- Reaction score
- 15
- Points
- 430
They're not Stupid, they're New
Every once in a while the tone of the forum shifts, and not necessarily for the better. Sarcasm and poorly phrased advice gets offered in response to innocent questions. Those replies get misinterpreted. They get responded to in kind, and then another thread heads for the trash, useless for continued discussion or for future reference.
And every so often one of the staff writes a little diatribe like this one to remind people to settle down, behave and treat newbies as if they were one of their own subordinates – who they wouldn't treat the way they do some of the people who dare to cross our threshold and enter Milnet.ca looking for advice or information.
Often, too often, these threads develop because some “experienced” member takes offence to the innocent question of a newbie. Perhaps the question crosses operational security concerns, or the wrong terms (usually Americanized ones) are used, or their question just isn't showing an understanding of priorities that the “experienced” member thinks it should.
The threads don't go badly because of the newbie's question. They go badly because of the tone and style of the “experienced” member's response and the reaction that response attracts. The fault goes, in almost every case, to the member who should have been patient, who should have been helpful, who should have remembered that they too were once new, and knew little or nothing about the CF themselves. (Or that “experienced” member should have just refrained from posting, the toughest choice of all for any inadvertent troll.)
To put it as simply as I can: They're not stupid, they're new. If we can't welcome them here and help them learn and understand, how can we expect them to anticipate a welcoming and learning environment on Basic training or afterwards?
So, why do people ask those questions that others treat as inappropriate?
Operational security issues. - Usually because they don't understand the concept, or the issue. Simply slamming them for “OPSEC” doesn't explain why they can't get an answer. Sorting out a thread after such a smack-down takes a lot more energy, often from a number of participants, than if the first respondent had just explained the issue and explained that an answer couldn't be posted. Such a simple solution, but apparently an elusive one.
Wrong terms. - How about: they just don't know. If they didn't grow up in a (Canadian) military family, or have prior experience, then how can we expect them to fully grasp the language, the acronyms and to know which are appropriately Canadian terms to satisfy the anal-retentive knuckle rappers, and which are simply American terms learned from mass media. We can help and teach, or we can just tell them to go away. If we do the latter, maybe a very suitable candidate will reconsider that trip to the Recruiting Centre, and we, Milnet.ca, can be responsible for failing to support CF recruiting.
Wrong priorities. - Whether it be questions on what gets taught on Basic Infantry, or what an Engineer carries, or how to correct indirect fire, these aren't stupid questions. Maybe the individual has covered the basics and is looking to reach further, using the best resource available – the members of Milnet.ca. Maybe the questioner just hasn't been given enough information to understand that they're getting ahead of themselves. Perhaps some investigative questions and a better understanding of their viewpoint would lead to helpful answers rather than telling them they just don't need that info yet. Do we want to recruit robots who wait to be told every little thing? I thought we were promoting the idea of intelligent soldiering, use of initiative and use of all available resources. Well guess what, we are that resource for many new potential recruits, and we need to fill that role in a responsible manner.
Profiles. - We don't require profiles to be filled in. Some members choose not to and if they stick around can build excellent credibility without ever filling in that profile. An empty profile is not a reason for accusations or suspicion. Throwing down that gauntlet only puts a new member on the defensive, which does not create a welcoming atmosphere.
We can welcome new members, and help those looking to learn about the Canadian Forces, or we can be a closed unwelcoming little internet club of bullies. We each get to choose our role. The one mystifying aspect is why, when someone decides not to be helpful, they decide to insert themselves in a thread and derail it with a useless agenda of aggression.
It's time, once again, as we enter a new year, for everyone to review not only what they get out of Milnet.ca, but also what they contribute, and how.
Every once in a while the tone of the forum shifts, and not necessarily for the better. Sarcasm and poorly phrased advice gets offered in response to innocent questions. Those replies get misinterpreted. They get responded to in kind, and then another thread heads for the trash, useless for continued discussion or for future reference.
And every so often one of the staff writes a little diatribe like this one to remind people to settle down, behave and treat newbies as if they were one of their own subordinates – who they wouldn't treat the way they do some of the people who dare to cross our threshold and enter Milnet.ca looking for advice or information.
Often, too often, these threads develop because some “experienced” member takes offence to the innocent question of a newbie. Perhaps the question crosses operational security concerns, or the wrong terms (usually Americanized ones) are used, or their question just isn't showing an understanding of priorities that the “experienced” member thinks it should.
The threads don't go badly because of the newbie's question. They go badly because of the tone and style of the “experienced” member's response and the reaction that response attracts. The fault goes, in almost every case, to the member who should have been patient, who should have been helpful, who should have remembered that they too were once new, and knew little or nothing about the CF themselves. (Or that “experienced” member should have just refrained from posting, the toughest choice of all for any inadvertent troll.)
To put it as simply as I can: They're not stupid, they're new. If we can't welcome them here and help them learn and understand, how can we expect them to anticipate a welcoming and learning environment on Basic training or afterwards?
So, why do people ask those questions that others treat as inappropriate?
Operational security issues. - Usually because they don't understand the concept, or the issue. Simply slamming them for “OPSEC” doesn't explain why they can't get an answer. Sorting out a thread after such a smack-down takes a lot more energy, often from a number of participants, than if the first respondent had just explained the issue and explained that an answer couldn't be posted. Such a simple solution, but apparently an elusive one.
Wrong terms. - How about: they just don't know. If they didn't grow up in a (Canadian) military family, or have prior experience, then how can we expect them to fully grasp the language, the acronyms and to know which are appropriately Canadian terms to satisfy the anal-retentive knuckle rappers, and which are simply American terms learned from mass media. We can help and teach, or we can just tell them to go away. If we do the latter, maybe a very suitable candidate will reconsider that trip to the Recruiting Centre, and we, Milnet.ca, can be responsible for failing to support CF recruiting.
Wrong priorities. - Whether it be questions on what gets taught on Basic Infantry, or what an Engineer carries, or how to correct indirect fire, these aren't stupid questions. Maybe the individual has covered the basics and is looking to reach further, using the best resource available – the members of Milnet.ca. Maybe the questioner just hasn't been given enough information to understand that they're getting ahead of themselves. Perhaps some investigative questions and a better understanding of their viewpoint would lead to helpful answers rather than telling them they just don't need that info yet. Do we want to recruit robots who wait to be told every little thing? I thought we were promoting the idea of intelligent soldiering, use of initiative and use of all available resources. Well guess what, we are that resource for many new potential recruits, and we need to fill that role in a responsible manner.
Profiles. - We don't require profiles to be filled in. Some members choose not to and if they stick around can build excellent credibility without ever filling in that profile. An empty profile is not a reason for accusations or suspicion. Throwing down that gauntlet only puts a new member on the defensive, which does not create a welcoming atmosphere.
We can welcome new members, and help those looking to learn about the Canadian Forces, or we can be a closed unwelcoming little internet club of bullies. We each get to choose our role. The one mystifying aspect is why, when someone decides not to be helpful, they decide to insert themselves in a thread and derail it with a useless agenda of aggression.
It's time, once again, as we enter a new year, for everyone to review not only what they get out of Milnet.ca, but also what they contribute, and how.
)
