MODERATION

[BEagle]

When Capt PPRuNe first created the 'Military Pilots' forum, it was remarkable in being self-moderating. Some useful information has been posted for others to benefit from; the forum has also allowed Those in High Places to have a fly-on-the-wall insight into topics which affect morale in today's Armed Forces.

Recently, however, the forum seems to being debased by trivial mud-slinging and abuse. This seems to originate from a readily identifiable minority who seem hell-bent on causing unrest. This is a great pity as it will result in the whole forum being seen as worthless by those who used to appreciate its value. Alternatively it will be perhaps be moderated; this would probably attract criticism, being doubtless viewed by some as censorship to protect some perceived 'party line'.

So a plea for self-moderation please; there is a clear distinction between inter-Service rivalry and banter, which is fine, and blatant abuse and foul language which most certainly is not.

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 19 February 2001).]

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Beagle,

A very welcome post. Perhaps the "Pause before transmit" culture taught to anyone who operates any form of comms equipment could find its way over to this neck of the woods. Sadly, I'm not so sure that all PPRuNes can make the clear distinction you refer to.

And yes, I have been guilty of falling for some of the more blatant bits of bait that have floated this way...

Floreat PPRuNe.

[Titan Locked]

BEagle

So we come back to the old question of a moderator. Whilst not wishing to censor the site completely the ability to remove some threads may be handy. No offence to the RAFP but that particular thread has become nothing more than football terrace abuse (caused by both sides I hasten to add) and makes the Armed Forces look, frankly, pathetic.

I'm not saying we need to go down the line of a "members only" site as that may deter "free speech" [within NTK and OSA] but the ability to remove a thread that makes us as, the Military, look like childish tw@ts may be required. Some of the threads on retention perhaps?

Only a thought.

TL

[BobaFett]

Couldn't agree more chaps, been dipping in and out of the site for years under various names (never did have a good memory for passwords) and have noticed a recent inability to banter coming from various angles.

Don't think a moderator is the way to go , yet, but it would be a shame if we show ourselves unable to self-police. Ooops there's that P word slipping out unintentioned!

Agree with Tight and about some of the retention threads, yeah so we don't get paid much compared to the airlines but we ain't an airline. When it comes down to bonus' for us or bonus' for nurses no politician is ever gonna give it to the boys, simple hard fact.

So if you have a solid reasoned arguement that prehaps brings something new to the subject then post away. If however you just want to vent your spleen then go down the gym and knock cr@p out of a punch bag.

That's if you know where the gym is, we have one allegedly but I'm buggered if I've ever found it.

Stay frosty. http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/s/owen/fett.gif

[Captain Kirk]

BEagle,

You have my wholehearted support.

It is quite apparent that many posts are openly abusive, hiding under the veneer of 'banter' as supposed justification. I, for one, am tiring of anti-aircrew rhetoric from non-aviators and the tediously persistent anti-RAF posts from people who are patently ill-informed and/or bigoted. To the former, I must point out that the forum is headed 'Military Pilots' and whilst I think it refreshing, if not essential, that relevant and appropriate views should be welcome from any quarter, the fundamental tenet that it is a pilot/aircrew forum should be respected; there is a ground ops forum for other topics. To the latter cadre, it is obvious that those that place posts that belittle the efforts of another aircrew cadre are embarrassingly ignorant of any working conditions, pressures and roles other than their own; I may fly FJ but have immense respect for my colleagues that fly rotary (of any Service) and multi because it does not require rocket science to realize that, currently, task divided by resources equals hard work across the board. It may seem immensely funny to that small-minded band of single Service bigots but it is potentially immensely damaging to the interests of all 3 Services to expose such rhetoric in a Public Forum.

Finally, am I alone in finding blatantly offensive posts, directed a senior officers, pathetic. Would those that find it acceptable to change one letter of an expletive directed to CAS, etc be so bold in a face-to-face environment? Quite apart from indicating a poor grasp of written expression it demonstrates an appalling disrespect for the history of a proud Service - I hope that the veterans of WWII do not log onto PPruNe.

Overall, it seems that some individuals cannot resist the opportunity to express anonymously what they do not have the morale courage to say openly in the bar to their aircrew colleagues or at work to their superiors. Nominally hypocrisy on my behalf I know but, were it not for the obvious security implications, I would happily submit all of my posts under my own name. Even though my views may not always accord with the 'party-line', my loyalty to the greater interests of the Service is assured. I am certainly happy to air them openly and my boss knows my PPruNe pseudonym.

Gentlemen/ladies, we are allegedly better educated and more disciplined than the vast majority of our country's population, let us demonstrate it!

[Shameful]

The whole 'RAF Police' thread should be deleted asap. I shudder to think of the impression it creates in a PUBLIC forum of a supposedly professional service.

Shameful!

[Samuel]

At last some sane and sage counsel! I had almost given up my antipodean viewing because of the style and type of comment made under guise of banter, which in fact was arrogance and ignorance in equal parts.Some of the more serious whinging is also misplaced. If the commenters really feel that way, then there are ways and means of making their feelings known.

If some are the comments were to be taken as an indication, then an assumption could be made that standards of officer and aircrew selection had seriously dropped.While I don't believe that, if wit and repartee are benchmarks, then they certainly have!

[The Gorilla]

Beagle
I absolutely agree, some of the threads don't belong in this forum at all. A moderator can erase unsuitable threads. This is after all, a military Pilots Forum!!

[008]

I'm surprised it has taken so long for this idea to be posted. It is, however, an excellent plan and idividual posts should be removed, as well as entire threads if necessary.

Irrelevant threads cannot be removed without stiffling free speech, but could they be moved to a more suitable forum?

[smooth approach]

Hear, hear.

[The Very Grumpy One]

I am glad to see some sense appearing on these pages at last. This forum is an opportunity to air issues and make comment(constructive hopefully) that are of concern to military aircrew. Those that cannot or are not of the breteren should save their comments for the toilet door!

[Didntdoit]

BEagle.

Nuff respect and can't argue with your overall sentiments.

I would add that, as an interloper on a 'military pilots' forum, I have seen posts that are misinformed and perhaps need a balancing view (IMHO of course), or are a general question which, regardless of whether you draw flying pay or not, one may be qualified to answer (ie, kids' education in a military environment). I would like to think that I have stayed out of the flying specific threads (apart from the fact that I knew 3 of the players on "Fighter Pilot"), and also feel that this years' pay award was so emotive that it effected everybody in uniform (it may not be acknowledged, but it is not only the FJJP/Ns who have a confidence (with the firm) problem). IMHO, the forum is balanced by relevant non-aircrew input - the trick is to make it relevant, of course. As an aside, if there were a separate 'Military Ground Ops' forum, how long would it be before the 'non-qualified' interjected? Divide and conquer works both ways.

However, as with the rest of the Net, it's all anarchy really and difficult to really control. I would hope that your initial post to this thread would cause some to think before engaging, and to use a bit of common. They say though that one of the first signs of low morale is in-fighting and indiscipline. It would seem clear then, as a barometer of overall morale and contentment, recent postings have certainly proved (I hope), to be useful to some.

It's been emotional.

------------------
....wasn't there, no one saw me!

[Fay Deck]

Well done BEagle,

It was about time somebody suggested we voluntarily rein ourselves in. Most of the posts about retention were particularly disappointing. I was disgusted at the amount of abuse levelled at those who were not prepared to support the money grabbing antics of Thatchers children. The insults directed at CAS were unbelievable and, as has been mentioned, cowardly.
Hopefully, we can return to informed and constructive comment with resort to witty banter where necessary (ie when losing the argument!)

[Poor Pongo]

Moderation would get my vote; that's as long as the moderator in question is in a position to avoid being pressurised by the system itself when 'views other than those of the management' are expressed.

PP

[Charlie Luncher]

BEAGLE

respect fella
I bet u dont drink lager
Charlie sends

[Art Field]

One more in support! The fine line between forceful expression of thought and abuse is always a tricky one vis a few late evening Dining-In chest thumpings. This forum can allow a two way exchange where neither side has to take offence to save face as they would were they face to face and in public view.Mind you BEagle, where offence is concerned, I still hav'nt forgiven you for breaking my coffee cup.

[Audax]

Totally agree. Moderation should in theory be simple, just ignore the childish comments. After all, there are only a handful of these pathetic people and they can easily be bypassed.

[junglejim]

Beagle, et al.

I am glad 'we' have seen the light. I only began to contribute when I started reading the retention scheme threads. The bitterness and discontent saddened me deeply and I felt I had to comment. I feel very strongly that the forum reached rock bottom in the golden jubilee medals thread. Frankly some of the comments posted there were not only direspectful to HM but beggared belief in their sheer rudeness.

Come on chaps, the profession we all joined is by no means perfect, but I do not know of one that is. Banter is a healthy sign, blatant rudeness and profanity is an indicator of boorishness and does not easily allow others to agree with the point.

Moderator is not required in my opinion, so long as all of us can approach these forums with the same calm professionalism we all undoubtedly employ in the workplace.

Had to get it off my chest. Keep the shiny side upwards,

JJ

[Ittle B. Alright]

Surely moderation is only required on a Friday night.

(That must be alliteration or onomatopeia or something).

CHEERS

[Mystic Greg]

Well said, BEagle (and Thud_and_Blunder). The old saying "before opening mouth, engage brain", has as much relevance to the e-mail 'send' button as it does to speaking on a radio. It was about time somebody spoke up for moderation.

[FJJP]

Beagle,

Someone pointed me in the direction of this forum, and I must say I was impressed by the posts - especially those such as the Chinook crash. Much good comment expressed, and lively and clarifying debate ensued.

I have to say that recently I have become, like you, somewhat disillusioned by some of the comment, so much so that I disregard an increasing number of posts for just the reason that you have so eliquently stated.

I, too, have tried to sh*t-can some posts because of the content, by encouraging us to ignore. However, moderating may not be practical. The airline posts require staff numbers to join, which supposedly keeps out those not involved. Can't see how we could do the same without intimate knowledge of the personal numbering system of military forces world-wide.

Besides, I welcome comment from differing walks of life; some I hope we have collectively helped with advice in starting their military careers. Other threads contain amusing reminiscences about times recent and distant past.

No, moderation by Capt Pprune is not the answer. What we should try and do is to discipline ourselves not to post repies to the threads which are obviously sh*t-stirring or abusive. If we collectively ignore these threads they will naturally die.

Reasonable idea? Comment?

[Gentleman Aviator]

I don't think that BEagle was proposing that we have a Moderator. Indeed, I believe that his point of view was that we ought to self-moderate.

Much more satisfactory than resorting to a Prefect System!

:)

[Ramp Monkey]

Hear ,Hear. Gets my vote Beagle, You up for nomination for the post?

[BEagle]

Thanks to all those who've contributed to this thread.

Better self-moderation than some form of MoDeration!!

CharlieLuncher - actually, I am quite partial to Bitburger Pils!

ArtField - sorry about the coffee cup. Give me a clue?

....and let's have the grace to welcome friendly visitors to the Military Aircrew Forum, not alienate them!!

[BigBulge]

Tick, VG, get's my vote

[Art Field]

BEagle
Back about 15 years, when you were in charge of the washing up bowl and the rest of the germ ridden coffee bar at the sign of the lion. Can't Bear to think of it.Rgds

[Captain Kirk]

Refreshing to read a coherent and articulate thread. Can I suggest that the contributors thus far add the odd additional post over the coming weeks so that these sentiments retain a deservedly high profile.

[Sith Lord]

How refreshing! I've been a registered user of PPRuNe since Nov 98 under several guises, and for the most part have read with interest. However, of late, the blatent and obnoxious comments by some have spoilt a wonderful community where all aircrew brethren and other interested parties can exchange honest and interesting views and opinions.

I for one agree that self regulation or moderation is the key. A good example is still one of the best ways to motivate those around you. A key attribute of an effective leader is the ability to inspire others. Many of us are supposed to be leaders, so lets show some restraint and inspire those with misguided tendancies to be more careful or considerate with their posts.

May the Force be with us all!

[almirante6]

Good point Beagle. Many posts have done military aviation a pretty serious disservice. Right now, if I were a budding young aviator (or aviatrix) the incessant slagging and whinging on a few threads (flying pay, retention, Good morning CAS etc)would make me avoid HM Forces (especially RAF) like the plague and head straight for the airlines instead - thereby only exarcebating pilot shortage, overstretch etc.

I'm all in favour of banter (particularly concerning RAF......) but there has to be a limit.

Time for a bit of self-respect perhaps?

[This message has been edited by almirante6 (edited 19 February 2001).]

[Roger D'Erassoff]

Hurrah! Having 'lurked' for the past week (post retention thread vitriol), some proof that this forum isn't just for spleen venting!

[JimNich]

Well I don't think I'm going to jump on this particular backslapping bandwagon. Not that I don't agree with you all to some extent but I detect the presence of a Jackboot here.

Do you really think by trying to take everything bad out of something you are left with everything good? Some Greek (or was he German) geezer went on about this at length but I can't remember exactly what it was he said or else I'd repeat it verbatim.

PPRuNe (and in particular Mil Pilots)COULD do without some of the more derisory threads but I would NEVER try to police it. Nope, warts and all I say and remember, it IS a public forum, YOU have the choice of whether you log on or not.

[BEagle]

ArtField - Yes, I do remember vaguely remember adopting a rather fundamental 'final solution' to the coffee bar problem! Still not quite sure of your ID - one of the TTF originals?? More clues and a new coffee cup will be on its way to you!!

[Ramp Monkey]

Sorry IT FAFF bloody thing!! not used to Technology!

[This message has been edited by Ramp Monkey (edited 19 February 2001).]

[Vortex_Generator]

WHAT A LOAD OF TOSH!!

Only joking. I agree with much of what's been said, though if it wasn't for the occasional voice of dissent or mischievous $hit stirrer this could become a pretty dull forum.

[DelMar]

I am, it seems, the route of much trouble in this forum, for it was I who started the RAFP thread (bad idea!!!!) As a student hoping to join the forces (yes, another one) I was mearly interested to find out peoples opinions on the RAFP. Found some useful stuff and even got some private (no in that way!!!) e-mail's which were very helpful.

However it gets quite anoying when every time I log onto the computer I've got 20+ new messages, all of which are cr@p! I too am begining to get bored of the pointless slagin on here!

Lots of useful info on other threads though, so I hope nothing changes to PPRUNE. Its been an invaluable resource to me!

[Samuel]

I doubt the intention, if any, is to "take the bad, leave the good" rather it encourages less of the inane, immature, and downright abusive.I think many contibutors may feel the need to improve having read the comments in this thread.

As to the "this is a pilots forum" type comment, I am not one but I bludged rides in over thirty different types in my 26 years,(and still do) and can honestly say I never met one with whom I wouldn't fly again. That qualifies me to read, listen, enjoy, and occasionally contribute, albeit as as an interested observer.Without the likes of me, some of you will begin to believe your own bull****!

[BobaFett]

Can only agree with Samuel. Jimnich, neither I nor any other contributors would I believe advocate removing the discussion of those matters that really raise the bile. For they are by their very emotive nature the things we should as, to quote Captain Kirk

"allegedly better educated and more disciplined people"

be able to discuss in a reasoned manner.

Warts and all is indeed a reasonable starting point and attitude for this forum, however I've yet to come across a wart that consists of inane and immature abuse.

Yes it is the Internet and yes that projects all the preconceived ideas of anonymity and free speech into this forum. But we are in the main Military Pilots who through training but more importantly inbred loyalty to one another should be careful how freely we degenerate that which we all stand for.

Stay Frosty. http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/s/owen/fett.gif

[Jackonicko]

Even the journos would support some self-moderation in some areas. Anger over pay and conditions is natural, but in recent months Prune seems to have had too little apart from retention/pay based threads. And I say that with a great deal of sympathy for all who feel (quite rightly) that they're being shafted.

[Lucifer]

Perhaps a retired RAF chap who knows what is going on, but unlikely to be subject to any pressurisation from any sources whould be the suitable person to moderate such a forum as we have here. Hopefully it would make some of my comtemporaries starting their RAF career, and others further on, learn exactly what banter is and what is acceptable to be written in the public domain as opposed to said in the bar in virtual privacy.

almirante6: I hope you realise that there is a great deal of truth in your post, as it is giving a poor picture of the military to wannabes, who I know have been thoroughly discouraged by what has been written here. Not that I advocate people not speaking up when something is wrong, nothing in this world is perfect, but without prior knowledge, it would appear that the RAF is in a complete shambles. More balanced posts than spur of the moment reactions to others views is the answer to self-moderation if that is the way ahead.

[kbf1]

In principle I agree with Beages. Where I have grave reservations is the issue of moderation. We all know from reading the posts who the idiots are, and while I accept that Joe Public can't always differentiate between the wind-up merchants and the aircrew, those of us who contribute to the lively band of hooligans that is the Mil pilots forum do, and that is really all that counts. I do not advocate a closed forum, too many people would be excluded from this excellent resource (thinking of hopefuls..hate the term wannabe..retired, interested non-serving etc) and that would be impossible to police.

What should be added here is a general comment about arguments on this forum. There are a number of emotive issues up for discussion such as women on the front line. While many of us disagree, some of the posts are degenrating into a personality slagging. I would ask that if you want to disagree with me or anyone else, by all means do so, one sided arguments are boring; however, this is not a licence to rip a person's character to pieces.

I have not read the RAFP thread, but it seems that from the comments written here that the line between banter and insult has been crossed. How about posting some collectively agreed guidelines about what is and is not acceptable on the forum. We could then approach Danny if it is felt that a poster is not adhereing to those guidelines so that a "Yellow Card" can be issued. Failure to ajdust attitude could then lead to a request for permanent disbarring from this forum. That gives us the position of being unmoderated, but if Danny (and you agree) a means to regulate how this forum is used.

------------------
The path of my life is strewn with cowpats from the Devil's own Satanic HERD!

[Art Field]

As one who qualifies as a KOS retired aircrew chappie I would hate to become the class monitor for this forum, if it can't self monitor then it will die from lack of value because the ones who have anything worthwhile to say will go somewhere else. I find it a most interesting forum and one that brings a little of the camaraderie that was a fine part of my time in the service. Beagle, the clue is in the second sentence of my previous, if still confused, perhaps he who must be obeyed (of a sepentine character) might find it a clue?

[BEagle]

I wondered about that. TU 95 or 'handle', that is the question? Shall quiz the serpentine one!

[opso]

kbf1:
The problem with the yellow card method is that it is totally irrelevent in an open forum. Even if thrown off the board, the miscreant could easily log in again with a new ident a few minutes later. Yellow cards only work on closed conferences and I don't believe that excluding people is in our best interests.

If I understand things correctly here, the originator of a thread can delete that entire thread if required. Why not leave it up to the originators then? If you originate a thread which you believe has degenerated into a public slanging match, why not ask for cool heads or pull the thread?

[BigBulge]

Being the original poster of the Women on the Front Line thread. Although I acknowledge there's a bit of slanging going on in there, I'm reluctant to delete it. It's still an on-going discussion further afield than PPRUNE.

People who rip others apart with their replies are just discrediting themselves should they have something serious to say on another thread.

http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/confused.gif

[JHC]

BEagle!

Glad to see that you have recovered from some of your dubious posts over the last couple of months....post Chrimbo is always a drag!

I think you did a reality check yourself mate on a couple of those threads that weren't funny to be honest and added nothing to the thread at all.

I always tap away, normally after 8 pints or given a tip off at work that there is an interesting thread, imagining that I am in a bar or crew room. If we would banter at the bar to someones face, then tap away and let the pi$$ taking continue. If you wouldn't say it in the bar or in the crew room and it it is of no benefit to anybody , you are only satisfying your own private rant/drip.

There has been some really embarrassing stuff...come on, lets just look back over the threads to see the drivell, and nearly all of us have been sucked in to the mud slinging that sees humour replaced by abuse.

You name a military establishment, with aircrew, and PPRUNE is well known and read. If WE type rubbish, then are views...(and some of them are so spot on that so many problems could be solved by the implementation from the relevant desk)....will be viewed as rubbish, and this site will be ridiculed and discarded as a joke in which little kids take the mickey out of each other.

Well done BEagle. I honestly had not noticed the slippery slope that we were all getting ourselves into. I will collect my £5 for blowing sunshine out of your hoop at the next Joint happy hour.....

I agree policing is a dirty word, but pausing before typing isn't.

Cheers...warm fuzzy feeling :)

[This message has been edited by JHC (edited 20 February 2001).]

[Adastral]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe BEagle is suggesting that we have a moderator.

It is difficult to suggest that we narrow down the scope of the threads or discussions; and I certainly don't feel that we should limit the forum to aircrew. That would lead to an insular and self-centred field of debate. The threads can only be enriched by a diversity of opinion.

However, I do get the feeling that some people using this forum enjoy being deliberately obtuse. Many of the topics discussed are, by their very nature, emotive. It is wrong to attempt to disguise ill feeling in the form of 'banter'. This reveals a lack of character on the behalf of the protagonist.

I always relish informed and, if necessary, heated debate. We should all be able to put forward our perspectives in a reasoned and positive manner. Moreover, we are (most of us anyway) military personnel. If we cannot show some self-discipline then who can?



[This message has been edited by Adastral (edited 20 February 2001).]

[Dimmer Switch]

Just wanted to get this one back to the top. I applaud and support every word of The BEag's original post. We don't need a moderator, leave that to the Church of Scotland ! Lets just play nice!

[Lucifer]

opso: re your bit about they could log in under a new name: I believe this is not possible if the user is blocked based on their 'IP' number, which does not allow you to get in from that actual connection again. Which unfortunately blocks EVERYBODY who is in the same network if on a computer of a large organisation.

[Helmut Visorcover]

Lucifer, no I just believe its the IP address. I.e.; an individual on the same tel line. Ask Capt Ed if you can!

Capt Pprune, your input would be welcome.

[PPRuNe Towers]

A large organisation will have fixed IP addresses - oooh, let's say the MOD offices.

For the majority of us mere mortals who connect through an ISP there are huge number of IP addresses. Entirely a matter of luck which one you get any time you log on.

We have a piece of code written by the deeply splendid and worthwhile Crashdive which, as an example, shows that a single IP address with a popular UK ISP has been used by several hundred PPRuNers to make posts on this site over the years.

However, due to the huge number of available addresses even the most prolific of posters never get their name linked to a single address in a statistically valid way. I think the most we've ever seen was Crashdive with 13 out of many hundreds of his posts appearing at one IP address. We strongly suspect that was due to him using a specialist ISDN line to his ISP.

Regards from the Towers
Rob Lloyd
[email protected]

[BEagle]

Interesting information from the Towers; let's just hope the unscrupulous don't use it to sling mud and insults from behind a veil of assumed anonymity!!

And we do NOT need an enforced MoD-erator for the Mil thread whilst self-moderation proves effective, in my view.

[kbf1]

While I accept the point that a yellow card may be impossible to enforce due to IP address problems, I still think there is merit in having a set of guidelines drawn up specific to this forum. That would only be like having FAQs which serve the same purpose, but without the Qs. Lets say it is like a set of mess rules that are posted on the back of every door of every mess I have ever stayed in. This would serve the purpose of setting the standards by which we monitor ourselves. It also acts as a guide to anyone brave enough to come into this forum and post who has no service history or background. I would suggest that any guidelines be agreed by the majority of regular posters on this forum and once agreed given to Danny with a request to post a link at the top of the page so that they can be viewed.

------------------
The path of my life is strewn with cowpats from the Devil's own Satanic HERD!

[StopStart]

To take kbf1's suggestion one step further could I suggest we ban the wearing jeans on this forum? Also could I suggest that flying suits be banned from public rooms on this forum after 1900hrs?
Seriously though - if you put up rules and guidelines there are people out there who will break them just cos they are there. It's the Internet unfortunately.
Right, I'm off back to Napster to download another album..

Self-moderation is the answer. Don't be reeled in by all the muppets who come on here looking to do some winding up. At the same time can we give the endless bitching about money a rest? Lack of flying, no spares, no future yes. Mo' money mo' money no. Not good PR for a start.

PS. I'm sure I asked about moderation about a year ago....ho hum.

[Seven of Nine]

Well said StopStart.
This is the internet and it is, therefore, imposssible to police.
If you encounter a wind-up merchant, as always, ignore him (her) and they will go away.

[Nil nos tremefacit]

Forget a moderator, could we have a spell-checker and someone to correct the grammar as well? (No, I'm not a wind up merchant!) ;)

[Thirteen-Twelve]

Moderation is ok in well, moderation. But some of the postsing here are blatent brown nosing (1392 due etc).

My boss knows my PPrune identity etc what a licker.

I think that anyone who is switched on will realise that it is career suicide to criticise in the armed forces. You either put up or shut up and thus the whole crooked and crap system is perpetuated.

I think the RAF Pol thing got a bit of hand but does it really matter?

What will the civvies think? What do you want them to think: Truth or propaganda?

[Broadsword***]

'Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.'
- - Albert Einstein

Reluctant as I am to intrude again on the Military Pilots' Forum, I would like to add my support to the sentiments expressed by BEagle and others.

But ,of course, censorship is unacceptable and freedom of speech is fundamental to our national spirit. After all, is that not what we are in the services to protect?

We must, however, be mindful that, in addition to clumsy journos, there are enemies of democracy at work on the internet.

Our friends across the water (and further afield) employ people on a full-time basis to spread despondency on military internet forums, such as this one. And they are also trying to hack into your pc while you surf this site. So, for God's sake, install a hacker protection system. There are plenty of free downloads available.

I am sure most of you know this already, but a timely reminder can do no harm.

With Good Wishes

Broadsword***

[Nil nos tremefacit]

Broadsword*** - we're British, we can spread our own despair, TVM. If anyone tried that trick on us we'd turn the despair back on them, moderator or not.

If by 'our friends over the water' you mean Paddy - remember none of them will get a 50K retention bonus. That'll make them despair.... :)

Personally I don't think that moderation is necessary on this forum. The odd wind up now and then never hurt anybody and most of the viewing public who find their way here know that not everything should be read literally. At the end of the day, if you don't like somebody's comments ignore them.

[Ed Winchester]

Broadsword***

Welcome back, old boy!

I don't think that anyone foreign powers or terrorist organisations will manage to force a military uprising by posting yet another whinge/gripe/moan on PPrune.

BEagle - Agree with the sentiment. Self-moderation is the only answer. But some people will always fly off the handle the minute that somebody dares to have an opposing view - especially on a Friday night! Just ignore them until they go away (fall asleep dribbling!)

Most of the banter is funny, but most of the offensive drivel comes from those who have not been around long enough to understand the concept.

Anyway, thats enough blaaaa.

Stopstart,

Whilst we are at it, could everybody please wear socks with their shoes, and no drinking beer out of bottles please!

[This message has been edited by Ed Winchester (edited 23 February 2001).]

[Suit]

Broadsword***,

"Freedom of speech is fundamental to our national spirit"?

Is it? Is it really?

"After all, is that not what we are in the services to protect"?

No, it is not!

There is no enshrined freedom of speech in this country. I don't know if you are commissioned or not, if you are then you know what you are sworn to do and who you are sworn to do it for. I remember no mention of democracy or freedom of speech in my commissioning shindig.

"Enemies of democracy at work on the internet"?

This worries me, this country has a tradition of suppressing liberties and freedoms in order to "protect" the people from percieved "threats".

After all, it was Douglas Jay who said in the House of Lords:

"The gentleman in Whitehall really does know better what is good for the people than the people know themselves."

When did he say this, 1654? 1708?, 1813?
No, 1947!!

The likes of people like him operate via the likes of people like you.



------------------
If the suit fits.........

[Broadsword***]

Suit

If you wander down to Speakers' Corner one fine day, you will see freedom of speech in action. Freedom of speech need not be enshrined in any law in order for it to flourish. Save for the laws of libel, incitement to racial hatred, incitement to commit a criminal offence and other narrowly defined public order offences, one can say pretty well whatever one wishes in this country. Long may that be the case.

By 'enemies of democracy' I was referring specifically to Irish republican terrorist groups and other international terrorist organisations.

I said that we were in the services to protect freedom of speech. We all acknowledge, in joining the armed forces (and therefore being subject to QRs and military discipline), that we are giving up some of the civil liberties enjoyed by civilians. That said, we simply tend to follow the same unwritten code of civility practiced by any employee in any workplace.

I think this site and others like it are a useful means of letting off steam and exchanging frank views. It shows we are all human and not merely uniformed automatons.

Incidentally, on joining the Service, we non-commissioned personnel also take an oath.

[kbf1]

Broad, at the risk of turning the debate into one fo free speech rather than respectful argument, we as members of HM Forces do have to put up or shut up to an extent, and even risk life and limb when called upon to do so. I should point out that in return we should expect a degree of support from the institution to which we belong. When Ghurkas are deprived of a decent war pension in spite of their loyalty and bravery, or we are asked to fly in dangerously unservicable airframes because of lack of funds for decent repairs then I think if the brass don't speak out, it should be up to others to do so. How well looked after were the Mull of K Chinook crew? Were their reputations blackened to save an Air Rank's skin? these are real questions that need real debate. To return to the thread, issues such as these are serious, and to reduce them to slanging matches detracts from the real issue and the real message, and what we are saying is "For God's sake stop!" Debate the important issues properly so that they can be examined, and save the banter for appropriate threads, but also, know where to draw the line.

------------------
The path of my life is strewn with cowpats from the Devil's own Satanic HERD!

[Sneakybeaky]

Amazing how a simple suggestion of whether we should exercise some moderation should generate such fervent views...
IMHO I don't believe that a Moderator is either necessary or effective. I do believe that as intelligent adults we should all be able to exercise a little bit of common sense (known as Effective Intelligence when I went through IOT), and whilst we should all be able to take a bit of banter (after all, what do we do all the time in the bar?), banter's no longer funny when it's insulting. What matters is not the intent of the banterer (if that's a word), but the effect of the banter and the reaction to it of the bantee (ditto) - this principle applies in law to both sexual and racial harassment, and I think applies equally here.
Having said that, yes the RAFP thread got out of hand, and it was right that DelMar should delete it, but there are some excellent, constructive and considered debate on this forum, which makes it valuable for a variety of reasons, not least because it allows a section of society, who are necessarily unable to express their views in the normal way, a forum to do just that. My only concern is that although the forum is entitled "Military Pilots", this does not, and should not, preclude other branches and other ranks from expressing their opinions. After all, if the aircrew can be so vitriolic about the RAFP, shouldn't the RAFP have the right to reply? The fact that they do not appear to have done so would indicate that they are reluctant to stoop so low.
I'm in the "engage brain before opening mouth" camp - we've all been guilty at some time or another of putting our foot in it, but don't type what you wouldn't say to someone's face. If you wouldn't abuse your OC Police to his face, then don't do it here, under the courageous guise of anonimity.

[Broadsword***]

kbf1

I can find little in your comments that I disagree with. I would like nothing more than to see less vitriol and a little more reasoned debate on this site. Indeed, it was the relentless attacks on the RAF Police that caused me to contribute in the first place (sorry Sneakybeaky, I was weak).

I strongly believe, however, that any attempt at regulation might cause your forum to lose some of its diversity and appeal. So, even as an occasional target herein, I say, keep it as it is, warts and all.

You will never prevent people's pride occasionally clouding their judgement and argument. But, ultimately, they will show themselves up for what they are.

Thought for the day: Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died.



[This message has been edited by Broadsword*** (edited 23 February 2001).]

[Samuel]

Some very long-winded an wordy replies which totally ignore the fact of the first posting suggesting "self-moderation".What was that old adage about "burn before reading?"

[Ed Winchester]

Samuel,

Is discussion forum. Allowed to use > 2 sentences if want.

[murphy]

Agree with everything said here so far. Have tryed to suggest such, a few times, with little success.

Although I do enjoy LOTS of banter, there are threads that readily support it and those that don't!!!!

From a light blue to a Darker blue - Beagle, You are right in your original post!!

Yours

Murph x x x

[Samuel]

I do detect Edwin, an ever so slight tendency to cynicism there, but nevertheless will allow the benefit of the doubt and presume it banter. Perhaps I was overawed by the lack of whinging and took my eye off the ball. The point I was making, was that the majority of the posts have already accepted the point, which was/is that moderation is only necessary when applied spontaneously by the writer. I guess some people just accept that and move on.Personally, I suffered the same disillusionment felt by others at the abysmal standard set in other threads. This one is a pleasure to read! Now it's a very warm evening, and if you'll excuse me I'll continue to the bottom of an excellent pinot noir.The venison's not bad either!

[Captain Kirk]

Thirteen-Twelve,

I am compelled to respond, not because of your insult because I have no regard for your opinion of me, but to point out the alarming inconsistency of your post. You accuse me of being a sycophant (though not as eloquently) and yet your own observation 'anyone who is switched on will realise that it is career suicide to criticise in the armed forces' casts you as a 'Yes-man' - one that is two-faced judging by your subsequent advice to 'either put up or shut up and thus the whole crooked and crap system is perpetuated'.

I think that you have made my point about moral courage very emphatically - thankyou.

Is criticism career suicide? My experience is that most professionals welcome constructive criticism - a direct extension of the aircrew open and honest sortie debrief ethos. Are you an aviator/professional? Perhaps I am just fortunate within my force.

Is 'the system' immovable? It seems obvious to me that the Armed Forces of today are incredibly different from the services of only 10 years ago. It does not change overnight and no one person can alter course by more than a few degrees but change for the better can be secured if individuals have the morale courage to speak up constructively.

Thirteen-Twelve, you have cast yourself as the very epitome of all that I despise in a leader; you have no desire but to further yourself within a system that you dislike and openly damn but are not prepared to take a stand against. If the pen picture is inaccurate then please accept my apologies and be more careful how you express yourself. If it is accurate then, for the sake of your Service, I hope that your own superior is astute enough to see through the charade.

Returning to the thread, it does seem that the vast majority of respondents agree with the notion the we should collectively seek to exercise self-moderation. BEagle, you still have my support.

[slartybartfast]

Having been an avid reader for a while now, but until now not posted it seems a couple of points are clear.
A bit of banter fine, you don't need to be abusive to get your point across.
Even the services are self moderating. Those who really don't like their conditions of service/employment will generally leave. Those who like it will stay.
There's very little dead wood left these days - even in the crabs.
Whoops - there we go again.

[Helmut Visorcover]

Simple, if you don't want to be dragged into a slanging match, don't post. If you don't like whats being said, don't read. Sucking eggs?

[murphy]

Helmut,

Simple Eh!!

Day one, week one!!

Pocket today, ammo pouch tomorrow, Submarine hatch the day after!!!

Etc, Etc!!!

Yours

Murph x x x http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif

[Helmut Visorcover]

Murphy, too true, too true. How was your excursion across the pond? Any dosh left? Did you go to that pseudo twin engine, wishy washy's partee? I would have gone but had a headache that would have killed a Gazelle pilot twice over, send my regards to his chick.

Sorry to digress; A thread referring to the Dead sparrows and 32 Sqn has appeared with the sole intent to wind blokes up. A classic example, I feel, to the grown up types to remember that you don't need a forum moderator. You just need to remember not to get embroiled in childish mud slinging if you don't want to. Personal moderation on a so-called mil/public forum will do I think. (Although I admit, flaming a non-entity whilst three sheets gone is a perfectly acceptable sport, late evening/early morning). ;)

[Thirteen-Twelve]

The value in remaining anon on this BBS is the freedom to criticise without suffering for it. To sacrifice this by freely giving it to your boss is blatent crawling.

In my time in the mob I said what I thought to who I wanted to and paid the price. I stood up for what I believed in, never kissed arse and voted with my feet.

Since leaving I stand by the same values and in an open environment that accepts that it might not always be correct I have thrived. The RAF at least in my experience is a victim of its own cronyism which you seem to want to perpetuate.

And I can add that as leader I am very effective and while there are many who might not like me, sometimes within my own teams, they respect me with a healthy regard or disregard and listen to what I have to say.

[The Mistress]

13/12

I would very much like to shake your hand and give you a massive pat on the back. You're my kind of guy.