Quote from: Eclipse on December 10, 2020, 01:13:08 AMLiterally the opposite of what we are saying. (and also strawman)

It is the same thing as what you are saying ,reduced to absurdity.

You simply saying it is the opposite doesn't make it so.

You have a consistent theme of saying things without evidence, to include your arguments as to WHY CAP SHOULDN'T TREAT WHAT THE STATES ARE GIVING MISSION NUMBERS TO AS MISSIONS.

^ A number of us now have presented the reasoning.  If that's not enough for you, have at it.

For the record, no one is saying they can't, the argument is they shouldn't.

A - Because these aren't activities that are within CAP's core competencies.

B - Because assuming they are appropriate, they don't need internal ratings and training,
so they should be done as unit activities without the need for the ES bureaucracy, which
brings nothing unique to the table (since these aren't "emergency services").

C - Because they can be accomplished better / stronger / faster by members acting as
private citizens, especially in light of the fact that most of these organizations
want CAP's contact lists and not the uniforms, at which point the members can
submit the time for CSRs.

D - Because in many cases CAP is so interested in "getting in the game" it ignores its
own doctrines, protocols, policies and regulations, and puts unqualified members in the
field, at risk to themselves, the organization, and those they seek to help.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 11, 2020, 07:59:03 PM^ A number of us now have presented the reasoning.  If that's not enough for you, have at it.

For the record, no one is saying they can't, the argument is they shouldn't.

A - Because these aren't activities that are within CAP's core competencies.

What are the core competencies that are needed and why are they not part of CAP's core competencies?

Be specific.

QuoteB - Because assuming they are appropriate, they don't need internal ratings and training,
so they should be done as unit activities without the need for the ES bureaucracy, which
brings nothing unique to the table (since these aren't "emergency services").

Wait, you just said they weren't part of our core competencies, now you are saying they don't need ratings and training to do them. Make up your mind.

QuoteC - Because they can be accomplished better / stronger / faster by members acting as
private citizens, especially in light of the fact that most of these organizations
want CAP's contact lists and not the uniforms, at which point the members can
submit the time for CSRs.

Our local agencies have state mission numbers and request CAP resources as missions. They disagree with your assessment 100% as does our chain of command all the way up to CAP/CC.

QuoteD - Because in many cases CAP is so interested in "getting in the game" it ignores its
own doctrines, protocols, policies and regulations, and puts unqualified members in the
field, at risk to themselves, the organization, and those they seek to help.

You literally in points B and C state there is no need for training and the only thing we bring is a contact list, now you say that we are ignoring doctrines, protocols, policies and regulations (though I'll note again without evidence) and proclaim the risk we bring to our volunteers, the organization, and those we seek to help somehow are non-existent when we otherwise volunteer as private citizens.


Your entire argument is without factsc self-contradictory, and flies in the face of the reality that AHJs have in the past, currently, and continue to request CAP mission numbers to go along with their own state's mission numbers for these activities.

We've made the arguments.  I'm done.  Not sure why you want to keep walking in a circle.

Read the thread, it's all there.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 11, 2020, 10:25:30 PMWe've made the arguments.  I'm done.  Not sure why you want to keep walking in a circle.

Read the thread, it's all there.

You have yet to provide a rebuttal to any point I brought up. Which is of course why you are "done."

Speaking of done, so is this discussion.

Click.