Army.ca Staff Reset

[George Wallace]

Don't forget, we still have volunteers who act as MENTORS, who do monitor the site threads and answering questions, etc.; but do not have all the 'powers' of the Moderators.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It might be a challenge for some but it comes down to who polices the police?  In a sense I see moderators almost like
court judges, they apply the law as it is written and don't bring personal opinion in to their rendering of decisions.

Forgive me if I keep missing your point.

You're saying a Moderator has no right to a say or opinion unless they are moderating a conflict?  And then only in the capacity of a mediator on that particular disagreement? The hardest working people on this site don't get to participate? You're proposing Moderators not participate at all until they have to impose the rules? Is that what you're saying? If it is, I think you just made Mike's job of finding new mods quite a bit more difficult. If he accepts your premise.

Now, if you want to pay someone, I don't know $20,000-$30,000 to just sit by and say nothing except to moderate, recruitment might be easier. Volunteer for that? Not so much.

Not being an ass, but if that's what your suggestion is, I don't think it'll work. Just my opinion though YMMV.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Forgive me if I keep missing your point.

You're saying a Moderator has no right to a say or opinion unless they are moderating a conflict?  And then only in the capacity of a mediator on that particular disagreement? The hardest working people on this site don't get to participate? You're proposing Moderators not participate at all until they have to impose the rules? Is that what you're saying? If it is, I think you just made Mike's job of finding new mods quite a bit more difficult. If he accepts your premise.

Now, if you want to pay someone, I don't know $20,000-$30,000 to just sit by and say nothing except to moderate, recruitment might be easier. Volunteer for that? Not so much.

Not being an ass, but if that's what your suggestion is, I don't think it'll work. Just my opinion though YMMV.

Well said.

This may be a Canadian Military themed site, but it is not run by the Government.  Moderators are volunteers, whose duty is to make the site run in the theme Mike Bobbitt wants.  It is not some sterile wikipedia forum, as we already have that if you wish to paticipate there.

dileas

tess

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Forgive me if I keep missing your point.

You're saying a Moderator has no right to a say or opinion unless they are moderating a conflict?  And then only in the capacity of a mediator on that particular disagreement? The hardest working people on this site don't get to participate? You're proposing Moderators not participate at all until they have to impose the rules? Is that what you're saying? If it is, I think you just made Mike's job of finding new mods quite a bit more difficult. If he accepts your premise.

Now, if you want to pay someone, I don't know $20,000-$30,000 to just sit by and say nothing except to moderate, recruitment might be easier. Volunteer for that? Not so much.

Not being an ***, but if that's what your suggestion is, I don't think it'll work. Just my opinion though YMMV.

Not exactly, I'm thinking in particular of the politics, policy, marijuana threads on this site.  IMO moderators should not engage in flame wars on those threads.  I myself have been caught up in flaming on those threads at times and have been warned appropriately (damn autospell).  Hindsight, I should have just bitten my tongue. 

The thing about policy, politics, controversial subjects, etc... is there really isn't a right or wrong answer to something.  If a moderator does engage in debating these subjects than impartiality goes out the window.  The old proverb "you can't have your cake and eat it too" comes to mind. 

A way to get around this is how posts are framed.  For instance, instead of saying "my opinion on xx is the following" you would say "have you though about xx". 

In any case, as you and Tess have aptly pointed out, this is Mike's site and he is free to do as he wishes with it.  One thing I wouldn't mind seeing is a blog tied to this site, sort of like this:  http://ruxted.ca where members could submit articles on anything pertaining to Defence or Military Issues.  It could be anything from book reviews, opinion papers, etc... that would be of interest to the Canadian Military.  An example of an articles you could see would be "opinion piece:  use of medicinal marijuana by veterans and serving members" or book review "'The Chopper Boys:  Helicopter Warfare in Africa' and lessons for future Canadian Peace Support Operations in Africa".  Outside of the talking heads we see on the news, there is a dearth of actual commentary on military affairs from serving members of the CAF".  Outside of guys like Ian Hope and Bernd Horn, I can't remember the last time I actually read something of value from a senior officer in the military.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

One thing I wouldn't mind seeing is a blog tied to this site, sort of like this:  http://ruxted.ca where members could submit articles on anything pertaining to Defence or Military Issues...

Love it. As you likely know, Ruxed.ca was born and raised here, built from the ground up by an open group of contributors that used Army.ca to hammer out drafts and draw in expertise when needed. Ruxted is actually hosted right here, on the same server as Army.ca. However it has been dormant for a few years now, with interest and free time having tapered off for the key contributors. Maybe part of the fresh start will include a renewed interest in it, or a similar project...?

 

[George Wallace]

.......  One thing I wouldn't mind seeing is a blog tied to this site, sort of like this:  http://ruxted.ca where members could submit articles on anything pertaining to Defence or Military Issues.  It could be anything from book reviews, opinion papers, etc... that would be of interest to the Canadian Military.  An example of an articles you could see would be "opinion piece:  use of medicinal marijuana by veterans and serving members" or book review "'The Chopper Boys:  Helicopter Warfare in Africa' and lessons for future Canadian Peace Support Operations in Africa".  Outside of the talking heads we see on the news, there is a dearth of actual commentary on military affairs from serving members of the CAF".  Outside of guys like Ian Hope and Bernd Horn, I can't remember the last time I actually read something of value from a senior officer in the military.

The Ruxted.ca suggestion is a good one.  Unfortunately, although Ruxted was garnering attention and even quoted in the MSM, it fell victim of the same old problems faced by may such blogs and publications: loss of interest due to the infrequency of contributors to post meaningful and credible articles in a timely fashion.  One of our main contributors has since started their own Blog and has been fairly successful in making daily informative posts.  (Ted Campbell's Point of View.  He has the time on his hands to do so, and it is his sole proprietorship, unlike what Ruxted is (was).

The editorial process for Ruxted articles often involved a number of SMEs and at times could be time consuming and the necessity to meet a timely publication date at times could be very demanding with the randomness of the availability of SMEs to contribute facts.  If your suggestion is to open up Ruxted again, with access to the public for contribution of editorial posts, I am wondering what staffing demands you would place on the site to properly vet submissions and then post them to the site?  I would hate to see the credibility that Ruxted managed to acquire lost by open 'Reddit' types of rants or posts.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Ruxted.ca is a good product, but this right here ...

... infrequency of contributors to post meaningful and credible articles in a timely fashion ... The editorial process for Ruxted articles often involved a number of SMEs and at times could be time consuming and the necessity to meet a timely publication date at times could be very demanding with the randomness of the availability of SMEs to contribute facts ...

... is why it's hard to run a "wikified" commentary blog posting both timely & current material.  NOBODY's fault, by any means, but it's just the nature of the open forum beast.

... I would hate to see the credibility that Ruxted managed to acquire lost by open 'Reddit' types of rants or posts.

:nod:

... The thing about policy, politics, controversial subjects, etc... is there really isn't a right or wrong answer to something ...

... not to mention the passion such topics can engender, especially if one only wears partisan glasses assessing them.

... A way to get around this is how posts are framed.  For instance, instead of saying "my opinion on xx is the following" you would say "have you though about xx" ...

That phrasing still may not deal with potential bias one way or another.

Another way to ask this question might be:  How does one manage debate where some with very strong (sometimes hyper-partisan) views can continue to interact in a civil, constructive manner with others who have differing (sometimes hyper-partisan) views?
???

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Love it. As you likely know, Ruxed.ca was born and raised here, built from the ground up by an open group of contributors that used Army.ca to hammer out drafts and draw in expertise when needed. Ruxted is actually hosted right here, on the same server as Army.ca. However it has been dormant for a few years now, with interest and free time having tapered off for the key contributors. Maybe part of the fresh start will include a renewed interest in it, or a similar project...?

It's actually what brought me to milnet.ca 

I started reading Ruxted before I participated in the forum.

 

[Good2Golf]

A way to get around this is how posts are framed.  For instance, instead of saying "my opinion on xx is the following" you would say "have you though about xx". 

While it may not have looked like the template 100% of the time, the Mod/Member dichotomy was generally kept straight by DS using an appropriate signature, such as:


    [Moderation input...]

    John Doe
    Milnet.ca Staff

No qualifier and it was to expected/assumed that a DS' post was personal position.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Fishbone Jones]

While it may not have looked like the template 100% of the time, the Mod/Member dichotomy was generally kept straight by DS using an appropriate signature, such as:


    [Moderation input...]

    John Doe
    Milnet.ca Staff

No qualifier and it was to expected/assumed that a DS' post was personal position.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

:goodpost:

 

[GAP]

:goodpost:

:ditto:

 

[Loachman]

The old proverb "you can't have your cake and eat it too" comes to mind.

That's actually the relatively new, and erroneous version.

The old, and correct version, is "You can't eat your cake and have it too".

[/pet peeve]

 

[the 48th regulator]

The thing about policy, politics, controversial subjects, etc... is there really isn't a right or wrong answer to something.  If a moderator does engage in debating these subjects than impartiality goes out the window.  The old proverb "you can't have your cake and eat it too" comes to mind.

Having the duty of Moderator, is not fun and games as you make it out to be. Moderating the forums for everyone's enjoyment, is not the only duties Moderators do.

Further, I came to this site for the same reasons as you.  When I volunteered my time to the site,  it was to give back.  Now you want to take the real fun away from a moderator, so that You experience is enjoyable??  Trust me, any volunteer forced to be a robot and sterilize their behaviour will quit after a week.

I think we have  hashed out the tone and content concept, we jut need to restart the engine, and remind everyone that this is a fun site dedicated to Canadian military.  Maybe the members of the group also need a restart, and start policing themselves  little better, and make it easier on the staff.

:2c:

dileas

tess

 

[MOOXE]

Right now there are many red flags (literally) when a user sees this site. If one of the points here is to tone down the authoritative nature of this site here are a couple of ideas. Make the "Member Warnings" forum only visible to staff. Change the visible BANNED user status on profiles. Remove or change the colour of the red highlighting of locked threads. Keep the warning system private.

 

[Journeyman]

Right now there are many red flags (literally) when a user sees this site. If one of the points here is to tone down the authoritative nature of this site here are a couple of ideas. Make the "Member Warnings" forum only visible to staff. Change the visible BANNED user status on profiles. Remove or change the colour of the red highlighting of locked threads. Keep the warning system private.

I strongly disagree.  Justice must be seen to be just. 

Without visible repercussions for poor behaviour, people may assume that that is the accepted norm and/or the Staff are either not moderating the site or are playing favourites.

 

[George Wallace]

Right now there are many red flags (literally) when a user sees this site. If one of the points here is to tone down the authoritative nature of this site here are a couple of ideas. Make the "Member Warnings" forum only visible to staff. Change the visible BANNED user status on profiles. Remove or change the colour of the red highlighting of locked threads. Keep the warning system private.

That makes absolutely no sense to me.  This is NOT REDDIT, and perhaps that is the attraction of this site.  It is different.  People who prefer REDDIT will naturally migrate in that direction. 

As you have read in previous posts, the Site Owner has certain standards that he would like to maintain on HIS site(s).

[Note:  Mike Bobbitt is hosting not just army.ca; but navy.ca, airforce.ca and milnet.ca as well]

 

[MOOXE]

I strongly disagree.  Justice must be seen to be just. 

Without visible repercussions for poor behaviour, people may assume that that is the accepted norm and/or the Staff are either not moderating the site or are playing favourites.

I understand your counter point. As was mentioned in this thread though, army.ca is a fun site and not associated with DND. However, the site is very militaristic in having a "warning system," "routine orders" and all the current serving/retired pers. Having justice meted out publically, as much as it is, can be intimidating and is very authoritative. Like I said "If one of the points here is to tone down the authoritative nature" then these could be ways to tone it down. I am saying tone down, not remove the visible presence of moderation.

If one of Mike's reset goals is to increase the user base, increase collaboration, increase fun etc... Then maybe these ideas are valid. If not, well my ideas are not applicable.

 

[MOOXE]

[Note:  Mike Bobbitt is hosting not just army.ca; but navy.ca, airforce.ca and milnet.ca as well]
[/quote]

Aren't these sites just element appropriate colour schemes on a subdomain, in essence the same as Army.ca?

 

[George Wallace]

I understand your counter point. As was mentioned in this thread though, army.ca is a fun site and not associated with DND. However, the site is very militaristic in having a "warning system," "routine orders" and all the current serving/retired pers.

It is a military site, populated by people in or interested in the military.  If we were plumbers, I suppose we would have a site plumbers.ca dedicated to plumbers and those interested in plumbing.  Being as we are a 'military' site, would you not expect some 'rules and regulations', plus the authority figures and means to keep the site on a professional military footing?  I am sure the plumbers would have their own means of keeping things in order and flushing any persons or threads that did not comply with their site/forum standards.

 

[Good2Golf]

Having justice meted out publically, as much as it is, can be intimidating and is very authoritative.

...and transparent, and how both the Military Justice system and many parts of Canada's civil justice system work.  Is that so bad?

Regards
G2G