- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 1,210
All,
The Staff of Army.ca request your help in reversing some recent trends. The purpose of this thread is not to be a one way direction. It is a chance to hit the reset button on the tone of our forum. It is also an opportunity to collectively define the ethos we want to project to new members, visitors and the leadership of the Canadian Forces (after all, good ideas posted here will only be taken as seriously as the collective board).
In the first trend, we have observed the establishment of a precedent of personal attacks on politicians and ad hominem. We do appreciate that emotions can run very high, especially when debating issues for which many of us have buried friends. However, this tactic does not reflect well on the professionalism of debate at Army.ca. The target of ad hominem attacks doesn't have to take personal offence because all it takes is one letter from his legal team, or one statement in the house that the uncontrolled statements of soldiers here demonstrates that the Army can't control its people .... however the media wants to spin it to ensure that army.ca gets a pile of unwanted attention.
This is not intended to muzzle any of you, but when we discuss current events here, we need to keep it clean. There's nothing wrong with debating the issues, and tearing apart what is said in the media or by public personalities (or even other site members) on a point by point basis with counter-opinion and experienced based observations (and the background and skills to do that certainly habituates these forums) ..... but ad hominem attacks simply poison the spirit and credibility of that debate.
We ask everyone to remind themselves of the site guidelines, including the following passages:
Regardless of our perception of certain public personalities or media outlets, this is about professionalism.
The second trend relates to a tendency for the board to have a mean streak. In the past some of the users we have banned have accused us of a heavy hand, and in the past they were just whining. However, lately, we have seen a tendency 'the mob' to tear someone apart for what may be an innocuous error, and then the dogpile starts if they say anything in their own defence. This has manifested itself in what some may see the roving mobs circling, scrutinizing every post for weakness or naiveté or whatever. Sometimes it's spontaneous, at other times it is the mob following a perceived example set by senior members (unfortunately, there are times when this includes those of us who are DS).
One of the increasingly common "signals" that a thread is about to become unrecoverable is the popcorn eating smiley being posted as a post's sole content. When someone feels this smiley is appropriate for a thread, they should be hitting the report to mod button and not make any posts. If anything, this only serves to encourage those that are trolling the boards looking to garner attention through a fight.
Meaningful friendly advice is easily lost in a storm of sarcastic one-liners and staying out of a fight is also a valid posting choice. When a poster protests advice they have received, let the original advisor respond. Don't contribute to what may be a simple misunderstanding of flare of tempers.
The strength of this forum, as with any online discourse, comes with debate. Let’s keep the quality level of debate high.
How do we want to get there?
The Staff of Army.ca request your help in reversing some recent trends. The purpose of this thread is not to be a one way direction. It is a chance to hit the reset button on the tone of our forum. It is also an opportunity to collectively define the ethos we want to project to new members, visitors and the leadership of the Canadian Forces (after all, good ideas posted here will only be taken as seriously as the collective board).
In the first trend, we have observed the establishment of a precedent of personal attacks on politicians and ad hominem. We do appreciate that emotions can run very high, especially when debating issues for which many of us have buried friends. However, this tactic does not reflect well on the professionalism of debate at Army.ca. The target of ad hominem attacks doesn't have to take personal offence because all it takes is one letter from his legal team, or one statement in the house that the uncontrolled statements of soldiers here demonstrates that the Army can't control its people .... however the media wants to spin it to ensure that army.ca gets a pile of unwanted attention.
This is not intended to muzzle any of you, but when we discuss current events here, we need to keep it clean. There's nothing wrong with debating the issues, and tearing apart what is said in the media or by public personalities (or even other site members) on a point by point basis with counter-opinion and experienced based observations (and the background and skills to do that certainly habituates these forums) ..... but ad hominem attacks simply poison the spirit and credibility of that debate.
We ask everyone to remind themselves of the site guidelines, including the following passages:
Mike Bobbitt said:Personal Attacks
Army.ca has a zero tolerance policy for personal attacks, whether against another Army.ca member or a public figure. Posts that contain a personal attack should be summarily deleted, and the user should normally receive a warning. Personal attacks detract from the professionalism of the site and can sometimes cause serious problems for Army.ca as a whole.
Mike Bobbitt said:
- You will not post any information that is offensive, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.
Regardless of our perception of certain public personalities or media outlets, this is about professionalism.
The second trend relates to a tendency for the board to have a mean streak. In the past some of the users we have banned have accused us of a heavy hand, and in the past they were just whining. However, lately, we have seen a tendency 'the mob' to tear someone apart for what may be an innocuous error, and then the dogpile starts if they say anything in their own defence. This has manifested itself in what some may see the roving mobs circling, scrutinizing every post for weakness or naiveté or whatever. Sometimes it's spontaneous, at other times it is the mob following a perceived example set by senior members (unfortunately, there are times when this includes those of us who are DS).
One of the increasingly common "signals" that a thread is about to become unrecoverable is the popcorn eating smiley being posted as a post's sole content. When someone feels this smiley is appropriate for a thread, they should be hitting the report to mod button and not make any posts. If anything, this only serves to encourage those that are trolling the boards looking to garner attention through a fight.
Mike Bobbitt said:
- You will not troll the boards or feed the trolls. This is making posts that intentionally create hostile arguments, or responding to such posts in the same hostile tone.
Meaningful friendly advice is easily lost in a storm of sarcastic one-liners and staying out of a fight is also a valid posting choice. When a poster protests advice they have received, let the original advisor respond. Don't contribute to what may be a simple misunderstanding of flare of tempers.
The strength of this forum, as with any online discourse, comes with debate. Let’s keep the quality level of debate high.
How do we want to get there?