Army.ca Staff Reset

[mariomike]

There isn't anyone out there that can't afford $35.00 a year.

Not even that.

"An Army.ca Subscription is an annual payment of $30"
https://army.ca/subscribe/

I've read on here that support for the CAF is, "A mile wide and an inch deep."

Hopefully, the same can not be said of milnet.ca

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

Requiring Staff to subscribe is a good idea on the surface, but I have been very hesitant to coerce people into financial support. I would much prefer to see that come from E.G. advertisers if possible.

In fact, I almost see things from the opposite point of view... as Staff you are already giving back to the site in it's daily operation; no need to pay for that "privilege" as you are already paying your dues. In a perfect world, I could even pay the Staff, but we are a long way from that I'm afraid. (In our 24+ years of operation, no-one has ever been paid, myself included.)

In the end, I feel strongly that Army.ca has to be a free service for all, but with options to support (financially, or via contribution) for those who are able.

And I do realize not everyone is in a position to support. I would no more demand financial support from my Staff than I would demand Subscribers "get out there and clean things up." Support from those who can, when they can, has kept this site alive and I appreciate the help in whatever form it takes.


Cheers
Mike

 

[ModlrMike]

I don't know if this has been suggested up thread, but what about incognito moderation? What I mean is that under the current model, if I'm a moderator and I intervene in a discussion, disclaimers aside people are going to see me as a moderator. If there was a way to moderate where the member's identity was not disclosed, that would allow moderators to continue to discuss topics in the open as themselves. I realize it may be challenging to manage, but perhaps separate accounts... Moderator1, Moderator2 etc, etc.

 

[mariomike]

I don't know if this has been suggested up thread, but what about incognito moderation?

Undercover Moderators?
http://neowiki.neoseeker.com/wiki/Undercover_moderator
The identity of undercover moderators are known only to members of the administration.

 

[George Wallace]

I have a distaste for any organization that permits people to act like 18th Century English land owners buying their way to top of the British Army and Navy.  I would hate to think of my donations in the past as being the reason I became a Mod; although I had never given it much thought until this suggestion was made.  I prefer to think that Mike choose his Moderators for their capabilities to fulfill the duties required of them, not for their financial support. 

 

[Gunner98]

Since the site is known as Army.ca why not initiate a process of duty staff based on seniority and responsibilities:

CDS/Comd/Cmdt/CO - Mike
Duty Field Officer
Duty Officer
Duty Sgt
Duty NCM

Mike used to publish - Routine Orders - site usage

Special Routine Orders could be used for Warnings and Bans

Significant Incident Reports - could be made public or classified (staff only)

I am sure there is a lot of other terminology that could be adopted/adapted.

 

[George Wallace]

Since the site is known as Army.ca why not initiate a process of duty staff based on seniority and responsibilities:

CDS/Comd/Cmdt/CO - Mike
Duty Field Officer
Duty Officer
Duty Sgt
Duty NCM

Mike used to publish - Routine Orders - site usage

Special Routine Orders could be used for Warnings and Bans

Significant Incident Reports - could be made public or classified (staff only)

I am sure there is a lot of other terminology that could be adopted/adapted.

You left out the OR staff who would have to compile, write up, edit and promulgate said Routine Orders....... >

 

[GAP]

what about all the annex's ?

 

[Jarnhamar]

I don't know if this has been suggested up thread, but what about incognito moderation? What I mean is that under the current model, if I'm a moderator and I intervene in a discussion, disclaimers aside people are going to see me as a moderator. If there was a way to moderate where the member's identity was not disclosed, that would allow moderators to continue to discuss topics in the open as themselves. I realize it may be challenging to manage, but perhaps separate accounts... Moderator1, Moderator2 etc, etc.

I thought about that too. A counter point would be if I was debating /arguing with a member who was also a moderator on a touchy subject and all of a sudden "moderator 1" jumps in and gives me a warning I would immediately question if the moderator jumped into the anonymous account and gave me a warning.  Imo it makes moderating less transparent and could enable unfair treatment. 

 

[Scott]

Agreed on the above in a big way.

Moderation of threads, posts, or people, IMO, has to have accountability to the site's members - because it's your site as much as it is ours or Mike's. Yeah, Mike owns the joint and so what he says goes. The Staff take direction from Mike and administer the site, so I guess what they say should go (in most cases and with caveats, of course) too. But without the members posting in the threads then it's just the mods and Mike and how boring would that be? So it's yours.

With that said, I have no issue when my name is attached to an edit of a post, for whatever the reason. Because I expect to have to answer for it if it's questionable in any way. I can't give you a count of how many times that has happened to me, but it's pretty low and I never mind the interaction.

Further, I have zero issue posting quickly to say I have locked a thread and usually, for the very most part, it's accepted without question. When I get a PM asking for it to be opened then I get to have an chat about why and usually that's cool.

I also try to follow up with people when I delete posts. It doesn't always happen, and for that I can blame nothing but time, but I think, again, for the most part it does.

Lastly, users getting warnings know who is giving it to them and the reason. Again, it's not often I have had to explain myself too much further.

But, all in all, transparency is one of the things I think we have going for us and I welcome it.

Based on my experience as staff here, I see loads of great ideas in this thread. Mike's taking notes, so do not be shy.

Cheers

 

[Gunner98]

George,

It is funny that you mentioned the OR staff.  A unit I am familiar with recently re-instituted a monthly newsletter - there was no shortage of recipes, jokes, and other non-unit related submissions but getting people to submit relevant, timely content was like pulling teeth.  As I was considering the ROs aspect (albeit briefly) it could be a matter of a link to army.ca wiki with a staff list showing their levels of authority and responsibilities.  I have always been amazed at how few staff seemed to be doing so much in so many places.  Whereas, in reality that I/no one ever had access to a staff list.  Now maybe being overt in a site where most people use changeable nicknames is silly.

In keeping with my original thoughts, would it be a useful and progressive concept that all future moderators use actual names or keep with nicknames?  Would this add credibility or be irrelevant as people could continue to take on a nom de plume and be whoever they want - real or imagined.

 

[George Wallace]

In keeping with my original thoughts, would it be a useful and progressive concept that all future moderators use actual names or keep with nicknames?  Would this add credibility or be irrelevant as people could continue to take on a nom de plume and be whoever they want - real or imagined.

Mike has not laid down any rules about what one uses as a screen name on the site.  I remember several years ago we did have a discussion among the membership on whether it was a good idea or not to use their real names.  It is a Security Issue, and one that is left up to the individual as to what they want to do with their PERSEC.  Some of the Mods did use their real names, others just their initials and others a screen name, while some used a series of screen names.  Again, Mike did not have any rule for any member of the site to follow, Moderator or not, in respect to how they were identified; and I am absolutely sure he will not put such a rule into place.

As an aside, I have had several members of the CAF who have identified me and have had many negative things to say, about me and/or the site.  I suspect many of those same pers were malcontents who had tried to be disruptive on the site and perhaps banned or otherwise put on the WARNING SYSTEM.  You will find many of these same types have left here for such sites as REDDIT, where the atmosphere was more to their liking.  Others have had nothing but praise for the site and the way that Mike runs it.

 

[mariomike]

I remember several years ago we did have a discussion among the membership on whether it was a good idea or not to use their real names. 

Real names might discourage the trolling.

Official forum changes, real life names to be displayed (at Blizzard) 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/95195.0
"In an interesting development to change the tone of their forums and put names to the trolls, they are having users' real names appear next to all of their forum posts."

For those who like to change their online aliases, it's nice when they announce their name changes,

Please announce all name changes here
http://army.ca/forums/index.php/board,86.0.html

 

[the 48th regulator]

Question for you Mike.

Say a person that is not a member, joins the forum.  Has all the criteria as a vet.  SME in many topics.

If they applied, is it possible for them to become a Moderator?

dileas

tess

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Sorry, spin it however, but I am against any effort whatsoever, to silence moderator s voicing their personal opinion.

You can't ask anyone to come here and moderate only, denying them the right to voice their legal opinion.

Last I looked we're still in Canada.

 

[the 48th regulator]

George,

It is funny that you mentioned the OR staff.  A unit I am familiar with recently re-instituted a monthly newsletter - there was no shortage of recipes, jokes, and other non-unit related submissions but getting people to submit relevant, timely content was like pulling teeth.  As I was considering the ROs aspect (albeit briefly) it could be a matter of a link to army.ca wiki with a staff list showing their levels of authority and responsibilities.  I have always been amazed at how few staff seemed to be doing so much in so many places.  Whereas, in reality that I/no one ever had access to a staff list.  Now maybe being overt in a site where most people use changeable nicknames is silly.

In keeping with my original thoughts, would it be a useful and progressive concept that all future moderators use actual names or keep with nicknames?  Would this add credibility or be irrelevant as people could continue to take on a nom de plume and be whoever they want - real or imagined.

I am not being aggressive, but don't you find it Hypocritical that you make this post using a name like Simian Turner.

I am sure, that is not the name on your driver's license.

This thread is not quest to find the most political correct, sterilized manner of moderating this forum.  Stop thinking punishing the former mods, beecause you were once offended, and think progression, you chimp!! 

dileas

tess

 

[Gunner98]

I am not being aggressive, but don't you find it Hypocritical that you make this post using a name like Simian Turner.

I am sure, that is not the name on your driver's license.

This thread is not quest to find the most political correct, sterilized manner of moderating this forum.  Stop thinking punishing the former mods, beecause you were once offended, and think progression, you chimp!! 

dileas

tess

Tess (if that is that your real name), well played and touche'. :knights: It is not my wish or intent to punish moderators past or present. I am not at all offended as a primate, or for being labelled a hypocrite.   I was posting in the spirit of brainstorming.  If I were to apply for a job as a moderator I would drop my nom de plume.  Due to my employment status I cannot do either right now. 

 

[the 48th regulator]

Tess (if that is that your real name), well played and touche'. :knights: It is not my wish or intent to punish moderators past or present. I am not at all offended as a primate, or for being labelled a hypocrite.   I was posting in the spirit of brainstorming.  If I were to apply for a job as a moderator I would drop my nom de plume.  Due to my employment status I cannot do either right now.

I ws trying to tweek your nose, a little hard.  Beleive me, I know you are in earnest.

If you had the time, I would suggest applyng.  You would offer alot to the Site. 

dileas

tess

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

Do Staff need to use their real names? No.
Should Staff be anonymous? No.
Can a new forum member become Staff? Yes. Caveat: Unless this is a thinly veiled second account for an existing user.
Should we have key Staff positions? Already thinking about a system like that. Boy do I ever need a COS.

Love the ideas, keep them coming. Sorry for the short reply, more type pontificating is less time moving forward.

 

[mariomike]

This is something I saved in my Favorites years ago. To me, it captures the true spirit of the site Mike created and maintains,

I have never seen it re-posted. Perhaps now might be a good time.

When I was injured overseas the site owner came to my bedside with concern; not just for a person he knew, but also for soldiers serving their country. I have never made serious mention of this because I was sure Mr. Bobbit did not need, nor did he want, recognition for his efforts.

Mr. Bobbit came to the hospital with shirts for all the wounded to have (and we were very much in need of fresh clothing!), magazines for us to read, and some beverages that went down well (while the doctors weren't looking).