Advancement Recognition???

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I have a question that I'm throwing out there for my fellow Chiefs to respond to. When a member of this board advances to the next higher grade of Chief, should they change their user name to reflect that advancement? Or, should it be up to the member?

The reason I'm asking is that BMCM Slesh does not want to change his user name to reflect his exhaulted position...I'll let him explain why, I wouldn't be able to do him justice.

I say that it should be changed. We are all Chiefs in the mess, but we still have rank structure that should be recognized.

Master Chief Slesh is now our "Elder Statesman" (kind of) and should get the "Love" from the mess that he deserves.

What do you think?

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

I think that as long as our rank and rating are posted, it should be current. Being a public forum, I understand the need, desire... of the moderators to have rank/rating available along with a name. As long as that is the case, it should be current.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I say No. There is a person, who once sponsored a young BMC into the Mess, and imparted a certain wisdom. That person, who Jerald will be happy to know, wasn't a BM but is a posting member of this forum, once explained that in a company of Chiefs, all Chiefs are equal. There are no Senior Chiefs or Master Chiefs, there are only Chiefs. No one's opinion or voice is more important than anyone else's. I agree with that person.
When I joined this forum I assigned my screen name according to the instructions on the front page. And where I agree that you should list your rate and your duty status (i.e. Ret.) for the purposes of a point of reference in a discussion, I don't think that your paygrade plays a role.
It's not like the global....I updated that. This is a discussion board....A Chiefs discussion board, where we are all Chiefs.
Also, I've posted alot on here. No really, I have. And there are alot of responses that refer to me as Senior and go back to things that I have said. I think that someone signing on and following a thread might encounter some confusion to those references.
I say leave it up to the individual. If you advance and would like one of the board members to change your sign on, I would be happy to do it. There is a peace that comes with making it to the top of your choosen profession , that gets you to the point where you don't need the daily recognition of your peers. And as a Chief, all Chiefs are your peers, regardless of their paygrade.

[MKC Art Bailly (ret)]

I voted yes. If were going to have our rank in our title it should be current. However I also agree with Stuart. We are in a chiefs mess forum and in the mess it first names. Some might argue that others that are not members of the mess read this board. I think it is a good thing to have them see use referrer to each other by our first names in the mess and by our rank outside the mess. It shows them how much respect we have for each other and shows them a bit of what it means to be a part of something so important to our Coast Guard (The Chiefs Mess). I could elaborate more but I’ll keep it short. We say what we mean and do what we say. If you don’t understand what I’m saying then go thru CCTI.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

God points Stu. But, you dont wear one star to chiefs call you wear them both. I think we should display our current rank.

When I became a real Chief, that was when my mess allowed me to call them by name and not rank. I see little of that here but I dont pay much attention.

[FSC Jayare Parker (Ret)]

I think it should be current rank also.

Jayare

[BMC John Phillips III]

Current Rank.

I rarely refer to BMCS's or BMCM's by their first names here (on the rare occasion that I do, it's to do with off duty topics). I agree we are all Chiefs but I still think that we are different. I think the idea that all of our ideas counting equally is reasonable but I don't see that in practice anywhere. The idea of equality and democracy doesn't fall into my definition of military. Funny, I heard a LT once say if we were all equal then noone would be special. I ended up quoting him on that when we were divvying up assignments, but to an extent he had a point. I just didn't agree with the context or delivery at the time. They practiced the first name basis at the Chiefs Academy (first name for instructors) and while I understood their reasoning behind it, I still found it hard to refer to a Senior Chief as anything other than Senior Chief. I did go through CCTI and I have been a Chief for almost 2 years. I am pretty sure when I make Senior Chief I will still address Master Chiefs as Master Chief. I know if I make Warrant I will definitely address them as Master Chiefs and Senior Chiefs.

I worked for a BMC that made BMCS and he did not like to be called Senior, he said he was a Chief before he was a Senior Chief. He preferred Senior Chief, not just Senior or Chief, but I suppose Chief would be more appropriate than just Senior.

Anyway, BMCM Slesh, you will notice that since you made BMCM, I have always addressed you as such on here and I will continue to do so whether you change your moniker or not. I don't believe it would be hard for anyone to make the connection in replies to your posts that address you as BMCS. Some of us Chiefs are smarter than you give us credit for :D and for the few who aren't well, do you really want to hear their reply? All Chiefs being equal and all.

[BMC John Phillips III]

haha this is funny, I just realized this was a poll (somewhat democratic). That being said, BMCM, the Yes's are leading 10 to 2 so will you change it?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Oh JP3, you should know me better than that.......of course I won't. But I'm not the only person here with administrative authority, and I wouldn't change it back either.
I call Master Chiefs and Senior Chiefs by their rank outside the Mess anyway. And I always refer to Chiefs as Chief in the presence of others. But I still see this forum as a sort of psuedo-Mess. I'm referring to the way we talk to one another. And there are people who still pull their punches because of the rank people hold that they're arguing with in here.
I told Deane off-line about how you changed your posts after June. I also told him that you're doing it because you're an a$$. You were the first person who asked about me changing the sign on. And now you're rolling your dice another way. If you need validation on that one go back to older posts. You didn't call me Senior....it was Stu or SSS. You went with BMCM to win in your reality.
As far as Senior vs Senior Chief........... I never really cared. Anytime someone calls me Senior I respond Junior. I do kinda wish more people called me Master though. Not Master Chief...... just Master. I used to joke with the wives and girlfriend's of the guys that work here. There were a couple of them that got in the habit of calling me Senior all the time. I told them if they didn't get used to calling me by my name it was going to get ugly when I made 9.

As Dennis has often stated, this is our board. If the majority calls for change, we should make that change policy. How long is this poll active for ?

[BMC John Phillips III]

Master Chief, aren't you the one always telling me I am living in the past? I had to go all the way back to Oct 2004 to find a where I referred to you as anything other than BMCS or M and that was in the perpetual joke thread, falling into the category of not to do with work ;) Of course it is ironic that the last thread in my "view all posts" by JP3 I called you SSS another time I referred to you as, " BMCSSSSsss" :D

Edited to add, that the score is now 10 to 3, do moderators or 9's get two votes? lol! Seriously, I don't think the tide is going to role the other way. I am not trying to be a thorn in the side here, but I know you and that is exactly why I asked you right away about changing the name. I would and I have seen others here that have done it almost immediately upon advancing. You have reached the pinnacle of the enlisted ranks and you should be proud. I won't question your motives or your humbleness (which we both know is non-existant), but I have to question your not wanting to confuse readers with past posts. Let me know if you fall into the "accomadators" category at the academy. I don't believe you will. You are also going to do a Myers Briggs personality type indicator test, but I am gonna go ahead and tell you about yourself now :D I bet dinner at the chicken restaurant of your choice, that you are an ESTJ for sure!

[CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)]

I voted yes. What would most of you think when I put on the bar instead of the star and left my name BMC Sparkman? Would anyone care? Someone would probably give me a hard time. I liked the way LT had his name.
(MKC) LT Art Nelson.


Sparky

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

But Chris, going Warrant isn't the same thing. Once you're a Warrant, you have the opportunity to be viewed from a different perspective. Your role in the organization changes. And the way that you are perceived changes. The same thing happens if you go Warrant to Lt. And again once you retire.
I'm not saying that people give more or less weight to your arguement..... people just interact differently with you. If you were responding to something in the BM thread as a Warrant, some people may be a little easier on you if you made a mistake in one of your posts. They are going to be more apt to bounce on a fellow BMC who stated the same thing. A bunch of BMs discussing relavent OinC issues will respond differently to a Warrant or Lt, or MST or MK that poses a question than they might to some other BM. And even just amoungst a group of Chiefs.....that E-8 or E-9 might recieve a break.....where another E-7 never would.
Art should have his name as it appears. And soon we should add (Ret.) to it. I add more weight to any arguement he gives about engineering because I see that MKC in front of his name. I'll be more understanding to questions about policy changes that he isn't around for in the future, than I would be to someone who is Active Duty and should be on top of it.
I'll give more weight to your discussions about going Warrant a year after you put on that bar, than I would give to them now.
There is something in a name. But in a room full of Chiefs, the only name that matters should be Chief.

[ETCM Joseph Harold]

Voted yes because that appears to be how the forum is set up. If it just says Rate and Name such as BM Smith then that would be ok, but I signed up as ETCM Joseph Harold and that is my current pay grade.

Yes, we are all chiefs here, but it just seems right to list the member's current pay grade as their user name.

R,

[ETC Pat Kaschube]

I voted yes but in my opinion it really isn't that big of a deal. Even though all are Chief's it is open for all to view so I we should probably be as acurate as possible.

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

I voted "Yes" because even though we are equal on here, some of us are due special titles... and those being Senior Chiefs and Master Chiefs. These are honorifics that people have spent entire careers to earn... and I don't feel comfortable NOT using them.

Even back in the day before I did my CCTI, even with my attitude of us all being "equal", I had problems calling any other Chief by their first name. I felt like I didn't merit the special status of using first names. Now, I've gone through, I use them.

I won't feel comfortable calling a Senior Chief by his/her first name until I get a star, myself.

All this being said, I still don't have a problem stirring the pot or occasionally making what seem like outlandish statements - and saying "Senior" or "Master Chief" the whole time. I dunno, I guess I believe in giving folks what they deserve... and E-8s and 9s deserve the titles they earned.

I'm looking forward to seeing "BMCM SSS" on the boards! ;)

[BMC John Phillips III]

Overwhelming 18-4! Make me a moderator, I will change it :D

[BMC James M. Clark]

I call Master Chiefs and Senior Chiefs by their rank outside the Mess anyway. And I always refer to Chiefs as Chief in the presence of others. But I still see this forum as a sort of psuedo-Mess. I'm referring to the way we talk to one another. And there are people who still pull their punches because of the rank people hold that they're arguing with in here.

I'm on board with Stuart on the above. The OIC at my unit is an E9. At work, where the walls seem to have ears, our relationship is Chief and Master Chief. Outside of work, or when we are assured of our privacy, we are on a first name basis.

One of the points hammered home during a certain ceremony was "Once a Chief, always a Chief". That phrase isn't "Once a Senior/Master/Chief, always a Senior/Master/Chief." A Chief is a Chief is a Chief is a...

If it just says Rate and Name such as BM Smith then that would be ok
I think this ultimately is a better way of listing your experience. BMCS is misleading, although I don't think it does any particular damage. We know you are a Chief since you are a member of the board, listing your Rate lets us know your specialty. And if you changed it, (hopefully) JP3 will cease fire and find something more productive to complain about... :D

I do kinda wish more people called me Master though. Not Master Chief...... just Master.

I actually heard this used once. I almost choked when I overzelously swallowed the chortling, prompting a fit of coughing.

[BMC John Phillips III]

I'm on board with Stuart on the above. The OIC at my unit is an E9. At work, where the walls seem to have ears, our relationship is Chief and Master Chief. Outside of work, or when we are assured of our privacy, we are on a first name basis.

One of the points hammered home during a certain ceremony was "Once a Chief, always a Chief". That phrase isn't "Once a Senior/Master/Chief, always a Senior/Master/Chief." A Chief is a Chief is a Chief is a...


I think this ultimately is a better way of listing your experience. BMCS is misleading, although I don't think it does any particular damage. We know you are a Chief since you are a member of the board, listing your Rate lets us know your specialty. And if you changed it, (hopefully) JP3 will cease fire and find something more productive to complain about... :D



I actually heard this used once. I almost choked when I overzelously swallowed the chortling, prompting a fit of coughing.

Jim, I have always given respect to rank and privelage even when it's not required. This may or may not be one of those scenarios where it isn't. We aren't going to agree on that it's obvious. The point is, I come from the background that a Chief is a Chief and Senior Chief is higher than a Chief and a Master Chief is higher than both of them. Three different color inks for no reason? This is not behind the closed door.

Remember perceptions are peoples' realities. In your reality you can refer to a Master Chief that you don't work for or aren't hanging out with outside of work in a place where you could be assured of privacy, Stuart. In my reality this is a public forum where the walls not only have ears but eyes and print buttons. Kind of like your workplace, you should practice the same philosophy here. Oh and thanks for giving me something else to complain about :p

[BMC John Phillips III]

I do kinda wish more people called me Master though. Not Master Chief...... just Master.

Funny I missed this the first time but since Jim quoted you on it I thought I would comment on this as well and that is to say, I could imagine people calling you Master without following it up with Chief but another word. From what I've heard this has been going since your early teen years! :p back in what, the 50's? :D

Now how's that for all Chiefs being equal?!

No disrespect Master CHIEF, you know this post was made in jest. I wouldn't have to give the disclaimer if this were behind closed doors :D

[BMC Ralph Williams]

I voted no.

This might be a public forum. But when I log in it say's Chiefs Mess.

I was hammered home too that once inside first name basis!!

JP3 you can whatever perception you want.

The above was passed on by some salty "Chiefs" :D

my
.02

Ralph

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I voted no.

This might be a public forum. But when I log in it say's Chiefs Mess.

I was hammered home too that once inside first name basis!!


So Ralph...why have our rank/rate displayed at all then? Yes, we all should be on a first name basis in the mess, but you would still know if you're talking to a Master Chief by whats on the collar.

This is about having current information displayed. When you make Senior Chief, are you going to keep wearing the Chief insignia or will you go ahead and wear the proper insignia? I think I know the answer to that. It should be the same here.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

I call them CHIEF Warrant Officers. I call them one thing outside the Mess and another inside. Just as I refer to Senior and Master Chiefs one way in the mess and another way outside of it. In my opinion, there are only two types of Chiefs in the Mess....... No one's words, opinions or voice carries more weight than another's........inside the Mess.

Master Chief Slesh, do you remember this post? Would you classify this forum as inside or outside the Mess?

This forum is NOT a Chief's Mess, this is a discussion forum, in a very public environment, discussing issues of relevance to the Coast Guard.

I think that the use of our proper rank titles is more important for other people reading this than for us.

If I have something to discuss with one of guys individually, I send a private message and use your first name or I call you and we use first name.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Steve, one of the reasons that the site was created, and created as an open forum, was to show open, honest, and frank discussions by Chiefs. During those discussions we don't, well I don't, refer to people by rank. Though this isn't a Mess....because it can be viewed by others, it can give people insight into the types of conversations that take place when Chiefs gather.
I don't think that anyone reading these posts are unaware that every member of the Chief's Corp was given a first name by their parents at birth. I don't think that many people would be shocked to see Chiefs referring to each other by first names. Some of them may be unaware that all (initiated) Chiefs should view each others as equals inside the Mess. Inside the Mess, everyone's opinion and voice are equal. I still view this site as a type of Mess. We can give people insight into what may go on inside the Mess, and inform other Chiefs what "should" go on inside the Mess. Not everyone gets that. Not everyone had my sponsor.
And people keep bringing up other issues....... wearing insignia and the like. All of those things are required. I was required to up date my uniform. I was required to up date my global. People of lesser rank are required..... well , you get the picture. This is something that was engrained into me when I joined the Mess. No one will ever be able to change my mind about it now. I'm not what some of you would call a reasonable person. And again, it's not that I'm closed minded...... I've weighted all of the issues.......and I feel as though I'm right. 18 to 4, and I think that me and the other three guys are right. But just like my Mess down here, once the vote is finally, I will yield to the collective wisdom of the Mess.
My mind can not be changed on this issue. It is one of the core things that I believe about the Mess. It was one of the first things that I was taught. If you want to change my mind about something, try getting me to view this site as something other than another type of Chief's Mess. Be warned, I'm already leaning pretty heavily to one side on that issue also.
I once remember reading something like "where ever Chiefs gather, becomes the Mess" I read the disclaimer on the front page. I saw where the creators of the site said from the beginning, that this is not a Mess, ....... I refer to the people vs. "where ever Chiefs gather, becomes our Chief's Mess" This may be the only Chief's Mess some of our people have. But I'm willing to listen to arguements to the contrary........

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Stu...I agree with everything that you've said about using first names and all of that. But, this is more than calling you Stu and you calling me Deane. For me, this issue has little to do with first names (which by the way I don't go by). This is about us keeping this board as it was intended...a professional discussion board that allows us (as chiefs) to have open, frank discussions for all to view...blah, blah, blah. Having said that, in order for us to keep this board from becoming a free-for-all (i.e Freds Place), we have to remain professional and have a basic set of rules/guidelines that we should follow. One of those guideleines should be to update our rank. Simply put, I want this board to stay professional in nature and updating our rank/status keeps it professional and shows those that are visiting that we are professional and that we want this board to remain that way.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And I agree with everything you said......up to the point of the importance of updating your rank. A Master Chief shouldn't be any more professional than a Chief. A Chief however should be more professional than a First Class Petty Officer. In a discussion amoungst Chiefs....whether here or in your local Mess, professionalism should be maintained without the use of current titles. All Chiefs are equal. All Chiefs should be viewed as equals and treated as equals. Again, out side the Mess, back on the boat, or in the Office, we return to that rank structure.
Deane, you could change my sign on to anything that you want. If someone on this board asks me what I liked to be called, I'll still reply, call me anything that you want. We have posting members who sign off with things like "Sparky".....I don't think that it makes the board any less professional. It does make it more human in my opinion.
I was advanced almost two months ago, I don't think that the board has spiraled into the abyss during that time. The board will only ever be as professional as the people who post on it.

Can someone who doesn't know me personally asnwer an honest question for me ? Would you be more willing to disagree with my opinion if my name was listed as BMC, BMCS, or BMCM ? Would you be more aprehensive, to disagree with my opinion if I was listed as BMC, BMCS, or BMCM ?

And Deane if that is one of the guidelines that the members of the forum decides on, I'll support it. How long did you create the poll for ?

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I don't have a problem with "Sparky" or "JP3" as signatures on a thread...it still says "BMC Chris Sparkman" and "BMC John Phillips III" as their user name. It's not about how we talk to each other or how people will discuss issues differently based on rank/status. It's about wearing the appropriate title. It's a point of reference (as I think you've called it before). I'll take it a step further. I think that if you are a CSC/CMC, that should be in the user name (i.e. CMC Stuart Slesh). It's a point of reference.

Again...I don't see this issue in terms of how we talk to each other in the mess or on this board. I only see it in terms of proper military etiquette and everyone should have the current rank/status.

The poll was for 30 days.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Deane, if I go CSC/CMC I would change my sign on because I feel that my perspective would change. The way that my input is recieved would change. I would be privy to another point of view.
A BM is a BM is a BM. I don't view the opinion of one BM over another based on their rank. I view the opinions of other people based on their rate. Some rates are not privy to the dealings of other rates. And the CG changes your rate while you are a CSC/CMC.

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

Master Chief, as one who seems to have a history of disagreeing with you, I'll bite at this one.

Your title wouldn't effect me in the least when it comes to disagreeing with you - or agreeing with you. The only change would be how I address you. Try these on for size:

Stu, that was brilliant!
Senior, that was brilliant!
Master Chief, that was brilliant!

All three have done the same thing, get you to understand that I think you're on the right track... and that's as far as it goes. What we have on our collars SHOULD have an affect on how we address people - but not the ideas presented. I fully agree that in the Mess, we are all equal. I just still feel that it's wrong to address someone with more stuff on their collar by their first name.

When the day comes that I get advanced to Master Chief, I will be happy to address you by first name... but until then, Master Chief, be prepared to be addressed by title - both when I agree with you - and when I don't. ;)

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Try this ONE on for size...

Master Chief, that was moronic......
or asinine if you're more comfortable with that. How many people would honestly respond that way ? How many people would honestly enter into a heated debate ?

And I'm not putting myself about that. There is a member of this forum that I have disagreed with in this public forum in the past. I was and am very opinionated about his stance on a certain issue that we discussed. If he signed on with his new insignia, I wouldn't debate him in this public forum, or in the sanctity of the Mess. I wouldn't debate him or disagree with his stance in public. If confronted one on one I would express my differing point of view without making reference to how wrong I think he was or how right I believe myself to be. I can't say that I wouldn't continue to debate him if we were in an arena as equals. If I take into account his new status, I couldn't view us as equals.
And I have met CPOs who wouldn't care. I have met CPOs who viewed ALL Chiefs as E-7s inside the Mess. I watched an FSC tear apart a former someone while I stood there with my jaw on the floor. I whispered under my breath...."Dude that's the #######" The FSC looked at me and said "That ######'s in my Mess now."

[BMCS Burt Ford]

I would Stu. I have no problem with a heated discussion. But I would do it respectfully here or where ever there may be. But I might not if you were not a Chief. It would depend on the topic.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

Master Chief Slesh,

I don't have as long of a history disagreeing with you as Jerald, But I would certainly have a heated debate with you as a BMCM. As you said we all have an equal voice in the mess, it's just that your voice now carries BMCM instead of BMCS, as far as all non Chief's are concerned. There are non Chief's who visit here so I'll continue to address all those at a higher paygrade accordingly until we get rid of the collar devices and go to a first name CG or if we are in discussion in the protected forum if that comes up, but even then I'll call you Master Chief until told by you or any SCPO/MCPO, otherwise. You earned it, and I'm one of the Chiefs that you asked to give an opinion that doesn't know you. We do call each other by first names behind the door, or even in offices at work but for all matters official or where junior members can possibly over hear (or read in this case) You are BMCM Slesh, at least to me. If we ever have the opportunity to sit and argue over a beer I'll gladly call you by your first name if, at that time it's appropiate.

Anyway Congratulations Master Chief and hopefully you'll get the CMC billet you want and "possibly" deserve :D !!!!!!

My .02,
Todd

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Thanks Todd, and you can call me anything that you want.......

[CMC Bruce Bradley]

You should be called and referred to by what you are...unless your ashamed of it.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Well then call me Chief, and I'm damn proud of it.......

[PACS Steve Carleton]

The key to this is argument in my opinion is the public viewing of this forum.

When I post here I have called you Stu only AFTER I put on the star, up to that point it was Senior, now it will be Master Chief -- This is for the purposes of the public viewing our discussions.

In my office, I may call my Petty Officers by their first name, ie: "Larry, can you take care of that..." But when we leave the office, I refer to them as Petty Officer, the way I earned the title Senior, they earned the title Petty Officer in public. It is a mark of respect and authority. I need to set the example, I address CPOs, SCPOs and MCPOs in this building by their title, when I close the door to the Mess or my office, we can dispense with the titles.

When the LANTAREA Commander was invited to a Chiefs Call, we chatted about his goals, objectives and expectations and how we as his Chiefs were going to carry them out. Number one on his list is the proper use of titles even in the office environment and even among civilians.

Since we are broadcasting in the clear, I feel we need to maintain a level of professionalism with our proper titles in the header.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And I understand all that Steve..... At work this is not an issue. But again I view this forum as a type of Mess. I just have a different perception of how our conversations can be viewed to those on the outside. I see this as the first opportunity to show those outside the Mess, that inside the Mess, we are all equals. And I think that some people inside the Mess still need to learn that. For as much as people are saying that they get that message, I don't think that they actually practice it.
It goes back to comments about the CCTI. If you haven't gone through the CCTI, you have to leave everytime the topic is brought up. How can you truely be part of the Mess if you can't participate in all facets ? Same thing.....if you first have to pay respect to someone rank, how can you truely be seen as equals ? I'm not talking about treating someone with respect as an individual, I'm talking about treating them with respect due solely to their rank.
To support some of your arguements, this forum should have remain closed to people who moved on to become Warrants and Officers. How will our talking candidly with people who are now Officers appear to those on the outside ? Does it seem disrespectful to argue with these people that we salute if we saw them on the base ? They're not in this forum as Officers, just as I'm not in this forum as a MC. People on the outside should except that as a simple truth. I view this forum as a public viewed Mess, but I view it as a Mess all the same. I am a sailor. I swear like a sailor, all the time. I clean up my language for this forum just as clean up my language when talking to people outside my sphere of influence. There are topics that I don't feel are appropriate to discuss in an open forum, and I take those behind the closed door. But the way that I interact with others in my local Mess, is the way that I want to interact with others here. I see us all as equals, I treat us all as equals, I want us to be viewed by all to be equals. I would like someone from the outside to see that when they make Chief, when the go through the CCTI, when they join the Mess,........ we all become equals. We respect each other for the things that we've learned and earned. And we respect each others as Chiefs. The only thing that we need to know is that you wear an anchor, that you are one of us.......

Edited to add
And Bruce I know that it's a cheap shot...but since it's on point ......

You should be called and referred to by what you are...unless your ashamed of it.

and

Hopefully this is just the start of Skip getting this back up to what it needs to be.

sounds a bit like they contradict each other......

[BMCS Burt Ford]

MC Stu, even equal to non-Boatswains Mates?

Just kidding!

[MKC Art Bailly (ret)]

Burt FYI
BM= Big Monkey,
GM= Giant Monkey,
EM= Enormous Monkey and
MK= Monkey Killers. MK’s Rule
Relax Just a little Humor

[BMCM Deane Smith]

For me, when I see the user name it's like seeing the person in uniform.

Simply put Stu (and with all due respect Master Chief), you're out of uniform.

[BMC John Phillips III]

MC Stu, even equal to non-Boatswains Mates?

Just kidding!

Are you really though?

Just kidding ;)

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Nice try Deane........ but I don't have to be in uniform, because I'm not at work. But I get your point.

[BMC Gene Daigle]

I think the user name should reflect what you are currently. Yes this is a Mess so, first names, as long as the senior member is okay with it, is fine. If I were to meet someone for the first time in uniform that posted here on this site, like BMCS or BMCM Smith that is profiled as BMC Smith, then I would not correlate right away, that I may have back and forth discussions with that member. Making the change should not be that big of an issue. I guess we have our own principals that we fight for.

[MKC Manny Santos]

Voted Yes. I just took a chunk of my evening (I need to learn to read faster) reading through this post. Funny stuff some of it. I like the idea of dropping rate and rank and having simply Chief before our names. It would promote equal grounds for the heated debates. Doesn’t solve (probably would worsen) the issue of having former chief's, who've jumped the fence, posting here though.
I like that little debate. We don't allow those who have moved on (and out) of the mess to have equal say at a chief's call. Why here ? Not that I post often, just want to stir ya'all up!
ok, I've open myself up... fire away :)

[BMC John Phillips III]

I wouldn't want to drop the rate and rank, mostly because I am proud to be a BM :D You may however be onto something with the equal ground for the "once a Chiefs."

BMCM, I am thinking of a song, Phil Collins....can you help me out? :D

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Say my name say my name....... but Manny, who doesn't allow those that moved on or moved out equal say at a Chief's Call ? I do.
And I don't want to drop the rate because, again, it gives a point of reference.

[BMC Gene Daigle]

BMCS or BMCM :confused: The advancement means a lot, but changing the change on this site, what's the big issue. As for those who have moved on or moved out, maybe at CPOA functions everyone is on equal footing, but in a Chiefs Call, those who are currently Chiefs should be allowed, with the only exception be Chiefs Call with CCTI being the main talking point. Many issues that are addressed need to be handled by the Chiefs, and at the lowest level. If CWO's are at the Chiefs Call then how can that be done. Just like this is an extention of the Chiefs Mess. Bigger than the academy, and much bigger than that the Miami area. Lucky to get 20 Chiefs out of over 89 that are within a 30 mile radius (Sector/ISC/STA Miami, D7, Recruiting Offices, Fort Lauderdale, and all the attached cutters in both Miami and Fort Lauderdale) to get together. And its always the same people that show up. :rolleyes:

[BMCM Deane Smith]

And I don't want to drop the rate because, again, it gives a point of reference.

Just not necessarily the correct point of reference...in this case.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Gene, it was kinda hard to follow your train of thought in that last post..... but some of us still view other people as "Once a Chief, Always a chief...." and will always be welcome at every Chief's Call. They are on our banglist when we send out e-mails. They show up at the Mess as Chiefs and conduct themselves as Chiefs. And the last MCPOCG said we were right to do just that. He put it back to each Chief of the Mess to decide what is best for that Mess. I will always be of the mindset, that someone who has gone throught the CCTI, and acts accordingly will always be welcomed into any coversation that I'm having with my fellow Chiefs.

And Deane, I feel that my point of reference as a BM and a Chief are enough. I'm also a sitting OinC, married, with one non-school aged son, and I don't eat vegetables. But none of that is really relevant here. Actually depending on the conversation, any of those could become relevant, but we have to draw the line somewhere. The majority of you seem to think that I'm drawing my lines in the wrong place. I have to stay true to my own beliefs. Just as the rest of you are staying to yours.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

OK. This thread has pretty much run its course, in my opinion. Stu's mind/position won't change and he hasn't convinced any of the "Yes" votes to change their minds. We can certaintly let the poll continue until the end of August or we can pull the plug in the next few hours/days. So, I propose that admin changes the user name to reflect the current status.

If anyone objects to doing this now, please respond with a compelling argument. History shows that this poll will go no further than it already has. Those that care to vote have already voted and waiting until 28AUG just seems like a waste of everyones time.

Unless someone has a strong argument for waiting, lets end it.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Say my name say my name.......

Master Chief, you might wanna shy away from any offers to go on name that tune. Say my name is Destiny's Child. The Phil Collins song that I was thinking of was, "Against all odds."

[BMCS Burt Ford]

OK. Stu's mind/position won't change....

Has it ever Deane? I think Admin should change it and your poll should end.

[ETCM Joseph Harold]

The mess has spoken. Update the Paygrade.

[ETC Pat Kaschube]

The horse died, came back to life died again and has been kicked to the point of almost coming back again.

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

Since I've been in the middle of a transfer and relief process, I haven't been able to put in my two cents, but here goes. Even though it's not my intent to bring the horse back to life it is my intent to state my point.
I understand that Stu does not want to change his title, and I understand his reasons. I may understand them but not agree. Anyway here is my question, follow me on this it may not be as clear as I want it.
Say a member of this sight that posts often is a EMCS. He runs afoul of the system and is taken to courts martial, where he is reduced in rate from E-8 to E-7. Would the people who have admin capabilities require him to change his screen title and if so why should it not work the other way when a member advances they should also have to change.

Sorry, Jim had to ask the question.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Nick, where were you last week........... that's an arguement I would have lost. I would change someone's sign in if they were busted down, because they are claiming to be something that they are not. So in turn, under that same arguement, I could see where I was also misleading people. Which would bring up another topic, if the person was busted down to E-6, would you still want them posting here ? I wouldn't.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Anyway here is my question, follow me on this it may not be as clear as I want it.
Say a member of this sight that posts often is a EMCS. He runs afoul of the system and is taken to courts martial, where he is reduced in rate from E-8 to E-7. Would the people who have admin capabilities require him to change his screen title and if so why should it not work the other way when a member advances they should also have to change.

Nick...leave it to you to consider the reduction angle.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

I see BMCM Slesh is on the board..........

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Nick,

The real question is would they login and appear again before the masses -- I say if there is a reduction inpaygrade, that also should be duly noted.

Consistency

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

Stu, like I put in my post I was in the middle of a relief and move. So I was just able to log on today.
Anyway, should a Chief that gets reduced to E-6 be able to continue to post? I agree with you that they should not be allowed to post.

Steve; I dont know about duly noted but I do know that it does not take long before the word gets around that a Senior Chief lost his/her star.

Deane; Like my father told me once "we may see the same thing but look at it differently".

[BMC John Phillips III]

I could see where I was also misleading people. Which would bring up another topic, if the person was busted down to E-6, would you still want them posting here ? I wouldn't.

Holy crap, I feel like I just won two chess games in a row!

First, the obvious, BMCM admitting he was wrong.

Second, your "once a Chief...rule" obviously has some exceptions.

PACS, that is probably the best question in this thread so far. I will take a stab at an answer saying that since no RFC's have come on (with the exception of one, to somewhat) give their side of the story that a reduction most likely wouldn't either. I do however think we would get more info* on the reduction, but I don't believe it would be through official means.

*didn't read BMCS Pupo's comments before posting that, but yeah, same thing he said.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Where did I admit that I was wrong ? And the "Once a Chief......" isn't my rule. I've just never looked at it from a reduction stand point. I don't think that an actual Chief could ever do anything to be reduced. If you are reduced........ you never really were a Chief. You were an E-7, 8, or 9. That will be my officail stance.

[BMC John Phillips III]

you never really were a Chief.

Ok, you didn't admit you were wrong. I just read it that way.

Cont'd on the "once a Chief..." I agree with the above quote whole-heartedly.

I also think there are Chiefs that already aren't or never were. That's why I am not a fan of the "Once a Chief, Always a Chief," being universal. I think if you have another Chief or a Mess that can vouche for you, like with the whole should we let O's and CWO's sign on, you are good. I have always been a fan of personal power over positional power. That might explain why I was the first to ask you to change your sign on. I know you and it makes sense to me for you to be advertised as a Master Chief, no matter how unwilling you are to admit when you are "not right." Oh wait, Master Chiefs are always right! ;)

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

It's not that a Master Chief is always right..... it's just that we're never wrong. Someone can be more right than we are....... but at some level we are still not wrong.
As far as "Once a Chief...." it still holds true. Once you are a Chief......and I'm not talking about merely being a Chief Petty Officer, that's a title given by the COMDT........ I'm talking about actually being a Chief.........you will always be a Chief......to me.

[BMCS Dave Considine]

Let me throw another wrench into the gears, - what about frocking. Does an E-6 frocked to E7 get to post???

Also, what happens with someone frocked to E8?? Do they stay BMC or are they listed at the next higher paygrade??

dave

[BMCM Deane Smith]

If you're frocked, you get the higher grade. If you're wearing the anchor or star, you should have that refected in your title.

[BMCS T. D. Ellis]

OK. This thread has pretty much run its course, in my opinion. Stu's mind/position won't change...

Since when has Chief, Senior Chief or Master Chief Slesh ever changed his mind?

I remember many discussions in the mess on S-BAY, and he may have changed my mind, grudgingly, but he never changed his. This is one of the reasons I was honored to have him as my sponsor and would serve with him anytime, anywhere, anyplace. That's not kissing up either.

I enjoyed my time on S-BAY but there were moments that were "challenging" and not because of him. He kept it real for me and even I learned a lot from him during our year together.

I think this virtual community is a mess and we are who we are. There are times to use titles and there are times to use first names and as Chiefs, I think we all know when to use which.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

You were with Stu on S-Bay, and JP3 was (is) with Stu on E-Bay. What is up with that?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jim, it's worse than you think...... I first met Deane when he was on the P-Bay............

[BMC John Phillips III]

You were with Stu on S-Bay, and JP3 was (is) with Stu on E-Bay. What is up with that?

That's pretty funny, I guess if BMCS Smith had his way, I would be in Sick-bay! lol