# Army.ca Staff and user conduct



## Mike Bobbitt (1 Feb 2007)

All,

I'd like to step in and make a few comments about the recent - and now defunct - Acts of Moderation thread. I deleted it because it was no longer serving its intended purpose of being a conduit for questioning and explaining Staff issues, it had unfortunately turned into something with no positive value to the site. I propose we use this thread as a fresh start, so please - once you have read my post - feel free to address any outstanding concerns you may have.


First off, we value your feedback. Even the feedback that slams what we do or how we do it. Without honest, direct feedback we may lose sight of how we can do better.

You have my word that we will read every comment, complaint and suggestion - as we always have. However not every idea will be acted upon. Sometimes they are impractical to implement, sometimes they make life harder for Staff and/or users, or sometimes there may be other factors at play which the general population is unaware of.

What I can guarantee is that we will listen, which I believe is the best any of us can do.

Unfortunately we've seen frustrations rise recently, and I believe it's doing harm to the community we've built here. Some users are frustrated with the Staff, the Staff are frustrated with some users, and I'm sure some users are frustrated with each other. The end result is tempers flare and harsh words are exchanged, as it always is when people are aggravated.

The problem is, it's poisoning the atmosphere here and I know for a fact we are causing some highly respected members to run silent; others to leave all together. In essence, we are starting to drive out that which makes Army.ca unique.

I don't believe anyone here would dispute that there is a problem. Does the problem lie with the users of Army.ca? Yep. Does it lie with the Staff? Yep. We're all guilty at times. We're all human, we all let our frustrations get the best of us and we all dislike being mistreated.

The issue of respect has been brought up several times. As noted, it's a two way street. When someone makes a first post and is slammed by the Staff, they feel disrespected and others feel it too. On the flip side, when a Staff member has just spent their evening cleaning up threads, they feel irritated when a new user steps in and drops a thread without searching, reading the Guidelines or paying attention to Army.ca protocol. (And yes, we can see who has searched, who has read the Guidelines, etc., so this frustration is real, not imagined.) This irritation gets magnified to disrespect when the member has been around the army.ca block yet chooses to do so anyway.

We have spent a great deal of time and effort designing a system where (we believe) the rules are clear but fair; where a user has the freedom to discuss any topic but troublemakers can be dealt with. When someone ignores this system, not only does it cause work for the Staff, but it shows a cutting disrespect for what we have all worked so hard to build here.

So what can we do about this? It's not as simple as saying "new users must search" because that's already abundantly clear through the Guidelines and many other threads. Nor can we demand that new users stay in their lane with any effectiveness. (A rule the cannot be enforced will not be adhered to.)

Simply put, we will always have some who register and post without taking the time to understand how Army.ca operates. When they do, that's work for the Staff here. Someone has to clean up the thread, direct the user to the search button, merge, delete, etc. All because a new user ignored or decided to flaunt well established practices here. That's disrespectful.

As you can imagine, the Staff grow weary of dealing with this same issue day in, day out. But that's their job, and not to sound cliché, somebody has to do it. Thankfully, we have a cadre of volunteers who not only do it, but do it well. So how do we prevent the Staff from becoming frustrated when they have to deal with the same, repetitive, usually basic problems?

Do we ban people right off the bat for not paying attention to the mandatory rules? Do we fire Staff who allow themselves to become frustrated? Neither one of those options is acceptable. In the end, we have to suck it up, all of us. As a Staff member here, dealing with frustrating situations on a daily basis is part of the job. As a user, adhering to the rules is par for the course.

What we can do (again, all of us) is be respectful, even in disagreement. Generally, this is a non-issue, but as pointed out above, Army.ca can be stressful for users and Staff alike. When that happens, sometimes people lose their ability to be impartial and respectful, and that's when things go off the rails. Frequently, that's also when a Staff member smells trouble and locks a thread. Unfortunately that has been known to make some users see red. Maybe they believe the Staff are trying to have the final say, maybe they had just typed up a lengthy (polite) rebuttal which is now lost. (Note: Do not delete your rebuttal, rather PM it to a mod who can consider including it into the locked thread.)

This is not a justification for poor behaviour, nor a pardon for past problems on either side of the house. It is simply an explanation of what I believe the problem is, and a re-iteration that we must be respectful, even if we don't get along. I provide no quick fix or secret trick to getting over this problem... it is collectively ours to solve and if we don't work on it as such, it will not go away on its own.

If anyone has had the perseverance to read my entire response, kudos to you... you are likely singing in the choir already.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## Roy Harding (1 Feb 2007)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> If anyone has had the perseverance to read my entire response, kudos to you... you are likely singing in the choir already.
> 
> ...



I can't sing (in a manner such that anyone but a love-sick moose would want to listen) - but I hear you.

If any of my posts have been seen as part of the problem discussed above (I don't THINK so, but misunderstandings occur frequently on this medium), I apologize.

You and the mods run one hell of a site here, Mike - please keep up the fine work, all of you.

Roy Harding

Edit: spelling


----------



## sigpig (1 Feb 2007)

Is there any reason for the 'Warning', 'C&P', and 'Banned' flashing neon signs to be put next to the members name? I'm sure the member knows their status at any given time, what is gained by broadcasting it to the entire community? Other forums I frequent don't do this. I don't recall having to wear a Red Chit stuck to my beret during courses.

I think some of the antagonism that goes on here might be reduced with more use of pm's by mods if they feel they need to correct something instead of posting in the thread. I know I feel very differently if someone pulls me to the side to tell me something as opposed to blasting me in front of my peers.


----------



## TMM (1 Feb 2007)

With regards to newbies posting in the wrong spot, not doing searches there is a way to minimise it that I have seen on some other forums. A few times I have joined a forum and had the first 10 posts delayed until read by a mod. It was a great help.

I don't know how feasible that is for site staff but it certainly did work.


----------



## Mike Baker (1 Feb 2007)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> You and the mods run one hell of a site here, Mike - please keep up the fine work, all of you.


+1 there, I see nothing wrong with the way this site is managed or moderated


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (1 Feb 2007)

Hi sigpig,

All valid points... let me see if I can tackle them.

The warning indicators are public for a few reasons. First, it adds some weight to the warning. Simply knowing I can't edit my own posts may not stop me from putting my foot in my mouth. But when everyone sees that I've put my foot in my mouth, it may be enough incentive to think then post, not the other way around. It also acts as a marker to others, so they can judge the person's posts accordingly. You may consider that unfair... a person with a Recorded may [now] be making very strong posts... but as often as not, knowing that they recently breached the Guidelines can put their comments in context. It also helps act as a barometer for others... Jones makes a personal attack, Jones is on warning. They now understand the visible correlation between action and reaction with regards to the warning system. If there was no visible marker, I'm sure we'd be flooded with "did you see what Brown pulled in his last post?" notifications. Once users see the warning marker, they know the problem has been dealt with.

The designation also goes away when the warning is over, and there is no permanent public mark left, so the warning banners are a temporary measure. Finally (and more pragmatically) they're a reminder to the DS... "doh! I left Smith on C&P... no wonder he's been so quiet!"  I still need to finish that automated system I guess.

All in all, these factors combine to make the case "for" markers stronger than the case "against."

With regards to PMs... They're used more than you may suspect. As was brought up previously, it's one of those invisible things so I can't give you numbers or anything other than assurances, but it does happen. I'll take your feedback as: it could be used more often, in which case it's a valid point, thanks.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## George Wallace (1 Feb 2007)

sigpig said:
			
		

> Is there any reason for the 'Warning', 'C&P', and 'Banned' flashing neon signs to be put next to the members name? I'm sure the member knows their status at any given time, what is gained by broadcasting it to the entire community?



The member may know, but do you?  If a guy gets banned, perhaps you would like to know why?  His posts will show you; unless they were too offensive/not fit for publication and had to be deleted.  If you got put on 'Warning' at the Unit, would it be a Secret?  

If a person is on C&P and can not reply to your post, you would never know why they are not responding.

Then again, we could all go on and not know that we have people causing trouble in our little world, and not know if they are getting corrected for their misdeeds, like ostriches.  Discipline of offenders, also causes others to think before they too become an offender.  It is a form of 'preventive medicine' in a way.  If you know that you will not be punished for your transgressions, then you will do as you please, and the site will suffer.

[I wasn't fast enough]


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (1 Feb 2007)

TMM,

I like the concept, but with (on average) 20-30 new registrations a day, that's 200-300 posts that must be vetted by the staff. I suspect you've seen this in place on smaller boards, but I'm not sure. I think it would take up a fair amount of the Staff's time, though I'm sure the end product would be very good. (No more inane posts or public lync mobs required.)

If the system was simple enough it may work. Unfortunately our software doesn't seem to support it in any fashion, but I will do a bit of digging to see if there is an add-on, and if so, is it suitably simple.


Thanks
Mike


----------



## niner domestic (1 Feb 2007)

Ok, as I am a ardent supporter of the adage, don't be part of the problem, be part of the solution here goes:

Thank you for addressing my concerns.  I too, am a moderator on a number of busy sites and can well appreciate the feeling of being hammered by the group if one fails to either moderate or moderates too harshly.  I too have wanted to reach through the screen and shake some sense into some members and scream... "use the search function, we covered this topic ad nauseum in 2000 posts".   Our list and site owners prefer that we not do that and have asked us to practice restraint and to simply point out that there is a plethora of information available and to suggest the search phrases that will help them find the threads.  In one of the groups, we have over 8000 active members and approximately 1000-2000 posts a day to sort through. We also have an additional responsibility to ensure that members are supported, and erroneous information is not passed around as it is a site for cancer patients and to also recognize and deal with the instances of unauthorized medical and legal practices (which gets the site sued).  And yes, we've had to deal with a number of posers and trolls as well - why anyone would want to be a cancer patient or troll a cancer site, I'll never know. There is also the added burden that it requires us to recognize that a majority of the members are ill people and in some cases are limited on how much they can be cognative of and retain basic rules when they are on a pain med. So I can really appreciate how hard you all have to work.    

We found through trial and error, that it is best as moderators to have certain threads and topics to moderate as opposed to the entire board. We have found that it very quickly becomes apparent which member frequents which topic and when and who is likely to cause a problem.  It does help to reduce the work load if one only has to concentrate on a few topics as opposed to an entire board.   We do have global moderators who can delete, edit and move anything across the entire board. Those moderators have agreed not to participate in any threads on a personal level and remain just global moderators. That comes in handy when there is a dispute and the thread needs to either edited severely or deleted.   There is little room then for accusation that the mod has a vendetta against so and so etc. The global mods have our own private area and threads to discuss our own issues with fellow patients/survivors in lieu of a full participation. We rotate through the global positions a month at a time.  For the thread/topic moderators, they are free to contribute/debate in any thread other than the ones they have been assigned to moderate (if a subject does comes up that they would like to participate in rather than moderate, the thread gets turned over to someone else and the mods buttons are disabled for the mod in that thread .  

On one of the other sites I moderate, the membership is large and everyone believes themselves to be the next Oliver Wendall Holmes or Clarence Darrow and egos quite often run afoul of the site's rules.   The software we use has a function that allows a user to have their posts spooled and vetted prior to being posted.  We usually only vet the first post (so doing the math you cited Mike, that would mean 20-30 posts instead of 200-300 a much more manageable amount). I think we can all agree that in most cases it's the first post that usually is the one to get someone off to the wrong start or is the trolling post.  We can then use the same function for when a member has run afoul of the rules.  I can set it to any value - an hour, a day, a week etc.  

Besides the obvious rules for conduct, we also use one that has saved the moderators a heap of time.  If you are participating in a thread or reading one and it gets nasty, do not respond to it, just report it.  If however, you respond to the taunt or nasty post with a "your mamma wears whatever..."  and then you report it because the come back was better than yours or it devolved down to a nasty name calling thread, both posters are considered offenders and both get locked out for a couple of hours.  We don't have to constantly be locking down threads, just the problem users.  

A banned member is just that, banned and their IP (where possible) is locked out as well.  It has proved useful in preventing new user names popping up by a banned member and remaining unnoticed.  (the software will also recognize an IP address and label the new name as a former banned user so that the mods can catch that).  We also insist on a new member using a proper email address as opposed to a yahoo or hotmail account (and thereby reducing the amount of multiple user names). In the instance where a user does not have a rogers/eastlink/etc account, then an email to the site registration mod is required (amazing what those headers reveal).  Those persons are placed on a 10 post vetting process.  It's not a perfect way to deal with trouble but it helps reduce the impulse responder ias they are hampered and trolls get bored waiting for their posts.  

We also have very strict rules about using material from a PM in a main thread.  That gets you banned.  We also discourage cross posting from one site to another as well as following a member from one site to another and posting their info or posts.  Repeat offenders get bounced as it becomes impossible to tell the difference between vendetta, stalking and personal interest.  

Just some suggestions, hope some of them can lead to an exchange of ideas.


----------



## Pikache (1 Feb 2007)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> Ok, as I am a ardent supporter of the adage, don't be part of the problem, be part of the solution here goes:
> 
> We found through trial and error, that it is best as moderators to have certain threads and topics to moderate as opposed to the entire board. We have found that it very quickly becomes apparent which member frequents which topic and when and who is likely to cause a problem.  It does help to reduce the work load if one only has to concentrate on a few topics as opposed to an entire board.   We do have global moderators who can delete, edit and move anything across the entire board. Those moderators have agreed not to participate in any threads on a personal level and remain just global moderators. That comes in handy when there is a dispute and the thread needs to either edited severely or deleted.   There is little room then for accusation that the mod has a vendetta against so and so etc. The global mods have our own private area and threads to discuss our own issues with fellow patients/survivors in lieu of a full participation. We rotate through the global positions a month at a time.  For the thread/topic moderators, they are free to contribute/debate in any thread other than the ones they have been assigned to moderate (if a subject does comes up that they would like to participate in rather than moderate, the thread gets turned over to someone else and the mods buttons are disabled for the mod in that thread .


The reason why we have 'global' moderators only is that because most moderators have a full time job or otherwise busy and cannot devote much time to moderating all the time. So, really, if there is a trouble, first mod on scene deals with it.
It gets to the point that some mods are way more active than others that sometimes no other mods need to be active. 

With the system we have (the main one being 'Report to Mod' button to get a mod's attention), I believe the system we have works well, and no need to tinker


----------



## medaid (1 Feb 2007)

I think the mods are doing a wanderful job. Most of the times the individuals who have been C&P, Banned or Warned have all be given kind albeit some what rough nudges at the time to watch what they are saying, I believe it is necessary, because there are those who just NEVER listen.


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Feb 2007)

As far as the very public warning system goes, I'll borrow something from someone a little older and a lot smarter than me, the name escapes me.....ahem: " Justice must not only be done, it must be SEEN to be done"....or words to that effect.  I may have appeared to be on the side of the insurgency through some of my posts in yesterdays dog's breakfast.  Rest assured that is NOT the case, I'm on the side of the grownups here all the way.  Keep doing what your doing, mods.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (1 Feb 2007)

Wow, thanks niner, there's quite a lot to chew on there. I know we don't currently have the ability to vet posts before they are public, but I'd bet there's a package out there that will do it. I'll talk it over with the other Staff and see if it makes sense to give it a try.

I think RHF said it best about the global mod situation... it's not uncommon to have 1 or 2 Staff online during the slow times, so we give them the flexibility to deal with whatever comes their way.

I also appreciate the other suggestions... like I said, lots to consider there, I'm sure you've sparked some healthy discussion in the Staff board. 


Cheers
Mike


----------



## armyvern (1 Feb 2007)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> We found through trial and error, that it is best as moderators to have certain threads and topics to moderate as opposed to the entire board. We have found that it very quickly becomes apparent which member frequents which topic and when and who is likely to cause a problem.  It does help to reduce the work load if one only has to concentrate on a few topics as opposed to an entire board.   We do have global moderators who can delete, edit and move anything across the entire board. Those moderators have agreed not to participate in any threads on a personal level and remain just global moderators. That comes in handy when there is a dispute and the thread needs to either edited severely or deleted.   There is little room then for accusation that the mod has a vendetta against so and so etc. The global mods have our own private area and threads to discuss our own issues with fellow patients/survivors in lieu of a full participation. We rotate through the global positions a month at a time.  For the thread/topic moderators, they are free to contribute/debate in any thread other than the ones they have been assigned to moderate (if a subject does comes up that they would like to participate in rather than moderate, the thread gets turned over to someone else and the mods buttons are disabled for the mod in that thread .



9erD,

I highly respect the opinions and suggestions that you have brought forth here. Thank you very much. I'll let Mike address the programming issues as it's his program, but many of the things you've mentionned already occur WRT double-account/banned user notifications.

I don't think that the above suggestion is viable for this site though. The range of topics, trades, tours, equipment etc is endless. Obviously, the majority of my posts occur in the Logitics Forum. If I were to post in it...who would continue to moderate the Supply/Clothing topics in there? Beyond posting in those threads I get between 10-20 PMs a day related to supply or clothing matters which I attempt to answer as honestly as I can on an individual basis. It keeps me very busy. I don't mind at all. I think it's a valid suggestion, but I don't see it working for this site.

Especially when the other mods all sleep go to sleep at night at some point and I am the insomniac. Now if you could arrange with Mike to pay me overtime for my night-time hours....I'd be rich!!  ;D


----------



## armyvern (1 Feb 2007)

Oh,

And on the public warning system; I'd just like to add that the overwhelming majority of pers who have been public bannered, have been privately warned on numerous occasions via PM prior to the official banner needing to be applied. So yes, sometimes when the official discipline gets done on the board with a nudge, it's not because we haven't tried to prevent it from becomming an offical nudge on the boards.


----------



## antique (1 Feb 2007)

Mr.Bobbitt,
I have been visiting your site for quite a while now as also.other similar sites.Most of your members are highly interesting and do come up with valid arguments.Most are highly skilled in the art of putting their point across and the Mods are doing an excellent job in keeping order in the place.(which is a change from other places I have seen)This being said,I sometimes feel that younger,less experienced visitors,are being  quickly dismissed either by members or by Mods.Sure there are rules and if you want to keep some quality to your discussions there must be discipline.On the other hand,we have all been younger soldiers and sometimes we did put our foot in our mouth and that's called learning.Mods do have a job to do and it's quite all right.Your warning system is reasonable IMHO and as always transgressors should be put on notice and being told is also part of learning.Why change something that works?People who DO attack others should be told to stop and be taken care of accordingly,for the rest I believe that members and Mods alike can and do take matters in their hands and keep this site a great place.
Patience and time do a lot more than yelling and rage
Just one old guy
regards


----------



## probum non poenitet (1 Feb 2007)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> The problem is, it's poisoning the atmosphere here and I know for a fact we are causing some highly respected members to run silent; others to leave all together. In essence, we are starting to drive out that which makes Army.ca unique.



This post will be unpopular. But since you asked sincerely, I will answer sincerely, if indelicately ...

The reason I _enjoyed _ this site so much last year was that those who spoke to topics were almost always soldiers preparing for/conducting/returned from operations.
Those who did not have an expertise kept quiet or got shut down.

I have seen some extremely dismissive words thrown towards Afghanistan vets on boards that made me so angry I walked away from this site. The mods said nothing. In fact, some were guilty.

There are some people (including staff) on this board who are so far removed from what combat veterans are going through in 2007 that they feel they can throw out advice to them as if they were peers.

Let me be clear on this ... we are not their peers. Maybe in your fantasy worlds you are ... and it's a delusion. Talk to a few, and you might be cured.

Often when a good topic comes up, it gets dominated by people whose opinions really don't hold much weight with me. Sorry, but if you are sitting in a REMF job (as I am right now), a 15-year old cadet, or retired 20 years ago, you don't quite have your finger on the pulse of what is happening on ops, which is my area of interest.
You may have an _idea_ of the Army at war, but you are not an authority.

In my opinion, the soldiers who gave this site its 'edge' have been largely run off by what I see as a lack of humour and a lack of respect mixed with the inflated importance of 'regulars' who need to suck back,  listen more and talk waaaayyy less.

Those who have first-hand experience of that war are those to whom we should listen - the fact that there are very few of them participating on this site speaks to the essence of the problem.
They have voted with their feet and largely disappeared, and with their departure went much of army.ca's credibility.
Sorry, but there it is.

Fixing the warning system etc. is just cosmetic. It's only the symptom, not the disease.

You need to figure out why the fighting soldeirs aren't here. Fix that problem, and your site will be awesome. Ignore it, and it'll get pretty lame.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (1 Feb 2007)

I read your post probum non poenitet and I always considered this site to be more then accomodating and supportive of Afghanistan and Iraq vets. If you can provide links to those posts I am sure many of us would like to see this and be ready to address your concerns when/if they occur again.


----------



## armyvern (1 Feb 2007)

probum non poenitet,

I also sent you a PM 1/2 hour ago asking for some links to incidents which you have outlined in your post below as I can not recall any of them occuring. Please send some links to the posts to which you refer.

But as a point of note with your post regarding Afghan Vets not being here, I can assure you that the IP tracking in the program reveals that there is indeed a great many pers here who are posting from theatre. I have checked some of their profiles and have found that their profile does not always reveal that they are currently serving overseas. So, I think that your concern in that area may be unfounded. Perhaps some of them may be a little busy right now with the roto handover that is occuring or are out at FOBs getting their harder work done and thus have not been able to post frequently as of late.

Please aslo remember that someone else's profile may not reveal them to be an Afghan Vet, when in actuality they may have done their turn there too. One can not judge one personal experience or knowledge based on their profile alone, especially if they have choosen to leave it blank or only partially filled out.

As for any Afghan Vet being treated poorly on this site because of that fact, I have searched for an example of what you have outlined below with no success. Any links to these posts which have caused you concern would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks very much.

Veronica


----------



## antique (1 Feb 2007)

P N P ,
I have read your post with high attention and as I was never engaged in war I will not comment on whether other soldiers are your peers or not or as to REMF's are in tune or  not. just say that one of the reasons that those of us who were lucky enough to serve in peace time do not join the legion is due to the attitude of those who were in war....I was there so I know better and the rest of you should be quiet.
The sacrifices made by our soldiers deserves respect and I for one do respect all of you.Be carefull not to shun away others who have not been there because then it creates  a wedge or classes in between soldiers and that,Sir,is not what the service is all about.
Maybe you feel that you were treated dismissively by others but how did you treat these others?Remember the old guys from the legion!
Just an old guy


----------



## GAP (1 Feb 2007)

I read most threads. Don't always comment, If I have nothing creative to add, I listen. 

I have noticed that when subjects go out of kilter regarding things relevant to Astan, pretty soon one of the guys that is either over there, or just back, pipes in and sets things straight. You can almost see the heads perk up, and the thread subject gets back on focus (mostly).


----------



## George Wallace (1 Feb 2007)

niner domestic  

I am going to say a few things in reply to your post, and point out, contrary to what others have already posted, that in many cases we are already doing what you have suggested, but of course differently than what is practiced on other sites.  What the Mods do, is in the background and often unseen by the members of the Forums.  

We do have Mods who are dedicated to certain Forums and that is due to their 'expertise' in those areas.  We have three or four who patrol the Franco Forums.  We have two or three who concentrate on the Cadet Forums.  We also have other SMEs who will deal with the Air Force, the Navy, QM, RMS, etc. and others will leave them alone to use their expertise.  Most, however, are Global.  Not all the Mods are on at regular times, and each has a different style or method of monitoring the site.  Often a Mod is onto a problem before it is posted.  I am sure many of the long time members of the site have memories of such instances where a Post has appeared and when they refreshed their screens, it was gone.

We are not as draconian as to forbid any Mod from posting, as they too are members of the site.  Your example of a Global Mod not being able to post for the month that they rotated through that position, actually is not a deterant for a Mod picking on someone that they don't like.  It just makes it less visible, but the membership will still recognize it.  We do try to monitor our own actions as Mods, so that if we are involved in a discussion, we will ask another Mod to moderate that topic.  It isn't fair for a Mod to argue with someone and then Lock the topic.  Not if we want to look professional.

As for your suggestions on monitoring IPs.  We do.  We have, in the last week, caught several European Spam sites attempting to gain access to this site and banned them before they could finish registering.  We do require a valid email address, although we haven't gone as far as you have suggested, and if we did we would disenfranchise many legitimate members.  We do find it easy to track down Multiple Accounts.  We also have several thousand Serving Members of the CF logging in from the same IP addresses so we have to be very careful in how we deal with blocking addresses.  I am sure many of the long time member will also remember the numerous occurrences where the Mods have picked up on previously Banned members who have recreated themselves with new names, IP addresses, emails and all that, so I think we have fairly a good system in place and working for us.  Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, no one but the Mods see what is going on behind the scenes. 

Of course there is always room for improvement and we are always open to suggestions.


----------



## armyvern (1 Feb 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> I read most threads. Don't always comment, If I have nothing creative to add, I listen.
> 
> I have noticed that when subjects go out of kilter regarding things relevant to Astan, pretty soon one of the guys that is either over there, or just back, pipes in and sets things straight. You can almost see the heads perk up, and the thread subject gets back on focus (mostly).



Good point Gap,

It is also why we mods also rely on those members with the "lane" experience to chime in when required. Doesn't mean a snr member needs to chime in at all, just someone with current lane experience. Much like occured the other night in this thread:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/56830/post-519971.html#msg519971


----------



## George Wallace (1 Feb 2007)

pnp

Your little rant could be considered an insult to many.

If I may add to the picture, a few lines from your own profile as posted at this very instance on this site:

MOC:         Infantry in a staff job. 
Mil Exp:      Pretty vanilla - no Afghanistan time yet. Waitin' my turn with ears wide open. 


So I am left with the question as to what your whole post is about.  

Could your post be one of the causes of this whole Topic.  A disgruntled individual out for one thing, and one thing only; to stir up shyte with the "Staff"?


----------



## George Wallace (1 Feb 2007)

Just to add to some of the arguement:

Here is an example of what the Mods put up with several times a day.  Of course they are not all worded the same, but in essance they are the same question.  We all know that this question has been asked many times before and answered.  Here we have a person who has just registered on the site, and posts almost immediately.  (Date Registered:  Today at 18:16:51 )



			
				Falange said:
			
		

> Hello,
> 
> I was wondering if any of you guys know if it is possible to do the BMQ, SQ, and DP2 during summertime? I have the impression it is possible but it seems most people just go for the first two or just the BMQ per year.
> 
> Thank you!



People may wonder why our first response is to give out the multiple coloured list, but you can only answer a question so many times before you just cut and paste the instructions that will get the person the answers:


Welcome to Army.ca. Here are some reading references that are core to how Army.ca operates. I strongly recommend you take a moment to read through these to give you a better sense for the environment here. It will help you avoid the common pitfalls which can result in miscommunication and confusion. For those that choose not to read, their actions often lead to warnings being issued or even permanent bans.

*Army.ca Conduct Guidelines*: MUST READ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html

MSN and ICQ "short hand" -  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33247.0.html

Regarding the use of "MSN speak" versus the employment of prose which is correct in grammar, spelling and punctuation, please see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34015/post-260446.html#msg260446

Tone and Content on Army.ca: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51970.0.html

FRIENDLY ADVICE TO NEW MEMBERS - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937/post-259412.html#msg259412

Recruiting FAQ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21101.0.html

Army.ca Wiki Recruiting FAQ - http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Frequently_Asked_Questions


Canadian Forces Aptitude Test - http://army.ca/forums/threads/21101/post-103977.html#msg103977
Fitness requirements at enrolment, see page 12 of this brochure: http://64.254.158.112/pdf/physical_fitness_en.pdf

Infantry Specific FAQ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21131.0.html

Search page - http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search;advanced

Google search of Army.ca - http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=+site%3Aarmy.ca+%22search+term%22&btnG=Search&meta= (follow the link then replace "search term" with what you are looking for)

Army.ca wiki pages  - http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Main_Page


To summarize. Welcome to Army.ca, start reading.


Will they follow the hint with a little nudge.......or not?  Only time will tell.


----------



## Roy Harding (1 Feb 2007)

PNP;

I AM an Afghanistan Vet (albeit I was a REMF) - (Roto 0, 2002).

I've never felt insulted here; as others have asked in previous posts - can you provide links to examples of what you stated??


Roy Harding


----------



## Neill McKay (1 Feb 2007)

HighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> The reason why we have 'global' moderators only is that because most moderators have a full time job or otherwise busy and cannot devote much time to moderating all the time. So, really, if there is a trouble, first mod on scene deals with it.
> It gets to the point that some mods are way more active than others that sometimes no other mods need to be active.
> 
> With the system we have (the main one being 'Report to Mod' button to get a mod's attention), I believe the system we have works well, and no need to tinker



In the site where I'm a moderator the staff are responsible for individual forms for the most part (one or two forums have two moderators each).  When a post in my form is reported I get an e-mail, and a post is generated in one of the staff forums showing the reported post and the comments provided by the user who reported it (so that all of the moderators can see who's making trouble throughout the site).

I'm curious as to what happens here, where the staff are all at-large and not assigned to individual forums -- who gets the call when a user pushes the button?


----------



## George Wallace (1 Feb 2007)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to what happens here, where the staff are all at-large and not assigned to individual forums -- who gets the call when a user pushes the button?




Might I refer you to Reply #21


----------



## armyvern (1 Feb 2007)

We get an e-mail notification on the reported post and the comments that the reporter has made. The reported post is then reviewed to determine if any action is required or warranted.

If so, the reported post is actioned accordingly. Sounds much like the system which is on the site where you moderate.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (1 Feb 2007)

We also usually allow the Mod that is SME in that area to deal with it.


----------



## Gunner98 (1 Feb 2007)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> probum non poenitet... But as a point of note with your post regarding Afghan Vets not being here, I can assure you that the IP tracking in the program reveals that there is indeed a great many pers here who are posting from theatre. Veronica



To this I would add:
Many Vets have had a change in priorities since deploying and returning from A'stan.  Family time, socializing and catching up on personal issues/hobbies has taken more prominence in their lives than sitting at their computer discussing the mundane.  They have been through a life-altering experience that few (non-Vets) can imagine.  They have the campaign star, t-shirt and (visible or invisible) scars.  So please don't speak on their behalf or jump to conclusions without evidence.


----------



## armyvern (1 Feb 2007)

Gunner98,

Yes. Thanks for pointing that out, another possible factor that I overlooked.

Roto is an especially busy time for those departing, returning, and those doing the handovers and operating the FOBs. To view their irregular attendance on this site as something other than that may certainly be premature and unwarranted.

Veronica


----------



## MJP (1 Feb 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> pnp
> 
> Your little rant could be considered an insult to many.
> 
> ...



I don't know if he is stirring up shyte but his post rings true in a few regards.  I knew quite a few 1VP people that if not regular posters, were regular lurkers but lost interest or left in disgust over a few things.  When the TF1-06 went overseas, it was obviously followed with great interest here at Army.ca. There was a time that every little article in the newspaper was posted and critiqued every which way by people that felt they could have done the job better. The speculation on some incidents made my blood boil at times.  People that never left the hard packed highways while on other Afghan Rotos commenting on vehicle incidents, when in fact we took our vehicles places even the Americans said we couldn't go.  Members speculating everytime a suicide bomber managed to hit a convoy and how slack the security must have been to to let the bomber in that close.  When in fact anyone that has ever been involved in one would know that suicide bombers, like IEDs are one of the hardest attacks to defend against.  One of the worst was on of my (at the time) fellow section commanders.  Who was heavily attacked for the security surrounding the axe attack on Lt Greene.  A situation that was next to impossible to predict and like many suicide bombers hard to stop 100%. IT was causing him even more stress and grief in a time that it wasn't needed at all. That is a few examples and it wasn't like the critiques were being made by young soldiers that didn't know better, but in many cases many senior members on the site that should have known better.  I can remember many members doing the exact same thing on 3VP Op Apollo, talking out their collective @sses with never being there.  

Now with that said I have noticed that in many cases now, speculation surrounding incidents are dealt with fairly straightforward and posters are told to cease fire unless they were on the ground at the time.  IMHO the only guys that can truly critiques any incident over there are the men on the ground and their leadership and for the most part Army.ca has done a good job in that regard. SO to sum up in recent months yes Army.ca has stopped the speculation but historically it's track record was horrible and it was a long time in coming.  So yes I can see where probum non poenitet is coming from.


----------



## armyvern (1 Feb 2007)

MJP,

Agreed that some of those things did occur in the past. I think though, in most cases, the staff were quick to jump in and lock up the thread, clean out some of the BS in it and deal with the speculator appropriately.

I know that I reported a post once before I was a mod because of what was pure speculation on an incident in-theatre, and by the time I got back to the thread it no longer existed.

Hopefully, this trend of speculating has become the exception rather than the norm. I encourage everyone to indeed hit that "report thread" button when it occurs so that it can be dealt with quickly. Mods can not be in every thread all the time, so please, do report it so that we know it's there!!

Better yet, when incidents do occur, I highly suggest that we all remain professional and refrain from any kind of speculation for indeed, as MJP has stated, only you will look like the ass in the end when the facts of the matter are officially released.

Again, excellent point MJP.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Feb 2007)

MJP

In most cases, the speculation in was fact curiosity and people trying to figure out what was happening.  It is the nature of our Trades.  It is true that the only ones in the know are the guys on the ground, but they are also not readily available to be posting on Army.ca.  Next up to bat would be the guys, as you said, who had been on previous Tours, so naturally they would be next in line for having relevant info, or one would think.  It is all part of the search for answers, knowledge of what will make us all better at our jobs, or in other words a form of Lessons Learned.  

We could go down the line on experience of the posters, until we land up with the cadets.  All we can do is attempt to keep the SME's posts and filter out the the chaff, and keep the topics relevant.  

We also have to be careful of OPSEC and PERSEC when posting.  Some of the Lessons Learned coming in from some of the posters, unfortunately had to be pruned.  Then we had to deal with Casualties, and keep the topics civil and respectful.  Nothing is more aggravating than some numpty trying to post an off colour joke in a memorial thread.

Yeah!  It is fun dealing with some of the jokers who seem to be set on upsetting the site.  On a whole most of the site members have been very understanding and cooperative in keeping order.  They too, have responsibilities.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Feb 2007)

......And now everyone can see that we all look at the topics from different perspectives.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (2 Feb 2007)

Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to post in this thread. *This* is how we can discuss Army.ca, its faults and how to fix them. Everyone has been civil in delivering and accepting criticism, and I think our community will improve as a result. There have certainly been a lot of valid points made from all quarters.

If we are driving vets away, we are doing them - and ourselves - a terrible disservice. Ironically, PNP, it could be very easy to interpret your post as an indicator that we have gone too soft at times. I don't believe that was your point though, I think it was more to point out an attitude shift, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I think - as has been pointed out - that we're all learning how to cope with the victories and the tragedies associated with Afghanistan, and while we're finding our way, we have made some mis-steps as we go.

I believe we defer to those in the know as much as we are able. Sometimes it's not evident who is in the know and who is not - as a result some armchair generals may have their comments stand as gospel while vets may have theirs questioned. I'm sure that's terribly frustrating, but we do the best we can with the information at hand.

I know it's beating a dead horse, but a "Report to moderator" with a simple "this guy is in the know" or "sorry, facts are wrong here" is a great indicator for us.

In addition the the 15 year old cadets and the 20 year retirees (only been 10 for me ) we have a number of Staff who have played/are playing an active role in Afghanistan. We lean heavily on their expertise to guide us, just as we do with our other SMEs.

Again, I appreciate all the feedback and commentary, I think it's a positive thing for us as a community. If anyone has additional feedback, or examples of a problem, please don't hesitate to post them here for public discussion, or PM me with them if you feel a private chat is more appropriate.


Thanks
Mike


----------



## orange.paint (3 Feb 2007)

Hi 
I have seen a problem I wish to confront.I was actively viewing you thread last night at:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/56849.0.html

I noticed today that GO!!! was placed on C&P.However I find it unjust as to what us the public viewer has seen.The Moderator George Wallace was in my opinion out of line.I have been viewing this board for quite some time now and find him quite arrogant.

I found it amusing that he started to compare his coldwar time to today.Not that I find that time as a soldier non important.I do however find it quite jovial that Mr Wallace will complain about how hard it was in the past,how they did such a great job then talk about how many beer he could store in his APC or Tank.Found here.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/1698/post-19811.html#msg19811

Ordering "Green Grenades" on a ADREP.Sorry Mr Wallace but our soldiers are preparing to fight a real war,and cannot afford the luxury of having a cold one during training.Such actions would now get them removed from the tour.

What pique's me the most is that GO!!! is now not allow to post while George Wallace who became confrontational first in my opinion gets no reprimand.

Isn't this sort of like putting your barking dog outside and when it gets the neighbours dog barking you muzzle the neighbours dog?

Staff Conduct

"To use old (but true) military quips, Staff are expected to lead by example and be above reproach. That means that all members of the Army.ca Staff need to take extra care in their actions here"

Next I'm going to move onto the deleting of post's,editing of post.I understand that sometimes as in the last post I referenced it went off topic.I understand deleting this.However in the past (yes,I'm a old member.I was never banned but feel the need to come here under a guise)I have seen MOD's take a post totally edit it to serve themselves,lock the topic and make the other guy look dotterel.I have seen one of the MOD's "buddies" post a derogatory comment about someone,when that person retaliates he is placed on C&P/BANNED.

Where is the proof?Am I committing perjury?
Honestly how the heck can a low level person on this board going to prove anything.That's the problem.On army.ca there are three types of people.The people who are obsequious every second post to get their point across without someone jumping down their throats.And you have the people who are confrontational (who don't last long...when I left I myself was on my last legs here.)They tend not to agree with everything the MOD's or their friends say and certain MOD's have a hate on for them.Then it's the friends.I've seen GEO a popular poster here gets away with quite a few things I thought he should have received warnings for,however the friends in the moderators made sure he was protected.

This type of ignorance should not be tolerated:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52953.0.html
However Journeyman gets away with it why?Due to friends in high places.

I've also noticed anything fitness related is usually stamped on my the mods.This makes me question their "dedication to the corp" or the CF for that matter.

Lets also go back a year to the "MOD squad" as we referred to them.Posting derogatory PM's by mistake.I believe it was Bruce Monkhouse who had done this actually.Is this professional?Does this not fall in under:

Staff Conduct

"To use old (but true) military quips, Staff are expected to lead by example and be above reproach. That means that all members of the Army.ca Staff need to take extra care in their actions here"


----------- Edit from Mike Bobbitt ----------- 

I either missed some of the above the first go around, or your jammed it in after I replied. I don't see the value in dredging up _year old_ faults to pick at those scabs again. We didn't trot out your past transgressions and make you (once again) pay for them, I'd ask you afford my Staff the same courtesy. The solution is simple and has not changed... if you see a current thread that needs review, *report to moderator*.

----------- Edit from Mike Bobbitt ----------- 

I have left this site for obvious reasons,but have continued to visit to see the progress/lack there of.I enjoy the site although as i said I have inserted my foot in my mouth prior as have most of the people here.Due to the fact I get enraged over things like fitness,competence,soldering.

If Mike would have me back after asking to leave the site I would be honored.However I just want to know when are the mod's going to be moderated?When will the subjugation stop.

There should be no mistake who I am by this point.I understand it's against policy to have multiple accounts however I cannot log into my old one.

Cheers and best regards

Ex-RCAC_011


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (3 Feb 2007)

Thank-you, this is a good example, actually. Yes, George and GO!!! were going at it, and IMO both went too far. However neither was warned for that. GO!!! received his warning because, as things spiralled downward, 3 mods stepped in to call for calm (I was one of them). Immediately following my post asking that the infighting cease, GO!!! decided he had to get the last word in. George took his cue and let go. That, unfortunately for GO!!! made all the difference.

I then cleaned out the thread, and as a side-effect, you can no longer see the reason GO!!! is on RW. You must then (logically) assume that the warning was earned by the posts you *did* see, and with that limited view, it's easy to cry foul.

For completeness, I should also mention that I have spoken to George about the incident - more than I would have done with GO!!! had it not progressed to that crucial final stage. So while it *seems* GO!!! was wronged and George got off scott free, the reality is quite different. Unfortunately this is representative of many situations, where it is easy to conclude that the DS are abusing their power or acting with impunity. We are making some changes to how we do things to try to rectify this problem of perception.

I hope this clears things up.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## Nfld Sapper (3 Feb 2007)

> found it amusing that he started to compare his coldwar time to today.Not that I find that time as a soldier non important.I do however find it quite jovial that Mr Wallace will complain about how hard it was in the past,how they did such a great job then talk about how many beer he could store in his APC or Tank.Found here.
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/1698/post-19811.html#msg19811
> 
> Ordering "Green Grenades" on a ADREP.Sorry Mr Wallace but our soldiers are preparing to fight a real war,and cannot afford the luxury of having a cold one during training.Such actions would now get them removed from the tour.



First of all why bring up a 3 year old thread for your example? Germany/Cold War time is a different ball of wax than the way we train now for ops now (ex. the sandbox)



> I noticed today that GO!!! was placed on C&P.However I find it unjust as to what us the public viewer has seen.The Moderator George Wallace was in my opinion out of line.I have been viewing this board for quite some time now and find him quite arrogant.



Secondly you don't know why GO!!! was placed on C&P and quite frankly IMHO it really should be between him and the MODS.


Anyways my 2 cents worth, take it for what's it worth.


----------



## orange.paint (3 Feb 2007)

Nfld Sapper said:
			
		

> First of all why bring up a 3 year old thread for your example? Germany/Cold War time is a different ball of wax than the way we train now for ops now (ex. the sandbox)



You as myself didnt see the whole thread.There were references to how hard Germany was.I used this reference to illustrate my point.As myself you never seen the whole story.

As for it's between the MOD's and him,thats a attitude that could backfire.We all must ask why.Keeping blinders on hinders vision.

Cheers and thanks mike.

Rcac_011


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (3 Feb 2007)

I forgot to address:



			
				orange.paint said:
			
		

> If Mike would have me back after asking to leave the site I would be honored.However I just want to know when are the mod's going to be moderated?When will the subjugation stop.



As you point out, you asked to leave, so the door remains open. I find it interesting that *this* in particular is what drew you back after all this time. However if you are going to be part of the solution, you are more than welcome to stay.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (3 Feb 2007)

Actually on the contrary my friend I did read the whole thread. The original title of the thread was 





> Topic: Is the Leo 1A5 the MBT for Canada?


And then it turned into them remembering the "good old days".

BTW talk to anyone that was in Germany and they all give the same stories wether they be Armoured, Gunners, or Sappers.

<editied to fix spelling>


----------



## armyvern (3 Feb 2007)

orange.paint said:
			
		

> As for it's between the MOD's and him,thats a attitude that could backfire.We all must ask why.Keeping blinders on hinders vision.


Which is exactly why the new WARNING thread exists. Now you'll know why.

Cheers and thanks Rcac_011

Vern


----------



## orange.paint (3 Feb 2007)

Misunderstanding again. 
I was referring to last nights thread about the JTF 2.It's all deleted now (as it should be) however without having read the full thing there comes mass confusion.

Not about that at all.George was stating how Germany was crazy,and how he was sick of people who think if their not taking fire from taliban or haven't are less.I posted that to reflect just how difficult Germany was.

I hope that clears it up.

Cheers Vern
(roll all my past foot into mouths over to this account If possible)

Rcac_011


----------



## armyvern (3 Feb 2007)

I think, that Mike may be able to do that.

Cheers.

Welcome back.


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 Feb 2007)

I believe that George's point was that every soldier's service deserves respect.  It is not the soldier's choice if a war happens during his or her time in uniform.  And none should denigrate another because their service wasn't the same.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Feb 2007)

Back on Track please folks

army.ca staff


----------



## armyvern (3 Feb 2007)

MODERATOR POST:

I have just edited the thread to remove posts that were not related to the topic at hand. As Cdnaviator has stated...keep it on track.

The Army.ca Staff


----------



## 3rd Horseman (4 Feb 2007)

I would suggest that included with the warnings thread for reasons from the Mods for the warning, the offender be given the opportunity to rebut the warning or even agree with it. In my recent case I would have probably agreed with the warning as thin as it was. In past cases I would have aggressively disagreed allowing the other members to see the warning for what it is and let them make up their own minds about the credability of the warning.


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Feb 2007)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> I would suggest that included with the warnings thread for reasons from the Mods for the warning, the offender be given the opportunity to rebut the warning or even agree with it. In my recent case I would have probably agreed with the warning as thin as it was. In past cases I would have aggressively disagreed allowing the other members to see the warning for what it is and let them make up their own minds about the credability of the warning.



And how long would you like those debates to run?  The point of the change is to be more open to others that the warning was issued for a purpose (which isn't always what they thought they saw).  The recipient already gets specific PMs, as you well know, explaining the reason for teh warning.  They can respond to that, or appeal to Mike B if they feel hard done by.  

We are seeking to minimize explanatory debates, not create them.


----------



## aesop081 (4 Feb 2007)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And how long would you like those debates to run?  The point of the change is to be more open to others that the warning was issued for a purpose (which isn't always what they thought they saw).  The recipient already gets specific PMs, as you well know, explaining the reason for teh warning.  They can respond to that, or appeal to Mike B if they feel hard done by.
> 
> We are seeking to minimize explanatory debates, not create them.



I was just typing essentilay the same thing

+1 Michael


----------



## 3rd Horseman (4 Feb 2007)

I don't report to anyone except the person Ive been dealing with, going to Mike would be whining in my book.

I would suggest no debate needs to occur, just a few lines to rebut not open ended one shot at it for all to see no more.


----------



## Franko (4 Feb 2007)

Nope....post the information and let the masses see it and put two and two together.

There will be no need for anyone to weigh in and get their 2 rubles worth in.

If the member has a problem with it, vice it to the uber mod and it will be dealt with from there.

We deal with an average of 200+ posts per day. Some days it's more than that. With that there are trolls and other shyte disturbers.

do you really want to have threads on why "IHATE THE ARMY KILLERS" should not be banned?

No, the system works. 

What is being done here is a more or less transparent way of doing buisness and nothing more.

My 0.02 Duram worth


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Feb 2007)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> I don't report to anyone except the person Ive been dealing with, going to Mike would be whining in my book.
> 
> I would suggest no debate needs to occur, just a few lines to rebut not open ended one shot at it for all to see no more.



If someone won't stick to the Conduct Guidelines, how would you suggest a "few lines to rebut" be enforced.  It would do little more than encourage spin-off threads for and against the action and the rebuttal.  Wasted bandwidth, in my opinion.  We already know that no forum monitoring system will please every member, we do try to find a middle ground that keeps the site functioning with minimal disruption and without an onerous amount of labour required by the volunteer efforts of the staff.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Feb 2007)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> We deal with an average of 200+ posts per day. Some days it's more than that. With that there are trolls and other shyte disturbers..



RBD,
We deal with a lot more than that, [from forum stats]
Average registrations per day: 20.12 
Average posts per day: 457.99  
Average topics per day: 28.64


----------



## Franko (4 Feb 2007)

Ahhh...so that's why I have carpel tunnel.

Even so, we aren't going to have a 5 page thread on why BLOGINS is on Recorded Warning. It's going to be along the lines of:

BLOGINS: Recoded Warning

Reason: Racial slurs

POST: http.army.ca/losers stupid remark thread


Now if the member still has a problem with it, it will be dealt with in the same manner.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (4 Feb 2007)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> If someone won't stick to the Conduct Guidelines, how would you suggest a "few lines to rebut" be enforced.



I would suggest that the offender PM the Mod that warned them the rebuttal and then it is placed in the post. That would give full control to stop the idiot baby killers fear defense. No thread issue as RBD has said no voice given to foolish responses, just clarity.

It was only a suggestion, I figure that is what this thread was for.


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Feb 2007)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> It was only a suggestion, I figure that is what this thread was for.



Which adds further steps to the system, and open up another avenue for complaint when their manifesto doesn't get posted for them.  And then, when "the man" oppresses them again, they still appeal to Mike with an even more complicated beef.

Thanks for the suggestion, but keep in mind it's very easy to suggest work that you're never going to have to do yourself.


----------



## Yrys (4 Feb 2007)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Thanks for the suggestion, but keep in mind it's very easy to suggest work that you're never going to have to do yourself.



I sometimes disagree with the actions of DS, but since I'm not one, and I don't know if I what I see
is everything that has goes on, I don't think I ever post a comment about it. (maybe a pm or 2).
This is a restraint that a person more in the field may find difficult to follow. We are humans.

But as I'm a curious lady (I want to say that I wish I could know everything that is going on here : ),
I wish I could have enough times to read everything that is post, before it disappears. As in the
''Changes to the warning system'' thread, when a post is replying to something that has been erasing,
with others posts erased, then the reply disappear, but some erased posts reappear.

Anyhow, *thanks to all the DS for their works*. I may not agree all the time, but it's something (DS work)
that I'm glad I ain't doing, seeing the time and energy it take for the reward of :  ??? ?


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Feb 2007)

Thank you yrys - your comments are appreciated


----------



## orange.paint (4 Feb 2007)

Like Mike/RBD said if you have a problem bring it up to the site owner.Most likely all deleted posts will go to a recycling bin for future review,beyond the scope of what we see.There's no B/S then.D/S makes a decision if it's that horrible I'm sure the site owner takes the time to have a look if brought to his attention.

What a lot of people don't understand is that there are regular force members who work all day, then come home and moderate.They do it to make this site run smooth due to their enjoyment they get from the site as well as everyone else.

It's too easy to complain.However I have found if you put it into a proper tone,MOST of the staff are willing to listen and sometimes help you out.As my last complaint was well received,except for my personal message from cnaviator,for getting off topic. 

If you don't like it report it.The staff are very accepting.

"Mod's are dumb and I shouldn't be on C&P" probably will not work to well in your favor.

cheers


----------



## rmacqueen (4 Feb 2007)

I have found that the problems tend to arise, at least in my experience, not when we are discussing specific military subjects but when we get into the more philisophical areas.  Usually they involve peoples beliefs, ethics and morals, areas where it is easy for the subject to become heated.


----------



## 3rd Herd (4 Feb 2007)

Just a couple of my thoughts on this issue. One, I whole heartily support the fantastic work the mods have been doing. Several times I have asked a mod to unlock a thread so I could add something. In all cases I have pm'd the mod with a copy of which I intend to add to the thread. Not once has this been refused so apologies to the mods for creating more work. Secondly, with regard to the changes in posting or the lack of postings yes certain members can longer "clear the air" based on personal experience and or knowledge as stated in prior posts folks there is a war going on. Thirdly, yes I get upset with a few individuals on this site but I leave for awhile and then return in a calmer frame of mind. As I have pointed out a couple of times in my lanes  if you are going to post something provocative then Please put your source in your post. For one it allows all of us to check your source and this detracts further comments of a personal attack nature. Me thinks this also follows under being professional. In closing I agree with rmacqueen in regard to the philosophical musing.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (4 Feb 2007)

A few comments here if I may...

1 - Respect.  We have lots of people on here, with different and varying degree's of experience.  Some operational, some from Cold War times.  Some from our current op's.  Some from the FRY.  But its all experience, and, IMHO, something worthy bringing to the table.  Would anyone on here sit with a vet of WWII or Korea and tell them "that was then, this is now, so what you did doesn't matter".  Would that same vet say anything of the same to our current serving members home from a TFA rotation today?  I think perhaps, if we think about that, we can see that ANYONE who has their experience appear "brushed aside" as phooey will not take to that kindly. Respect the experience of all.  Operational, or otherwise.  Peacetime, wartime, who cares.  All of us, regardless, volunteered to serve and should be respected for that alone.

2 - The 10 second rule.  If you are pi$$ed, whether a Mod, Subscriber, user, or guest.  When you are furiously typing back at a post from someone who just doubled your blood pressure.  Count to 10.  

3 - Read #1 again please.

Thats my 2 cents folks.

MRM


----------

