# Tone and Content on Army.ca



## Mike Bobbitt

All,

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). 

In the first trend, we have observed the establishment of a precedent of personal attacks on politicians and ad hominem.  We do appreciate that emotions can run very high, especially when debating issues for which many of us have buried friends.  However, this tactic does not reflect well on the professionalism of debate at Army.ca.  The target of ad hominem attacks doesn't have to take personal offence because all it takes is one letter from his legal team, or one statement in the house that the uncontrolled statements of soldiers here demonstrates that the Army can't control its people .... however the media wants to spin it to ensure that army.ca gets a pile of unwanted attention.

This is not intended to muzzle any of you, but when we discuss current events here, we need to keep it clean.  There's nothing wrong with debating the issues, and tearing apart what is said in the media or by public personalities (or even other site members) on a point by point basis with counter-opinion and experienced based observations (and the background and skills to do that certainly habituates these forums) ..... but ad hominem attacks simply poison the spirit and credibility of that debate.

We ask everyone to remind themselves of the site guidelines, including the following passages:


			
				Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> *Personal Attacks*
> 
> Army.ca has a zero tolerance policy for personal attacks, whether against another Army.ca member or a public figure. Posts that contain a personal attack should be summarily deleted, and the user should normally receive a warning. Personal attacks detract from the professionalism of the site and can sometimes cause serious problems for Army.ca as a whole.





			
				Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> *You will not post any information that is * offensive, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, *harassing*, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.



Regardless of our perception of certain public personalities or media outlets, this is about professionalism.

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).

One of the increasingly common "signals" that a thread is about to become unrecoverable is the popcorn eating smiley being posted as a post's sole content.  When someone feels this smiley is appropriate for a thread, they should be hitting the report to mod button and not make any posts.  If anything, this only serves to encourage those that are trolling the boards looking to garner attention through a fight.


			
				Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> You will not troll the boards or feed the trolls. This is making posts that intentionally create hostile arguments, or responding to such posts in the same hostile tone.



Meaningful friendly advice is easily lost in a storm of sarcastic one-liners and staying out of a fight is also a valid posting choice.  When a poster protests advice they have received, let the original advisor respond. Don't contribute to what may be a simple misunderstanding of flare of tempers.

The strength of this forum, as with any online discourse, comes with debate.  Let’s keep the quality level of debate high.

How do we want to get there?


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Thanks Mike - I have been becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the tone - and my post count shows it.  

Now I just have to refrain from posting when I come home from the Mess, and my own house will be less transparent...


----------



## McG

It seems the throat-punch has grown quite popular here (we're ready to hand them out like candy).  I would caution that putting this in a post adds very little to the debate, but it goes a long way toward making us all look like a bunch of knuckle-dragging neanderthal goons (especially when we are talking about other BBs or Blogs).  I would hope that we could apply Mikes advice to our urges to throat-punch.

You decide how enlightened we come off:


			
				Signalman150 said:
			
		

> . . . this is how some "true Canadians" are reacting to this article.
> 
> ...
> 
> http://uppercanadian.blogspot.com/2006/10/standing-on-guard-for-thee.html
> 
> This just makes me mad, and--short of throat-punching the lot of them--I can't think of a reasoned, measured response.


and the reply (at http://uppercanadian.blogspot.com/2006/10/standing-on-guard-for-thee.html):


> By the way, I saw that someone at the Forces forum felt the urge to throat punch me, which is interesting... http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52057/post-464869/topicseen.html


----------



## retread

I was on this site several years back and just came back to it this past week.  There were problems of this sort all the way along and I expect there always will be some no matter how strong the effort to keep things civilized.  That being said, I would say that overall this site is far more friendly and tolerant than many (or more probably...most) on the net.  The majority of the content on here is informative and the discussions are interesting.  I think the site performs a valuable service in connecting the CF family and enabling us to pool our experience and ideas.  Keep up the good work!


----------



## Michael OLeary

Approaches to avoiding unwanted labels

It’s just so easy, especially from the shelter of presumed anonymity, to say whatever you want on line.  Free speech, right?  What’s the price anyway, no one knows who you are.

But that’s not quite true. Others may not know your real name, or where you live, or what you do when you’re not here.  Maybe you’re a Big Brother, or rescue greyhounds, or volunteer with your church.  Maybe you’ve had unique experiences, or have “seen the elephant”, or dedicated your life to a cause without ever having the challenge of being put to the ultimate test and yet still stand for everything it ever meant to you.  Frankly, none of that will matter the first time you drive a foot so deep in your virtual mouth that you knee yourself in the tonsils.

Who you are ceases to be a factor once you blow your own credibility with a hastily worded reply sent without due care for the many factors that you cannot see.  Perhaps the person you are responding to was simply venting, getting something off their chest.  And maybe they were looking for a gentle nudge towards considering factors they couldn’t see from their own very personal standpoint.  Sadly, taking their comments at face value to fuel your own rant in response only doubles the number of participants arguing emotionally instead of rationally.  And the wonders of the Internet allow the group to expand mathematically and to change the focus of the argument from situations to personalities, until no one is even trying to figure out what the original point was, or to help answer it.

Human interaction is a complex vehicle for sharing messages.  Most often it works best in small groups of like-minded individuals speaking a common language.  Similarly it is most effective face-to-face, where non-verbal clues (and personal responsibility for words and actions) support moving towards understanding, rather than away from it.  We all recognize the hazards of relying on pure text to relay emotion and meaning, and yet repeatedly we see people get sucked in by their own willingness to dispense with rational consideration in the heat of the moment.

We understand the concept of common language to support understanding, and how small the groups (though they overlap in many directions) are that share each sub-set of terminology, acronyms, expressions and veiled speech concepts.  We understand the language of non-verbal expression, especially in leadership situations, and that in an online situation acceptance of someone as a leader may be very limited by past appreciation of their conduct and restricted to limited area of expertise.  We understand that official and unofficial leaders exist, in both material and intellectual senses, and that the leader in one area is not always the leader in every specific field within a group’s expertise.

But why, despite these broadly accepted principles of human interaction, do some people always think that their own blunt, rude, and/or outrageous statements should be taken as ‘fact’ simply because they have declared themselves to be more knowledgeable, more experienced, or possessing of more machismo. 

Those who do so often gain themselves labels.  But these labels are seldom the ones they think they deserve.

How better to approach such a situation?  What does one do when a post seems only designed to inflame one’s own opinions and to challenge what you ‘know’ to be true?  Rather than hastily pounding out a rebuke, what could a respondent do?

Here are a few options:

1.   *Just don’t post.* – Walk away, decide that you’re above turning it into an argument.

2.   *Wait a day.* – Just 24 hours, the thread’s not going anywhere.  And, after a day to reflect, and to watch the reactions of others, you can decide if there is still merit in composing a response.  Then again, it may have to disappear if it turns into a pile of crap, but you can be satisfied that you didn’t lower yourself to that.

3.   *Write your response, put everything you want into it, then delete it.* – Feel better after getting the words out of your head and onto the screen?  Does a sober second thought make you realize that you’re not really offering anything except challenges, sarcasm or personal insults?  Will the original poster learn from your response, or only react badly, continuing a spiral of wasted bandwidth and damaged online reputations?  So go ahead, spill your guts, just don’t hit the send button.

4.   *Offer new information.*  – Start you post with “I believe I understand where you’re coming from, but perhaps you also need to consider  . . .”  Contribute, don’t just bash the poster, or his beliefs.

5.   *Establish common ground.* - Share your own experiences.  Help the poster find a different perspective for comparison.  “Perhaps your situation is unique, but let me tell you what happened to me in a similar situation ….”

6.   *Report to Moderator.*  -  If the post really inflames you, and you expect it will inflame others as well, head it off at the pass.  Call in the cavalry and let them deal with it.

A credible online reputation means you’ll have people paying attention when you add to a thread.  But it only takes one outrageous contribution that incites or adds to a flame war blow that all away.  And the evidence seldom, if ever, disappears.  And when you set yourself up as a questionable poster, those you could legitimately be helping may avoid your recommendations because they won’t know where you’re coming from any more.


----------



## Spidron

Bloody good advice O'Leary! Very relevant to the office and the email world we live in. Might have to keep a copy of that list of 'response' strategies in the top drawer.


----------



## Michael OLeary

*There's a Reason*



> Any discussion or conversation Etc. such as politics, religion, etc. likely to create discord should be avoided. The names of ladies should not be brought into conversation. Talking shop, (i.e.) daily routine duties, etc., should be avoided. Discussion of general military matters is, however, to be encouraged.  - Hints for Young Officers (RCS of I; 1931)



There’s a reason that young officers, in days gone by, were advised against talk of "politics, women and religion" in their messes.  Quite simply, it's because many normally rational members couldn’t maintain objectivity once they felt their own personal opinions and ardent beliefs were being denigrated.

Objectivity, the ability for rational discourse …. we all want to believe we have it.  Of course, most of us are perfectly capable of discussing controversial issues without emotion, right up until that point where we are blind to the impact of our own emotions.  It’s a natural reaction, we can’t help it, and at the same time we can’t see how it makes us look just as outrageous as "that other guy who can’t see the case I’m explaining."

The internet has great advantages and also great disadvantages for human interaction and communication.  Unfortunately, among its greatest disadvantages is the reality that most people on line are alone, they are without that best register of the effect of their emotions – the presence of others – both friends to caution them against hasty words, and opponents, to see just what effects their words are having.

We’re human, we get emotional.  The internet doesn't convey emotion, but that doesn’t stop each of us from reading what we want in another's words.  If we are already prejudiced against another’s arguments, every word is a personal assault on our own beliefs. In return, each attempt at rational counter-argument is taken in the worst possible light as well, until any discussion on sensitive topics between two ardent supporters of opposite sides inevitably spirals into another thread of on line crap.

What solutions can we offer?  Sadly few.  

"Couples counselling" by registered therapists and subject matter experts is rather beyond the capabilities of this, or any, on line forum.

I would suggest that each of us needs to ask ourselves what our personal hot button issues are.  Then, we need to decide if repeating the same arguments with the same people, or facsimiles of them, is worth the time, stress and effort.

Bigger men (or women) can always walk away. Perhaps after posting one (unemotional) statement of their personal opinion. Or perhaps after posting nothing more than a link to the last time they made that statement, or to a credible third party reference.

The grief, the stress to all involved, to the participants and including to those watching a train wreck of a thread, IS NOT WORTH IT.

Not one thread on politics (which includes gun control issues), gender/sexuality, religion, etc., etc., that has spiralled into senseless circular arguments has been worth its weight in electrons at the end of the day.

It’s time for a more mature response.  It’s time for people to simply start saying "I don’t agree, but I do not consider this worth arguing about."

It’s not surrendering; it's conservation of energy.

Don't feed the trolls; and it doesn’t matter who the troll is, or may be (sometimes it’s everybody still beating the equine after a certain point).


----------



## Michael OLeary

ROYAL CANADIAN SCHOOL OF INFANTRY
Halifax, N.S.
Hints for Young Officers
(1931)

http://regimentalrogue.com/srsub/RCSI_hints_1931.htm


----------



## Edward Campbell

You know, the _standards_ of good manners do change but very, very slowly.

The ‘rules’ governing Mess conduct were and still are based on contemporary _standards_.  Thus, I suggest, topics like religion and most gossip (except about the CO’s forthcoming posting) is still best left outside the Mess – officers’ mess, sergeants ’ mess or junior ranks’ mess or here on Army.ca.  There is no need to discuss topics which might make other members uncomfortable, or worse.  There is no need for gossip – especially the sort of ill founded gossip which, generally, characterize discussions of women.

Units can be very close communities: it is not uncommon to find that, jus a few years back, Jones dated the gal who, just last year, married Smith and that Green dated Mrs. Jones and so on.  Equally, you might not know that Green’s father is a long time member of the executive of the Liberal Party of Canada – Green might not think very highly of _M. Coderre_, for example, but he might be gratuitously – and unnecessarily – insulted when you hold forth about the *Lieberals*.  Finally, beliefs, especially religious beliefs, are, by definition not subject to reason or, therefore, to debate.  You have yours, I have mine, Jones has his and Mrs. Jones may well have others – good manners demands that we respect one another’s privacy and beliefs are a private matter.


----------



## Greymatters

And if you are not an officer...

THIRD BATTALION PRINCESS PATRICIA’S CANADIAN LIGHT INFANTRY COMMANDING OFFICER’S DIRECTIVE NUMBER THREE:
GUIDANCE FOR NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS AND WARRANT OFFICERS (Canadian Army)
http://www.army.dnd.ca/3PPCLI/Downloads/CO_s%20Dir%20No%203%20Final.pdf

THE ARMY NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICERS GUIDE LEADERSHIP AND LEADERSHIP COUNSELING (US Army)
http://www-rucker.army.mil/a1210/Promotion/board%20questions/leadership.htm


----------



## Globesmasher

Here is a handy training video for "how to behave on an internet forum" ...............


http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-behave-on-an-internet-forum


Sound wisdom.


----------



## McG

We seem to be going through another period belligerent tone and shallow content.  The staff is loosing patience with reminding posters that it does not take much for you to make the CF come off as some unsophisticated goon squad.  Here are a few of many examples:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/78656/post-740681.html#msg740681 
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/77903/post-733514.html#msg733514 

When an outsider arrives at this site and posts in a poor choice of tone and presents a position dissenting to the majority but little content to back it up, well then there are many here ready to cry foul.  We must strive to maintain the same level of tone & quality that we (this site as a society) demand of those with opposing views.  Not only is this to avoid the label of hypocrisy, but it is also to ensure we reflect well upon the Canadian Forces and to ensure a higher quality of discussion.  Every member of this site should try to meet this challenge: 





			
				CSA 105 said:
			
		

> If you are a thinker, then prove it.  Seize and retain the high ground.  Show us your ability to think and reason and make points without degeneration and the ability to learn from others who have different viewpoints, despite your feelings on them.  It's what makes this board, this resource, so great - the experience and diversity and differing viewpoints, brought forth civilly and rationally (sometimes with help), of its members.


----------



## karl28

MCG  

              Good post and I am in agreement with you .   As a Civy I tried to read more than post it actually does help you get the feel of the site  .  You can also  tell this by the number of years that I have been on this site and the post that I have done .      I think the problem with any internet based forum is that there are a few posters who believe that because there not face to face with some one they can behave any way they want .
             I personal believe that behavior like this is sad and hopefully through continuing carefull watch of the Mods we can correct anything like this and keep army.ca the way it is a great place for information on the Canadian Army .


----------



## Journeyman

That being said.....

.....increasingly on army.ca, _some_ of us feel we're in an ongoing crusade seeking informed opinion, logical argument, maybe avoiding posting altogether when you're self-medicating.....and the occasional use of spell-check.*  Sure, I leave the ranting about caps lock to others, but we all have our pet peeves.

And when you post something that fails the above criteria, and you get called on it, *it's not personal* -- putting more effort into your original post, or avoiding posting if it's outside your lane/competency, will save all kinds of heartache later. Very little posted here is that time-sensitive that you can't spend an extra minute proofreading.


Some days I think Diogenes had it easy -- he was only seeking an honest man.  :nod:



* May not apply to Radio Chatter threads


----------



## Edward Campbell

Please see here for a CAUTION about the law and election results coverage.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Edward Campbell

This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, goes directly to "tone and content:"

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Blog+site+flame+will+settled+court+after/6783708/story.html


> Blog site ‘flame war’ will be settled in court after all
> 
> By Andrew Duffy, The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> June 14, 2012
> 
> OTTAWA — Dr. Dawg will have his day in court, a panel of judges has ruled.
> 
> In a decision released Thursday, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reinstated the defamation suit of John Baglow, a.k.a. Dr. Dawg, an Ottawa blogger who said his reputation had been soiled in an online conservative chat room.
> 
> That allegation will now be the subject of a trial that could establish new rules for discourse in the Internet’s bruising marketplace of ideas.
> 
> “The issues raised in this action are all important because they arise in the relatively novel milieu of Internet defamation in the political blogosphere,” Justice Robert Blair said, writing for the three-member appeal panel.
> 
> Questions about what constitutes defamation in the caustic world of blogging have not been addressed by Canadian courts “in any significant way,” Blair noted. It means, he said, that a full-blown trial is needed to explore key questions, such as:
> 
> • Should the law accept that “anything goes” in the blogosphere?
> 
> • Are defamation standards on the Internet the same as those now applied to newspapers and TV?
> 
> • Should posts on a political blog be considered the same as ones on Facebook or Twitter?
> 
> A trial, Blair said, will allow the court — “whose members are perhaps not always the most up-to-date in matters involving the blogosphere” — to answer those questions with the benefit of cross-examination and expert evidence.
> 
> The appeal ruling overturns a lower court decision to throw out Baglow’s lawsuit before it could proceed to trial.
> 
> In September 2011, Justice Peter Annis ruled Baglow had not been defamed by a chat room post calling him “one of the Taliban’s more vocal supporters.”
> 
> That statement was made on the Free Dominion website in the course of an acrimonious debate — taking place on three websites over several days — about federal politics and the legality of Canadian Omar Khadr’s U.S. military trial.
> 
> Free Dominion, a chat site that bills itself as “the voice of principled conservatism,” is operated by Mark and Connie Fournier, of Kingston.
> 
> Baglow, a left-wing political blogger, sued the Fourniers after they refused to take down the post, made by Roger Smith, of Burnaby, B.C., on Aug. 11, 2010, under a pseudonym.
> 
> Baglow said the post unfairly equated his call for Khadr’s repatriation with being a Taliban booster. Although opposed to the war in Afghanistan, Baglow said, he is a patriot who considers the Taliban a dangerous, tyrannical regime.
> 
> The Fourniers insisted the comment was a normal part of the blogosphere’s boil and bubble.
> 
> Annis agreed, ruling the comment was not defamatory in the context of a blog that regularly features insults and invective. The blogosphere, he said, is a different animal than other media and allows for quick rejoinders to remove the sting of an offending post.
> 
> The appeal court said Annis should not have drawn such conclusions without an evidentiary base. It awarded Baglow $14,000 in court costs.
> 
> Connie Fournier, a computer programmer, and her husband, Mark, a truck driver, have operated the Free Dominion website as a hobby for 11 years.
> 
> “It’s kind of discouraging,” Connie Fournier said Thursday in reaction to the appeal court decision.
> 
> The lawsuit, Fournier said, has already cost them about $50,000. Lining up expert witnesses for trial is expected to more than double those costs.
> 
> “Basically, we are back to square one with a full trial ahead — all because we run a website where one person’s pseudonym insulted another person’s pseudonym,” she said.
> 
> “It was a flame war between two people using their online personas. We were pretty well bystanders in all of this, except that we ran the site.”
> 
> Fournier predicted the case may put an end to Internet forums and blogs that invite reader comments.
> 
> “Who in their right mind would want to risk being subjected to this kind of a financial assault?”
> 
> Fournier said she’s not sure how much longer they will be able to operate Free Dominion given the financial risk involved.
> 
> According to his website, Dawg’s Blawg, Baglow was on the golf course Thursday and unavailable for comment on the appeal decision.
> 
> © Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen




Now, our site is much, much better moderated than is Free Dominion and I am pretty sure that our Mods would never allow really defamatory comments to survive, but there were some pretty strong comments posted here about opponent of the CF's operations in Afghanistan.

_Me culpa_: more than once, I referred to the last Jack Layton as _Taliban Jack_ and I have been pretty nasty about some public figures and commentators.

But, please be aware - we don't want Mike Bobbitt to be in the same boat as the Fourniers.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I note, with some dismay, that we are coming up on 10 years since Mike Bobbitt felt it necessary to make the first post in this thread.

I say 'dismay" because I must admit that the "tone" issue is making me a less and less regular participant in many discussions here. I find, more and more, that I take Michael O'Leary's good advice and "just walk away" because I suspect that anything I say will just inflame opinions.

This is a great site ... it's too bad a few people cannot exercise a little bit of civility when their opinion in challenged.


----------



## Journeyman

> BTW, I'm not sure what it is with this website and needless insults.  I have no problems like this in either of the other discussion forums I frequent.



Some of the "needless insults" are the result of frustrations when some people continuously post ill-informed opinions, repetitively.  

One of the joys of this site is the amount of experience and expertise brought to the fora -- people very knowledgeable in foreign & defence policy, military procurement, various equipment and fighting platforms, knowledge of operations and military history.....

Several such people engage with those ill-informed and _try_  to explain actual circumstances, often without result -- when "my boy is the only one in step" continues unabashed, inevitably frustrations mount.  :brickwall:

Maybe if any of you find yourself in a situation where multiple people are saying your posts are out of touch with reality, you may wish to back off and reconsider your position and what informs it.... rather than posting the identical statements over and over again.

That being said, the Mods continue doing a stalwart job, intervening before "you really should stay in your lane" becomes a personal attack on those posters  (aside: people saying your facts don't hold up to scrutiny is not remotely "needless insults").  Other times, the knowledgeable ones throw up their hands in despair and simply walk away (see previous post by one of this site's more informed members).  Not only is their declining participation a true loss to the readership, it likely reaffirms in the mind of the original poster, "ha, they can't refute my repetitive posts; I must be brilliant."  :facepalm:


Of course, another option would be to limit yourself to those "other discussion forums," where _informed_  opinions are apparently not held in particularly high regard.  Despite grade school social experiments, in the real world not all opinions are of equal value and not everyone gets a ribbon for merely attending.


/rant    (Yes, it was modified for tone)


----------



## Journeyman

Back to basics -- content rather than tone. 

Edit:  This post is not aimed at any particular poster or thread [the quote's details were intentionally removed], merely the increasing trend. People have routinely updated their factual knowledge based on other posters' corrections, which is not the issue.



> So glad you're here to fact check the thread into rabbit holes.



As has been mentioned, one of the great features of this site is access to people with extensive knowledge and experience.  "Fact checking" neither derails a thread nor is it a personal attack;  it's simply a matter of maintaining the site's valued reputation for credibility versus intellectual laziness or dishonesty or whatever, if you will.

Now, it's human nature that each of us posting here will be judged, on tone and content, for what we put out there.  For those who establish a track record of posting things we agree with, regardless of relevance or veracity, they will be no doubt be admired by some.  For posters who are recurringly loose with the truth, whether we tend to agree or disagree with their philosophy, they will be dismissed.  Some people care more than others about the individual reputation their posts incur.  However, for those of us interested in _the site's_  reputation, yes, facts are often checked;  if one perceives that as a personal attack, the easy solution is to ensure you know what you're talking about before hitting send.

Personally, I fear that as compulsive lies without recrimination at the higher levels of business and government spread -- where "truth is not truth" is accepted unquestioningly -- there will be a trickle-down effect into our everyday lives that can only, and inevitably, diminish this site's reputation and value.  Now_ that_  would be 'sad.'



Finally all, please have a re-read of this.  It may prove useful.


----------



## observor 69

Thank you JM for your comments.I find that lately the problems you speak of have become more prominent and detract from the general experience and enjoyment of coming to the site. As a subscriber I look to the site for information on topic areas I have no background on and hopefully informed analysis and opinion. But I am finding the circle of people who offer this is the minority.
While I will continue to support the site I would hope your observations spark an awareness of the value in thoughtful and informed contributions.

And please do consider supporting the site by donating or subscribing.


----------

