# The Glue Factory Corral, Tired Old Horses That Just Won't Die



## Michael OLeary (7 Feb 2005)

It seems, of late, that certain topics keep cycling around the forums at Army.ca without conclusion. Driven more by emotion that reasoned debate, they never conclude and often end up as bitching sessions or open fights. Lately, it appears that some of these threads actually poison the generally helpful environment at Army.ca and undermine the very good work that has been done by all of the moderators and experienced members.

These topics, some of which I will mention below, often don't have a conclusion, solution, or compromise position of opinion. When a specific related point is being debated as a the focus of a thread, then good debate can occur, but as often the â Å“bitchyâ ? points are thrown in as an aside to barely related topics (and become an annoyance) or a thread simply devolves into internecine warfare.


The Airborne Regiment and its Disbandment â â€œ we can hate the government for it, but it's not coming back. Alternatively, we could make a rational stand by developing credible proposals for the reinstitution of new light/para units in a current force model and world political environment. But continually blasting the government for past decisions says we live in the past, not in the present preparing for the future.

The Liberals (or whoever is in Parliament) â â€œ ok, so we can collectively hate the ruling party. But they are the ones the public elected. We can rationally debate decisions made, without emotion, or we can simply blast the government for making decisions based on their own consideration of factors at the time. Perhaps the blame should properly be laid on the doorstep of the Minister of the moment, for failing in his duty to the department and convincing his peers that Defence is important. But simply slashing the Liberals (or whoever, since it was Dief ....Arrow ......) only sounds petulant.

Cadet attitudes â â€œ let's face it, they are kids. Imbued with a little knowledge, inspired by the attitudes of those who went before them in their Corps, they are only acting like the teens they are. There's no sense beating them up doing what comes naturally in emulation of what they believe soldiering is supposed to be like.

Politics of the military and the neo-pseudo-intellectuals â â€œ there's a reason why politics (among other subjects) was not discussed in Messes, and wading into aimless debates with punks fresh from PoliSci 101 doesn't help the forum. The kids won't back down, and reasoning with them just splashes the crap on everyone. There's probably no simple solution to that one if we want to maintain a political forum.

Scott Taylor â â€œ we've seen the results of simply slamming him ..... a much better approach would be to take a â Å“quote â â€œ counterpointâ ? approach based on editions of E de C. And staying within the realm of the factual based on personal knowledge, rather than emotional opinion.

Bashing NDHQ â â€œ could we trade simply slamming its existence with rational debate on the usefulness of selected directorates?

Officer bashing â â€œ it's surprising how often someone slips in a snide, or openly hostile, comment directed towards officers in general. I hate to think we may be setting an example for new recruits with such opinions.

The Reg v. Res Debate â â€œ personal opinions are one things, displays of open hatred quite another, I think we all notice those and quite often it would be best for someone on the same â Å“side of the fenceâ ? as the poster to quietly admonish and ask if they have a factual point to make.


A lot of work has been done to establish and maintain the credibility of Army.ca, and to make it a premiere 'go-to' site for advice and information on the Canadian military. We should take the same care in treating some of these â Å“tired old horsesâ ? that we did with questions about snipers, JTF-2 and a few of the other topics that were early thorns in open debate.

I offer these comments up simply as food for thought. I am not suggesting we kill discussions in these areas, but only that perhaps the approach and emotion filled discourse we have occasionally seen may not be in the best interests of our continuing achievement with the forums. 

My $0.02.


----------



## CivU (7 Feb 2005)

"wading into aimless debates with punks fresh from PoliSci 101 doesn't help the forum. The kids won't back down"

Perhaps stating that generally ignoring and criticizing without merit the valid opinions of educated youth should also be included in such a list. It seems a common reaction to a difference of opinion by older members who feel that their age warrants more respect, regardless of the knowledge and experience held by those younger than them...


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (7 Feb 2005)

Excellent post, thank-you Michael. I think we sometimes find ourselves drawn into unresolvable debates like those you mention above. While there's nothing wrong with revisiting the same issue, we need to be aware that everyone is simply not going to agree on some topics.

No need to resort to name calling or hurt feelings, I think in these cases we can agree to disagree or take it offline.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## Britney Spears (7 Feb 2005)

An idea: Some other board enforce a very strict "no personaly attacks, no swearing, etc" policy on their regular forums, but keep a seperate forum, call it the pit, where the slip-on's come off and people can vent a little, with the understanding that not everything need be level headed debate. I understand that you might think of it as a waste of resources, but its an idea that works fairly well else where.


----------



## Torlyn (7 Feb 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> "wading into aimless debates with punks fresh from PoliSci 101 doesn't help the forum. The kids won't back down"
> 
> Perhaps stating that generally ignoring and criticizing without merit the valid opinions of educated youth should also be included in such a list. It seems a common reaction to a difference of opinion by older members who feel that their age warrants more respect, regardless of the knowledge and experience held by those younger than them...



Been a while since I've said to ya, CivU, but I agree.  

T


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (7 Feb 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> An idea: Some other board enforce a very strict "no personaly attacks, no swearing, etc" policy on their regular forums, but keep a seperate forum, call it the pit, where the slip-on's come off and people can vent a little, with the understanding that not everything need be level headed debate. I understand that you might think of it as a waste of resources, but its an idea that works fairly well else where.



Not a bad idea actually. If a thread goes totally off the rails, it could simply be moved to the pit to take it out of mainstream viewing...

WRT the age issue, I'll try not to set things off too much... However I think crusty old buggers who dismiss the thoughts of students are as bountiful here as young scholars who express their researched opinions with the exuberance of actual experience. It's my opinion that both groups need to recognize their hand in this and take responsibility for fixing it.

The point of this whole thread is that we have gone wrong here a few times, and need to make things right. That's not limited to any age group, service status, component/trade or membership level, as I think we've seen it across the board from a small percentage.


----------



## Pieman (7 Feb 2005)

> It's my opinion that both groups need to recognize their hand in this and take responsibility for fixing it.


I totally agree with you on that point. Both sides of these kinds of arguments tend to get narrow minded, simply because neither side is listening nor respecting the opinion of the other.

With respect to the 'Pit' suggestion, I have seen that work well on other boards too. I also have seen other boards use the chat room as a way of working things out. Should a topic get heated and out of control, they two parties 'take it outside' and meet in the chat room. Not sure how that would pan out on this community, but it seems to do the trick in others.


----------



## winchable (7 Feb 2005)

> Not a bad idea actually. If a thread goes totally off the rails, it could simply be moved to the pit to take it out of mainstream viewing...



I work for a company that has just such a forum on our website and I can say that it would not work here.
There is an air of professionalism on this board that is entirely unique to these forums, to allow a "venting area" is  cop out on our behalf.
We are responsible for maintaining the relative peace on the boards and the rule as it stands is "take it to PM's." is the best way of going about it.
Any forum would undoubtably sow feelings of dislike that are easily settled if people are forced to follow conduct guidelines in public, however, if we let them go at a free-for-all in one particular section, it would most certainly spill out and then we'd have a whole new kind of problem.

Letting the gloves (or slipons in some cases) come off is what PM's are for, we still have many visitors on this site and they don't need to see our dirty laundry.
Any forum of this nature is something that I would most certainly not support as I belive it would be a serious blow to the professional nature of the forum.

Sorry to go off there, Like I said, I have seen such a forum before and it is really, really, really not in line with this site.


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Feb 2005)

I agree, Che. Forcing people to argue politely in public can't be such a bad thing...


----------



## Britney Spears (7 Feb 2005)

Well, it's not neccesary to have a "pit", but if you want to force people to be polite, then set the bar higher and enforce it. I've never had to sling any personal insults to anyone here (although undoubtably some deserved it), no one else should have to in a civillized discussion either.

Regarding "professionalism", My concept of ops is a little different. I got my hands full already being professional at the real job, and I'm not above a little banter on my off hour, which is when I browse this forum. Its quite clear that the views expressed on this board are from annonymous indivuduals on the internet, and do not represent any official CF/DND channel of communication is it really neccesary to be so starchy about everything? Some of us are here for fun, you know.....


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Feb 2005)

So, in your opinion, the Conduct Guidelines don't get enforced at all, or just consistently?  Also, "polite" was probably a poor choice of word - maybe "civil" is better. 


As for "fun" - you sure have some strange ideas about entertainment


----------



## Britney Spears (8 Feb 2005)

What I mean is that any form of personal insult, or attack, by anybody, should be forbiden, or told to "take it to the pit". That includes crusty old guys calling the cadets names, jeering at their lack of military experience, calling people "idiots" because they happen to have 1 spaghetti bar, MODS, everything. These things start because someone slings an insult at someone else, and its not always the idiot who starts it.  Some idiots obviously DO deserve a chewing out or two,  but that wouldn't be civil now, would it?

Of course, obvious spammers, trolls, and people who can't type should be taken care of by the mods in good order.



> As for "fun" - you sure have some strange ideas about entertainment



Well, obviously, I derive no material profit from imparting my wisdom here, so why else should I do so if not for the pleasure of your company?


----------



## muskrat89 (8 Feb 2005)

> so why else should I do so if not for the pleasure of your company?



So we can look at your avatar, of course....


----------



## Britney Spears (8 Feb 2005)

Well, let me tell you, after a long hard day of shootingup talibans for fun and topless mudwrestling, I like to think I can toss out a few posts off the record. We're not on the parade square or in front of the camera anymore eh?


----------



## vangemeren (8 Feb 2005)

What is going to happen to the dead horses that keep getting beaten. Are they getting deleted? If we find a beaten horse, do we report it? I find a lot of dead horses in the politics forum. As soon as a topic is locked/deleted, another thread under a different name but same topic starts up.


----------



## mdh (8 Feb 2005)

Life wouldn't be worth living unless we could slag each other in public, cheers, mdh  :threat:


----------



## bossi (8 Feb 2005)

vangemeren said:
			
		

> What is going to happen to the dead horses that keep getting beaten ... ?



Dakota tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount. However, we often try other strategies with dead horses, including the following: 

1. Buying a stronger whip.
2. Changing riders.
3. Say things like, "This is the way we have always ridden this horse."
4. Appointing a committee to study the horse.
5. Arranging to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses.
6. Increasing the standards to ride dead horses.
7. Appointing a tiger team to revive the dead horse.
8. Creating a training session to increase our riding ability.
9. Comparing the state of dead horses in todays environment.
10. Change the requirements declaring that "This horse is not dead."
11. Hire contractors to ride the dead horse.
12. Harnessing several dead horses together for increased speed.
13. Declaring that "No horse is too dead to beat."
14. Providing additional funding to increase the horse's performance.
15. Do a Cost Analysis study to see if contractors can ride it cheaper.
16. Purchase a product to make dead horses run faster.
17. Declare the horse is "better, faster and cheaper" dead.
18. Form a quality circle to find uses for dead horses.
19. Revisit the performance requirements for horses.
20. Say this horse was procured with cost as an independent variable.
21. Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.


----------



## big_johnson1 (8 Feb 2005)

I'll go with #4, 11, 15 and 21.

And a side of #3..


----------



## George Wallace (8 Feb 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> "wading into aimless debates with punks fresh from PoliSci 101 doesn't help the forum. The kids won't back down"
> 
> Perhaps stating that generally ignoring and criticizing without merit the valid opinions of educated youth should also be included in such a list. It seems a common reaction to a difference of opinion by older members who feel that their age warrants more respect, regardless of the knowledge and experience held by those younger than them...



Excuse me CivU.....you seem to have things ass backwards here.   Shouldn't you 'younger, less educated, less experienced' members be giving the older, more experienced and more educated a little more respect.   Who have your teachers been?   your elders, or did you learn by osmosis?   

This is where these Dead Horses come from - pompous trolls trying to impress the world with their superior intelligence, and then having a hissy fit when they can't bend those who have BTDT to their way of thinking.   :

Torlyn may agree with you, but personally I find your comment pompous and insulting.

GW


----------



## Slim (8 Feb 2005)

> Torlyn may agree with you, but personally I find your comment pompous and insulting.



I quite agree with you GW. How many times have the staff had to PM a "younger" member with a "heavy suggestion" to slow down some?!

CIVU, I think you need to take a good hard look at the profiles of some of the people that your talking with. These guys and gals were soldiering while you were still only watching it on TV and have COUNTLESS MAN YEARS of experience in BTDT. They know exactly what they're talking about...Give them their due and maybe you'll learn something here.

take the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth! Words to live buy.

Slim


----------



## vangemeren (8 Feb 2005)

Honestly, this thread about dead horses is only 12 hours old and it has already become one. 

I would add the seemingly poisonous debate between "young" and "old" people. Broadly categorizing age groups is crap. Good ideas/points are not restricted to a particular age group. In the same token, B.S is not monopolized by any particular group. An aim of this thread is to not just state things that are too broad and general, using "thats the way it is and if you don't agree with me you're ____" reasoning, or "you are ____, so you must be this ___"

[Edit]
Everybody have a look at this comment by Pbi in another thread 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/26268/post-162995.html#msg162995


----------



## Torlyn (8 Feb 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Torlyn may agree with you, but personally I find your comment pompous and insulting.



Perhaps I should clarify...  After starting here as a self-proclaimed Ninja-Sniper (Hi, Infanteer!!) I did eventually come to my senses, and I've spent a lot of time sitting back and learning from those who have experience.  Speaking for myself alone, I know that this site has helped shaped the expectations of my future career in the CF, and that if this board has taught me nothing else, it's that I need to listen to those who have been there longer, regardless of my (hopefully) impending commision as a Ocdt and 2lt DEO.  Rank and education mean sweet bugger all, you need to learn from those who have the knowledge.  I think Pieman had it right when he said that while we (the "ninja-snipers" newbies) need to sit back and listen to what the grizzled veterans say (Worn Out Grunt, cudos to you) we also don't want to be ignored or slagged for our lack of experience, UNLESS we're spouting off more than we can chew.  I mean, those of us that have gotten degrees and still wish to pursue the military are doing so in order to apply that education, in order to help/promote the CF.  (At least, I know the Abecedarian Alliance is)

In effect, I want to make the disclaimer that while I will immediately (well, the improved Torlyn) bow down to any knowledge that comes from the "inside", I also don't want the education that I worked my ass off for belittled for being "just" an education.  (I'm not saying anyone has done this personally, just a general observation.)

So, I guess it eventually comes down to the golden rule.  If all members, current, ex, or wanna-be's could strive to live in the other's shoes, I think that we will all be much better served.  

On a side note, bossi, I almost had beer snort out of my nose reading that post...    Cheers!

T


----------



## Infanteer (8 Feb 2005)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> In effect, I want to make the disclaimer that while I will immediately (well, the improved Torlyn) bow down to any knowledge that comes from the "inside", I also don't want the education that I worked my ass off for belittled for being "just" an education. (I'm not saying anyone has done this personally, just a general observation.)



Conversely, many don't want to have their 20-30 years of military experience, in which they've been deployed to countless shitholes around the globe, dismissed by someone who read a few books on the topic.

Naturally, the hope is that everybody will temper their experience with education (_it seemed that way when I was there, but that was only one specific instance, and a look at the larger picture suggests...._) and their education with experience (_this guy/theory/book says X, but I've seen it first hand and it's wrong...._).   I've got a tiny bit of both, and I try to do this "tempering" when I make a comment.   It will be the same for most members of this forum to varying degrees and we need to respect those degrees of experience and education and to be understanding when someone points out where our own effort of "tempering" falls short.

Anyways, moving along, most of the "bunfighting" seems to be tied up to threads in the "Politics" forums or threads of a political nature in the "Current Affairs" forums.   Any threads that are the true focus of this site, namely professional discussions of military matters, seem to be the best off because they contain genuine input, serious debate, and - even when there is vehement disagreement - a learning process for everyone who reads it.   

Perhaps, realizing that most political discussions will naturally devolve into an ideological trench war, as an experiment we should all make a conscious effort to avoid Politics for a month on this Board and see how the "atmosphere" is affected.   For the month of February, whenever someone starts a political spin-cycle, all I will contribute is a "Bah, Politics" statement.   If most of us can do this, hopefully the tension will die down and we can contribute more energy to threads like *"Up From the Ranks"*, *"The Infantry of Tomorrow"*, and *"Deep Thoughts on Transformation"*, to name a few.

As well, to promote professional discussion and debate, everytime you feel the need to post an news article on how George Bush sucks, Michael Moore's weight, or the latest Liberal circus-act INSTEAD, find an article on a military topic that interests you and read it.   You can find them all over the place - use Military Journals, military.com commentary, Op/Eds, or papers from Staff Colleges.   Read an article and post it along with the link.   Offer your viewpoint on the article...heck if your inexperienced or a civilian, post the article with a list of questions so that you and others can get answers.

Anyways, these aren't going to ever be rules, because we don't wish to constrain the discussion here.   However, these may be some creative ways to avoid alot of the tension that occurs here and put that energy into informed professional debate and discussion.

Cheers,
Infanteer.


----------



## Slim (8 Feb 2005)

> I would add the seemingly poisonous debate between "young" and "old" people. Broadly categorizing age groups is crap. Good ideas/points are not restricted to a particular age group



Somebody is going to say this so I might as well and hopefully get the point across without ruffling too many feathers...

Quite honestly I don't think that age (although I'm just as guilty for mentioning it!) education, future career desires (no matter how far fetched) or any of the other "conditions" that are used to heatedly point out the shortcomings of another member of the forum who has "transgressed" in some way are the basis for getting chewed on.

Over and over again the one thing that always sets the seniors(and lots of the juniors too!) off is coming onto the forum and creating an adverserial atmosphere when posting. I personally speak (well write actually) with lots of folks here who aren't members of the regular force...or even the CF, on a regular basis. I enjoy the chats and look forward to the next set of conversations to take place. That being said we aren't out to push one-another's buttons!

How you are treated here has a great deal to do with how you go about presenting yourself to others. Its been my experience on this site that the only people to get "chewed on" are the ones who arrive with a bone to pick, or set out to consciously test the patience of others. Quite honestly the only time that any of the "age/TI/reg/reserve/cadet ( or any other mitigating condition) is used is to demonstraight that so-and-so is in a certain situation or age group or rank and would be better to sit back and learn rather than start a war over the smallest of ideas or thoughts (Whether right or wrong)

If you enter into a discussion in the spirit of learning and enjoying the general banter that takes place here you will enjoy yourself immensely...But rubbing peoples noses in the fact that you have an education and nobody else does will not get you points or make friends!

Points to ponder. Think on it...

Slim


----------



## George Wallace (8 Feb 2005)

vangemeren said:
			
		

> Honestly, this thread about dead horses is only 12 hours old and it has already become one.
> 
> I would add the seemingly poisonous debate between "young" and "old" people. Broadly categorizing age groups is crap. Good ideas/points are not restricted to a particular age group. In the same token, B.S is not monopolized by any particular group. An aim of this thread is to not just state things that are too broad and general, using "thats the way it is and if you don't agree with me you're ____" reasoning, or "you are ____, so you must be this ___"
> 
> ...



Indeed.   Some good points.   Pbi's reference is a good addition.

Torlyn, you have indeed come a long way and now contribute much more credible discussion.

Clarity is what some of our discussions lack in some instances, setting off a bun fight or two, which have potential of escalating.   In a few cases it can be a nice diversion, and if we can get back on topic, make for some rather intellectual sparing.   In other cases, we have found that it is better for the Moderator or originator of the Topic to lock it.   I guess some of us would not make 'Clarica Agents'.

I do find some comments as: "I have (such and such) degree", "I am_____________",   "Give me written references_____________" as a defence to newspaper articles, and such to be rather short sighted.   I have nothing against "young" and "educated", but I do have a problem with shortsighted posters, and trolls, who don't think anyone is as smart as they are, who don't think anyone else could have received a Degree or education, who are arrogant enought to think that they should belong in MENSA, and no one else could survive in a debate with them.   When we refer to the "young" is is usually more a comment on lack of experience, rather than lack of education or IQ.   

Many of the 'Senior' posters here do loose their patience when a new Topic is started on something that is in a thread only two down from the top, by someone who posted without looking at other topics first.  If someone comes onto the forum and asks a question, without searching, about a topic that has run its' course and had excellent posts, it gets rather annoying after five or six or many more.  That "Are we there Yet?" or "I got to Go to the Bathroom!" type of question found on those long drives in short order can only be tolerated for so long before someone snaps.  Part of that "experience thing" we go on about, I guess.

There are many 'Older' posters on this forum who are "Published".  There are many "Older" posters on this forum who have Degrees, sometimes multipule Degrees.  There are many on this forum who have years of invaluable "experience".  They do not necessarily 'always' go about flaunting their credentials.  They do, however, become very annoyed and defensive when a person comes into the forums with self important and self righteous ideas trying to dictate a point that doesn't belong on a site like this.  Sometimes these people are ROTL and too Thick, but do provide some enjoyment in the sparing that can take place as a form of diversive entertainment before they are dispatched or ignored.  

I must admit that on this site, like any other site, Posers and Trolls get one of two reactions:   Ignored or treated like fish in a barrel and quickly dispatched.   Like LGen Mattis said sometimes "it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot,"

I have rambled on too much, but then we are stacking the Dead Horses into quite a heap for a short span of intellectual disertation.

GW


----------



## Pieman (8 Feb 2005)

> think Pieman had it right when he said that while we (the "ninja-snipers" newbies) need to sit back and listen to what the grizzled veterans say (Worn Out Grunt, cudos to you) we also don't want to be ignored or slagged for our lack of experience, UNLESS we're spouting off more than we can chew.   I mean, those of us that have gotten degrees and still wish to pursue the military are doing so in order to apply that education, in order to help/promote the CF.   (At least, I know the Abecedarian Alliance is)



Very true Torlyn, things were quite a lot worse before you showed up though. The Army.ca board has grown and improved a lot in the past 8 months or so. The biggest change in the atmosphere here that I noticed was back when the Warning system was put into effect. Things went from being a cowboy bar fight scene to a more 'tempered' one almost right away. Among many other positive changes that happened since. Contributing to the forum, learning, and discussing hot topics is much easier and more productive.Thus with the combination of all those positive changes, the Ninja Snipers were allowed to rest, and were sent off to the glue factory. 

Hopefully many of the other 'dead horses' discussed here will be sent there too. Then I think this board will have achieved a very high level of professionalism that I know the staff is working hard to improve and maintain.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (8 Feb 2005)

pbi's reference is right on the money, as are Britney Spears' and Infanteer's responses to it. And as much as they got it bang on, I can't help but re-iterate their comments (though likely with less finesse).

One of the biggest draws to Army.ca (and one of my stated goals) is that it provides neutral ground for all ranks, trades, components etc to come together and speak directly and candidly on topics concerning the Canadian Army (specifically) and military matters (in general). Potential recruits can benefit from the wisdom of operationally experienced WOs while LCols can hear the straight good from the boots on the ground.

About a 18 months ago, we actually started to achieve that goal. Prior to that, the site was highly segmented into "the riff-raff" and "the regulars" (not necessarily *R*egulars). But then we started to get serious about our direction. We built up a cadre of professional staff to mimic the diverse nature of our visitors, created formal conduct guidelines, a warning system etc. In my opinion, this has worked very well.

Unfortunately, we seem to be heading back to the old hierarchical system where new users are becoming disconnected from the expertise on the site. I don't think I'd be too far off the mark to say that nobody is very happy with this. As tensions and tempers rise, I've noticed new members, senior members and staff alike taking pot shots at each other. So far this has been fairly sporadic, but I want to head it off before it becomes much harder to deal with.

I'll point only one finger of blame here, at myself. I have allowed (actively or passively) some of the original qualities of Army.ca to erode over time. In some cases I've taken the easy route, turning a blind eye and thereby condoning actions outside the Conduct Guidelines.

The Staff are saddled with a job that continues to be frustrating and challenging, yet they tackle it with such enthusiasm and effectiveness I cannot thank them enough. So let me be clear that if things have taken a turn for the worse it is because I have been a bit of an absentee owner at times.

We have come too far to jeopardize it over a few heated arguments, so this is where things turn around. On the surface, it may seem like a big task: how do we continue to keep the trolls and troublemakers out without taking a bit of collateral damage once in a while? How can we maintain the quality and professionalism that everyone has worked so hard to achieve without constraining ourselves to the point where truly interesting debate is impossible?

The answer is simple, and it's been here all along: The Conduct Guidelines

We have taken great care to create them in such a way that they give Staff the power to deal with problems while protecting the ability to argue rationally, even if it becomes a heated debate. So to summarize, we simply need to apply the Conduct Guidelines fairly and uniformly. No-one is above a warning if their actions are inappropriate. If the Conduct Guidelines need to be adjusted to suit our changing situation, then so be it.

This is no great revelation, as I'm merely restating what has been said above: all users here will be judged, applauded or warned based on their contributions. That is irregardless of age, rank, social standing, education, number of posts, trade etc. As a user, your reception here is wholly contingent on how you present yourself. Your tone, the completeness of your profile, and the facts used to back up your statements are what is primarily going to determine the length and quality of your stay here.

I have no doubt we can maintain the environment that has drawn all of us here. That is, one of courteous professionalism, where new recruits can ask original questions freely, and senior members can fill in the blanks for those seeking information. With all the professional, helpful and experienced users we have here, it would be a shame to either drive them away, or exclude the audience of new recruits who can most benefit from their guidance. We have every right to be proud of what we have *all* built here and I for one wish to guard it jealously from being diluted.

As a preliminary step, I recommend that when anyone steps out of line with their comments, instead of exacerbating the situation with name calling or deliberately provocative digs, direct the user to this post, or to the Conduct Guidelines. If it's something you think the Staff need to see, use the "report to moderator" feature.

And lastly, if anyone has any questions or concerns about how things are handled, please don't hesitate to ask me, publicly or privately. We all have to accept our share of responsibility for what Army.ca is and what it will become through our efforts.


Cheers
Mike

P.S. This topic itself is a good example. It has developed into an interesting little debate in it's own right, and I might add, a near textbook one. People are taking sides, creating a coherent defence, and sometimes even adjusting their point of view in the face of a well formed argument. The best part is, nobody has resorted to name calling or pouting.


----------



## CivU (8 Feb 2005)

The bottom line is, without younger generations questioning the values and conventions held by elder generations, no social progress would ever be made...

Respect is a two way street - for the younger members to give it inherently, they also have to receive it in return...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Feb 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> Respect is a two way street - for the younger members to give it inherently, they also have to receive it in return...



...and vica versa.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (8 Feb 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> The bottom line is, without younger generations questioning the values and conventions held by elder generations, no social progress would ever be made...



You're basing that on the fact that all social progress is made by youth, which is a pretty big assumption. At what point do youth stop contributing to social progress and become part of the elder generation?


----------



## CivU (8 Feb 2005)

Change is generally brought about by younger generations, I'll give you an example.

Presently in Canada about 50-60% of the population supports same-sex marriage legislation; however, in persons under 30, that figure is above 80%.  Social progress is a product of questioning the norms that are in place because of a generation that supported those notions...


----------



## Inch (8 Feb 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> Change is generally brought about by younger generations, I'll give you an example.
> 
> Presently in Canada about 50-60% of the population supports same-sex marriage legislation; however, in persons under 30, that figure is above 80%.   Social progress is a product of questioning the norms that are in place because of a generation that supported those notions...



Of course you have a reference for those Stats, I'm under 30 and I know lots of people that are, I would suggest those stats aren't entirely accurate.

Change is not brought on by teenagers, if you're talking "younger generations" as being young adults 20-30, then I would suggest they're not exactly the youth of the day, but educated adults *with some life's experiences*. I don't count fresh out of post-secondary idealists as having a whole lot of life's experiences, in any case, no more than every other university/college kid that's ever walked through the doors. You can afford to be an idealist in university, afterwards the reality of life sets it, idealism doesn't put groceries in the fridge and you do what you can to be a productive member of society and take care of yourself and your family.


----------



## dutchie (8 Feb 2005)

Presently in Canada about 50-60% of the population supports same-sex marriage legislation; however, in persons under 30, that figure is above 80%.  Social progress is a product of questioning the norms that are in place because of a generation that supported those notions...

Oh heavens, another whopper......

Please back up your claims with references. The stats I've seen differ with your claim.


Remember, social progress to one is social degredation to another.


----------



## Pieman (8 Feb 2005)

> Change is generally brought about by younger generations, I'll give you an example.
> 
> Presently in Canada about 50-60% of the population supports same-sex marriage legislation; however, in persons under 30, that figure is above 80%.   Social progress is a product of questioning the norms that are in place because of a generation that supported those notions...


CivU, I think this is one of the dead horses we were talking about. <Pieman checks horse's pulse>...Yea, I am pretty sure that its toast...but if it does come back to life and kick you, let us know....


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Feb 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> Change is generally brought about by younger generations, I'll give you an example.
> 
> Presently in Canada about 50-60% of the population supports same-sex marriage legislation; however, in persons under 30, that figure is above 80%.   Social progress is a product of questioning the norms that are in place because of a generation that supported those notions...



Depends on your definition of "progress" doesn't it.


----------



## camochick (8 Feb 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> Of course you have a reference for those Stats, I'm under 30 and I know lots of people that are, I would suggest those stats aren't entirely accurate.
> 
> Change is not brought on by teenagers, if you're talking "younger generations" as being young adults 20-30, then I would suggest they're not exactly the youth of the day, but educated adults *with some life's experiences*. I don't count fresh out of post-secondary idealists as having a whole lot of life's experiences, in any case, no more than every other university/college kid that's ever walked through the doors. You can afford to be an idealist in university, afterwards the reality of life sets it, idealism doesn't put groceries in the fridge and you do what you can to be a productive member of society and take care of yourself and your family.



Not all people in post secondary are idealists, nor do they all lack life experience. Perhaps when it comes to the military they do because no one can join when they are 2. If everyone would just stop automatically judging someone on their age or education I think that it would help the forums. Just because you are formally educated doesn't mean you lack life experience and just because you have no formal education doesn't mean you lack intelligence. Respect is a two way street and it must be earned, by young and old.


----------



## Buzz (8 Feb 2005)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> I mean, those of us that have gotten degrees and still wish to pursue the military are doing so in order to apply that education, in order to help/promote the CF.   (At least, I know the Abecedarian Alliance is)



I compeletely agree that we have to listen to our elders because there can be alot to learn from their experience. In Civie world and especially in the military world if you want to make it. 

The reason why I quoted this is because 
#1) Are you going to have book smarts or actual life education along with book smarts?
I find there are alot of people boasting themselves with degrees and cr*p, good for you.   You spent a pile of money to try and become leaders.   Yes i'm a little bitter.   I have a diploma and I also have 10 years experience in industry learning first hand in civ world (trades and business). And I've seen it over and over,   some newbie trying to strut there stuff and when a plan fails,   it's all good because they have a degree and nooooooo experience.
I was asked how I would like to join as an officer right there in my interview.   By a senior officer whom I listened to and respected because of how he got to where he is. Plus I wasn't there because i wanted to blow smoke up his a$$ either.    Lots of people look for free rides and personally I think officers should come from the ranks and no free ride.    I've seen that in a different format for a utility where engineers come up from the grunts and become known around the world. And who teaches these newbie grunts and ejumacates them?? And trains them company specific? ei) the way their perception of "standard" is, are the ones that were once grunts themselves. Why not have a better retention rate?   You want to go to RMC?? Sign up as a grunt...and we'll see if you should go or not.   That's my thinking.

They earned to be where they are today.    But hey that's just my opinion.

Just a little rant.hehehe Nothing personal...just making a point.

-Buzz


----------



## Inch (8 Feb 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> Not all people in post secondary are idealists, nor do they all lack life experience. Perhaps when it comes to the military they do because no one can join when they are 2. If everyone would just stop automatically judging someone on their age or education I think that it would help the forums. Just because you are formally educated doesn't mean you lack life experience and just because you have no formal education doesn't mean you lack intelligence. Respect is a two way street and it must be earned, by young and old.



I agree, I didn't say anything about formally educated people lacking life's experience nor did I say lack of education equates to lack of intelligence. Life's experience in the world is gained by living it, it can't be taught and someone that goes from their parent's house straight to college really doesn't have a whole lot of time to acquire said experience. I don't judge based on education or life's experience or lack thereof, and I'm bothered by the implication that most senior members on the board do judge based on those things.


----------



## camochick (8 Feb 2005)

I never meant to imply that all senior members on the board judge people(sorry if that is how my post came across). I think at times we all judge even thought we try hard not too, this goes for senior members and newbies. I do agree that life experience is learned obviously through life and that the older you get the more you acquire(well we hope , some people still seem to lack maturity when they are "older"). I guess like I said before, if respect is had for all then the boards will remain as great as they are.  ;D


----------



## Torlyn (8 Feb 2005)

So, to sum up the thread, we've come to a few conclusions.

1. This poor horse hasn't just been beaten to death, it's on it's way to the hot dog/dog food factory.
2.  Most everyone is here for a common goal.
3.  We'd all get along better if we respected each other, regardless of backgrounds.  Defer where deference is necessary.
4.  When ninja-snipers come flying around, perhaps not engaging them would serve the board better.  As was stated earlier, forward them to this topic.
5.  This thread is a brilliant example of how our discussions should be taking place, calmly, without any personal attacks, and by offering verifiable sources of information (er, so maybe a post or two missed this part, but c'est la vie.)
6.  Seriously, Seabiscuit is dead.  Let's let him be.  

T


----------



## Pieman (8 Feb 2005)

"Take that Seabiscuit, you bleeding bas$#@%!!"


----------



## CivU (9 Feb 2005)

"Of course you have a reference for those Stats, I'm under 30 and I know lots of people that are, I would suggest those stats aren't entirely accurate."

Here is a comprehensive report on the status of same-sex marriage in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/gay_rights_poll2003b.pdf

The figures they use to discuss the variabe age is different than mine (35 and under as oppossed to 30 and under as I have seen elsewhere) but nonetheless, it shows a position on same-sex marriage that, in comparison to the same demographic at the other end, is dramatically oppossed.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Feb 2005)

You really don't know when to quit, do you?


----------



## mdh (9 Feb 2005)

How in the world did the Dead Horse thread turn into a debate on same sex marriage? You're away from the computer for a couple of hours and look what happens...oh well back to the salt mines...cheers all, mdh


----------



## Horse_Soldier (9 Feb 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> How in the world did the Dead Horse thread turn into a debate on same sex marriage? You're away from the computer for a couple of hours and look what happens...oh well back to the salt mines...cheers all, mdh


Perhaps the horse was gay... who knows  :


----------



## Infanteer (9 Feb 2005)

Horse_Soldier said:
			
		

> Perhaps the horse was gay... who knows :



It's called "not reading the thread and getting a grip on the tone of the conversation"....


----------



## mdh (9 Feb 2005)

You laugh horse soldier - but it's only a matter of time before activist judges ok gay horse marriage


----------



## Horse_Soldier (9 Feb 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> You laugh horse soldier - but it's only a matter of time before activist judges ok gay horse marriage


Which means flogging a dead horse would be considered an acceptable fetish-type activity?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Feb 2005)

OK. Fun's over. Put it back on track.

CivU,

Please endevour to hold on to the original idea of a thread and not take them off on tangents.


----------



## CivU (9 Feb 2005)

I was substantiating a claim I used as an example of younger generations as being socially progressive...


----------



## Infanteer (9 Feb 2005)

If you hadn't figured out, the thread was summed up and the dead horse was beaten.  Go start a thread in the Politics forum if you feel the urge to prove a point.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Feb 2005)

CivU

Man.....are you ever going to be amazed when, and if, you graduate and find out how much your father learned while you were away at college.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Feb 2005)

For some reason I'm thinking of Blue Bear in Boyd Coddington's hotrod shop. :


----------



## winchable (9 Feb 2005)

> flogging a dead horse would be considered an acceptable fetish-type activity



It isn't already?

If you'll excuse me I have to...uh...*ahem*
(Che runs outside, a barn door is heard opening and several horses run by the window)


----------



## CivU (9 Feb 2005)

GW,

I know he is learning new things, everyday in fact.  Foruntately he hasn't placed himself in a position where he ignores the opinions of anyone whose differs from his.  I wish you the best of luck in patting yourself on the back, and I'll send you a copy of my diploma in the mail.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Feb 2005)

Don't bother. We waste enough trees as it is.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Feb 2005)

This thread has sufficiently departed from its original purpose that it will be locked. After consideration, I or another staff member, may separate or delete the posts which prove rather than discuss the original premise (since they only rehash old discussions on the same theme), at which time it may be reopened for further posts.


----------

