- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
You kindly asked for suggestions about 'Tone and Content' and yet you didn't like what you heard in response? I loves the Internetz. This is too good. :
Debating: Tone and Content on Army.ca
- Thread starter MattyH
- Start date
- Status
the 48th regulator
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Punisher_6D said:You kindly asked for suggestions about 'Tone and Content' and yet you didn't like what you heard in response? I loves the Internetz. This is too good. :
Suggestions should come from people who have a base from where to launch from, obvioulsy my post was to long to digest.
Integrity, and fortitude again my punishing friend.
dileas
tess
- Reaction score
- 5,144
- Points
- 1,060
Punisher_6D said:You kindly asked for suggestions about 'Tone and Content' and yet you didn't like what you heard in response? I loves the Internetz. This is too good. :
Suggestions are accepted. Whining and drivel are not.
Neither is trolling or smart assed comments, no matter how thinly disguised.
Suggestion WRT Mods commenting in Topics.
Has there been any thought to perhaps having a generic "Mod Account" for the mods? I really don't know if any functionality existed, but I've seen on some other boards where comments from moderation staff are very impersonal.
As someone who hasn't always seen eye-to-eye with the DS here in the past, but someone who also has received some superb wisdom, advice and guidance from said same DS in other circumstances, and I've seen quite a few of the same old silly basic questions that are front and centre on the Recruiting Website and can definitely feel for the Mods, other members, and Mike's bandwidth.
An example where I do find the staff tend to jump a little hard sometimes is on new topics where the search function returns previous answers that are significantly old (1 YR +). We all know that things change all the time in the military. Current active members live the minutiae day to day, and so it invariably becomes minutiae. Especially the things that annoy you - you don't want to talk about it, because you know you can't change it, and often the answer to the potential recruit is less than flattering either to the CF, to the idea of joining, or to the DS, whether warranted or unwarranted. I'm not arguing for allowing people to ask the pay rates every day in new topics, or to ask "what kind of PT do I need to do, and is it really hard?" constantly, but thoughtful questions which may have not been answered for a while and that have answers that change...
The purpose of my suggestion is to try to remove some of the personal. If a thread gets locked by a generic, singular "Staff" account, rather than by a specific staff member, then the person who caused the lockout is frustrated by staff... and not by a specific DS. If a mod is posting in a thread but doesn't have the status "DS", then there is limited ability to feel like you have to answer a certain way in a thread or risk ticking off a certain DS, or ignore topics all together by certain DS because of previous disagreements.
Mike would still of course be able to see who exactly did the blocking - the regular "population" wouldn't.
Thoughts? (Again, no idea if its even technically possible).
Has there been any thought to perhaps having a generic "Mod Account" for the mods? I really don't know if any functionality existed, but I've seen on some other boards where comments from moderation staff are very impersonal.
As someone who hasn't always seen eye-to-eye with the DS here in the past, but someone who also has received some superb wisdom, advice and guidance from said same DS in other circumstances, and I've seen quite a few of the same old silly basic questions that are front and centre on the Recruiting Website and can definitely feel for the Mods, other members, and Mike's bandwidth.
An example where I do find the staff tend to jump a little hard sometimes is on new topics where the search function returns previous answers that are significantly old (1 YR +). We all know that things change all the time in the military. Current active members live the minutiae day to day, and so it invariably becomes minutiae. Especially the things that annoy you - you don't want to talk about it, because you know you can't change it, and often the answer to the potential recruit is less than flattering either to the CF, to the idea of joining, or to the DS, whether warranted or unwarranted. I'm not arguing for allowing people to ask the pay rates every day in new topics, or to ask "what kind of PT do I need to do, and is it really hard?" constantly, but thoughtful questions which may have not been answered for a while and that have answers that change...
The purpose of my suggestion is to try to remove some of the personal. If a thread gets locked by a generic, singular "Staff" account, rather than by a specific staff member, then the person who caused the lockout is frustrated by staff... and not by a specific DS. If a mod is posting in a thread but doesn't have the status "DS", then there is limited ability to feel like you have to answer a certain way in a thread or risk ticking off a certain DS, or ignore topics all together by certain DS because of previous disagreements.
Mike would still of course be able to see who exactly did the blocking - the regular "population" wouldn't.
Thoughts? (Again, no idea if its even technically possible).
the 48th regulator
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
My question to you Meridian is, have you seen a moderator use their authority unjustly, within a thread that they were participating or debating.
If so, are there examples? I would agree to a generic Mod account, but then we run into the attack of
the 48th regulator logged out, and then went to the generic mod account and locked it for his own benefit.
Lack of accountability, on the Mods part. Easier for us to "Really take advantage of our authority, and hide", wouldn't you agree?
dileas
tess
If so, are there examples? I would agree to a generic Mod account, but then we run into the attack of
the 48th regulator logged out, and then went to the generic mod account and locked it for his own benefit.
Lack of accountability, on the Mods part. Easier for us to "Really take advantage of our authority, and hide", wouldn't you agree?
dileas
tess
Why should the mods and this site adjust to someone who only wants his way? Everytime some wannabe flounces onto the site and does not like the response he gets for slamming someone, the site should change?
Uh....no, it time the disgruntled person moved on....
Uh....no, it time the disgruntled person moved on....
- Reaction score
- 18
- Points
- 530
Meridian - Those suggestions are valid, and Mods have discussed a zillion times how to try an remain impartial. As Scott, recceguy, 48th and others have insinuated, there is a lot going on, behind the scenes. Almost always, if Mods are involved in a heated debate on the forum, other Mods are alerted and if it gets out of hand, will lock the threads or hand out warnings. This is an SOP for us. Also, the MODS are a tight group - we know each others' hot buttons - and most of us had PM'd another Mod and said "you know what - you're getting too wrapped up about that topic; you should probably step back". The Mods aren't some "thin green line" that protect each other, right or wrong. We police each other in private, Mike provides oversight; heck, we even have quasi-professional development threads going on, in the CP. We are all volunteers. We are constantly evaluating and re-evaluating how we do things - this is not an exercise in back slapping; it is always focused on the good of the site.
- Reaction score
- 94
- Points
- 530
MatthewHopkins said:
All right.
I've really had enough already.
Mathew,
I am normally a very moderate kind of girl, but you are exasperating me. We exchanged PMs on why exactly I placed the warning on you. You have been told that if you didn't accept that to PM Mr. Bobbit and you have done so. He has replied to you with an answer. You have been advised that this is a private site, yet I see that you chose to address your earlier comments regarding it being exasperating for mods to repeatedly have to advise newcomers to search the forum directly at "Armyvern."
I guess that you are still not understanding, that the requirement to do that on this site is not Armyvern's requirement; it is Mike Bobbits. It is his site.
For the rest of you who are weighing in on this thread with your comments regarding the the site, its moderation, or unfairness:
1) Mathew reported me to Mr Bobbit by using the "report to Mod" button because I placed him on warning; he knows where it is. He has used it. It is located in the bottom right hand corner of the post block. Please learn from his example.
2) Understand that the Mods see the reported posts so that we can go in and deal with something improper, OPSEC, etc and deal with it before it gets out-of-line. Also understand, that we also get "reported posts" when someone is perceived to be 'pulling' rank, 'dismissing' someone based upon their being a lower rank, or dismissing because some one is Reserve Force etc. That's right everyone: We gets complaints when users do this. And those users also have the right to file those complaints as the noted behaviours are against site Guidelines. So if you get "warned," odds are that you, yourself, have been reported to the mods for how you are treating others or how you are being perceived to treat others. Think about that. Try to learn from that warning and pick up and carry on.
3) There were many exchanges of PMs regarding the underlying issue which caused Mathew to post his original comment into this thread yesterday (my warning him). PMs not only between he and I, but PMs with other Mods trying to explain it to him, and many from experienced members of this forum trying to explain to him how his posts were being perceived. Those PMs were from people of all ranks and backgrounds.
In short, Mathew did the right thing and reported me because he wasn't happy with my warning. Mr Bobbitt responded to him I am told.
If the answer you get from the site owner is not to your liking, then you have a choice. You can leave the site or you can discuss further with Mr Bobbitt.
There are now at least three separate threads spawned/or active again based upon Mathew's not feeling that he deserved a warning and issues that he brought up during yesterdays voluminous correspondence ... AFTER his correspondence with the site owner. So yes, it certainly has the perception to look like it is simply continued whining, especially when it has been addressed via PMs.
So for those of you weighing in who are not privy to all the correspondence, or reported posts from other users, and who are not aware of the advice given to Mathew yesterday and his indication that he would take it; I say back off, you don't know the full story.
He, by posting into this thread yesterday, only once again brought up the issue after it had been dealt with by the site owner as I've already indicated above. So, knowing THAT and knowing what Mathew ultimately advised that he was going to do (which NONE of you are privy to ~hint: there's a new thread started on it), a mod responds to his post and is now perceived to be the bad guy while Mathew comes off looking like the aggrieved.
Sorry ladies and gents; that's the facts. You are welcome to my job as modertor. Have fun at it. It'll be easier for you, you'll actually see both sides of the correspondence and the story; it just may change your tune.
And with that,
Have a good night.
the 48th regulator
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Yrys said:
hehehehe,
You should see what else I can do with two browsers open
dileas
tess
- Reaction score
- 94
- Points
- 530
As to all the posts that have been made regarding advice to new users to use the "search function"
This is not because they will necessarily find the specific answer they are looking for (but usually will), it is so that they post their question in an already running thread on the subject; saving this site bandwidth.
They will find that when they do this (and MOST new users do), someone will come along and answer their question. Those that don't even bother to do this as set out in the guidelines will find themselves being told to search, or will find their topic merged into an appropriate thread.
The ones who won't even do that and then complain about being told to search are, quite frankly, blaming someone else for their lack of typing a word into the search bar even though they agreed to do so upon joining. That's the mods fault too I guess.
I especially like the ones that say ... "i no this has probably been asked a 100 Xs B4, but can ......"
This is not because they will necessarily find the specific answer they are looking for (but usually will), it is so that they post their question in an already running thread on the subject; saving this site bandwidth.
They will find that when they do this (and MOST new users do), someone will come along and answer their question. Those that don't even bother to do this as set out in the guidelines will find themselves being told to search, or will find their topic merged into an appropriate thread.
The ones who won't even do that and then complain about being told to search are, quite frankly, blaming someone else for their lack of typing a word into the search bar even though they agreed to do so upon joining. That's the mods fault too I guess.
I especially like the ones that say ... "i no this has probably been asked a 100 Xs B4, but can ......"
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
I will also point out militaryphotos.net to those who clearly ache for no moderator input....I like this site too much to see it become useless as some of you may seem to want it. In life you may not agree with every decision made but you go on. here you have that choice as well.
Remember also that Mike Bobbitt can step in at any time and lift a Warning, a Banning, change a Guideline, give us shyte etc. The fact he has not should be telling you something...he trusts his Staff. If he feels we are not working for him for the benefit of this Site and its members, he has no problem in removing any of us as Staff.
Your opinions and feedback is always welcome but if the tone is misread or if you come across as petulant then your complaint will not get very far. Something for some of you to think about....
Remember also that Mike Bobbitt can step in at any time and lift a Warning, a Banning, change a Guideline, give us shyte etc. The fact he has not should be telling you something...he trusts his Staff. If he feels we are not working for him for the benefit of this Site and its members, he has no problem in removing any of us as Staff.
Your opinions and feedback is always welcome but if the tone is misread or if you come across as petulant then your complaint will not get very far. Something for some of you to think about....
M
mudrecceman
Guest
I am betting that on the DS-net, I am not the winner of the popularity contest on here.
But...here's my lil analogy with my lil ol PEI edumacation.
(insert Prince Country accent here and cut my IQ in half...)
This guy owns a farm, lets say. (Mike)
People come over, and help Mike run his farm because, well it got real big, right? And they like the farm and want it to keep growin this good stuff, say, carrots and spinach n stuff, well they want the farm to keep making this stuff because it helps most people out.
Some people who drive by the farm, they stop and they enjoy the carrots and spinach.
Others drive in, taste it, and then yell at the helpers because they don't want spinach, they want something else. Then when the helpers say "we don't have Doritios" drive-by-guy complains to the farmer, Mike, for the whole farm being all 31 flavours of phuked up because it isn't the way he thinks it should be. :
Mike owns the site. Mike decides who is staff on his site. The staff do what Mike wants them to, how he wants them to do it. And much like I have seen and would expect on courses in the Army, if there are issues within the staff, its taken care of behind closed doors like it should be.
Whats the problem?
I remember these types, when I was a bouncer. They would get drunk and the owner or his manager would tell them they had to leave. The staff would help them leave. The staff would get a cheap shot or a kick, because they were all assholes and the drunk guy was 100% OK.
:
If you come over to MY house, and complain about how I painted the walls, or set up my living room, I am going to tell you to go frig yourself. Mike is nicer than I am. He doesn't kick people out for telling him his house is being run wrong...
And with that, I'll hide my accent again and get my other 10 IQ points back now...
But...here's my lil analogy with my lil ol PEI edumacation.
(insert Prince Country accent here and cut my IQ in half...)
This guy owns a farm, lets say. (Mike)
People come over, and help Mike run his farm because, well it got real big, right? And they like the farm and want it to keep growin this good stuff, say, carrots and spinach n stuff, well they want the farm to keep making this stuff because it helps most people out.
Some people who drive by the farm, they stop and they enjoy the carrots and spinach.
Others drive in, taste it, and then yell at the helpers because they don't want spinach, they want something else. Then when the helpers say "we don't have Doritios" drive-by-guy complains to the farmer, Mike, for the whole farm being all 31 flavours of phuked up because it isn't the way he thinks it should be. :
Mike owns the site. Mike decides who is staff on his site. The staff do what Mike wants them to, how he wants them to do it. And much like I have seen and would expect on courses in the Army, if there are issues within the staff, its taken care of behind closed doors like it should be.
Whats the problem?
I remember these types, when I was a bouncer. They would get drunk and the owner or his manager would tell them they had to leave. The staff would help them leave. The staff would get a cheap shot or a kick, because they were all assholes and the drunk guy was 100% OK.
:
If you come over to MY house, and complain about how I painted the walls, or set up my living room, I am going to tell you to go frig yourself. Mike is nicer than I am. He doesn't kick people out for telling him his house is being run wrong...
And with that, I'll hide my accent again and get my other 10 IQ points back now...
Mike Bobbitt said:
This is a quote from Mike's post. He was looking to discuss ways to improve Army.ca and I took him up on it based on some things that I felt were wrong. I have messaged ArmyVern and look forward to dealing with our issue behind closed doors as there is obviously animosity remaining and it is my intention to clear that. If it is possible, it will be cleared through conversation of a respectful nature which would allow both ArmyVern and myself to set a good example of what it means to deal with things like members of a common team which is the Canadian Armed Forces.
The DS' should consider whether this thread should be locked as the goal of the thread is not being met. It has degenerated into an all-out brawl and yes, I take full responsibility for starting it. Now, I am trying to lay it to rest. One member mentioned integrity and I have enough to admit when I'm wrong and work to fix it.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
the 48th regulator said:
An example? Unfortunately I can't do that with accuracy right now (I'm not at my normal place of internet usage, and I'm a bit of a luddite anyway - sorry!).
I was just trying to say that it was taking it to a "gutter" or "potty mouth" level (I know, I know... we can all come up with stronger language than that - myself included! That's not the point). I just don't think that's always necessary. This is a public forum, that civvies and kids can access.
It's kinda like what they told us at Cornwallis: to be careful what we do when we're in public in CF's because, if we do something dumb then, civvies will look at us and associate our actions or words with ALL of the CF, not just Cpl/Pte/OCdt/Whatever Bloggins. So subconsciously, the general public looks at what we say here, and associates it with the entire Canadian Armed Forces, rightly or wrongly.
I DID receive a very slight correction from Vern one time, and I believe the discussion was about someone impersonating a deceased CF member for fraud. I was upset about this and suggested the person be instructed to "kneel down and face the ditch...". I vented my feelings. It wasn't a smart thing to do for the exact reasons I've mentioned above. I'm not sorry for being annoyed, frustrated and angry, that the name of a fallen comrade was being misused that way, but I've got to be careful about how and where I express it.
Consequently, it seems to follow, that if I had made a sarcastic comment about the use of the term "urine" being more acceptable than "piss", I could very well have been chastised for the sarcasm - and maybe even the coarseness of my language.
I have marveled, that in my military career, the most effective, and unsettling rebukes that I ever received, involved no raising of the voice, no obscenity, no sarcasm, and in fact were remarkably polite question and answer sessions. But, truth be told, I'm not sure how to translate that onto an internet based, typed discussion - as it requires not just extremely skilled diction, but considerable body language.
For what it's worth, I wholeheartedly agree with you - I just was taken aback by the phrasing. Please don't take it as I was disagreeing with your content.
Now, I've been impudent and jumped in on a discussion here, that did not start with me, piping in with my two bits, thinking it might help. I probably should just shut up and let things progress here, keeping my opinion to myself.
Feel free to ignore what I've said.
- Reaction score
- 265
- Points
- 980
MatthewHopkins said:
No. You're not trying to lay it to rest. You'd be making an attempt to lay it to rest if you hadn't quoted Mike's post and again counselled the DS on how we should so things. Do you just want the last word?
You know, I stepped in here to see if a fresh head could help matters and you've now got me as frustrated as I am sure the rest feel.
I'm not going to be the one to lock and bin this. As far as I am concerned it should stand as an example. Sometimes you reap what you sow.
Edited to add quote.
M
mudrecceman
Guest
I just noticed that you aren't even really 'in' yet. DEO Armour. My wife just went thru IAP/BOTP last summer, and I was an instr at CFLRS not that long ago.
;D
Good luck!
Oh, one piece of advice.
Don't advise the DS at CFLRS on...well on anything.
"You are a penny"
Now...pop smoke and withdrawl behind the crest, and go south in the low ground. Find a Tp hide, off the main axis, for sure. Switch off. Maintain something we called "Radio Listening Silence".
Meaning...I suggest you stop transmitting at this time.
;D
;D
Good luck!
Oh, one piece of advice.
Don't advise the DS at CFLRS on...well on anything.
"You are a penny"
Now...pop smoke and withdrawl behind the crest, and go south in the low ground. Find a Tp hide, off the main axis, for sure. Switch off. Maintain something we called "Radio Listening Silence".
Meaning...I suggest you stop transmitting at this time.
;D
- Reaction score
- 1,583
- Points
- 1,140
Mud Recce Man said:
Altough, this forum isn't basic training and, from my understanding, isn't meant to be like that.
And on Basic Training, I talked to my Course Officer about stuff I didn't like about the way he ran the course. In private, of course... Somehow, he was charged a few months after the course was done and subsequently released for the CFs for stuff that happened on our course. Just to show that the staff isn't always right... The simple mortal can be right
Max
- Status
