would be banned upon their first mistake.
As you aren't banned, you're a living proof that is not the case here...


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Jul 2007)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Maybe it IS taboo. Because it is a PRIVATE site! NONE of us have ANY rights here. I don't know why that is so hard to swallow for some people. I would not go to your house and tell you that you are folding your towels wrong. Or disciplining your children excessively. Or grooming your dog improperly. I would not go to your office and question every policy that I disagreed with or that didn't make any sense to me.
> 
> My God this gets exasperating



It might be private but it's frequented by people.  Just like a restaurant.  If I'm not satisfied with what is offered, I'll give suggestions (most restaurants have comments cards).  I'm sure if Mike wanted a forum on which only his friends are invited, he wouldn't let anybody who feel like it register.



			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Also from the Conduct Guidelines: There is only one method listed, to lodge a complaint. I don't see anywhere where Mike listed "Complain, whine, wail and gnash your teeth in the open forum"



I expressed my opinion because a public comment was made towards a member by a DS that, in my opinion, was against the Conduct Guidelines.  DS doesn't miss opportunities to let us know publicly that we have done something wrong.  (And I have nothing against that.  I should just work both ways)

Max


----------



## MattyH (15 Jul 2007)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> The Staff of Army.ca request your help in reversing some recent trends.  The purpose of this thread is not to be a one way direction.  It is a chance to hit the reset button on the tone of our forum.  It is also an opportunity to collectively define the ethos we want to project to new members, visitors and the leadership of the Canadian Forces (after all, good ideas posted here will only be taken as seriously as the collective board).
> 
> ...
> 
> ...





			
				Yrys said:
			
		

> If you don't like the rules,  either talk to Mike Bobbit or go to "most web boards".



This thread was started by Mike, who owns this site. He started this thread looking for high quality debate and openly addressed concerns about the tone of Army.ca. In that way, this thread was created for the purpose of rooting out the problems and then discussing them in an open forum. Ridiculing someone for taking him up on his offer to discuss this, calling it "whining" is hardly keeping with what Mike actually stated. This thread is, once again, becoming an example of the problematic tone.


----------



## Scott (15 Jul 2007)

We try very hard not to moderate threads we are involved in and also try to always sign moderation posts with "Army.ca Staff" in bold. It doesn't always happen that way but we ain't perfect either.

Private site, Mike's rules, we help enforce them and if we were bringing the site down we'd be turfed, simple. As far as the membership goes, we have some that get off on the wrong foot here and step into it on the first day, some continue on that path and are banned, some turn around into great posters and some are still a pain in the arse. It takes all kinds...

There are two members raising issues right now with how the DS is dealing with things. Two out of 15, 000 members, what is the percentage on that? Not that I am trying to trivialize your complaints, you obviously feel just in making them and we always try to deal with the issues. But, if I may be so bold, I would suggest that you go on listening silence for a while and just let this deceased equine go on its merry way to heaven. As well, while I am sure your advice on running forums is appreciated, we do have ample experience in doing so. Not that we don't listen to suggestions, just that we have been running this site a certain way for as long as I have been here and it seems to work pretty well. On that note, when we do encounter major problems we are pretty good as DS collectively at sitting down and sorting things out.

Matthew, you made your point, I am listening, are you?

Scott
*Army.ca Staff*


----------



## muskrat89 (15 Jul 2007)

> If I'm not satisfied with what is offered, I'll give suggestions



Right - and if they don't change the menu or their level of service to match your requirements suggestion - then you are free to go to another restaurant, or keep visiting that one. Sending the same comment card in over and over again won't have much effect.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jul 2007)

I must agree with Ex-Dragoon and muskrat89.  This is getting rather exasperating.  Whining is only making some members here look like immature fools and Trolls.  The last couple of pages, especially the last page, have proven to the readers here and Mods that many who are doing the complaining haven't read the required reading, nor acknowledged the information as to what this site is all about, who owns and runs it, etc.  All they are succeeding in doing is encouraging others to complain about the Mods.  We just had a Report to Mod today about something posted a year ago.  Not very timely intelligence, nor informative. 

What have you succeeded in doing?  You have succeeded in becoming Trolls and disrupting the site.  You have become part of the problem and not the solution.  

I recommend that the last three pages of this Topic be deleted, so as not to inflame anymore borderline trolling from others, (which has already started to happen).


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Jul 2007)

Scott said:
			
		

> There are two members raising issues right now with how the DS is dealing with things. Two out of 15, 000 members, what is the percentage on that?



Scott, I'm sure many other people agree with the issues that are brought.  Just at work, mostly all of my co-workers that visit this site would agree.  People just let it go.  



			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Right - and if they don't change the menu or their level of service to match your requirements suggestion - then you are free to go to another restaurant, or keep visiting that one. Sending the same comment card in over and over again won't have much effect.



Usually restaurants try to listen to their custumers.  When a suggestion makes sense, why not???  All I'm trying to bring up here is that *sometimes*, DS permit themselve to go against the Conduct Guidelines.  Yes, we are all humans, however, if we take the military analogy, DS are the "Officers" of this forum.  What would the "NCMs" say about an officer that do not follow the regulations?  What would you say if I walked outside without my wedge or looking like a bag of ****?

Members also listen to DS, I do anyways!

Max


----------



## Scott (15 Jul 2007)

Max,

We do listen, it doesn't always appear that way but every suggestion and complaint is taken seriously...to a point...I don't know anyone that listens when it is the same thing over and over again...much like it is getting to be here.

I am also sure that many other people would agree with you, but they aren't posting that here, you are. Maybe some people do let it go, there is plenty that Il et go as well.


----------



## MattyH (15 Jul 2007)

Scott said:
			
		

> Max,
> 
> We do listen, it doesn't always appear that way but every suggestion and complaint is taken seriously...to a point...I don't know anyone that listens when it is the same thing over and over again...much like it is getting to be here.
> 
> I am also sure that many other people would agree with you, but they aren't posting that here, you are. Maybe some people do let it go, there is plenty that Il et go as well.



With due respect Scott, the tone of your posts and the tone of the posts of some of the other DS' are miles apart. Look through this thread alone to see. I'm not trying to say that all DS' are "bad" because, in fact, I have messaged Mike and he is a very respectful and nice person and thus far, you have been the same. If this site is geared to a certain group of soldiers and not others or a certain groups of civilians and not others, that is fine, but when the owner of the site creates a discussion thread asking for suggestions and then the majority of those doing DS duties come to chalk up every post as "whining", then something is not adding up. If Mike did not want this discussion to occur, I'm sure he would not have posted it. Is that not a fair assessment?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Jul 2007)

The mission of the site IS clear, at least to the majority, and the owner is not required to clarify anything on his private site, unless he wants to. There's over 10,000 members here. Many of us are paying subscribers. They can be, and are, from all walks of life. Both civilian and martial. Every once in a while someone doesn't follow the rules and gets their toes stepped on. Then they decide to air their grievances and take the Mods and site to task about how unfair, uncouth, untouchable, undereducated, infallible, etc, the staff is. They are normally joined by one or two other malcontents who rise up on their white chargers to defend the downtrodden member, before climbing upon their sanctimonious ivory perch. They post condescending, over the top, not to subtle sideways swipes at the staff and get all bent when their little ploy is called and beg forgiveness for being 'misunderstood'. Over 10,000 other members don't agree because, if they did, they would join in, but they don't.

Bottom line is this is a private site, owned by Mike Bobbitt. He sets the rules, he employs volunteer staff to enforce those rules. One option is for members to follow those rules and be valued members, or another option is not following the rules and leaving the site altogether, either voluntary or via the Warning System. The choice is the members decision.

The site has been running smoothly for a number of years. We still experience some growing pains. The staff is constantly reevaluating rules, guidelines and operations behind the scenes. We do consider every logical and presented suggestion. We don't spend time on self serving whines disguised as said suggestions. Rest assured, every person put on every level of the Warning System, is normally also discussed, and a concensus reached before action is taken. 

So as per normal, we have discussed this problem again (no it's far from the first time. A simple search would have revealed that). It's quite often though that the same people that complain about having to search are the same ones that start these threads. Vicious circle of coincidence, n'est-ce pas? 

The idea that Mods can't participate is a non starter. Don't waste bandwidth discussing it. Feeling hard done by here? Go over to SOCNET and try your shit. You'll soon find out what  Roy was talking about. The Mods there make us look like pussycats.

If something is satisfying to over 10,000 members and not to a few, well,  we have to go with the majority. If your not in that majority, I suggest you reevaluate what you're doing here.

That's my $00.02, I should be up to about $1.50 on this subject by now. It's also my personal opinion as a member here, and being such, I don't care one iota whether you like it or not.


----------



## Scott (15 Jul 2007)

Matthew,

Polite advice: You are not going to get very far posting the same thing over and over, I understood your meaning the first time.

Read what recceguy said very carefully, it's the best reply I've read in this thread and the content is golden.


----------



## MattyH (15 Jul 2007)

Scott said:
			
		

> Matthew,
> 
> Polite advice: You are not going to get very far posting the same thing over and over, I understood your meaning the first time.
> 
> Read what recceguy said very carefully, it's the best reply I've read in this thread and the content is golden.



Fair enough. It's a private site and if the answer is "love it or leave it", then that is well within your collective rights. I would advise deleting this thread, though, as it asks for opinions that are unwanted and opens the door to more flame-wars.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jul 2007)

MatthewHopkins said:
			
		

> ....... If this site is geared to a certain group of soldiers and not others or a certain groups of civilians and not others, that is fine, but when the owner of the site creates a discussion thread asking for suggestions and then the majority of those doing DS duties come to chalk up every post as "whining", then something is not adding up.




You have made more than enough posts in this topic for the readers to come to some sort of conclusion.  I am sure that you would not be pleased to find out what their reactions and feelings really are.  The more you post, the more of an impression you will make in their eyes.  Remember that old saying about "being a fool and keeping your mouth shut, rather than opening it and removing all doubt".   That works just as much on the internet as it does live, and in person. 

I am still of the opinion, that your conduct in this post is inflammatory and inciteful and will cause more problems for this site.  The Mods have discussed this Topic and have decided to leave it up in its' entirety for all to judge.  I would suggest you stop now, as you have made a point, and now you are painting yourself into a rather tight spot in the eyes of the membership of this site.  Please stop while you are still a contributing member and a member of good(?) standing on this site.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Jul 2007)

MatthewHopkins said:
			
		

> Fair enough. It's a private site and if the answer is "love it or leave it", then that is well within your collective rights. I would advise deleting this thread, though, as it asks for opinions that are unwanted and opens the door to more flame-wars.



It'll stay right here, forever. That way anyone that wants can come and reference it anytime to see what kind of people are here and what they've written. For example, I know instructors that have used it just to see what they're students are really like.


----------



## the 48th regulator (15 Jul 2007)

*Integrity*_

in•teg•ri•ty      /ɪnˈtɛgrɪti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-teg-ri-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation 
–noun 1. adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.  
2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.  
3. a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition: the integrity of a ship's hull.  



[Origin: 1400–50; late ME integrite < L integritās. See integer, -ity] 


—Synonyms 1. rectitude, probity, virtue. See honor.

—Antonyms 1. dishonesty.

*Fortitude*

for•ti•tude      /ˈfɔrtɪˌtud, -ˌtyud/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fawr-ti-tood, -tyood] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation 
–noun mental and emotional strength in facing difficulty, adversity, danger, or temptation courageously: Never once did her fortitude waver during that long illness.  

[Origin: 1350–1400; ME < L fortitūdō strength, firmness, courage, equiv. to forti(s) strong + -tūdō -tude] 


—Synonyms See patience


I start my post with two words that I live my life ethos by; integrity and fortitude.  Why do start it in this manner, well let us use the example of this thread, that started this world wind. 

I responded to MatthewHopkins post by speaking like I always do;




			Guess your break was not intended to be a long one eh?  I have taken Pee breaks that took longer....
		
Click to expand...


But, oh my, how could you, not from a Mod.

I was lambasted.  How could such tone be taken?

Three hours before this same poster was denouncing a member of the boards for offering an opinion.  His comments ranged from 



			
				MatthewHopkins said:
			
		


			With that said, don't presume to tell me what to do with my career when you were not asked and especially when you don't know about, nor have experience in, the training process I am going through.
		
Click to expand...




			
				MatthewHopkins said:
			
		


			Airmich has not been through IAP/BOTC, is not in the Army, is not on the wrestling team, and chose to weigh in on a few different threads where I have posted despite the fact that she has no experience whatsoever. Just because you can weigh in on a thread doesn't mean you should. A simple rule in life... if you don't know what you're talking about... don't. Watch and learn from people who do, which is why I'm here trying to get some more answers.

How about hearing from someone who has actually gone through the training I am about to go through?
		
Click to expand...


Then after being put on warning, proceeds to scream bloody murder;

Then, after discussing this behind the scenes, with other members, he proceeds to say he will take a break;



			
				MatthewHopkins said:
			
		


			OK I am going to take a break from the site. I realize I am coming off as an *** but that is not my intention. I was trying to get information and got pissy and for that I apologize.

I have been given some misguided information from people who probably meant well but didn't know what was going on and it has been rather frustrating, to say the least. I find it difficult to find solid advice on the net from those who have gone the officer route and that is probably because they are making changes all the time. So for those who are/were offended, I apologize as it wasn't my intention to put anyone down.

So I will take a break, read along and keep my mouth shut for a while and once again, if anyone is offended by me, I apologize because that really was not my intention.
		
Click to expand...


Now after a wee break we have this;



			
				MatthewHopkins said:
			
		


			I find the tone here to be pretty combative at times, especially as I have moved through the recruiting parts of the site on my way to signing up. I get the impression that there is this attitude that one needs to put the new guy "in his place" which should be looked at as problematic, at least in this setting where this forum is a resource for non-members or potential members as well. I would just say that if someone new... like me... comes out with something that is factually wrong or off the mark, then explain why and do it with grace, as this shows leadership and sets the example going forward. As a new guy, I can guarantee you that I will screw up about ten million times over the next 20 or 30 years and that should be taken into consideration on this forum by members and it should be encouraged by the administration as well.
		
Click to expand...


Folks notice the time in between the two posts, three hours, THREE HOURS TO THE MINUTE.

3 hours and he has an epiphany, strong enough to lecture us, and offer advice about tone and content for the site.  A person, who has never stepped inside a pair of combat boots.  A person who feels that earlier in the day it was his right to criticize someone’s experience because he did not like their answer.  Then he offers an opinion that goes against his own conduct.

I responded, and I am still fired up about that.  Why?  Lacking of integrity.

The funny part is I had others comment upon my post, and criticize my leadership skills!  Not once, in all the years that I have been here have I ever bragged about what I have done.  Only time I ever have is if someone asked, however I have people who believe they are fluent in leadership, quote me one of the old ten points of leadership!!!!

How neat.  I pointed out the point about integrity, and I get this ;



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		




			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		


			What I saw from him, was a post that lacked any iota of it.  Trolling you say, as opposed to his post?  My post was looked upon as a trolling post, becasue I used the analogy of the time taken for a pee break was longer than his cool down. 
		
Click to expand...


I could not care less of the words you used to express your, or any idea.  I find the problem is the provocative tone of your post.  In fact, I find your post projects an image of "Do as I say, not as I do".  Again, I'm talking about your posts here, not MH's.  All I'm saying is that the DS/Mods should, just as the regular members are requested to do, respect the Conduct Guidelines.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		


			Look up the word Integrity.  In fact look it up first in our search function, and you will see I like to use it.
		
Click to expand...


What does it have to do with the conversation?
Max

Edit:  Semantic
		
Click to expand...


Now you see folks, I am not going to quote all the other bandwagon joiners, as they all fall into the same trap.

My post against Mathew was about his integrity.  He was wishy washy, however the amusing part was the way people jumped on my post.  C’mon, the word pee got everyone’s feathers rankled.  But not one of any of those posters, after I even pointed to the original thread Mathew was offensive in, did they step in and chastise his actions.  This tells me that you all condone that type of action, until a Mod “appears” to do that, and then start your crusade against us.

This is where fortitude comes in to play.  Everyone that has made a comment has readily bandied about how they will become leaders in this military, how they have lead people, however I see a lack of fortitude.  This especially happens when I see a lack of integrity, and I decide to comment on that.

Start to grow thick skins people; show some fortitude, and practice the mantra of integrity, as I am truly disgusted by the actions of the few here who try to pontificate the roles that they have not even stepped in, but are practicing to become.

Those of us have already traveled that Roman mile and have the milestone notches on our belt to prove it.

dileas

tess

edit for spelling_


----------



## Roy Harding (15 Jul 2007)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> It might be private but it's frequented by people.  Just like a restaurant.  If I'm not satisfied with what is offered, I'll give suggestions (most restaurants have comments cards).  ...



Max,

I understand what you're trying to say - but your analogy sucks.  A restaurant is a BUSINESS - this site is not.  The two do not equate.

I've found the DS (and Mike) receptive to suggestions - when they are phrased as _suggestions_, not _demands_.


----------



## punisher_6d (15 Jul 2007)

You kindly asked for suggestions about 'Tone and Content' and yet you didn't like what you heard in response?  I loves the Internetz.  This is too good.  :


----------



## the 48th regulator (15 Jul 2007)

Punisher_6D said:
			
		

> You kindly asked for suggestions about 'Tone and Content' and yet you didn't like what you heard in response?  I loves the Internetz.  This is too good.  :



Suggestions should come from people who have a base from where to launch from, obvioulsy my post was to long to digest.

Integrity, and fortitude again my punishing friend.

dileas

tess


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Jul 2007)

Punisher_6D said:
			
		

> You kindly asked for suggestions about 'Tone and Content' and yet you didn't like what you heard in response?  I loves the Internetz.  This is too good.  :



Suggestions are accepted. Whining and drivel are not.

Neither is trolling or smart assed comments, no matter how thinly disguised.


----------



## Meridian (15 Jul 2007)

Suggestion WRT Mods commenting in Topics.

Has there been any thought to perhaps having a generic "Mod Account" for the mods?  I really don't know if any functionality existed, but I've seen on some other boards where comments from moderation staff are very impersonal.   

As someone who hasn't always seen eye-to-eye with the DS here in the past, but someone who also has received some superb wisdom, advice and guidance from said same DS in other circumstances, and I've seen quite a few of the same old silly basic questions that are front and centre on the Recruiting Website and can definitely feel for the Mods, other members, and Mike's bandwidth.   

An example where I do find the staff tend to jump a little hard sometimes is on new topics where the search function returns previous answers that are significantly old (1 YR +).  We all know that things change all the time in the military. Current active members live the minutiae day to day, and so it invariably becomes minutiae. Especially the things that annoy you - you don't want to talk about it, because you know you can't change it, and often the answer to the potential recruit is less than flattering either to the CF, to the idea of joining, or to the DS, whether warranted or unwarranted.    I'm not arguing for allowing people to ask the pay rates every day in new topics, or to ask "what kind of PT do I need to do, and is it really hard?" constantly,  but thoughtful questions which may have not been answered for a while and that have answers that change...  

The purpose of my suggestion is to try to remove some of the personal.   If a thread gets locked by a generic, singular "Staff" account, rather than by a specific staff member, then the person who caused the lockout is frustrated by staff... and not by a specific DS.   If a mod is posting in a thread but doesn't have the status "DS", then there is limited ability to feel like you have to answer a certain way in a thread or risk ticking off a certain DS,  or ignore topics all together by certain DS because of previous disagreements.

Mike would still of course be able to see who exactly did the blocking - the regular "population" wouldn't.    

Thoughts? (Again, no idea if its even technically possible).


----------



## the 48th regulator (15 Jul 2007)

My question to you Meridian is, have you seen a moderator use their authority unjustly, within a thread that they were participating or debating.

If so, are there examples?  I would agree to a generic Mod account, but then we run into the attack of 

_the 48th regulator logged out, and then went to the generic mod account and locked it for his own benefit._

Lack of accountability, on the Mods part.  Easier for us to "Really take advantage of our authority, and hide", wouldn't you agree?

dileas

tess


----------



## GAP (15 Jul 2007)

Why should the mods and this site adjust to someone who only wants his way? Everytime some wannabe flounces onto the site and does not like the response he gets for slamming someone, the site should change? 

Uh....no, it time the disgruntled person moved on....


----------



## Yrys (15 Jul 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> _the 48th regulator logged out, and then went to the generic mod account and locked it for his own benefit._



Not with 2 browsers open...


----------



## muskrat89 (15 Jul 2007)

Meridian - Those suggestions are valid, and Mods have discussed a zillion times how to try an remain impartial. As Scott, recceguy, 48th and others have insinuated, there is a lot going on, behind the scenes. Almost always, if Mods are involved in a heated debate on the forum, other Mods are alerted and if it gets out of hand, will lock the threads or hand out warnings. This is an SOP for us. Also, the MODS are a tight group - we know each others' hot buttons - and most of us had PM'd another Mod and said "you know what - you're getting too wrapped up about that topic; you should probably step back". The Mods aren't some "thin green line" that protect each other, right or wrong. We police each other in private, Mike provides oversight; heck, we even have quasi-professional development threads going on, in the CP. We are all volunteers. We are constantly evaluating and re-evaluating how we do things - this is not an exercise in back slapping; it is always focused on the good of the site.


----------



## armyvern (15 Jul 2007)

MatthewHopkins said:
			
		

> Fair enough. It's a private site and if the answer is "love it or leave it", then that is well within your collective rights. I would advise deleting this thread, though, as it asks for opinions that are unwanted and opens the door to more flame-wars.



All right.

I've really had enough already.

Mathew,

I am normally a very moderate kind of girl, but you are exasperating me. We exchanged PMs on why exactly I placed the warning on you. You have been told that if you didn't accept that to PM Mr. Bobbit and you have done so. He has replied to you with an answer. You have been advised that this is a private site, yet I see that you chose to address your earlier comments regarding it being exasperating for mods to repeatedly have to advise newcomers to search the forum directly at "Armyvern."

I guess that you are still not understanding, that the requirement to do that on this site is not Armyvern's requirement; it is Mike Bobbits. It is his site. 

For the rest of you who are weighing in on this thread with your comments regarding the the site, its moderation, or unfairness:  

1)  Mathew reported me to Mr Bobbit by using the "report to Mod" button because I placed him on warning; he knows where it is. He has used it. It is located in the bottom right hand corner of the post block. Please learn from his example.

2)  Understand that the Mods see the reported posts so that we can go in and deal with something improper, OPSEC, etc and deal with it before it gets out-of-line. Also understand, that we also get "reported posts" when someone is perceived to be 'pulling' rank, 'dismissing' someone based upon their being a lower rank, or dismissing because some one is Reserve Force etc.  That's right everyone: We gets complaints when users do this. And those users also have the right to file those complaints as the noted behaviours are against site Guidelines. So if you get "warned," odds are that you, yourself, have been reported to the mods for how you are treating others or how you are being perceived to treat others. Think about that. Try to learn from that warning and pick up and carry on. 

3) There were many exchanges of PMs regarding the underlying issue which caused Mathew to post his original comment into this thread yesterday (my warning him). PMs not only between he and I, but PMs with other Mods trying to explain it to him, and many from experienced members of this forum trying to explain to him how his posts were being perceived. Those PMs were from people of all ranks and backgrounds. 

In short, Mathew did the right thing and reported me because he wasn't happy with my warning. Mr Bobbitt responded to him I am told.

If the answer you get from the site owner is not to your liking, then you have a choice. You can leave the site or you can discuss further with Mr Bobbitt.

There are now at least three separate threads spawned/or active again based upon Mathew's not feeling that he deserved a warning and issues that he brought up during yesterdays voluminous correspondence ... AFTER his correspondence with the site owner. So yes, it certainly has the perception to look like it is simply continued whining, especially when it has been addressed via PMs.

So for those of you weighing in who are not privy to all the correspondence, or reported posts from other users, and who are not aware of the advice given to Mathew yesterday and his indication that he would take it; I say back off, you don't know the full story.

He, by posting into this thread yesterday, only once again brought up the issue after it had been dealt with by the site owner as I've already indicated above. So, knowing THAT and knowing what Mathew ultimately advised that he was going to do (which NONE of you are privy to ~hint: there's a new thread started on it), a mod responds to his post and is now perceived to be the bad guy while Mathew comes off looking like the aggrieved.

Sorry ladies and gents;* that's * the *facts*. You are welcome to my job as modertor. Have fun at it. It'll be easier for you, you'll actually see both sides of the correspondence and the story; it just may change your tune.

And with that,

Have a good night.


----------



## armyvern (15 Jul 2007)

Yrys said:
			
		

> Not with 2 browsers open...



Try opening two browsers for this site ... 

What happens??


----------



## the 48th regulator (15 Jul 2007)

Yrys said:
			
		

> Not with 2 browsers open...



hehehehe,


You should see what else I can do with two browsers open   :-X



dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern (15 Jul 2007)

As to all the posts that have been made regarding advice to new users to use the "search function"

This is not because they will necessarily find the specific answer they are looking for (but usually will), it is so that they post their question in an already running thread on the subject; saving this site bandwidth.

They will find that when they do this (and MOST new users do), someone will come along and answer their question. Those that don't even bother to do this as set out in the guidelines will find themselves being told to search, or will find their topic merged into an appropriate thread.

The ones who won't even do that and then complain about being told to search are, quite frankly, blaming someone else for their lack of typing a word into the search bar even though they agreed to do so upon joining. That's the mods fault too I guess.

I especially like the ones that say ... "i no this has probably been asked a 100 Xs B4, but can ......"


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Jul 2007)

I will also point out militaryphotos.net to those who clearly ache for no moderator input....I like this site too much to see it become useless as some of you may seem to want it. In life you may not agree with every decision made but you go on. here you have that choice as well.

Remember also that Mike Bobbitt can step in at any time and lift a Warning, a Banning, change a Guideline, give us shyte etc. The fact he has not should be telling you something...he trusts his Staff. If he feels we are not working for him for the benefit of this Site and its members, he has no problem in removing any of us as Staff.

Your opinions and feedback is always welcome but if the tone is misread or if you come across as petulant then your complaint will not get very far. Something for some of you to think about....


----------



## mudrecceman (15 Jul 2007)

I am betting that on the DS-net, I am not the winner of the popularity contest on here.

But...here's my lil analogy with my lil ol PEI edumacation.

(insert Prince Country accent here and cut my IQ in half...)

This guy owns a farm, lets say. (Mike)

People come over, and help Mike run his farm because, well it got real big, right?  And they like the farm and want it to keep growin this good stuff, say, carrots and spinach n stuff, well they want the farm to keep making this stuff because it helps most people out.

Some people who drive by the farm, they stop and they enjoy the carrots and spinach.

Others drive in, taste it, and then yell at the helpers because they don't want spinach, they want something else.  Then when the helpers say "we don't have Doritios" drive-by-guy complains to the farmer, Mike, for the whole farm being all 31 flavours of phuked up because it isn't the way he thinks it should be.   :

Mike owns the site.  Mike decides who is staff on his site.  The staff do what Mike wants them to, how he wants them to do it.  And much like I have seen and would expect on courses in the Army, if there are issues within the staff, its taken care of behind closed doors like it should be.  

Whats the problem?  

I remember these types, when I was a bouncer.  They would get drunk and the owner or his manager would tell them they had to leave.  The staff would help them leave.  The staff would get a cheap shot or a kick, because they were all assholes and the drunk guy was 100% OK.

 :

If you come over to MY house, and complain about how I painted the walls, or set up my living room, I am going to tell you to go frig yourself.  Mike is nicer than I am.  He doesn't kick people out for telling him his house is being run wrong...

And with that, I'll hide my accent again and get my other 10 IQ points back now...


----------



## Scott (16 Jul 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Why should the mods and this site adjust to someone who only wants his way? Everytime some wannabe flounces onto the site and does not like the response he gets for slamming someone, the site should change?
> 
> Uh....no, it time the disgruntled person moved on....



Boy oh boy, this should go on the front page.

Edit: And MRM told it in a different way.


----------



## MattyH (16 Jul 2007)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> The second trend relates to a tendency for the board to have a mean streak.  In the past some of the users we have banned have accused us of a heavy hand, and in the past they were just whining.  However, lately, we have seen a tendency 'the mob' to tear someone apart for what may be an innocuous error, and then the dogpile starts if they say anything in their own defence. This has manifested itself in what some may see the roving mobs circling, scrutinizing every post for weakness or naiveté or whatever.  Sometimes it's spontaneous, at other times it is the mob following a perceived example set by senior members (unfortunately, there are times when this includes those of us who are DS).



This is a quote from Mike's post. He was looking to discuss ways to improve Army.ca and I took him up on it based on some things that I felt were wrong. I have messaged ArmyVern and look forward to dealing with our issue behind closed doors as there is obviously animosity remaining and it is my intention to clear that. If it is possible, it will be cleared through conversation of a respectful nature which would allow both ArmyVern and myself to set a good example of what it means to deal with things like members of a common team which is the Canadian Armed Forces.

The DS' should consider whether this thread should be locked as the goal of the thread is not being met. It has degenerated into an all-out brawl and yes, I take full responsibility for starting it. Now, I am trying to lay it to rest. One member mentioned integrity and I have enough to admit when I'm wrong and work to fix it.


----------



## xena (16 Jul 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Xena,
> 
> Show me an example, please.
> 
> ...



An example?  Unfortunately I can't do that with _*accuracy*_ right now (I'm not at my normal place of internet usage, and I'm a bit of a luddite anyway - sorry!).   

I was just trying to say that it was taking it to a "gutter" or "potty mouth" level (I know, I know... we can all come up with stronger language than that - myself included!  That's not the point).  I just don't think that's always necessary.  This is a public forum, that civvies and kids can access.

It's kinda like what they told us at Cornwallis:  to be careful what we do when we're in public in CF's because, if we do something dumb then, civvies will look at us and associate our actions or words with ALL of the CF, not just Cpl/Pte/OCdt/Whatever Bloggins.  So subconsciously, the general public looks at what we say here, and associates it with the _entire_ Canadian Armed Forces, rightly or wrongly.

I DID receive a very slight correction from Vern one time, and I believe the discussion was about someone impersonating a deceased CF member for fraud.  I was upset about this and suggested the person be instructed to "kneel down and face the ditch...".  I vented my feelings.  It wasn't a smart thing to do for the exact reasons I've mentioned above.  I'm not sorry for being annoyed, frustrated and angry, that the name of a fallen comrade was being misused that way, but I've got to be careful about _how_ and _where_ I express it.

Consequently, it seems to follow, that if I had made a sarcastic comment about the use of the term "urine" being more acceptable than "piss", I could very well have been chastised for the sarcasm - and maybe even the coarseness of my language.

I have marveled, that in my military career, the most effective, and unsettling rebukes that I ever received, involved no raising of the voice, no obscenity, no sarcasm, and in fact were remarkably polite question and answer sessions.  But, truth be told, I'm not sure how to translate that onto an internet based, typed discussion - as it requires not just extremely skilled diction, but considerable body language.

For what it's worth, I wholeheartedly agree with you - I just was taken aback by the phrasing.  Please don't take it as I was disagreeing with your content.

Now, I've been impudent and jumped in on a discussion here, that did not start with me, piping in with my two bits, thinking it might help.  I probably should just shut up and let things progress here, keeping my opinion to myself.

Feel free to ignore what I've said.


----------



## Scott (16 Jul 2007)

MatthewHopkins said:
			
		

> This is a quote from Mike's post. He was looking to discuss ways to improve Army.ca and I took him up on it based on some things that I felt were wrong. I have messaged ArmyVern and look forward to dealing with our issue behind closed doors as there is obviously animosity remaining and it is my intention to clear that. If it is possible, it will be cleared through conversation of a respectful nature which would allow both ArmyVern and myself to set a good example of what it means to deal with things like members of a common team which is the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> The DS' should consider whether this thread should be locked as the goal of the thread is not being met. It has degenerated into an all-out brawl and yes, I take full responsibility for starting it. Now, I am trying to lay it to rest. One member mentioned integrity and I have enough to admit when I'm wrong and work to fix it.




No. You're not trying to lay it to rest. You'd be making an attempt to lay it to rest if you hadn't quoted Mike's post and again counselled the DS on how we should so things. Do you just want the last word?

You know, I stepped in here to see if a fresh head could help matters and you've now got me as frustrated as I am sure the rest feel. 

I'm not going to be the one to lock and bin this. As far as I am concerned it should stand as an example. Sometimes you reap what you sow.

Edited to add quote.


----------



## mudrecceman (16 Jul 2007)

I just noticed that you aren't even really 'in' yet.  DEO Armour.  My wife just went thru IAP/BOTP last summer, and I was an instr at CFLRS not that long ago.

 ;D

Good luck!

Oh, one piece of advice.

Don't advise the DS at CFLRS on...well on anything.

"You are a penny"

Now...pop smoke and withdrawl behind the crest, and go south in the low ground.  Find a Tp hide, off the main axis, for sure.  Switch off.  Maintain something we called "Radio Listening Silence".

Meaning...I suggest you stop transmitting at this time.

 ;D


----------



## SupersonicMax (16 Jul 2007)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Don't advise the DS at CFLRS on...well on anything.



Altough, this forum isn't basic training and, from my understanding, isn't meant to be like that.  

And on Basic Training, I talked to my Course Officer about stuff I didn't like about the way he ran the course.  In private, of course...  Somehow, he was charged a few months after the course was done and subsequently released for the CFs for stuff that happened on our course.  Just to show that the staff isn't always right...  The simple mortal _can _ be right 

Max


----------



## MattyH (16 Jul 2007)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Altough, this forum isn't basic training and, from my understanding, isn't meant to be like that.
> 
> And on Basic Training, I talked to my Course Officer about stuff I didn't like about the way he ran the course.  In private, of course...  Somehow, he was charged a few months after the course was done and subsequently released for the CFs for stuff that happened on our course.  Just to show that the staff isn't always right...  The simple mortal _can _ be right
> 
> Max



I expect to be wrong 99.9% of the time... make no mistake.


----------



## armyvern (16 Jul 2007)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Altough, this forum isn't basic training and, from my understanding, isn't meant to be like that.
> 
> And on Basic Training, I talked to my Course Officer about stuff I didn't like about the way he ran the course.  In private, of course...  Somehow, he was charged a few months after the course was done and subsequently released for the CFs for stuff that happened on our course.  Just to show that the staff isn't always right...  The simple mortal _can _ be right
> 
> Max



SupersonicMax I invite you to do the same thing here and ask Mr. Bobbitt to change his guidelines to accomodate.
Mr. Bobbitt:

army@army.ca

And I'm truly hoping that your "simple mortals" comment with the wink wasn't meant to infer that the staff here are not _of_ that group. That would be trolling. Keep it up and I will take your bait.


----------



## Meridian (16 Jul 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> As to all the posts that have been made regarding advice to new users to use the "search function"
> 
> This is not because they will necessarily find the specific answer they are looking for (but usually will), it is so that they post their question in an already running thread on the subject; saving this site bandwidth.



Except that I've seen this happen a few times in old threads, and people have been chastised (perhaps playfully, but new people don't always get DS humour, in the  military or out) for "reopening" old topics.   Clearly there are a lot of newbies who create new threads where there is a relatively active topic they could use already... I'm not making an X or Y argument here, just saying that -sometimes- it can appear unfair.


As to 48th's earlier question to me about seeing Mod's use their power unjustly...  My point is less about it necessarily being true, and more about perception.  Lots of people I'm sure tend to add much more weight to any comment made by someone with a Mod/DS icon on their profile...  should they? I don't know, but many people do.  Lots of other people dismiss comments by mods as someone pulling their weight for no reason.  Should they?  I think not...   

I'm not debating your abilities necessarily to remain impartial... I was simply putting forth an option to facilitate the perception that you are.   From the topics on this topic that I've seen here and in the past, I think a lot more of the problem has to do with how people -perceive- they are being approached, rather than how they really are.


----------



## the 48th regulator (16 Jul 2007)

So your concern is with regards to perception?

Very valid point.  Now explain to me on this, do you value the weight of perception on all posters here, or does your eye only catch flashy avatars?

Obviously you did mention the avatar part, which is a shame.

As you miss a lot of other "Non" senior members here, who have never spent a day in uniform, mouthing off and getting caught.

A shame all of that was lost due to my pee comment.  Maybe you are correct, in this Fast Food digital generation, it is all about who the top dog is and how they are perceived, as opposed to the underhanded snide comments made by the average Joe.

However, Meridian, it is my job here Voluntarily, to catch those types of posts and correct the member that post them.  And I have the fortitude to withstand the attacks of those who can't see from the end of their nose.  I live with integrity with regards to my duty.

dileas

tess


----------



## scoutfinch (16 Jul 2007)

Meridian:

I am generally pretty quick to step in and call posters on stupid comments, failures to search, msn-speak and poor attitudes.  I have remained out of this discussion to this point; however, your last comment provided a focal point for my thoughts.

While I appreciate what you are saying, let's be realistic:  there are 10,000 members of this site, if I recall correctly.  The mods cannot be expected to balance the individual perceptions of various posters.

Bottom line:  Matthew Hopkins was out of line in a number of posts.  He demonstrated a poor attitude when not satisfied with the tenor of answers to his questions, as evidenced by his responses to airmich.  He pulled rank (and I remain of the opinion that he was rightly called on this whether it was inadvertant or not -- he needs to learn NOW that the expression "rank has its privilege" should really be rank IS a privilege, one that he has yet to earn.)  He continues to bray about his mistreatment.  The mods have handled this situation as professionally as Mr. Hopkins has permitted but they should not be expected to sit back and accept unwarranted public criticism from posters such as Mr. Hopkins.

Mr Hopkins:  You have much to learn.  I understand that your initial forays here have been in an effort to gain information about your future career.  Your questions demonstrate a sincere effort to inform yourself.  The problem is with your listening skills. I advise you to take a few moments to re-read the advice provided to you over the past few days and take it to heart.  I will be very frank with you -- your performance here to date has done nothing to impress me.  I hope that you can turn it around and become a valued contributing member of this Board and to the military in general.  That being said, if you don't change your attitude, you are in for some difficult times. The ball is in your court now, what you do with it is up to you.


----------



## Michael OLeary (16 Jul 2007)

*On that note, I am locking this thread.  If anyone wishes it to be reopened, please appeal to Mike Bobbitt (and him alone) for a repeal.  He may decide to open it, or not, or to split it into its various parts and may unlock one or more of them.

For now, this thread is locked.

Milnet.ca Staff*


----------

