# On respecting the DS and respecting all board members.



## big bad john (1 Mar 2005)

I am a member of this site who is more than a little ticked off on a subject.  I intend to give you all a mini rant on same.  If the DS feel it necessary, please delete or modify the post as needed.

My subject is *RESPECT*, or the increasing lack of it I see to the Directing Staff. 

Now most people here are great, and give Mike and the DS their due.  But yesterday I saw people giving the DS flak for doing their jobs.  No one here gets paid, as most of you know.  They are here due to interest and the goodness of their hearts.  If you frequent this site you owe them respect as a simple common courtesy.  If you disagree with a call on something that the DS made, I have found them more than willing to listen.  That does not mean that they will reverse the call.  But life isn't fair.  If you are unsatisfied, you can appeal to the "CO" here, Mike.  He owns the site, so it is always his decision.  Name calling and sarcasm on a decision are never called for.

The DS have always been available with advice and help when needed IMHO.  So please show some courtesy and respect.  If you can't then you do have other issues.

Rant over.

Answers to this rant are not expected or sought, but feel free.  Thank you for your time.


----------



## 043 (1 Mar 2005)

I know they have kept me on the straight and narrow. This is a good place but everyone has to realize that everyone has an opinion.  Some of the name calling and browbeating is good fun mind you as long as it is among peers.


CHIMO!!!


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (1 Mar 2005)

Thanks John. I appreciate that not everyone is going to agree with our methods here, but that's OK. With almost 10,000 visitors and 500-800 posts each day, we don't have the luxury of spending a lot of time debating a questionable issue. Often we have to take quick action to steer things in the right direction and move on. In my opinion, the DS do a fantastic job of providing guidance for those who will accept it, and dealing with those who won't.

Occasionally, someone gets it in their head that we're "out to get them" and it's a personal witch hunt. I wish we had the time and resources to pursue such frivolous tasks!  The reality is we're on the lookout for anyone in contravention with the stated Conduct Guidelines. Our objective is to help people understand those guidelines where they fail to meet them, not to drive them out. There are a few who simply can't abide by the rules here and end up leaving, but I'm happy to see that the majority show (and earn) respect.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Army.ca is only as good as it's visitors. If the site isn't living up to your expectations, I encourage you to participate and help steer it in the right direction. Hats off to members and Staff who have already spent a great deal of time doing this, you can take credit for what Army.ca has become!


Cheers
Mike


----------



## Britney Spears (1 Mar 2005)

The mods are being far too generous tolerating the audacity of trolls like Mad Max and Mo-litia, who's only contributions are personal attacks (against the mods and owner, no less!) and flamebait. So:

1) DNFTT (do not feed the troll)

and

2) Ban these twits already, if they feel so strongly about their views they can go start their own helpful, informative website.


----------



## Marty (1 Mar 2005)

Hi , 
I must confess I was one of many that were anxiously awaiting the next volley in last nights battle ( in hindesite a little ashamed to)but I guess its like an MVA .....you just cant help trying to get a look at the gore .I think the DS here are more than fair with EVERYONE. I have seen people get more that one warning when I thought uh oh this guys gotta be gone . It seems pretty clear to me at least that all members are aloud to "push it", for the sake of good debate , as it should be ......No arguements from me about how this site is run , I think its great.


----------



## putz (1 Mar 2005)

big bad john said:
			
		

> I am a member of this site who is more than a little ticked off on a subject. I intend to give you all a mini rant on same. If the DS feel it necessary, please delete or modify the post as needed.
> 
> My subject is *RESPECT*, or the increasing lack of it I see to the Directing Staff.
> 
> ...



Amen to that!


----------



## PeterLT (1 Mar 2005)

Agreed. And a hearty BZ for your rant.


Peter


----------



## patrick666 (1 Mar 2005)

Well said. The DS here have given us much of their time and work to make sure we are all treated respectfully and have our questions answered respectfully. They have done and extrordinary job as far as I know and have seen. Mike has created a fantastic military community and the DS have maintained it exceptionally. Insulting them just shows a lack of the respect they've given you without judgment or discrimination and it is quite sad that it has come to this. 

You won't make it in the army if you can't even handle authoritative moderation on the internet. 

Cheers


----------



## vangemeren (1 Mar 2005)

I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular, just general frustration.
My main beef is that when a thread is locked, the author then starts a new thread in the style of a 12 year old in a tantrum, complaining how much this site "sucks" and compares it to some dictatorship. This is not a new problem, but has gotten worse in the last 2 weeks. It's fine that someone has an opinion, but it has to be non-derogatory, constructive; not, bashing heads and kicking ass (although these may be applicable solutions in some cases). So now here we are, talking about some people not following the rules, when we should be talking about all things military.
Thats my $5 for this month, back to lurking (and a funny cartoon for this thread which will probably be locked due to necessity)


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Mar 2005)

Well said Big Bad John


----------



## The Bat (1 Mar 2005)

Big John I agree with RESPECT, but what do we do? When the DS and comes from behind and slams you, which I can take because that's his or her oppion, they better be prepared to get it right back, not crawl in to the into the basement and lock the thread or go away and call on other DS because there nose is all out of joint.


----------



## big bad john (1 Mar 2005)

What does one of your trainees do when you do it.   They have their reasons, you just have to accept that.   Just as the Troops who come to you must do.  Remember this is not a democracy.


----------



## Burrows (1 Mar 2005)

There is a difference between expressing a conflict of views and harassing them for having such views.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (1 Mar 2005)

Let me be clear that threads are locked because they are either in trouble already, or headed there fast.

If a Staff member calls for backup (which does happen) it is generally to ensure that the action they are taking is legit, and not based on any personal involvement in the thread. That is, it's a double check to ensure that the DS here are acting based on the formal guidelines, not a dogpile against a user they don't agree with.

If Staff agreement was a requisite for keeping a thread open, we'd have a lot fewer topics here! 

Lastly, if you can show me a well presented, original argument in compliance with the Guidelines that was locked, I'd be happy to open it up for furhter discussion.


----------



## muskrat89 (1 Mar 2005)

> When the DS and comes from behind and slams you, which I can take because that's his or her oppion, they better be prepared to get it right back



Gee - in the "old days", I was taught to take my licks, if I had them coming.... I can assure you that rarely, if ever - does a member get "slammed" for no reason at all. I'm sure yours is an effective way of thinking in your Unit - I bet that all of the young troops love to "give er right back" when they are (rightly or wrongly) given some direction    :   

For some of you, it is still not clear, so I will type s-l-o-w-l-y.....    

If you don't like the atmosphere here, or you feel you are being mistreated, appeal to the owner. Otherwise, no one has any sort of "right" to be here. No one is being forced to log onto this site and participate. Every board has its own "style" of oversight.. the ones I don't like, I don't visit. Simple..


----------



## Mad Max (1 Mar 2005)

Now THIS is good fun! So, little Britney thinks I'm a troll! Outstanding! And Big John has vented his spleen. Excellent! It's about time you folks started displaying some balls-no insult intended, Britney, as I know you don't have any. Really, though, is this forum not intended to elicit honest, earnestly held opinion? I thought it was...and as a an army guy who has "popped up and had a look round" here over the past couple of years, I have seen some egregious examples of pseudo-military types talking about things they obviously know very little about. It is only recently that I decided to "join up" so to speak. Some examples of what I was just talking about,though: A couple of weeks ago, I observed many supposedly military-interested folks having the vapours over some remarks (hilarious remarks, I might add) made by a USMC General. Now, those remarks were VERY MILITARY in nature and candour. How upset people on this site got, and how they expressed their HONEST, EARNESTLY HELD OPINIONS as regards the appropriateness or inappropriateness of his language is typical of non-military or anti-military personnel who live in a dream world- Canada, and it's bubble of inane, sickening political correctness, is NOT the real world, where nasty things really do happen to innocent folks ALL THE TIME! It is SOLDIERS like that General who, whether you know it or not, sort all that crap out- NOT the Greenpeace clique who sit back and whine impotently about world events while sipping Chardonnay. Another example: all of you people getting your panties in a knot because guys like me "aren't nice". No, I'm NOT nice! I'm paid to be a soldier. I'm NOT paid to be nice! Don't get all upset about an aggressively held and well- defended point of view that differs sharply from your own. BECAUSE WE LOVE IT WHEN SOFTIES GET UPSET LIKE THAT! I have just violated a basic principle of war for you all, so you should thank me....And guys, when I parachuted my butt in here a couple of weeks ago, no crap, it looked and sounded like a self-satisfied bunch of smug hypocrites who were all singing the same tune, and not singing it very well. This is NOT just MY opinion- ask(although I know you won't) anyone in a line unit of the combat arms and he'll tell you pretty much the same thing if he has a pair. If he doesn't, then you should immediately enquire as to the progress he's making in macrame class. Anyway, this is the truth: guys in the military who REALLY LIKE being soldiers really like to tell it like it REALLY IS, or at least like reading about it. Because a few of us can read- all be it in a slow, ponderous Jethro Bodeen sort of way. And, as always, speaking for myself, I really do like this site, and DEFINITELY enjoy amusing discourse with all manner of people- even you, Britney.


----------



## muskrat89 (1 Mar 2005)

Balls, it is   LOL

BBJ et al - thanks, but I figured the end of this thread was inevitable.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Mar 2005)

Mr Max, if you look at the "Marine General" thread, you'll find that most of the forum members agreed with General Mattis's comments and defended him against attacks.

I've looked through your 28 posts and haven't seen much except taunts on how the Army is really supposed to be (even though others with just as much, if not more, experience have a different opinion).   I think you've shot your wad here, sir.

PS: I see another Moderator has already gave you your walking papers.  Enjoy the threads....


----------



## mo-litia (2 Mar 2005)

I read the "Respect" thread last night and spent today debating with myself as to the propriety of responding to an already locked thread.  Since the comments in that thread were overtly directed at others, and myself I feel that I am justified in clarifying my position on a new thread.  As Big Bad John stated in the previous thread on respect, I do not expect any responses, nor will I respond to any comments posted here.  Any comments are of course welcome, but this is merely a means for me to clear the air on this issue.

First of all, kudos to Mike Bobbitt for maintaining an good site and to the majority of the DS staff, who generally do a impartial job on enforcing the conduct guidelines of this site.  In retrospect, my comment about "limp wristed Liberal fellatio fests"-while IMO effective at getting my point across at the PC attitude that is often prevalent here-did violate the conduct guidelines; so I am deserving of the 'verbal warning' that I recently received.

As I stated, the majority of the DS staff here do a fine job in helping to maintain a good website.  As volunteers, their efforts are appreciated in keeping this site as a good forum for Canadian military discussion.

However, I would be remiss if I did not state that SOME DS Staff members appear to be using their authority to 'bring the hammer down' on viewpoints they disagree with.  This is wrong, because the purpose of a forum such as this is too provide a means for discussion of all points of view, not to provide a online circle of 'yes-men' who react angrily when they are presented with an argument they oppose, no matter how well thought out and logical that argument may be.  At the risk of flogging a dead horse, I invite anyone to read my posts in the "Women at War" thread.  Whatever your personal thoughts on my stance may be, I invite anyone to dispute the logic I used to substantiate my position on this issue.  Feel free to observe that most of the responses that countered my opinions were generally using the ludicrous-and convenient-rally cry of 'sexism', or by dragging out examples that are obviously the exception, rather than the rule as to female effectiveness in the infantry; as any educated observer who is truly impartial on the issue of a combat effective infantry can attest.

While this site is dedicated to the military, it is not a military institution.  I believe that respect is definitely two-way street, and when a person who is supposed to be an impartial moderator is obviously letting their views or personal associations affect how they perform their duties; I am going to speak up.  Just because you disagree with me does not mean you should completely remove my posts or those of a member who is responding to me...or was it that the post made in response to me was offensive enough to warrant action against the long standing site member who made it?  I recognize that this is a privately owned site but impartiality of the staff members is paramount should this site wish to remain a credible forum for Canadian military discussion.

One last thing, while Mad Max certainly angered a lot of people here with his abrasive style, he spoke from the heart.  He is obviously more concerned with the PATHETIC state of the CF these days-and the causes thereof-than appearing politically correct.  He is the type of soldier the CF needs more of but is losing rapidly, as people have his ilk have difficulty swallowing the politically correct garbage that is more concerned with human rights of the weak than anything else.  A military exists to defend its country from foreign aggression, not to be a platform for social experimentation in the name of equality.  Whoever banned Mad Max should give his head a shake; I saw nothing in his last post that was anything worse than some of the dressing downs I have received from senior NCMs in my career; or worse than some offensive comments made by those with more left-wing points of view on this site.

Mr. Bobbitt, I came very close to pulling my subscription from your site.  I refrained from doing so because you have always posted in an impartial and fair manner.  If you could convince some members of your DS staff to do likewise, you can help keep this site acting as a forum to discuss ALL opinions about the Army.

And no, I won't be apologizing to anyone as some members have recently suggested. My views are mine to hold and I feel they are certainly grounded more firmly in logic than some of those opposing me.

Besides, nothing gives an Albertan redneck more pleasure than telling some left wing Liberal pinko to go piss up a rope...politely, within the conduct guidelines, while substantiating with the type of solid logic that causes them to froth at the mouth with anger.

The army is about killing people to defend Canada, not accommodating special interest groups who weaken the organization with their presence.

Deal with it.


----------



## 043 (2 Mar 2005)

*However, I would be remiss if I did not state that SOME DS Staff members appear to be using their authority to 'bring the hammer down' on viewpoints they disagree with.  This is wrong, because the purpose of a forum such as this is too provide a means for discussion of all points of view, not to provide a online circle of 'yes-men' who react angrily when they are presented with an argument they oppose, no matter how well thought out and logical that argument may be.*

Cheers Mo-litia! Very well said!!!!!!!!!!  However, we are in the army, we can't be hurting anyone's feelings can we??????

Light 'em up Mo!! I back ya!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Mar 2005)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> In retrospect, my comment about "limp wristed Liberal fellatio fests"-while IMO effective at getting my point across at the PC attitude that is often prevalent here-did violate the conduct guidelines;



Define "effective".   Has anything really changed since you made your so-called "point"?




> Besides, nothing gives an Albertan redneck more pleasure than telling some left wing Liberal pinko to go piss up a rope...politely, within the conduct guidelines, while substantiating with the type of solid logic that causes them to froth at the mouth with anger.



People who go around calling people with other view points names are the reason the country is in the state it is in today.   If you honestly feel there is value in telling ANYBODY to go "piss up a rope" and then expect any kind of meaninful dialogue to result - you are sadly mistaken.   It is unfortunate you don't have the first clue about effective communication (I have a degree in Communications, incidentally - you seem keen on presenting "credentials" here, so those are mine) since you seem so keen on insisting you know how to run this forum, the Army, the government, and apparently the entire nation.  I am a proud Albertan, and I support many of the policies instituted by the Federal Government, and even when I don't, I don't feel the need to call names.  Few people in the world act without reason; you talk of logic in your post, but fail to see that even the Liberal government behaves according to the dictates of their own logic.  Your inability to put yourself in anyone else's shoes make you a liability to this site.



> The army is about killing people to defend Canada, not accommodating special interest groups who weaken the organization with their presence.



I think the Army is weakened by hot-heads with no ability to communicate effectively in the written language.   Yet we still apparently have a few of them around.


----------



## big bad john (2 Mar 2005)

You are asking for people to respect your opinions while at the same time calling them names and insulting them.  That IMO is a waste of bandwidth.  I am sure if you act that way to people in person, you are either shunned or have a good dental plan.  Giving people respect has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with their positions on matters.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (2 Mar 2005)

mo-litia,

We've now heard from all sides on the issue, which I think most will appreciate, though not necessarily agree with.

Mad Max was banned because he couldn't stay within the guidelines. He was given ample opportunity and guidance, but chose to ignore it. I think the mistake a lot of people are making is confusing aggressive behaviour with military pride. We're all proud of our soldiers, and we all feel the pinch when poor political decisions are made. It's important to recognize that there are more ways to affect change than simply "all caps" ranting.

My point: You don't have to be "aggressive" on the Internet to be considered a soldier. Your approach to solving problems or debating issues is not my approach, though both have their place and time. The Conduct Guidelines lay out what the unacceptable approaches are for *this* place and time.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Mar 2005)

DISCLAIMER- PERSONAL POST ONLY                                [sorry Mike]

Well Mo-litia, I'm about as right wing as the law legally allows and I think that you are a whiny child who has to resort to using the same tactics the "left-wingers" use and then scream and cry when it gets tossed in your face. 
You are the doppleganger of those you hate.

I NOW RESUME MY REGULARY SCHEDULED RIGHT WING MOD DUTIES!


----------



## ex royal now flyer (2 Mar 2005)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> A military exists to defend its country from foreign aggression, not to be a platform for social experimentation in the name of equality.
> 
> The army is about killing people to defend Canada, not accommodating special interest groups who weaken the organization with their presence.



Mo-litia,

Just a couple points.   I know nothing about who you are or what your background is so it makes it very difficult to address my concerns about your above comments.   First, the army, and the CF for that matter, is not about killing people to defend Canada.   That comment is totally irresponsible and perhaps something for the DS to think about editing.   

Last time I checked the military is an extension of the policies of the current government.   In a democratic society, government policies are formed based on what society deems them to be.   If society is not happy with government policies our elected officials are not re-elected and new policies are formed.   Thus, the CF as an extension of government policy has to reflect the ideals of Canadian society.   I have served for 18 years and served under both Liberal and Conservative governments.   Guess what??   Not much has changed.   

Society holds CF members to represent our common values and I look at it as an investment in their tax dollars.   Thus, if we are paid by the government we are also paid by taxpayers.   

I do not feel that I accomodate any special interest group.   As a professional member of the CF I carry out the orders that I am given.   If I decide I do not like those orders then I have the option of getting out.   If I do not like the direction government policy is going, then I vote against them in the next election.   

However, I never joined the RCR to kill people.   I joined to defend the values of Canada (the very same values that are lobbied for by the various special interest groups you refer to).   Am I willing to kill people? It is automatically inferred when you "sign the dotted ine".   However, I do hope that the policies and diplomacy of the government whom I work for will be effective before taking up arms.


----------



## big bad john (2 Mar 2005)

ex royal now flyer said:
			
		

> Mo-litia,
> 
> Just a couple points.   I know nothing about who you are or what your background is so it makes it very difficult to address my concerns about your above comments.   First, the army, and the CF for that matter, is not about killing people to defend Canada.   That comment is totally irresponsible and perhaps something for the DS to think about editing.
> 
> ...


Very well said!


----------



## Tpr Parsons (2 Mar 2005)

I agree, extremely well said ex royal now flyer. Cheers to that...


----------



## TCBF (2 Mar 2005)

Mr Dorosh:  1. "People who go around calling people with other view points names ....

2. .... make you a liability to this site. .....I think the Army is weakened by hot-heads with no ability to communicate effectively in the written language.  Yet we still apparently have a few of them around. "

I see a small contradiction between the statements in para 1 and 2 above.  

 In any case, hotheads can turn the tides of battles. "Follow Me!"  Has seldom been issued in writing in a timely and effective manner.  It's one thing to administer soldiers, it's another thing to lead them.

 Many of us agree with the general sentiments of mo_litia and others, yet may state our cases differently.  Since this site justifiably prides itself on attracting a wide cross-section of those with military interests, it behoves us to guide those who do not have the benefit of a Degree in Communications, or Staff College, or fifty years on the planet, or whatever, to operate within a framework many find populated by the easily slighted.   If those are the rules of engagement, so be it, but lets not stifle all disagreement.  This site has a very good editing feature.  I would have no problem asking a member to resubmit his post after editing.

But I would hesitate to say "Go Away, You Scare Me."   

Your turn, troops.

Tom


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Mar 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> In any case, hotheads can turn the tides of battles. "Follow Me!"   Has seldom been issued in writing in a timely and effective manner.   It's one thing to administer soldiers, it's another thing to lead them.



What on earth does "Follow Me" have to do with discussing things in a professional forum?  This isn't a place for people to demonstrate how "hard-core" they are, nor flaunt their leadership abilities, it's a place to talk about issues germaine or of interest to all of us.

Those who cannot do that, are, as I pointed out, and as you obviously failed to grasp, a liability to this site.


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Mar 2005)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> Deal with it.



mo-litia,

I think you should sit back and realize that we are dealing with it. The moderators and senior posters of Army.ca on this site comprise a very broad range of ranks, trades and experience; yet we have managed to produce and sustain a healthy environment for debate and discussion of military topics on these forums. The atmosphere has been friendly and helpful to those seeking advice, yet when necessary can be more rigid to avoid direct, covert or inadvertent attempts to redirect the tone or purpose of the boards.

You seem eager to orient our focus towards the "problems of the Army" with the intent of directing that focus against the society we belong to. I do not think you could be more mis-directed in your intentions, though I do believe you may come by it honestly. What is wrong with our Army? Perhaps among the issues that need to be addressed are those who have failed to mature and evolve along with our societry, and to find a new balance between our roles as Canadian soldiers and our impressions of what soldiering means.

I do not think that many on the forums would disagree that being the loudest and brashest NCO or officer in a group does not equal being the best.  The finest NCOs and officers I have had the privilege of serving with, Regular and Reserve, have seldom been the swaggering braggart type you seem to be elucidating as superior. To the contrary, it has always seemed that the louder an individual became in trying to force his opinion on others, the less credible his position, and his ability to justify it.

You desire respect, respect is not earned by a dictatorial approach to inflicting one's personal opinions on others. In order to avoid reposting it, I will refer you to the following post on professionalism, if you would wish to earn the respect of others, I would encourage you to take it to heart:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21852/post-163847.html#msg163847

Pro Patria


----------



## S McKee (2 Mar 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Mr Dorosh:   1. "People who go around calling people with other view points names ....
> 
> 2. .... make you a liability to this site. .....I think the Army is weakened by hot-heads with no ability to communicate effectively in the written language.   Yet we still apparently have a few of them around. "
> 
> ...


 I agree Tom well put. I enjoy this forum, and while mo-litia and Mad Max may seem a little intense for some people I really enjoyed reading their posts, they are obviously concerned about and love the CF. For all the bravado I think their heart's in the right place. And your right, their views about some issues are held by many of us still serving.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Mar 2005)

What's the point of this?

Mo-litia, you got smacked for referring to people who opposed your point of view as "Limp Wristed Liberals...." which was pretty pathetic.   I don't know where you're getting the idea that a "PC" attitude pervades these forums, because that is most certainly not the case.   If you haven't noticed, we are more then willing to critically discuss treatment of prisoners, government policies, and the like.   Just because we insist on it being done in a civil manner doesn't mean that the site has a "politically correct agenda".

Don't equate "ranting like a 15 year old on Mommy's computer" with "Telling the PC Crowd how it is".

With regards to the "Women in the Combat Arms" (which seems to be the real issue of this), it got locked because, as I said in another thread, it was "Spin Cycle".   Big Bad John put the article up to discuss the role of women in combat areas and you proceeded to use it as a pulpit to say the shouldn't be there.   It's fine to give your opinion, but when people began to disagree with you (especially those who have seen combat and fought alongside woman), you resorted to teaming up with Mad Max to dismiss any input other then what you wanted to hear as "failing to acknowledge reality".   The argument soon went into the mud after that and the lock was put in place.

If someone has a good article on women in combat and cares to make a point out of it, by all means go ahead and do so.   But spare us from the usual rant of "They can't physically do the job" - its gets tossed around here every 6 months or so and really is "0" in terms of productiveness.

Personally, I'm not fully in agreement with the route we've taken and I'll fully admit that I agree with some of the complaints that were lodged.   However, I'm not going to waste everybody's time by postulating my own personal opinions on the matter without presenting a cohesive and thorough argument for it.   If someone wishes to build a strong case for a different approach, then put it up here with links and substantiation.   As it stands, the articles and the input from those that have Been There and Done That seem to indicate that woman are here to stay.

Why don't we get over something that isn't going to change and put our energy somewhere useful.   Discussions on females in combat roles isn't going to change anything and won't make or break the Army tomorrow, but brainstorming on readiness issues, new Expeditionary Force structure, and Future Transformation are all things that we contribute to in building a concensus for real change in the way the military does business.


----------



## TCBF (2 Mar 2005)

"What on earth does "Follow Me" have to do with discussing things in a professional forum?  This isn't a place for people to demonstrate how "hard-core" they are, nor flaunt their leadership abilities, it's a place to talk about issues germaine or of interest to all of us."

True, but you mentioned "hotheads", who - if developed - are of some use to the military on occaision, and who also wish to "to talk about issues germaine or of interest to all of us."

"Those who cannot do that, are, as I pointed out, and as you obviously failed to grasp, a liability to this site."

No, I grasped that quickly.  I just happen to disagree to a certain extent.  Labelling all who do not share one's own opinions or styles of discourse is in itself an act of intollerance.   

Tom


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Mar 2005)

I think its important for a forum to allow for a frank exchange of ideas, within the bounds of common courtesy. Trolls would be the most obvious of undersireable posters and should be removed. Contentious topic's generate passion and interest which make for good debate. Personal attacks have no place in a professional forum. If a poster has a problem with a member of staff they should deal with the problem in private.


----------



## Zoomie (2 Mar 2005)

Good post Molitia - I agree whole-heartedly...

Remember folks - we are not a flying club (airforce metaphor) - our primary goal is to enforce the Government's will through whatever measures are required (ie. killing people).

Michael - unlike yourself, I find that most people who communicate effectively over these means are quite ineffective when the fit hits the shan in operations.


----------



## mdh (2 Mar 2005)

Michael - unlike yourself, I find that most people who communicate effectively over these means are quite ineffective when the fit hits the shan in operations.

Not sure what you mean here Zoomie - care to elaborate?

cheers, mdh


----------



## Britney Spears (2 Mar 2005)

> Michael - unlike yourself, I find that most people who communicate effectively over these means are quite ineffective when the fit hits the shan in operations.



So if a member can't communicate effectively through these means( apparently no small feat for some of us, it seems),  what good is he to the forum? 

More importantly, which one are YOU?


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Mar 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> What on earth does "Follow Me" have to do with discussing things in a professional forum?  This isn't a place for people to demonstrate how "hard-core" they are, nor flaunt their leadership abilities, it's a place to talk about issues germaine or of interest to all of us.
> 
> Those who cannot do that, are, as I pointed out, and as you obviously failed to grasp, a liability to this site.



If I read this correctly, those of us that were not english comp majors or communication gurus have nothing to offer this forum.  Please correct me if I am in error...

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## Burrows (2 Mar 2005)

He means carry yourself in a professional and calm manner and to try and spell correctly.. No l337 sp34k G Mizzle.


----------



## winchable (3 Mar 2005)

Alright, that's it.
I've snapped.

Everyone just **** off for a day.

No really, take a minute to have a coke and a smile, and **** off.

I'm not gonna lock the thread because apparently this offends the sensitivities of the members who have jumped out of a plane at 30000000 feet without parachute because I was born in the 80's.

I leave it open and once again we have ourselves the usual rehashed horse shyte that we had on this site about a year ago.
Except it's a new kind.
This kind is old, stale angry horse shyte and it's spurred on by anyone who comments on it's potency.

So once again, I reiterate, if you like the site AT ALL (in between rants about how bad a job we do moderating) have a coke a smile and a sit down put things into perspective....and if you still feel inclinced to grace us with your presence, come back.


----------



## Zoomie (3 Mar 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> Michael - unlike yourself, I find that most people who communicate effectively over these means are quite ineffective when the fit hits the shan in operations.
> 
> Not sure what you mean here Zoomie - care to elaborate?
> 
> cheers, mdh



Sorry - my thoughts are not that well organized at the moment (degree in science, not communication)  I just finished 7 hours of searching for a float plane...  I may just revisit this topic at another time or just give it a pass.

I sincerely hope that your comments Che were in jest about locking this thread - like I said, I am working on basic inputs at this moment and have difficulty interpreting sarcasm over the bandwidth.

Britney - I would not classify myself as either an effective communicator via these means, nor an ineffective one - just a man of few words on most subjects...  If you provide a topic that I am passionate about, watch out - no hold's barred.

Good night all - back to the grind in the morrow.


----------



## noreaga808 (3 Mar 2005)

I've got to agree with Mo-litia's general sentiment. People communicate in different styles so that should be taken into consideration and not deny them of having a voice on this forum. From my experience there seems to be more chance of misinterpretation in the written language compared to being face to face.

Che, if you had a thread on the same topic about a year ago then wouldn't that suggest that there is a problem still in existance with this site? I've been registered on this site since October 2004 and find that I tend to second guess myself before I post anything in fear of getting berated by Staff. I shouldn't just single out the staff of this site but many of the members jump on the band wagon when a member is being disciplined but in an improper manner. 

Overall though, I think this is a great site and has helped me out immensely with my pursuit of a career in the Canadian Forces. The directing staff are doing a good job, you just can't expect to satisfy everyone all the time. There's always going to be someone that complains about you even if you are doing the right thing. Any complaints should be ultimately taken in a constructive manner so in the end you can do an even better job even if the way it was presented to you pisses you off.


----------



## mdh (3 Mar 2005)

...   I just finished 7 hours of searching for a float plane...    

Zoomie,

Sorry, I've heard the news --


----------



## Slim (3 Mar 2005)

Hey all.

Well I waited for the smoke to clear before I waded in...

No finger pointing or anything like that.

All I'm going to say is that the people that I most respected while in the CF (and after) are those who are able to calmly voice their thoughts and opinions in a reasonable and PROFESSIONAL manner. I may not have always agreed with them, but was (and am) happy to work along side them as I know that they are not likely to go off in hot-headed fashion and generally think an issue through before acting.

Name-calling can be quite cathartic-seeming for the soul but achieves little in the end and...from a certain point of view...displays a weakness of sorts. As warriors it is incumbent on all of us not to display weakness in the face of the enemy or, more important, the face of our peers. We are all past, present or future members of the sharp end of this countries political will. As such is was/is/will be our duty to discharge that trust in the best way we know how!

Soldier on Lads...and Ladies.

Slim  

Zoomie: I hope it all turned out alright.


----------



## Bav2002 (3 Mar 2005)

If it were up to me Id have all the staff here at army.ca write a biography on themselves, military history, etc.  and have this available to the viewing public.  I think this could be interesting and give people an idea to who they have to bow down to and respect like the 6 star general of the united states of canada.


----------



## Slim (3 Mar 2005)

Bav2002 said:
			
		

> If it were up to me Id have all the staff here at army.ca write a biography on themselves, military history, etc.   and have this available to the viewing public.   I think this could be interesting and give people an idea to who they have to bow down to and respect like the 6 star general of the united states of canada.



The DS staff are chosen by Mike Bobbitt...The owner of the site and they speak for him when they do act. I would think that his judgemnt is good enough as they do represent him. Also,there are security issues with people being involved with things that precludess them letting the general public see who they really are.

No one is asking anyone else to bow to anyone. The 6star general comment is just demonstraighting immaturity.

Could you please fill in your profile so we know who and what you are?


----------



## Infanteer (3 Mar 2005)

People really need to differentiate when members who are DS act as moderators and when they act as members.   For some reason, if a mod disagrees with someone, all of the sudden it is construed as censorship or heavy-handedness.

News Flash, the staff here are not impartial and enjoy taking part in the discussions (that is why the owner brought us on board).

I'm still wondering what the point of this thread is - that we locked a thread where a few guys were trashing women in the Forces?   If there is a specific problem with moderator action, cut-and-paste it from the thread and post it here and we can discuss it and deal with it.   The general bitching sets me in the same mood as Che....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Mar 2005)

I find it most ironic that those that espouse to be conservative/right wing are the ones that are whining the loudest about the DS taking a right wing/conservative approach when it comes to moderating these boards. Well guess what boys and girls you cannot have it both ways. If you want to go to a board where there is almost zero moderation go to _militaryphotos.net_ or if you can remember back to the way _Arsenal of the CF _ was a couple of years ago (sorry Luc if you are lurking). We have children that come to these boards folks and civilians that have no idea about the CF and the way some of you conduct yourselves as members of the CF is downright shameful. Personally, if you don't like my moderation style, thats tough because the only one I answer to is Mike. I see some of you of having the following options:
1) keep trying to circumvent the board rules and guidelines and most likely end up getting banned 2) Move on to another less moderated board where you can rant and rave and do what you want 3) Sit back and actually read of what we accomplished here in the past few years. All and all its up to you on how you want to approach this.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (3 Mar 2005)

Some good (and a couple not so good) posts made on this topic. I think we're just about out of steam here, or at least out of original thoughts. I'd like to direct the thread to what I believe it's original intent was, and that is ensuring moderation is achieved equably on the site.

So from here on out, let's bring in and discuss specific examples where you didn't understand why a user or post was moderated. If there has truly been an injustice, let's fix it. As often as not though, the mods are so quick to address a problem users don't even know something has happened. All they see is an edited post or a banned user, and wonder why the staff went so hard on a guy who apparently did nothing.

That's the purpose of the Staff, to catch and correct problems quickly, and they do a fine job of it. So while this isn't a witch hunt where Staff have to justify their actions, we'd be more than happy to discuss why a particular action was taken, if anyone has specific questions.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## big bad john (3 Mar 2005)

Bav2002 said:
			
		

> If it were up to me Id have all the staff here at army.ca write a biography on themselves, military history, etc.   and have this available to the viewing public.   I think this could be interesting and give people an idea to who they have to bow down to and respect like the 6 star general of the united states of canada.


You do get a mini biography from your Profiles that you fill out.


----------



## winchable (3 Mar 2005)

> Che, if you had a thread on the same topic about a year ago then wouldn't that suggest that there is a problem still in existance with this site?



When I said re-hashed I meant we have flame wars re-hashed over different topics that all boil down to personal insults over differeng viewpoints and the cause of these personal insults are people cannot behave and post in a civil and polite manner.
It's as much about how you say it as what you are saying here, this is because it's a faceless form of communication where you can't gage someones tone or mannerisms so you have to try a bit harder to be civil. (I was making no attempt to be civil in my previous post but it was partially...very partially in jest)

As for a mini-biography. Take a look at the profiles, all staff members have profiles filled out.
We don't ask for some god-like respect but we are extensions of the site owners as well as the majority of the posters, will. And as such we have to exercise what we gather the general feelings of the forum is. At this time we feel that these posters are the exception, we have recieved no PMs to the contrary and they have been shown very little public support.
However, if you do ever get a chance to bow down before a 6 star general, I'd like to hear.

TCBF(?) and Zoomie have supported the comments to a certain degree, as well as infanteer, of Madmax and Mo-Litia, Yet for some reason they have been able to keep a civil tongue and not infringe on guidelines...so any argument that we are being impartial and unfair to opposing views need only look to their profiles to see we are not arbitrarily banning and warning opposing viewpoints, so that's laughable.

See that's more or less what I wanted to say last night, even I needed a coke and a smile.
It seems a dead topic for a moment but I do feel I owe something of an explanation.


----------

