pbi's reference is right on the money, as are Britney Spears' and Infanteer's responses to it. And as much as they got it bang on, I can't help but re-iterate their comments (though likely with less finesse).
One of the biggest draws to Army.ca (and one of my stated goals) is that it provides neutral ground for all ranks, trades, components etc to come together and speak directly and candidly on topics concerning the Canadian Army (specifically) and military matters (in general). Potential recruits can benefit from the wisdom of operationally experienced WOs while LCols can hear the straight good from the boots on the ground.
About a 18 months ago, we actually started to achieve that goal. Prior to that, the site was highly segmented into "the riff-raff" and "the regulars" (not necessarily
Regulars). But then we started to get serious about our direction. We built up a cadre of professional staff to mimic the diverse nature of our visitors, created formal conduct guidelines, a warning system etc. In my opinion, this has worked very well.
Unfortunately, we seem to be heading back to the old hierarchical system where new users are becoming disconnected from the expertise on the site. I don't think I'd be too far off the mark to say that nobody is very happy with this. As tensions and tempers rise, I've noticed new members, senior members and staff alike taking pot shots at each other. So far this has been fairly sporadic, but I want to head it off before it becomes much harder to deal with.
I'll point only one finger of blame here, at myself. I have allowed (actively or passively) some of the original qualities of Army.ca to erode over time. In some cases I've taken the easy route, turning a blind eye and thereby condoning actions outside the Conduct Guidelines.
The Staff are saddled with a job that continues to be frustrating and challenging, yet they tackle it with such enthusiasm and effectiveness I cannot thank them enough. So let me be clear that if things have taken a turn for the worse it is because I have been a bit of an absentee owner at times.
We have come too far to jeopardize it over a few heated arguments, so this is where things turn around. On the surface, it may seem like a big task: how do we continue to keep the trolls and troublemakers out without taking a bit of collateral damage once in a while? How can we maintain the quality and professionalism that everyone has worked so hard to achieve without constraining ourselves to the point where truly interesting debate is impossible?
The answer is simple, and it's been here all along:
The Conduct Guidelines
We have taken great care to create them in such a way that they give Staff the power to deal with problems while protecting the ability to argue rationally, even if it becomes a heated debate. So to summarize, we simply need to apply the Conduct Guidelines fairly and uniformly. No-one is above a warning if their actions are inappropriate. If the Conduct Guidelines need to be adjusted to suit our changing situation, then so be it.
This is no great revelation, as I'm merely restating what has been said above: all users here will be judged, applauded or warned based on their contributions. That is irregardless of age, rank, social standing, education, number of posts, trade etc. As a user, your reception here is wholly contingent on how you present yourself. Your tone, the completeness of your profile, and the facts used to back up your statements are what is primarily going to determine the length and quality of your stay here.
I have no doubt we can maintain the environment that has drawn all of us here. That is, one of courteous professionalism, where new recruits can ask original questions freely, and senior members can fill in the blanks for those seeking information. With all the professional, helpful and experienced users we have here, it would be a shame to either drive them away, or exclude the audience of new recruits who can most benefit from their guidance. We have every right to be proud of what we have
all built here and I for one wish to guard it jealously from being diluted.
As a preliminary step, I recommend that when anyone steps out of line with their comments, instead of exacerbating the situation with name calling or deliberately provocative digs, direct the user to this post, or to the Conduct Guidelines. If it's something you think the Staff need to see, use the "report to moderator" feature.
And lastly, if anyone has any questions or concerns about how things are handled, please don't hesitate to ask me, publicly or privately. We all have to accept our share of responsibility for what Army.ca is and what it will become through our efforts.
Cheers
Mike
P.S. This topic itself is a good example. It has developed into an interesting little debate in it's own right, and I might add, a near textbook one. People are taking sides, creating a coherent defence, and sometimes even adjusting their point of view in the face of a well formed argument. The best part is, nobody has resorted to name calling or pouting.
Cheers!
