Army.ca Staff and user conduct

[orange.paint]

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]

I forgot to address:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Cheers.

Welcome back.

 

[Michael OLeary]

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]

Back on Track please folks

army.ca staff

 

[armyvern]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 :  ??? ?