# Idea on Chat



## Veiledal (20 Jan 2011)

I was just thinking of an idea for the chat room on the site. This is just a suggestion but it if its used properly it could help with new topics being created that have already been answered. As well it could give life to the otherwise dead chat room.
If the chat was able to be on a separate tool bar such as facebook chat, where every member would be constantly on when logged in. This way if someone was to ask a quick simple question anyone online could give a quick response and thus not opening up another topic. 
Anyways its just a suggestion. Thoughts?


----------



## Scott (20 Jan 2011)

In a word...No.

Because I get enough PM's, reports to mod, and posts in the forums that have been asked waaaaaaaay too many times.

People need to search and read, full stop.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Jan 2011)

Lil r said:
			
		

> Thoughts?



HELL NO !!

Its enough with repetitive threads ( "I searched but those 100 threads arent like my situation....") and PMs ( yeah i know, you would think i dont have that problem, right ?) when locks come down. No need to add Facebook-like chat windows and popping sounds everytime someone decides that their situation is"unique" and need an answer "right now".

I think i would rather hump a piece of splintered balsa wood.


----------



## Journeyman (20 Jan 2011)

I agree. I too would rather CDN Aviator hump a piece of splintered balsa wood than be bothered with chat crises.   ;D


----------



## Jager (21 Jan 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I agree. I too would rather CDN Aviator hump a piece of splintered balsa wood than be bothered with chat crises.   ;D



I'll be selling the Tickets for the CDN Aviator Show. $5 gets you admission, Snacks and beverages of your choice are available for a minimal fee.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jan 2011)

Jager said:
			
		

> I'll be selling the Tickets for the CDN Aviator Show. $5 gets you admission, Snacks and beverages of your choice are available for a minimal fee.



I take it Air Fare is on "our own Dime".


----------



## Journeyman (21 Jan 2011)

A form of the capability already exists if more new members with questions, AND knowledgeable people who care about recruiting/basic training issues could be convinced to simply log into chat regularly.

If it were to be an automatic log-in feature, Mike would have to include the ability to block that feature, much like the already-existing capability for updates to a thread to be 'blocked,' or particularly irritating people can be set to 'ignore.'

Personally, I don't think any of this is necessary (other than for the entertainment value vis-a-vis CDN Aviator/splinters  ;D ), because:

a) I don't often read recruiting/basic training threads so it's not my interest. 

b) Don't discount how getting jacked-up for posting repetitive and/or dumb questions can be a useful exercise for some people -- a wake-up call, as you will, that this site doesn't cater to 14 year-old, illiterate, nintendo commandos; learning initiative and effort can be truly beneficial for some members of "Generation d'oh."

c) The downside of answering repetitive questions in chat, is that newbies cannot search the site for where the answers would have been posted.


----------



## Jager (21 Jan 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I take it Air Fare is on "our own Dime".



Due to Aircanada and westjet wanting their money, they wont give away free seats ;-)


----------



## Scott (22 Jan 2011)

New users need to read, read, read and then read some more. Just because their answer isn't revealed in one thread doesn't mena another one doesn't contain it. Then they need to just suck it up and READ SOME MORE.

Problem is everyone hates being told to read more. They think their question is the single most pressing question on the site. This is a forum, right? So don't be a dink and answer my question! They do not have the (dis)advantage of having seen the bunfights and downward spiralling threads that result from the oft repeated questions and statements.

I've tried a new approach just recently...

Give the guidance and then tell them how the response will go. So, I send a message gently cautioning a person and also state that they can either, a) tell me to fuck right off, or, b) take some advice, suck back and relax...and perhaps turn around and become a valued member - hey, it happened with Journeyman 

We ask our "seasoned" members to be patient, we will continue to. But everyone has a breaking point. I reached mine recently at the influx of "I am going to be a super duper JTF84 commando cause my grand daddy served in the Dumpster Division of the Baghdad Highlanders. But I try to remember that the newbie doesn't have the privelege of having been here before and suffered the insanity of the repetitiveness.


----------



## Shamrock (22 Jan 2011)

If the chat feature would be similar to the one in Facebook, where individuals need to befriend each other, and both members need to have their online status on, and both members have to have their chat feature enabled...

Why not just use a third party program?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jan 2011)

ʞɔoɹɯɐɥs said:
			
		

> Why not just use a third party program?



Why not just have all the people, that want all this extra stuff, take out Milnet Subscriptions  http://army.ca/subscribe/ and help the Site Owner pay for all the stuff you want


----------



## Shamrock (22 Jan 2011)

No.


----------



## GAP (22 Jan 2011)

Well.........that solved that tiny credibility problem.....................


----------



## Scott (22 Jan 2011)

ʞɔoɹɯɐɥs said:
			
		

> No.



Nice.


----------



## agc (22 Jan 2011)

ʞɔoɹɯɐɥs said:
			
		

> If the chat feature would be similar to the one in Facebook, where individuals need to befriend each other, and both members need to have their online status on, and both members have to have their chat feature enabled...
> 
> Why not just use a third party program?



Such as facebook?


----------



## Shamrock (22 Jan 2011)

If you can tell me how my suggestion to the OP to instead use either imposes further demand on Mike Bobbit or Army.CA resources, please do so.

I've made my objections to getting a subscription public.  This site is a fair resource, but it has become a clubhouse of assholes and egos.  Too often I see members (subscribers, DS, and nonsubscribers) mistake "USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION" as an insightful and helpful answer.  Too often I see individuals posting comments that are little more than snide little swipes that ultimately amount to bullying, either by senior members or DS.

For that reason, I chose not to contribute.

It can easily be said that these individuals who routinely fail the "asshole test" before pressing send are the vast minority.  I wouldn't argue that.  However, I simply do not want to contribute to an environment that gives these mouthpieces another medium to express their contempt for other people, their views, or their inexperience.

Take a stroll through the recruiting forum.  Here you will see a host of questions, many of them redundant.  Here you will see a recurring theme: a question simply answered, whose answer is clearly quite personally and immediately relevant to potential recruits.  We on this board can individually answer these questions with ease, and where we cannot, we remain silent.  Yet we continue to have a rash of non-answers to one of our most important resources: our recruiting pool.

And, yes, I do believe new recruits and even those filthy human beings known as applicants are worthy of our respect and knowledge.  To that end, I've taken the time to answer simple and even stupid questions in as patient a manner as I can  muster.  I put the effort in to welcoming these people because they are my replacements -- and I'd rather I be replaced by someone introduced through a spirit of mentorship and fostering.  While I do respect we need a healthy system of degradation, abuse, and neglect of our applicants and recruits, I do not want to contribute to this and I do not seek to do so over electronic media.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jan 2011)

If you want a _facebook_ "forum" on CF recruiting for those who are too shy to ask the recruiters or too lazy to read Arny.ca then why not start one of your own?

This, further complicating a well managed, well moderated forum, for the benefit of a small minority, characterized above as unlikely to be good soldiers (shy and lazy), is a silly idea.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (22 Jan 2011)

How about you start by put your screen name the right way up.......


----------



## agc (22 Jan 2011)

ʞɔoɹɯɐɥs said:
			
		

> And, yes, I do believe new recruits and even those filthy human beings known as applicants are worthy of our respect and knowledge.  To that end, I've taken the time to answer simple and even stupid questions in as patient a manner as I can  muster.  I put the effort in to welcoming these people because they are my replacements -- and I'd rather I be replaced by someone introduced through a spirit of mentorship and fostering.  While I do respect we need a healthy system of degradation, abuse, and neglect of our applicants and recruits, I do not want to contribute to this and I do not seek to do so over electronic media.



Firstly, I apologize if I upset you with my earlier reply.  It was meant in jest.

These individuals deserve the same basic respect as anyone; beyond that they have to earn it.  It doesn't look to me like that can be accomplished here by posting the same questions that keep showing up over and over.

As for sharing the knowledge, I agree that we should pass on what we know, as long as it what we know is current and correct.  Perhaps the best way to do this would be if those of us in the know on certain subjects spent a bit of time in the wiki.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jan 2011)

ʞɔoɹɯɐɥs said:
			
		

> If you can tell me how my suggestion to the OP to instead use either imposes further demand on Mike Bobbit or Army.CA resources, please do so.
> 
> I've made my objections to getting a subscription public.  This site is a fair resource, but it has become a clubhouse of assholes and egos.  Too often I see members (subscribers, DS, and nonsubscribers) mistake "USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION" as an insightful and helpful answer.  Too often I see individuals posting comments that are little more than snide little swipes that ultimately amount to bullying, either by senior members or DS.
> 
> ...



Count yourself in on the assholes & ego club


----------



## Dissident (22 Jan 2011)

There is a ton a value to this site, which is why I contribute as a paying member to this site.

However, the search function is inadequate. I am not a big fan of the way others deal with repeated queries and inane questions, but  most of these would be resolved if the search function worked better.


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 Jan 2011)

There are other options for effective search. That's why you will note that my suggestions to search usually recommend Google, using the site-specific parameter site:army.ca to limit responses to the site database.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jan 2011)

I have a _”modest proposal”_:

Remove these two threads from Milnet.ca Admin and  move them to a new, very top level thread which MUT be read (or, at least accessed) before one can register:*

Milnet.ca Conduct Guidelines: MUST READ; and

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - A Directory

Maybe, also, expand the FAQ thread a bit with a new one on: How to Search that incorporate Michael O'Leary's recommendation.


----------
* Some software has this feature already – one cannot start downloading, for example, until one has, at least, scrolled through the Terms of Use.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Jan 2011)

I disagree about the search function, the one on the 'bar' across the top [between help and calender] works great, the one that looks like it SHOULD be the search area.......pretty much does suck.

Try the difference.......................


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (23 Jan 2011)

Edward, the Conduct Guidelines are presented to every user as they register an account. Of course, that doesn't require them to actually read, but the onus is on the new user to understand the community they are registering for. If they ignore the available info and bash forward with a repeat post, odds are they will see an answer that directs them to use our existing resources: I.E. search. Cleaning up and organizing the FAQ is almost guaranteed to be a good use of time... it has more views than any other topic in the Admin board so it _is_ where many are starting their search for answers.

Dissident, A few weeks ago I completely re-worked the search engine. As a core component of the site, I realize that it has to work and work well. If you (or others) have feedback on the search function, please let me know. There may be something I can do about it, but at the moment the feedback I have is that the new system works.

Shamrock, my advice to Staff and senior members has always been "If you have nothing positive to contribute... don't." IMO you are taking the right approach and becoming part of the solution (helpful answers) instead of adding to the chorus of "this is broken." If everyone did that, there would be no problem to solve. I also believe that recceguy suggested a subscription because he understood your comment as "Why doesn't Mike implement a 3rd party program to aid chat on Army.ca?" which of course consumes time, resources and possibly money. His comment was to suggest that it's not that easy to simply toss around our very limited resources. I read your suggestions as: Use Yahoo Messenger or something similar, which of course has no bearing on Army.ca. So to you, recceguy's comment was out of context and seemed like a 'money grab' while your curt 'No' response made you come off as 'part of the club' to recceguy.

Now that I'm done tending to everyone's feelings  I'll comment on the original idea. Our chat function as it exists is limited and underutilized. If there are suggestions on how to revitalize it without turning it into extra workload for the Staff, I'm all ears. A Facebook style chat is certainly not out of the question... as with Facebook, it must be an 'opt in' type of a solution. (I for one, am permanently offline in Facebook chat.)

I'll take some time and revisit our chat options... our current tool is several years old and there are almost certainly better options out there. What I do like about it is that it includes automatic login using your forum credentials. Bolting that on to a new solution can be very time consuming and will probably exclude most solutions right off the bat.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## Occam (23 Jan 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I have a _”modest proposal”_:
> 
> Remove these two threads from Milnet.ca Admin and  move them to a new, very top level thread which MUT be read (or, at least accessed) before one can register:*
> 
> ...



I'll go one better.  The vast majority of people tend to simply dismiss the "Do you agree to abide by these terms and conditions?" question with a quick click of the mouse without actually reading the terms and conditions.  I do it every time I install software...I can't be bothered to read 23 pages of legalese every time I install a new program.  However, the forum does have the luxury of forcing people to read through the _very modest_ amount of essential material and rules pertinent to this website, and new members could be forced to read that material by subjecting them to a short exam or quiz of sorts based on the material in the FAQs and Conduct guidelines.  It wouldn't take much to build a pool of questions and answers which could be drawn upon randomly (to circumvent people simply passing around the answers in the order the quiz presents them).  Hell, I would volunteer to write some of them, if it even helps to slightly reduce the number of times we have to address people who simply can't be bothered to read and want instant gratification.  Until such time as the exam is passed, posting privileges would be disabled.  Perhaps make people wait a couple of days before attempting a retest, to further increase the probability that new members actually read the material.

It would also serve the purpose of deterring spammers from the site.


----------



## Alea (23 Jan 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> I'll go one better.  The vast majority of people tend to simply dismiss the "Do you agree to abide by these terms and conditions?" question with a quick click of the mouse without actually reading the terms and conditions.  I do it every time I install software...I can't be bothered to read 23 pages of legalese every time I install a new program.  However, the forum does have the luxury of forcing people to read through the _very modest_ amount of essential material and rules pertinent to this website, and new members could be forced to read that material by subjecting them to a short exam or quiz of sorts based on the material in the FAQs and Conduct guidelines.  It wouldn't take much to build a pool of questions and answers which could be drawn upon randomly (to circumvent people simply passing around the answers in the order the quiz presents them).  Hell, I would volunteer to write some of them, if it even helps to slightly reduce the number of times we have to address people who simply can't be bothered to read and want instant gratification.  Until such time as the exam is passed, posting privileges would be disabled.  Perhaps make people wait a couple of days before attempting a retest, to further increase the probability that new members actually read the material.
> 
> It would also serve the purpose of deterring spammers from the site.



I think this is a great idea in itself... only, if you were to under go such exam when you wish to install one of your numerous softwares and were denied access to a public site because you failed said exam, maybe you'd just turn around and get to another site? This is what, most probably, a lot of new users might do with army.ca and the site might loose quite a few "eventual" users because of that. 

But, here are some ideas of a few questions that could be part of the exam 

1 - Where is the search function of army.ca located?
2 - Is msn speak permitted on army.ca?
3 - Do you know how to use the "Spell Check" function? (hope you're better than me at it  )

Maybe the exam could become part of the warning process? 
i.e. if one user uses too much of msn speak, the exam could be given to him and he would be able to use the site again if he is successfull at it? 

Alea


----------



## GAP (23 Jan 2011)

I don't know about testing, but rather than be able to click on a box agreeing to the terms in total, there be tick boxes for each major point that must be check marked....


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 Jan 2011)

While we've probably all seen examples of new members that we might wish to put through a learning maze before they can participate, it may not be the best option for most new members. Not all are too impatient or immature to exercise acceptable posting etiquette. Many potentially worthy members, seeking a casual interaction, may be turned away by the trials of electronic bridge trolls.  While such a system may help to weed out or sort out a few, I believe it would cost as more in potentially useful participants than it would be of a benefit to the site. 

I would suggest an alternative to your suggestion. Perhaps posters on the warning system should be required to correctly answer Conduct Guidelines multiple choice questions in order to get an active "Post" button when they want to post responses.


----------



## Occam (23 Jan 2011)

Alea said:
			
		

> I think this is a great idea in itself... only, if you were to under go such exam when you wish to install one of your numerous softwares and were denied access to a public site because you failed said exam, maybe you'd just turn around and get to another site? This is what, most probably, a lot of new users might do with army.ca and the site might loose quite a few "eventual" users because of that.



There really isn't another site that they have to go to, save for the Forces.ca website, and going there and asking an online recruiter is what they should be doing most of the time anyways.   

Alea and Michael, I agree 100%...perhaps it would be more appropriate as part of the warning ladder.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (23 Jan 2011)

I think it's an idea that bears some thought. I too feel that punishing the group for the sins of the few is a bad approach, but I like the warning proposal. I'm certain the software won't support anything like that 'out of the box' so some custom development work would be required... but I can spend a bit of time to scope it out and see if it's feasible.


----------



## Alea (23 Jan 2011)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> I think it's an idea that bears some thought. I too feel that punishing the group for the sins of the few is a bad approach, but I like the warning proposal. I'm certain the software won't support anything like that 'out of the box' so some custom development work would be required... but I can spend a bit of time to scope it out and see if it's feasible.



Oh Boy!
Now I have to get my books out an work on my "doesn't" and "don't" and all the little secrets of the English language 

Alea


----------

