Defining the rules of engagement......

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

It seems that we are now faced with something that we weren't aware we would face one day. Well, in fairness, I would have to say that some of you did warn the rest of us.
But we now have people posting things that would never be discussed, even in the confines of a Mess.
As was mentioned in the user's agreement that everyone accepted as they joined, the owners of the site can edit posts at will.
I need some of the things defined that we won't accept as individuals, so I'll know what to keep looking for.
Unless I hear otherwise, ....I will remove anything I deem to be racist in nature. I will also start removing things that cast negative characterizations of Coasties as a whole. And I will not allow anyone's religious beliefs to be mocked. I'm treating this forum as an extension of my workplace, and the things I would allow to take place in it......unless I'm told otherwise, so feel free to speak up.

Now I for one don't have issues with the name calling between members. I don't have a problem with us acting like children. We sometimes do that at work also. I don't have a problem that we can't get along. However, I don't think negative comments should be allowed against people who aren't here to defend themselves.

Standing by for comments.

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

Master Chief, I think you are stirring up a poop-storm.

Thus far - and if you don't mind, I'd like to repeat that - thus far, I haven't seen anything get posted that was racist or mocked religions. If we discuss race issues, I think we actually stay quite clean and dispassionate about the topic, and discuss it in terms that would keep everyone happy (HQ included!!!). The only thing I think where we stomped on the line over was the discussion of gays in the military, and even there any negative comments were prefaced by "Well, I think that...", so it was personal rather than making sweeping comments of alleged precedence.

Deleting things that may or may not show the Coast Guard in a bad light is dangerous, as most of the threads on here can be argued that they question HQ's insight, intellect and intentions - which shows a degradation in good order and discipline... And even this thread has been posted by a Master Chief and is now being questioned by a Senior Chief (dammit, when am I going to get used to saying that??), which shows the same degradation.

I guess the only thing I am suggesting is to tread lightly. Perhaps wait for a complaint before deleting - as something that may offend the heck out of you may have others laughing their collective hinder-parts off.

Good luck! We're here to support you.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Having served where ROE could mean life or death, I see not definitions here.

I see dictates. When are the definitions coming? One important thing to remember is this internet discussion group is no person's office.

*** Comments removed by Admin. The comments were inflammatory & completely inappropriate.***

It is a little early for an April Fool's joke.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

First, I'd like to thank Bill Wells for joining and posting. Even though I feel that he went over the line a few times, he at least forced us to look at where the line is drawn.

Also thanks to Stu Slesh and his moderators for their measured response to Bill's posts. They could have pulled the trigger and booted Bill out, but they didn't. They acted like Chiefs.

I recommend that we begin to formalize the rules of this discussion board. We are not a typical forum and cannot behave as such. We need to act like Chiefs who are having a discussion within earshot of EVERYONE. That means that we need to edit ourselves...or be edited by the moderators.

Now, before Bill accuses me of being a company man, I'll remind everyone that we have had some intense disagreements about a variety of subjects that never degenerated into the caustic, hateful brawl that we've experience recently.

I suggest that a small group of regluar, reserve, and retired Chiefs work together to develop the rules. Let's get back on track and debate with each other in a respectful productive manner.

Until then, I think Stu has a good plan.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jerald, first you have to recognize that inside the Mess there are no Master Chiefs or Senior Chiefs we're all just Chiefs, ...so degradation is only percieved, not real.

As for waiting for a complaint before editing a post, ...that's what we've always done. It's just that sometimes those complaints are originated by us and we don't need them seconded. I apply the same rules I live by at work. And I don't have problems questioning policy or practices. However I don't think any of us have insight into the mindset of the person who made those decisions, so we shouldn't claim that we do. Questioning policy or practices and questioning motive are two very different things.
If you care to question the motives, values, or ethics of our members, someone who can answer your accusations, by all means, fire away. Individuals have the right on whether or not they choose to respond.
Again, I don't have a problem with the name calling. If others do they should make their view known.

[BMC John Phillips III]

I don't have a problem with the name calling. If others do they should make their view known.

***Comment deleted by Admin. Comment was inflammatory.***

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Also thanks to Stu Slesh and his moderators for their measured response to Bill's posts. They could have pulled the trigger and booted Bill out, but they didn't. They acted like Chiefs.

Dennis,

I am concerned about the manner in which the "trigger pullers" impose their personal preferences on other people. I have asked many times for Stuart to show cause for using derogatory comments about me on a personal level. He has refused to do this. I do not know why. This is not inflammatory but the simple truth of the matter.

He is also imposing his personal religious beliefs on others. He has already announced he will be decide what is and is not religious "mockery."

Perhaps one of the rules that the moderator who is engaged in a debate cannot be the one who decides what is and what is not inappropriate.

I realize people do not like to have their feet held to the fire but if they are posting as if they are authorities then they must demonstrate some expertise in the matter. During the exchanges between Stuart and myself he did not prove his arguement. He, just as anonymous posters on the other group have done, found it safer to attack, as Joe Jester has repeatedly cited, the messenger rather than the messenger. And he isn't the only one and there others.

I only ask that if people are going to challenge then have something more than personal preference and prejudice to add to the debate.

I also disagree with Stuart on the comment there are no pay grades in the CPO Mess. We have been shown that there are senior and junior people. One MCPO has said he would dictate the type of music played there without the slightest consideration of other types. I have a feeling this is only a smoke screen comment for other motives.

The point is this may be a discussion group about the Coast Guard but it is still NOT the Coast Guard. This is a place where one cannot impose his will as if it were a Coast Guard unit. There are people here with more experience, knowledge and time in grade.

We can see the mind of a person by what he composes on the screen. If the comments are dictatorial and abusive then we may assume this is the way the person is "on the job." If a person makes comments and guesses at the answer we see other attributes.

Anyone with a reasonable amount of experience can see motive in the policies and practices. Those who cannot are not well informed or simply ignore it all because they do not want to recognize the obvious.

I do have a problem with name calling. This tactic, and it is only a tactic, is used by the uneducated person who lacks leadership skills. If a person cannot find a way to say the same thing in a more educated way then that person should spend some time in school to develop a larger vocabulary. Name calling to be hurtful, is just hurtful and has no point to it expect to disguise a person's lack of skills.

Chiefs should not be clones. They should be informed individuals who have the ability to express themselves with some decorum in this or anyother medium. I have begun innocent threads only to have them hijacked by the uninformed and illogical. What does this say of those "chiefs?" I have had lines of test removed for some unknown reason. The only reason seems to be because the moderator can and uses that power injudiciously.


Now, before Bill accuses me of being a company man, I'll remind everyone that we have had some intense disagreements about a variety of subjects that never degenerated into the caustic, hateful brawl that we've experience recently.

Dennis, Ask yourself why the topics degenerated? It was largely those who decided to inappropriately attack and accuse people of being racist because they have no reasonable arguement to rebutt the actual discussion or have severe reading deficiencies.

One rule that should be imposed is one that one-on-one debates be allowed and required when someone accuses another of anything. Some people cannot write "big" without a crowd behind them. The rules for this would include no name calling, no further accusations, show verifable information or other sources, and be done in public. This will be a great learning experience for those of the so-called "juniority." They may learn that professionals may disagree in a civil manner.

One other rule is that the moderator who "eliminates" should put his name on it. This way all may see if there is a trend in the deletions and determine whether or not it was necessary or a personal preference. There should be some other reason given other than the stock answer because this may not be the real reason.

Everyone has spoken of my banning on military.com, however, few know that I was banned by Fred for simply bumping up a thread. All his suspensions and bannings were personal. I would hate to see that occur here to anyone. This is why the moderators should be held accountable for their administrative honesty.

Just like in the Coast Guard a "Chief" should be responsible for his actions a work; that is if this board is to be run as it is a regular Coast Guard unit. Perhaps there should be a list of DOR made as well so we have a "seniority" list.

The plan will only be as good as it is implemented. If those who have moderator power continue to abuse that power then nothing will be accomplished.

We have seen the military.com boards turn to garbage because of the indiscriminate use of moderator power. Folks cannot blame me anymore. I haven't been there for a long time and it is getting worse. What does that mean?

I wonder how much of this will be deleted? We'll see and it may offer some evidence of my earlier remarks.

Make the rules, then live by them.

John Phillip III
I don't like it when people call me "Bill Wells."

And it begins already!

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

JP3, Not helpful. You are indeed a "Hijacker".

It seems to me that we didn't need ROE until recently. It is to bad that it has come to this, but as with all things in the Coast Guard... They evolve.

In my opinion, anything that is to be changed, deleted, etc. shoud have a consensus of the moderators. Not just one taking it upon himself. I think that in most cases, they will all agree if someone brings something to the table for that discussion. For the record, I am NOT one of the moderators.

Bill, for the record, I thought the comments that you made that got Stu all hyped up were totally inapporpriate. For someone who chooses his words carefully, I think you will agree that you put a rather large piece of bait on that hook.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Supreme Court ruling in Street v. New York
Nevertheless, we are unable to sustain a conviction that may have rested on a form of expression, however distasteful, which the Constitution tolerates and protects.

Now this forum being privately owned, it doesn't have to follow any ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States. As one who swore to support and defend the Constitution, I tend to side with the Court's opine no matter how much I disagree with what written.

Have a panel of chiefs make the rules, then open the rules up for debate.

For me, it's not about morality, it's about civility.

Everyone, including me, needs to look inward when we read posts on this forum ... especially when we read people who we have a preconceived bias towards the poster.

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

I will agree wholeheartedly that this is a privately owned BB, much like Fred's Place. I remember thinking, "Gosh, what would someone say if I acted that way in their living room?" This board discusses Coast Guard things, but it still belongs to just one person (with help from a couple of Mods). If someone acts like a jerk in someone else's living room, doesn't the owner have the right to censure or boot them? Who else needs to be involved?
______________

So, Bill, this isn't the Coast Guard, but you would have us using honorifics and Dates of Rank to align ourselves?? If that is the case, then perhaps we add on time spent in direct support of, either being attached to or assigned to - as an active duty or reserve member, a DOD service? You keep asserting that we have lost our military way, this should make you quite happy!

I think if you look back at some of the older threads, that this board had its share of debate and disagreement. Never did we have such sniping as we do now. There is only one thing different between threads today and just a couple of months ago.

Remember, we are still the illiterate and tradition hating people that we were back then... hmmm, let me mull that over for a bit.

There is only one voice on here of which I can vouch that, on these boards, we have had no disagreement. Master Chief Ayers.

But you shoulda heard us up in New London a couple months ago!! Man, the heat that we generated was amazing! Never once did a disagreement include any baiting, name calling or snide remarks about character of service... and just about the only things we agreed on was that I was presently stationed in Florida and he was at HQ.

But we had fun - because we both used standard rules of debate and never stooped to using personal attacks. When we said something pointed, it was for the purpose of bringing up a point - not to get a rise out of the other person. I can't speak for him, but I had a wonderful time arguing my bottom off there! That's why we are in agreement so much here, because we have a love for our chosen service, and we can see today AND tomorrow.

Bill, from what you have shown thus far, you are so deep into yesterday that you are unable to see anything of today, except for the well accepted fact that it is no longer 1969. You have implied many times that we - the collected group of Chiefs and above - are lost, wasting our times and either unable or unwilling to change our ways to "wizen up".

Why bother?

If you are worried that we didn't get involved in pissing contests, you should go back to some of the CCTI threads and look at my conversations with Master Chief Slesh, and Senior Chiefs Endicott and Deane Smith... to say that we disagreed would be so understated to the point of absurdity.

But never once did anybody stoop to personal attacks or baiting, or calling into question the character of someone's service. Some of it hasn't changed... because I can only think of two things that Senior Chief Endicott ever said that I agree with.

One is a maxim that I will carry with me until I cross the bar - "If two people at a table agree with each other, one of them doesn't need to be there."

My only add-on to that is to ask, "Why" they are disagreeing. If it is for a valid point, then, "Game on!" If it is only to give one party the self satisfaction of having stirred the pot for the sole reason to stir the pot, then I believe that the pot stirrer is the one that should find a new table.

I agree with you on one point, though.
We can see the mind of a person by what he composes on the screen. If the comments are dictatorial and abusive then we may assume this is the way the person is "on the job."
We see bitterness and disappointment, demanding that all bow down to a knowledge and accumulated skill set that may or may not be greater than our own, combined with a pettiness that rises to the level of laughable.

And, no Bill, I'm not speaking of Master Chief Slesh.

[BMC John Phillips III]

JP3, Not helpful. You are indeed a "Hijacker".

Jim, I don't see how you can say that. I quoted BMCM Slesh and I put it on the table that two people have called me "Bill" or "Bill Wells" and now, by you calling me a hijacker, you have done the same thing.

I am not the guy getting red letter deletions from the moderators.

But, you are entitled to your opinion.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

John...let's be objective and honest for a second. You have hijacked your share of threads and you're #2 behind Bill in deletions/modifications by admin.

Go back a page for the most recent one...

[BMC John Phillips III]

BMCS Smith, I am always honest - this is political correctness gone mad. It was all brought on by one member, a member with a history* for violating discussion board rules and getting suspended from them.

* pun 1000% intended.

We need to get those rules out soon.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

JP3, I guess I fogot the add the ;)

Still, your post did not help the thread. You have to admit that.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled bickering.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John......honestly, this couldn't possibly be brought on by one person. As was mentioned several times already, lines were crossed from both directions. And as long as we're being honest.........eight people have responded to this thread. Four of those eight have had a thread edited or deleted by a member of Admin during their time as a member here. How many of those four would admit to have been suspended or banned from Fred's Place in the past? And the honest answer shouldn't be only one of you so let's watch where the stones fly. With all of the honesty flying around it's hard for those with knowledge otherwise to remain civil.

Jim, I think that there has always been a consensus about editions or removals. Some of them have taken place after the fact, but the consensus was still there. Alot of these were limited to removing the names of people who still had actions pending, even if the information was cut and pasted from a newspaper article. I still plan on doing that also. I don't see the need in putting someone's name or the unit out there.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Thank you Jim, point made and point taken. That being said, I just spent a few minutes putting some thoughts together in attempt to add some value to the thread. You be the judge:

Rules or Engagement

Due to recent discussions and threads it has become apparent that we are in need of some better-defined “Rules of Engagement” for our discussions here.

I have this little card in my wallet that I obtained from the Chief Petty Officer Academy, to date I have not had to use it. So I thought that maybe it would be helpful here.

The card deals with “Emergent Problems”

It asks four basic questions which can be paraphrased to suit our situation:

Is the behavior:


Having a negative impact on the job (board)?
Preventing others from doing their job (causing people to leave or devaluing their thoughts)?
Preventing you from doing your job (over-burdening the moderators)?
A violation of unit or CG Policy (the basic rules of agreement – posted in the feedback thread)?


I believe these questions could be used to determine if a member is posting irresponsibly.

The founder of this board asked a great question, “What are we trying to accomplish here?” I believe the original intent of “The Unvarnished Truth” was to mirror a real Chiefs Mess, to give Chiefs from all over an active mess that they could attend on a daily basis and always have fellow Chiefs to turn to. It was also to serve as a window, a window for juniors to catch a glimpse of the power of the Chief’s network and strive to become a part of.

In keeping with the spirit of simulating a real mess, I say if a Chief in the mess says something that is out of line, in a real mess, the other Chiefs would correct them. In those cases, that Chief would retract, apologize or better explain their view. They would not however delete it, it could not be voided out, it could not be taken back. In that respect, deleting, censoring or rewording posts by anyone other than the originator is a bad idea. That Chief would simply be held accountable, another aspect that separates “The Unvarnished Truth” from your ordinary discussion boards.

Conversely, in a real life scenario, those words would only be seen or heard by the members of the mess that were in the mess at the time. So that only the members of the mess present would know that the Chief was corrected or put back on the right track. Now we all know “What’s said in the mess, stays in the mess.” And we all know that other Chiefs that may not have been in the mess at the time would likely be privy to what was said and how it was handled. But in no case would that be shared with members outside of the mess, in no case would it be visible through any window.

So where do we go from there? I recommend that any comments that need be deleted, voided out, or reworded be moved to behind the closed door. Perhaps with a provided explanation from admin and not the canned “inflammatory” or other canned remarks we have recently seen. I am not suggesting by any means that admin need explain their actions, I am just trying to keep in line with a more realistic mess.

I will also add that if one member takes issue with another member’s posts, that member should be a CHIEF and attempt to handle it at the lowest level. This could be done discretely and professionally through private message, not in the tattletale behind the back fashion that is perceived to be taking place and not done by lashing out in anger or harsh words.

Finally in regards to the "At what point do we give up?" thread, I realize that there comes a time when we have attempted to handle situations at the lowest level, there are times when no matter how hard you try to get through to a person (yes this includes Chiefs), and times where you have exercised every leadership tool available to you that you cannot move forward without cutting your losses. I would hope that as a mess, we realized when we have reached that point and accepted our failure, our “sailors disgrace.”

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

John,

Nice response.

JPIII quoted the "Emergent Problems" card from the CPO Academy.

Is the behavior:

Havig a negative impact on the job (board)?
Preventing others from doing their job (causing people to leave or devaluing their thoughts)?
Preventing you from doing your job (over-burdening the moderators)?
A violation of unit or CG Policy (the basic rules of agreement – posted in the feedback thread)?


In bullet two, no one prevents someone from posting other then themselves. In any debate it takes two and none of these discussions have been formalized with debating rules. If your looking for debating rules, visit http://english.unitecnology.ac.nz/writers/debating.html

In bullet three, the only people who over-burden the moderators is those complaining about a poster who eithers responds to the posting or emails the moderators. The responders had a choice ... they could have ignored the offending poster as the moderator would have eventually found the post and did whatever the moderators do over here.

In bullet four, that is what this discussion is about ... establishing policy.

In my inquiry concerning the location of the user agreements,

Admin stated, or I should actually say, pasted from the entry page to the forum:

This site is devoted to honest, open, and frank discussions among Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers. Although, participation is limited to Chiefs, the web site can be read by everyone.

There is no anonymity here. You are completely accountable for your comments and discussions. This is as it should be. We are Chiefs, and as such, are responsible to provide the unvarnished truth, no matter how unflattering.

This is not the Chiefs Mess, where what is said in the mess stays in the mess. This is a Chiefs Call, where we gather to work out important issues.

For you participating Chiefs, do your duty. Bring up the issues that need to be addressed.

and

JPIII added:

Forum Rules

Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.

Although the administrators and moderators of The Unvarnished Truth will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of The Unvarnished Truth, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

The owners of The Unvarnished Truth reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.

I stated those two can be at conflict. If this is truely the Unvarnished Truth you need to prepare for any statements contray to your views, no matter how unflattering, as stated in the Admin's response.

In my link concerning debating rules, if these are one-on-one debates, or one-on-twelve, it doesn't matter which, but all should be able to conduct themselves with civility.

The authors of the post choose their words. If some choose words that will entice or inflame the responders, it's like the responders are bringing a knives to a gun fight. A very bad proposition.

There is a world of differences between discussions and debates. If you want formalized rules of debates, then open a debating section where people can read and respond at will. Then if you don't want to partake in a debate, don't respond.

Another thing that can be done, is have the authors copywrite their material , and then put their "teaser" in the discussion with a link to the whole treatise. Again, people should [b]read the whole treatise before responding to the "teaser". I say this because I seriously doubt, by their responses, that some have read the whole article that was mentioned in the "Core Values (cont)" thread. You can tell by their inquiries since some of those were answered in the treatise. Failing to read the link shows some had a preconceived bias against the author of the treatise.

Preconceived bias can be a double edge sword ... as bias can be both positive and negative. We all have preconceived bias.

Establish the rules, post them.

As my final comment, like the Core Values, once codifying the rules, they become punitive. That is the intent of codifying something, say, unit instructions. Look at your own unit instructions, how many of them describe behavior that when one goes awry, it's punitive, as the rules reflect your desires for a smooth running unit.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Bill, for the record, I thought the comments that you made that got Stu all hyped up were totally inapporpriate. For someone who chooses his words carefully, I think you will agree that you put a rather large piece of bait on that hook.

Jim,

For the record, how were the inappropriate? This is the problem with using personal preferences and prejudices in making decisions.

The story was an example of how preceptions may be misunderstood and Stuart's reaction confirmed it. He took it upon himself to pick out what HE say as racist. But was it? He also made up bibilical analogies to prove his case. Which is worse? Relating a story that exhibits a story of purpose or mocking a religious text for personal reasons? I believe the latter because it is a lie and subverts in which many believe.

Stuart should have analyzed the statement instead of jumping first. This is what moderators should do. Moderators should not engage in any topic for which they assume authority. It is a high conflict of interest.

I've been a member of Vietnam LISTSERV since the mid-1990s and it can get very arguementative between the various groups of veterans, professors, and other interested peoples. The list owner and moderator is a learned professor and she is very effective without resorting to threats. The only time she writes to a topic is when it is her area of expertise with is music of the Vietnam War era.

[BMC John Phillips III]

John,

Nice response.
thanks.

You said,
In bullet three, the only people who over-burden the moderators is those complaining about a poster who eithers responds to the posting or emails the moderators. The responders had a choice ... they could have ignored the offending poster as the moderator would have eventually found the post and did whatever the moderators do over here.

I said, "I will also add that if one member takes issue with another member’s posts, that member should be a CHIEF and attempt to handle it at the lowest level. This could be done discretely and professionally through private message, not in the tattletale behind the back fashion that is perceived to be taking place and not done by lashing out in anger or harsh words."

So it would seem that we agree.


There is a world of differences between discussions and debates. If you want formalized rules of debates, then open a debating section where people can read and respond at will. Then if you don't want to partake in a debate, don't respond.

Joe, I also agree with the above and while I don't see anything wrong with a debate. There is at least one (maybe three) here that believe you cannot have productive discussion without debate or disagreement. Disagreeing is like change, change for the sake of change is pointless, change for the better is good. Disagreeing or debating for the sake of debating is also pointless and counterproductive. I believe we can all work together with varying points of agreement and still remain productive and respectful. Intentionally pushing peoples buttons is not productive and no one can deny (well no one with any amount of integrity or sense) can deny that that is what has been going on here lately - and yes, it has been coming from more than one direction.

As my final comment, like the Core Values, once codifying the rules, they become punitive. That is the intent of codifying something, say, unit instructions. Look at your own unit instructions, how many of them describe behavior that when one goes awry, it's punitive, as the rules reflect your desires for a smooth running unit.

Joe, I would equate the difference between Values and Code to that of Discussion and Debate, they are NOT the same thing. So we will have to continue to disagree on the Core Values being punitive. So as not to get this discussion off track again, I have to disclaim that no one is going to convince me otherwise.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Let's get started on this.

Can we find 5 active members to work on the rules of engagement to which no one will object?

I'm going to suggest three:

Stuart Slesh- because I trust his sincerity even when I think he's full of BS.

Bill Wells- because I think he makes some good points even though I doubt his sincerity.

Joe Jester- because he reflects before he responds.

Master Chief Ayers- because he cut through all of the rancor and made a great post.

Me- because I have a high opinion of myself.

Other suggestions?

[BMC John Phillips III]

Funny, Dennis, you should get a second opinion on the last member you recommended (just kidding!)

Seriously, you recommended 5. I can't help it.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Let's get started on this.

Can we find 5 active members to work on the rules of engagement to which no one will object?

I'm going to suggest three:

Stuart Slesh- because I trust his sincerity even when I think he's full of BS.

Bill Wells- because I think he makes some good points even though I doubt his sincerity.

Joe Jester- because he reflects before he responds.

Master Chief Ayers- because he cut through all of the rancor and made a great post.

Me- because I have a high opinion of myself.

Other suggestions?


Jim Madsen would also be a good choice.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Bill Wells- because I think he makes some good points even though I doubt his sincerity.



Now you done and gone hurt my feelers.

John P.
"Disagreeing is like change, change for the sake of change is pointless, change for the better is good."

I look at as art for art's sake. You don't know what will come about if no one disagrees. It could be a very intuitive person will see things in a different way. Some people see shoal waters as a danger, others see it as good surfin'

[MSTC Michael Schmidtke]

I don't recommend GMCM Bill Wells! He has no integrity! If someone wishes to agrue, then I throw this.....

I DO have a problem with name calling. This tactic, and it is only a tactic, is used by the uneducated person who lacks leadership skills. If a person cannot find a way to say the same thing in a more educated way then that person should spend some time in school to develop a larger vocabulary. Name calling to be hurtful, is just hurtful and has no point to it expect to disguise a person's lack of skills.

And this alone, has no merit.....but here we go!....

"You are a tattletale".

Is this not name calling?????? Sorry if it sounds like a duck and looks like a duck, then it must be.....

...and I'll ad this, there is no proof that this is fact that you posted!!! You produce the proof, and I'll retract my post!

[BMC John Phillips III]

Now you done and gone hurt my feelers.

John P.
"Disagreeing is like change, change for the sake of change is pointless, change for the better is good."

I look at as art for art's sake. You don't know what will come about if no one disagrees. It could be a very intuitive person will see things in a different way. Some people see shoal waters as a danger, others see it as good surfin'

And Bill, if all of your posts were like this one (in my mind), we wouldn't be at this point.

So as not to risk being misinterpretted - you disagreed with what I had to say and you made that known without the negativity. I think that's the Bill everyone would like to have as a member here, but you know that, I am certain.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

...I did recommend 5, didn't I?

Michael- that didn't help. I'd rather you have made different recommendations than simply blast Bill.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Dennis,

You can count me in.

[MSTC Michael Schmidtke]

Michael- that didn't help. I'd rather you have made different recommendations than simply blast Bill.

Point taken. I recommend PACS Steve Carleton. Because unlike myself, he finds tact in his responses. He, alone with MC Ayers, as I see it, are the "voice of reason".

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Dennis, though I have rarely agreed with you in the past, I will agree that you have a very high opinion of yourself. It's okay, I have a high opinion of you as well.
I also appreciate your support of me, but in the interest of civility, I would remove myself. I'll offer input if asked, but allow others to finalize any decisions. Using sincerity in posting as a measure, I could be easily replaced by Deane Smith, Jim Madsen, or Steve Carleton.
It's good that you got Joe Jester on board and hopefully Brett will agree also. Both are vast storehouses of knowledge and I'd say both are voices of reason.
I could live by any rules the lay down.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

I don't recommend GMCM Bill Wells! He has no integrity! If someone wishes to agrue, then I throw this.....

This is an example of my position of people who have no debate skills. It is, just as the "racist" comment was, merely put out to cast an aspersion but without any thing to reinforce the comment.


As to the reference of being a "tattletale." It was a mild word to use to boot.

Is this not name calling?????? Sorry if it sounds like a duck and looks like a duck, then it must be.....

No, it is not. It is an accurate assessment of the methods you use to alay any responsibility for your comments. Besides you just proved my point.

...and I'll ad[d] this, there is no proof that this is fact that you posted!!! You produce the proof, and I'll retract my post!

It is time for the retraction.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

And Bill, if all of your posts were like this one (in my mind), we wouldn't be at this point.

So as not to risk being misinterpretted - you disagreed with what I had to say and you made that known without the negativity. I think that's the Bill everyone would like to have as a member here, but you know that, I am certain.

John, Misterpertation is usually a function of personal preference. You have decided not to read my posts in any other way and have allowed the prejudices of others to sway your opinions. This is seen in numerous posts. I only ask that my posts be read for what they are without bigoted viewpoints or taking comments out of context for personal reasons.

I have read many negative posts to my person that have nothing to do about the topic. This I can deal with because I have fought real enemies who have tried to kill me. I do not fear anyone's words especially those whom present themselves as being irrational, illogical and inartriculate.

If one purpose of this board is to have those of the so-called "juniority" read and learn then the CPOs who post here should do so in a manner fitting their status in the Coast Guard. Calling someone a "racist" out of personal motivations is not up to that standard.

Although naming calling is a very poor personal practice, I certainly have no problem with people calling me names. It is part of the world in which we live. Name calling is the lowest common denominator in the worlds of discussion. Some will never get beyond that lowest point.

Here are some good ROEs.

1. Signal the person by flashing light, hand signals or siren.
2. If ignored, fire a warning shot across the bow.
3. If this signal is ignored take them under fire.

It works in war. It should work here.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

BMCS Smith, I am always honest - this is political correctness gone mad. It was all brought on by one member, a member with a history* for violating discussion board rules and getting suspended from them.


If you are refering to me then be honest and say so. It is dishonest to make allusions. However, you do not know the facts of anything. As for myself, no moderator at military.com can justify anything they did except to hide behind from vague TOS of which they are the sole determination.

No, the suspensions were for the personal reasons of the moderators and they did not have the courage to admit their personal involvement.

If I am so bad and the cause of ALL the trouble at military.com then why is it the same problems exist? If you are going to argue blame then I would like to see some facts. If not, please desist in making your comments in this area.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

I would like to see;

BMCM Slesh
BMCS Endicott
MKCM Ayers
EMC Jester
BMCS Madsen or BMCS Smith.

Burt

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Bill, what group of Chiefs would you like to see set up the rules?

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Bill, what group of Chiefs would you like to see set up the rules?


I only know one and that would be ETC Joe Jester. (ETs = microsparks; EMs =macrosparks) The rest I only know by the things they have posted here which is not enough for a recommendation nor should those who have already proclaimed their positions. This means their minds are made up and will not be impartial.

I would like to see some who do not post include themselves. This is not a popularity contest.

A gauge I would use would be honesty over sincerity. I've seen sincere people lie through their teeth and the only thing they were sincere about was themselves.

A more active participation by the greater mass of posters would be more benefiscal as well as a rotating group of people to look at whatever rules are established.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Dennis...After the last post, I recommend not having Bill involved in any rule making. I seriously doubt that the group would be able to settle on any rules, not to mention a lack of productivity.

I recommend replacing him with one of the retirees that are active on the board.

[LT Arthur Nelson (MKC) (Ret)]

To all active members of this board; what a shame the downward spiral this board has taken since I last visited....

Being recently retired, I recall while on active duty the discussions whether, or not to allow officers and retirees to become members [in part] of fear of this turning into another "Freds Place".

Today, I visited only two partial threads and had enough. MCPO Wells, or should I addess you as Doctor or Professor? You are quite frankly ruining this board and its intended purpose. You appear to be a well educated man using all the big/fluffy wordage and references, but we also know many times people using such,often do so hiding their true stupidity.

[MSTC Michael Schmidtke]

Bill, why does this have to be about you? My statement was a point that you should probably reread! You lost this arguement....accecpt it!!!

[BMC John Phillips III]

I recommend ......one of the retirees that are active on the board.

LT Nelson has my nomination.

If the # is to be 5, I would also recommend

2 - AD Chief (any 7-9, wouldn't hurt if one of them were a CMC)
1 - AD Officer
1 - Ret Chief (any 7-9) and finally
1 - Ret Officer

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Since everyone is throwing out recommendations, I'll throw out this wild one ....

1 poster with less than 20 posts
1 poster with less than 200 posts and more than 20
1 poster with less than 400 posts and more than 200
1 poster with less than 800 posts and more than 400
1 poster with less than 1600 posts and more than 800

Those with a smaller number of posts represent those who rarely post and give that prospective it's due dilligence.

Of course you could break that down as postings per day of membership figure if you want to give due dilligence to each group from hardly posts to can't keep mouth shut. :)

[MSTC Michael Schmidtke]

Wow.....!!!!!

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

No one seems to be objecting to Joe Jester.

Joe, why don't you take charge of this project. If there are no other objections, we'll trust your judgement to pick a representative group. Just let us know what you need.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Today, I visited only two partial threads and had enough. MCPO Wells, or should I addess you as Doctor or Professor? You are quite frankly ruining this board and its intended purpose. You appear to be a well educated man using all the big/fluffy wordage and references, but we also know many times people using such,often do so hiding their true stupidity.

So, what is the complaint? "Big/fluffy wordage and references?" I use nothing more than what any officer should know. Of course, it could be simple "stupidity" for not knowing such things.

You may address me as Master Chief. And I will address you as Lieutenant. That's fair.

Comment removed by Admin as it cast a negative image of the entire Coast Guard, rather than address an individual.

Why is it inappropriate to use words, terms and references that elevate the potential knowledge of others? I thought this was part of the job?

If I am writing above your level then I do apologize. However, I do not believe dumbing down is the proper way to conduct oneself. Perhaps you do but it would be a disservice to those of the so-called "juniority" to read and see their leadership as a bunch of poorly educated slobs - which they are not.

Why the attack on someone who has worked with great endeavor to improve oneself?

My comments are appropriate considering the comments of Lt. Nelson ( notice his comments were not deleted).

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Dennis...After the last post, I recommend not having Bill involved in any rule making. I seriously doubt that the group would be able to settle on any rules, not to mention a lack of productivity.

I recommend replacing him with one of the retirees that are active on the board.

Deane,

You have hit upon the underlying nature of any such rule making. It will be largely unproductive because of the huge number of people involved as well has the lack of divergent opinions. Clonism may be the bain of any attempts.

Try this first. Create a goal for the rules first. Simply creating a list of rules will be just that. I would have figured all the QAT, WAT, and whatnot training would have been put to use. There used to be term (and it ain't a biggy reference either) that will describe an ill planned effort. It began with "cluster."

I was asked for my comments and they were given. Just because you did not care for them on a personal level does not mean they have no worth.

Also, who said I wanted to be part of the panel? I was only asked for my comments, not my participation.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Seriously folks, here are my rules that I've used since the begining of Soapbox ... the original forum at Fredsplace, over a decade ago. You can be dealing with four generations of Coasties on this forum.

The rules of this forum conforms to basic civility.


The authors choose whatever words that suites their own writing style.
Words can range from simplistic to sesquipedalian. http://www.m-w.com is your friend. You can even join and get the word of the day in your email.
Contemporary usage of any word may not be the correct context in the author's mind.
Inquiries are encouraged; personal attacks are discouraged.
You may be asked to identify your source material. You might want to scan in documents and create pdf files of your source material for ease of electronic transmission.
Preconcieved biases don't add to the intercourse.


When you find your emotions getting the best of you ... step away from the computer and reflect. Get that 40th cup of coffee. Relax and visit the dictionary to ensure you are reading the words as the author intended.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

How about adding these:

[LIST]
Respect the Coast Guard and what it stands for. If you have an issue with a current policy, procedure tactic... Bring a solution and not just a problem.
Certain things are simply off limits: I.e. Peoples families, religion, gender... Things that we all know would have got us in a fight when we were teenagers if someone said something negative about.
ADMIN is the Chief of the Mess. As such, should have full support in moving, round filing, admonishing, removing threads or members as admin see's fit. Admin consists of several individuals and we should all trust that there is a consensus amoung the staff before such action is taken.


I believe the underlying theme is simple respect. Respect for the other members of the board. Respect for the Coast Guard. Respect for our country. Respect for change.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

How about adding these:

[LIST]
Respect the Coast Guard and what it stands for. If you have an issue with a current policy, procedure tactic... Bring a solution and not just a problem.
Certain things are simply off limits: I.e. Peoples families, religion, gender... Things that we all know would have got us in a fight when we were teenagers if someone said something negative about.
ADMIN is the Chief of the Mess. As such, should have full support in moving, round filing, admonishing, removing threads or members as admin see's fit. Admin consists of several individuals and we should all trust that there is a consensus amoung the staff before such action is taken.


I believe the underlying theme is simple respect. Respect for the other members of the board. Respect for the Coast Guard. Respect for our country. Respect for change.

That's perfect! Any objections?

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Jim, You'll need to put the [/list] code at the end of your list.

I guess I opened my big mouth and became the defacto facilitator.

I'll be back sometime after 1800 and I'll post a new thread with guidelines towards resolving this within one month.

Since everyone has a stake in this, I'm going to open it up to all. Wait for my posting tonight before identifying your ideas for rules. You'll have a few hours to reflect on the subject.

[BMC John Phillips III]

I am with Jim's reply, just be careful with the word Respect, according to some it cannot be defined.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Dana,

I've got a couple books that D8 bought for study of the COLREGS. The books are in "plain English" with lots of pictures. The first book was produced in 1980 and the second in 1981. The second included the, then, updated "Inland, Western Rivers, and Great Lakes" rules.

I am sure they are out of date by now but they were helpful at the time.

The were produced by Greg Szczurek, COLREGS, (Houston Marine Consultants, Inc. 1600 20th St., Kenner, La. 70062.) 1981.

That was from the DWO thread - a thread I had no idea or expectation of finding one of your posts in.


So, what is the complaint? "Big/fluffy wordage and references?" I use nothing more than what any officer should know. Of course, it could be simple "stupidity" for not knowing such things.

Why is it inappropriate to use words, terms and references that elevate the potential knowledge of others? I thought this was part of the job?

If I am writing above your level then I do apologize. However, I do not believe dumbing down is the proper way to conduct oneself. Perhaps you do but it would be a disservice to those of the so-called "juniority" to read and see their leadership as a bunch of poorly educated slobs - which they are not.


Now I am really confused. So which is better something in plain English that is easy to read or "Big/fluffy wordage and references" that challenge me to open the dictionary? Or is it that you were just trying to do to the LT what you have tried to do to everyone else here?

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

JP3, something I learned a long time ago... "get pissed off and get over it".
In other words, let your emotions do what they need to do, then let go. If you keep pecking away and pecking away, wounds will never heal. Make your point and let it be. Remember "respect". Whether you think someone deserves it or not. This is something that we all need to keep in mind. Or as my Father-in-law says: "Consider the source".

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

Now I am really confused. So which is better something in plain English that is easy to read or "Big/fluffy wordage and references"

John, I think they both have a place. My grandmother always taught me there was a time and place for everything. She also taught me the Golden rule (you know do unto others....).

When I first moved to Virginia and started looking for a house, I decided to buy a home in Gloucester. I was told by many "You don’t want to live there; they don’t like outsiders in Gloucester, you will be a "Come here". Well I moved in anyway, and what I found was, they had no problem with new people, they had a problem with "Come heres" (people that wanted to come into Gloucester with their high and mighty "I'm from the big city' attitudes and try to tell them how things should really be done). If you moved in with an attitude that showed you wanted to be part of the community, and did not try to prove you were better than them. They welcomed you with open arms.

So for me, the rules of engagement are simple. Follow the golden rule, and don’t be a “Come here”.

If the rules start getting anymore complicated than that, I’ll lose interest very quickly. I don’t have to provide a works cited page every time I open my mouth in the Chief’s Mess and I won’t do it here. If someone has an honest need for a reference to help them with either school or work, I will bend over backwards to get it for them. If not, you can either believe me or not, agree with me or not, or tell me I’m wrong and why (or not). But if I have to worry about someone running to ADMIN every time I open my mouth on here, I’ll find someplace else to go.

Just my two cents for what it is worth.

Be Safe,

Brett

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Yep, keep it simple.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

John P III

As others have stated, use what is appropriate for the period. I've known that a 5"/38 projectile fired on target may be effective but if firing a single person within range a rifle fits the bill.

Consider word choice ammunition and choose the type that does the job the best.

Brett,

I've worked in Gloucester County, VA, as an investigator. I found them clanish and tight lipped but if one took his time and they were explained what the investigation was about they were helpful. It is one the few places where I had a firearm pointed at me. All I had to do was show him my credentials and he eased off.

The only time I like to see documentation is when someone makes an outrageous comment or is clearly corrupting a comment or has obviously made something up. That is when I ask for the exact quote and the source. This is what I've taught numerous students to do -- question the comment or "fact." This way everyone is kept honest. Remember what I wrote about honesty and sincereity?

Providing your source is also common courtesy. I've seen it done in CPO messes for a very long time. I've seen the books broken out dozens of time. It is helpful in the learning process and shows those reading that the group is intelligent and thinking.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Respect the Coast Guard and what it stands for. If you have an issue with a current policy, procedure tactic... Bring a solution and not just a problem.
Certain things are simply off limits: I.e. Peoples families, religion, gender... Things that we all know would have got us in a fight when we were teenagers if someone said something negative about.
ADMIN is the Chief of the Mess. As such, should have full support in moving, round filing, admonishing, removing threads or members as admin see's fit. Admin consists of several individuals and we should all trust that there is a consensus amoung the staff before such action is taken.


I believe the underlying theme is simple respect. Respect for the other members of the board. Respect for the Coast Guard. Respect for our country. Respect for change.

I'll say it again...let's go with this and move on. We don't need to over-think this. We all know what to do and when to do it. If we cross the line, admin will step in and do what needs to be done.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Go with those three.

End this thread.