New Post Guidelines [Not Site Policy, But a Disagreement]

[Jammer]

Ladies and Gents,
After a series of PMs with Petamocto, it would seem that he wishes that ALL serving members of MILNET.ca cease and desist commenting on anything that doesn't directly affect you. If it does, please put a positive spin on it. He want's the CoCs to see that you are a happy and contented camper. As for the rest of you, carry on as if you were normal.
Questions can be directed to that callsign for clarification and tips on how to do this.

Jammer Out

 

[SeanNewman]

This is absurd.  You tell me to take a conversation to PM discussion and then post here anyway?

All I am saying is that regardless of what the rules of this forum may be (you can post about whatever you want), this website is not our employer and does not pay us.

Since we work for the CF, we need to make our choices based on those rules, not forum rules.

I'm not trying to be almighty, I'm not trying to act like I'm anyone's boss, and I'm not acting like I know everything.  Just reminding people that they have responsibilities to stay inside their arcs as a matter of integrity and being a professional soldier.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

If you guys don't stop, I'm tellin' teacher!

:blotto:

 

[George Wallace]

Since we work for the CF, we need to make our choices based on those rules, not forum rules.

WRONG.


As a member of the CF, even a former member, especially when dealing with persons who may have had access to 'sensitive' material, one must abide by the rules of the CF.  This means that matters of Security, PERSEC and OPSEC must always weigh important in all of your actions inside and outside of the CF, on and off this site.  As this site is the site of a former CF member, and frequented by many Serving and former members of the CF, as well as many who are dreaming of joining the CF, or just want information on the CF, we on the site try very hard to observe Security, PERSEC and OPSEC in our posts here.  There are site rules that we expect you to follow.  Being a member of the CF does not preclude you from following the site rules, as being a member of the CF does not preclude you from the Civil Laws and Regulations of Canada, or any country you may be in at the time. 

You are expected to follow this site's (forum) rules like all others who visit this site.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I am long retired so I have no dog in this fight, but:

• I know that some senior officers (I have no idea how many – I know of a very small number), some very senior, check Army.ca on a periodic basis;

• I think that most are happy that Army.ca is here, that it is very well moderated, and that it gives you a place to express your personal views. You remember the old adage, I hope, about the problems that exist when soldiers stop bitching;

• I suspect that, most often, when they read opinions that are highly critical of what they are doing or trying to do they say, “the rank and file doesn’t understand; we have to explain it again,” but, now and again, one or two might say, ”let’s revisit whatever, the troops are pretty unhappy; let’s make sure we really are right.” The latter is going to be rare because, naturally, most senior officers believe they make good, sound decisions; and

• Most of you serving members understand and respect the rules: those of the CF regarding ‘communicating’ with the public and those of this site, found in the guidelines.

On that basis I suggest you reread, comprehend and follow the site guidelines and then stay in your lanes. If you do both you are highly unlikely to say anything that will violate the letter or spirit of the CF’s policies, or annoy very senior serving officers or embarrass yourself.

 

[Jammer]

Be sure to check with your CoC before the next election to verify who you have to vote for.

 

[vonGarvin]

I refuse to comment on this thread, because it fails to affect me.

>

 

[SeanNewman]

George,

I appreciate your post, but I don't think you really understand what the gist of the argument is about since you argued for what I was arguing for, for most of your post.

Yes, technically you have to follow the "rules" of this board if you are going to post here, but that's not the point. 

The point is that if this site says "You can do _____" but CF regulations say "You can not do _____", how in the heck do people think that rules of the website supersede that of our employer?

 

[Scott]

Petamocto,

If you don't like it here - leave. Don't risk it, just leave. You've come to the attention of many here with your indignation, I suggest you wind your neck in a bit.

Jammer,

Keep it to PM's. The membership isn't interested in your bunfight. We have a hard enough time with attention whores on this site and I thought, based on your posts, that you were above all of that.

Scott
Army.ca Staff

 

[SeanNewman]

Scott,

Thank you for your post.

The thing is that I really do like this site and see a lot of value in it...if everyone self-polices.

For people to stay connected and share experiences it's great.  It's also a great place for newcomers to the CF to get questions answered about what life in the CF is like.

The only reason all of this started was that I felt like some on the board were getting a little too liberal with what they "could" write about.

Just because the rules of the website allow people to post anything, it does not mean that we should be posting things like "This is what I think about why we should/should not be in Afghanistan...".

If you want to punish me for reminding soldiers of the rules that govern them then that is unfortunate.  I believe I have done it politely and responsibly, without insulting the forum that we like.

It is not at all meant to disrespect the moderators and owners of the site, and I appreciate the effort they go through to keep it up and running.  However, at the end of the day we still have to follow rules of those we work for.

To all,

I do not apologize for what I am saying because I strongly believe that CF rules should take precedence to soldiers over a website's rules.

However, I do apologize if the manner in which I have tried to make this point came across in the wrong way.  It was not my intent to appear as the Sheriff of this board (if that's how it was taken). 

 

[Scott]

Petamocto,

How long have you been frequenting the site now? A month? Two? In my over five years here I have seen very few instances of the wrong info being leaked out, OPSEC/PERSEC violations. For the most part the staff are more than capable to deal with it immediately and take action to make sure it does not happen again. In other cases the membership serves as our eyes and, via the report post function, alerts us to potential trouble.

So while I do appreciate your advice I can state that it's mostly moot points.

Where did anyone say anything about punishing you?

 

[SeanNewman]

Where did anyone say anything about punishing you?

One PM from a concerned friend just advising me how things like this have gone in the past.

I'm not really talking about OpSec-types of things.  I have full confidence that those sorts of things get sorted out by the moderators and their actions save lives.

The "reminder" (for lack of a better word) of the original post that started all of this was me saying essentially "Who in the heck do we think we are as soldiers for publicly posting our opinions on strategic matters?".

Not OpSec, not duties and responsibilities as moderators, etc.  I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort.

 

[muskrat89]

I do not apologize for what I am saying because I strongly believe that CF rules should take precedence to soldiers over a website's rules

This is silly.

What forum rules contravene CF Rules? If anything, we get hammered too much here for "This isn't the Army; you're not my boss!" We enforce PERSEC, OPSEC and other matters here pretty diligently; for the ones we miss use the "Report To Moderator" button. Same goes if we are discussing vehicle capabilities, weapons systems or tactical stuff that we don't want enemies (or potential enemies) seeing. On the other hand, if you can read it on Jane's, or Newseek, or McLean's - it's probably OK to discuss here.

Now, if the Forum "allows" people to post whenever they want to login, and the boss doesn't want you to play on the computer during working hours, that's between you and them. The same goes with trashing your employer, slagging the government of the day or whatever - if it doesn't violate site guidelines, but might get you in trouble - do so at your own peril. It's not my (our) concern...

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is sort of an annual event, isn't it?

We seem, every so often, to wrap ourselves around one of these axles: duties of moderators, OPSEC/PERSEC concerns, copyright and so on. There is, always, some 'good' in these discussions if for no other reason than to remind us that we are just people expressing ourselves in public.

There are rules - here and in the CF - and we all ought to obey all those that apply to us. For all of us here that means obeying Mike's site rules. Others, who serve other masters, may have other rules - do not ever dare chew gum in my presence, for example, it is an offence warranting corporal punishment, at least.

Maybe this could be moved to the Army.ca Admin section where it belongs.

 

[midget-boyd91]

Maybe this could be moved to the Army.ca Admin section where it belongs.

And perhaps have the thread title changed?
I clicked on this thread because I thought there was a change in the posting guidelines.

Oddball

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Done, as I thought the same thing.

...and thanks, Edward. I was going to let loose with a "not this kife again" but I guess a gentle reminder every once in a while about "things" is good.

 

[scas]

So if I get this right.. We can't post our personal views about the military in general on this site anymore? What is the problem about asking why are we here or there? So what

 

[Michael OLeary]

So if I get this right.. We can't post our personal views about the military in general on this site anymore? What is the problem about asking why are we here or there? So what

Did you actually read the thread?

 

[SeanNewman]

SCAS,

With brevity in mind, here is as concise as I can make the core of this discussion:

View 1: This website allows you to post opinions about anything (not OpSec), so when posting here you should go by those guidelines.

View 2: Even though this website may allow opinions on everything, people in the CF still have to follow rules of their employer because this is a public media outlet.  You can still give opinions on things in your arcs (like what you think of the new C9 if you've used it, etc), just not on things that only the CDS should be talking to the media about (or in some cases troops are even giving opinions on things he wouldn't).

 

[Jammer]

How in heavens name do you expect a young troop to know what is right/wrong to talk about?
Perhaps you could come up with an exhaustive list for the great unwashed to follow.