how to move SM to patron inactive

[miked95]

How do you move members to inactive? what duty position do you need or can only the commander do this? also how do you do in on eservices to show my commander

[NIN]

The info you seek is in CAPR 39-2, the chapter on Associate memberships

[miked95]

The info you seek is in CAPR 39-2, the chapter on Associate memberships

so just fill out a CAPF 002A? i thought you could do it on eservices without filling out forms. We have about 15 SM have we need to move to inactive so i need to fill out 15 002A's?

[baronet68]

The info you seek is in CAPR 39-2, the chapter on Associate memberships

so just fill out a CAPF 002A? i thought you could do it on eservices without filling out forms. We have about 15 SM have we need to move to inactive so i need to fill out 15 002A's?

Has anyone actually spoken with any of these 15 members or is the plan to just "quietly" change their status to Patron? Has there been any attempt to re-engage these members?

Reason I ask is that I personally spent several years working in a wing staff position while remaining assigned to my local squadron.  I regularly attended wing staff meetings and was doing my wing job all the time so not directly interacting with the local unit. 

One day, a new commander came into the squadron and, after about 30 days, decided to transfer everyone he'd never met on the unit roster to Patron status.  Imagine my shock when the wing chief of staff called me asking why I "quit CAP" (since I was removed from my wing staff position upon changing to Patron).

[miked95]

The info you seek is in CAPR 39-2, the chapter on Associate memberships

so just fill out a CAPF 002A? i thought you could do it on eservices without filling out forms. We have about 15 SM have we need to move to inactive so i need to fill out 15 002A's?

Has anyone actually spoken with any of these 15 members or is the plan to just "quietly" change their status to Patron? Has there been any attempt to re-engage these members?

Reason I ask is that I personally spent several years working in a wing staff position while remaining assigned to my local squadron.  I regularly attended wing staff meetings and was doing my wing job all the time so not directly interacting with the local unit. 

One day, a new commander came into the squadron and, after about 30 days, decided to transfer everyone he'd never met on the unit roster to Patron status.  Imagine my shock when the wing chief of staff called me asking why I "quit CAP" (since I was removed from my wing staff position upon changing to Patron).

multiple Call, Emails and letters no response. so we figured they don't want to be here if we attempt to contact them and they don't respond or show up that's why we want to move them in inactive. we don't want to terminate them just move them into the 000 to clear our roster like national recommends but we don't know how to do that since we have a new commander and very new SM's 

[SarDragon]

Here's a shortcut for doing multiple 2a's - open the Word template; fill in all the blanks having the same info: charter, unit name, wing, section II, 2nd charter blank, requestor, commander, unit, and date; save it as a template. Open the template and fill in the other blanks, and save with this file name format - F2a_[CAPSN]_[name]. Repeat for the remaining forms.

Then the commander emails them to NHQ, and bingo.

[GroundHawg]

The info you seek is in CAPR 39-2, the chapter on Associate memberships

so just fill out a CAPF 002A? i thought you could do it on eservices without filling out forms. We have about 15 SM have we need to move to inactive so i need to fill out 15 002A's?

Has anyone actually spoken with any of these 15 members or is the plan to just "quietly" change their status to Patron? Has there been any attempt to re-engage these members?

Reason I ask is that I personally spent several years working in a wing staff position while remaining assigned to my local squadron.  I regularly attended wing staff meetings and was doing my wing job all the time so not directly interacting with the local unit. 

One day, a new commander came into the squadron and, after about 30 days, decided to transfer everyone he'd never met on the unit roster to Patron status.  Imagine my shock when the wing chief of staff called me asking why I "quit CAP" (since I was removed from my wing staff position upon changing to Patron).

Exact same situation happened to me, the squadron said "well if you are wing staff, you should be in the wing hq squadron..."

[jeders]

multiple Call, Emails and letters no response. so we figured they don't want to be here if we attempt to contact them and they don't respond or show up that's why we want to move them in inactive. we don't want to terminate them just move them into the 000 to clear our roster...

There's a difference between moving them to 000 and making them Patrons. As Patron members, they remain attached to your squadron, but lose a lot of progress. Moving them to 000 is simply a transfer and does not require a change in membership status, and also has the benefit to the wing of they still get charged for wing dues. The commander or personnel officer at the squadron level can effect this transfer in eServices.

like national recommends

Legitimate question, can you cite this please? I know a lot of wings do this and I've heard of NHQ telling wings to not do this anymore because you're creating a huge squadron with no oversight, but I've never actually seen anything in writing where "national recommends" dumping people into 000.

A follow up, at the end of the day, what goal are you trying to achieve by dumping everyone into 000 or patron status?

[N6RVT]

Exact same situation happened to me, the squadron said "well if you are wing staff, you should be in the wing hq squadron..."

The wing personnel officer had to accept the transfer as well.  One person cannot do all of this.  I'm dealing with three transfers right now, but all of those are squadron to squadron and due to geographical relocation.  All three, as it happens, are being held up by the unit on the other end.

The main reason I find members are resistant to being transferred to a higher headquarters is that it takes you off any email distribution regarding events & activities.  I was at various times assigned to group and wing and it felt like Patron status, At wing level I was totally out of the local loop for every activity.

[Eclipse]

There's a lot going on here that as new members you are likely not aware of.

we don't want to terminate them just move them into the 000 to clear our roster like national recommends

National HQ doesn't recommend anything in this regard, it would be interesting to know where you
got that impression.

1 - Most Wings / Regions discourage or prohibit moving inactive members and patrons to the 000 units
as it shifts the administrative burden to the non-existent 000 staff in regards to maintaining member
records, which means in reality the Wing is stuck with dozens, if not hundreds, of files no one pays
any attention to and are generally lost.

A number of years ago NHQ barred any new memberships or transfers into 996 (the National Patron Squadron),
and since then there has been increasing rhetoric and pressure to require unit CC's to keep Patrons on
their books, leaving the 000 units for their original purpose of a legitimate holding unit for members
between units due to charter retirements, disciplinary action, etc.

With all that said, as with everything CAP, application of the above is inconsistent at best, varies by
wing, and often depends on the Wing regime at the time.

2 - If your Wing / Region still allows it, then all you need to do is contact your Wing staff
(suggest the Chief of Staff, or perhaps the Personnel officer), and have them process the transfers
to XX-000 and send them the personnel files.

No further paperwork is necessary, and they do not need to be changed to Patron status.

3 - If your Wing does not allow 000 transfers for inactive members, then you should be aware that
while normalizing memberships in your unit isn't a bad idea, it's not going to change much.

A - Making them patrons doesn't change the administrative burden - the still has to maintain Personnel Files
(whether that's actual paper or electronic), and while some reports related to Operations will change, for the most part
the number of members that appear on your roster will not.

B - Terminating them will slowly close the door, but still require that the unit maintain their records for five (5) years after the termination.
I will say this, that termination notification does generally get the attention and
action of a member who is ignoring attempts to contact them if they are remotely interested in staying in.

If you terminate them, and your wing has annual dues, you may get a call from the Chief of Staff or Wing CC
because you're going to be costing the wing money.  That often prompts the 000 transfer in the vein of
"that's fine, if you want the cash, you take them".  BTDT.

FWIW, I've been a strong advocate of culling and normalizing the member ranks for two decades. To this day I find it hard to believe that Congress has no concern about the way CAP reports its numbers, with no interest or effort in accounting for empty shirts. 
Reporting the raw number of checks received annually as an active force, especially to Congress in with
the insinuation that number represents how many people could respond in times of disaster and is...disingenuous at best.

The "Associate" idea was another 1/2-implemented and then abandoned plan that looked like a good-faith initiative to fix the "active" vs. "inactive" membership issue, which was probably dropped when someone realized that the "active" membership was going to drop by at least a third overnight if it was implemented fully.

Good Luck.  It sounds like you're taking the steps you should be, just be cognizant of potential headwinds.

[Eclipse]

officer had to accept the transfer as well.  One person cannot do all of this.  I'm dealing with three transfers right now, but all of those are squadron to squadron and due to geographical relocation.  All three, as it happens, are being held up by the un

This is going to be wholly a local issue dependent on how your Wing implements its mailing lists.

[N6RVT]

A follow up, at the end of the day, what goal are you trying to achieve by dumping everyone into 000 or patron status?

Way back, decades ago now, the commander of California group 19 cleaned up his roster this way.  And eliminated group 19, as there were no longer enough members in it to justify its existence.

This was back when CAWG was so large there was another level of command between groups and wing called "Sectors", a name and concept probably copied from the USCGAUX which still has these.  I don't think they were ever officially recognized as legitimate by national and many problems resulted from that.

I remember the reading the packet radio traffic (yes, that long ago) that came out abolishing the sector commands.  Fun times resulted, but I was still on active duty and watching from afar....  All that remains of this idea now is CAWG has two wing deputy commanders, one for north and one for south, but they fill in for each other so much there really isn't much of a distinction.

[N6RVT]

officer had to accept the transfer as well.  One person cannot do all of this.  I'm dealing with three transfers right now, but all of those are squadron to squadron and due to geographical relocation.  All three, as it happens, are being held up by the un

This is going to be wholly a local issue dependent on how your Wing implements its mailing lists.

CAWG has its own Microsoft domain server that is fed by information it takes off Eservices and it auto updates with no provision for exceptions.

Incidentally these transfers did not go all the way to the Unted Nations......

[Eclipse]

CAWG has its own Microsoft domain server that is fed by information it takes off Eservices and it auto updates with no provision for exceptions.

The only information eservices provides is going to be email and charter.

From there, how that's used, in what lists, and how those lists may (or may not be)
nested is purely a local CAWG decision and process, likely scripted.

[TheSkyHornet]

If they literally aren't active, have no participation history in the last year, aren't responding to emails, phone calls, or text messages, cut them.

You might considering mailing them a personal MEMO of final notice; or just go straight to termination and send them a copy.

I don't know what the animosity is regarding the loss of a member. And if the Wing wishes to continue to collect their dues because the person is set to Auto-Renewal, then talk to Wing HQ and transfer them to another unit. Paper rosters are a waste of anyone's attention.


Also, if you are on Wing staff and assigned to a local squadron, and don't participate at all with your local squadron, my question is: Why not go to the 001 charter?

[miked95]

multiple Call, Emails and letters no response. so we figured they don't want to be here if we attempt to contact them and they don't respond or show up that's why we want to move them in inactive. we don't want to terminate them just move them into the 000 to clear our roster...

There's a difference between moving them to 000 and making them Patrons. As Patron members, they remain attached to your squadron, but lose a lot of progress. Moving them to 000 is simply a transfer and does not require a change in membership status, and also has the benefit to the wing of they still get charged for wing dues. The commander or personnel officer at the squadron level can effect this transfer in eServices.

like national recommends

Legitimate question, can you cite this please? I know a lot of wings do this and I've heard of NHQ telling wings to not do this anymore because you're creating a huge squadron with no oversight, but I've never actually seen anything in writing where "national recommends" dumping people into 000.

A follow up, at the end of the day, what goal are you trying to achieve by dumping everyone into 000 or patron status?

they talk about moving them into 000 they don't necessarily recommend but give it as an option
https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/members/cap-national-hq/recruiting-and-retention/2014/09/12/what-to-do-with-that-inactive-member

[miked95]

so thoughts on just terminating them vs moving them to 000 or patron? sounds like 000 doesn't exist anymore? I wouldn't mind moving them to patron so they can still pay their membership for nationals. We are just trying to them the off our roster as they don't contribute we don't want to see them expired on all our reports. like example we are trying to maintain an 100% AGH for our squadron but when we have 15 inactive SM it's impossible to reach our squadron goals since when we pull up reports it have them all listed as expired.

[PHall]

The "recommendation" you quoted from National is seven years old and things have changed.
You might want to ask them what their current policy is.

[baronet68]

Also, if you are on Wing staff and assigned to a local squadron, and don't participate at all with your local squadron, my question is: Why not go to the 001 charter?

In my case, it was wing leadership's preference that members try to stay assigned to local units so that it wouldn't look like HQ was depriving units of their members.  Same is true for my current position as charter number remains my wing HQ and not NHQ-001.

[Bayareaflyer 44]

I performed a similar cleanup activity some time ago.  This is my recommendation:

- Do NOT transfer to a -000 holding unit.  This will keep the member engaged at the unit level should they decide to come back.  Plus, National does not want folks languishing in a holding unit (they explicitly told me this).
- Make one last attempt to contact the member.  Email, phone.  In the email, stipulate a "if we do not hear back from you by DDMMMYY, then we understand that you are presently unable to actively participate, and we will update your membership to Patron status".  Please phrase in a positive and not punitive manner.
o Emphasize the fact that should the member wish to return to an active status, that the unit stands ready to make the change quickly

The key is that this is being done cooperatively and collaboratively, and that you are truly value the member and their contributions to the unit (which, we should).  That said, you also understand that life for them at this time just does not include active participation in CAP and that you are here to help.  Also let them know their dues commitment will decrease with this membership level, and hopefully that will also alleviate some concerns.

Last, use the team at Group and/or Wing.  This isn't their first rodeo, and ask them how they have either done this in the past, or how they would presently like to handle.  Again, do not do this in a vacuum.

Good luck!

[Eclipse]

so thoughts on just terminating them vs moving them to 000 or patron? sounds like 000 doesn't exist anymore? I wouldn't mind moving them to patron so they can still pay their membership for nationals. We are just trying to them the off our roster as they don't contribute we don't want to see them expired on all our reports. like example we are trying to maintain an 100% AGH for our squadron but when we have 15 inactive SM it's impossible to reach our squadron goals since when we pull up reports it have them all listed as expired.

000 exists, it was just abused over the years and this is the result.

You're characterizing one of the administrative challenges nicely - NHQ wants bulked up
member numbers, while at the same time it wants compliance with various initiatives
like AGH and Safety.

Probably the most expedient fix is putting them in Patron and moving on, at least that
alleviates the reporting issues.

[miked95]

just saw that patrons show up on reports anyway to make them not show? looking at training reports I wonder why they show up there if they don't train. 

[Eclipse]

just saw that patrons show up on reports anyway to make them not show?

No. They will show on your roster numbers as long as they are members,
you may start to see the issue now with the way NHQ reports readiness and member strength.

looking at training reports I wonder why they show up there if they don't train.

Because not all of the reports and modules have been tuned to filter out patrons
and the which of that doesn't seem to have been coordinated between various departments.

You may find this amusing, but back when Safety Currency was first introduced, there
were instructions that >ALL< members, regardless of status, needed to be Safety Current.

Yes, there was literally an expectation that members in a non-active category should be
contacted to take a monthly online safety class. It took more then a few years to have
patrons not show up in those reports (assuming they don't today).

[miked95]

how about moving them from patron to cadet sponsor membership? i think then they wont show up on the roster at all

[NovemberWhiskey]

Challenge #1 there would be that cadet sponsor members have to be in an in loco parentis relationship with a cadet, e.g. parent/grandparent/guardian, and part of the same unit as said cadet.

[PHall]

Challenge #1 there would be that cadet sponsor members have to be in an in loco parentis relationship with a cadet, e.g. parent/grandparent/guardian, and part of the same unit as said cadet.

And as soon as the cadet leaves CAP then the Cadet Sponsor Member has to leave too. Their memberships are linked.

[Eclipse]

Challenge #1 there would be that cadet sponsor members have to be in an in loco parentis relationship with a cadet, e.g. parent/grandparent/guardian, and part of the same unit as said cadet.

Yep - and they show up on the roster like everyone else.

[TheSkyHornet]

- Do NOT transfer to a -000 holding unit.  This will keep the member engaged at the unit level should they decide to come back.

I guess I'm just lost on this concept. If the person hasn't engaged in a year, or more in many cases, why hold onto them and assume that they're just one day going to suddenly come back and be completely reengaged?

That person clearly has a history now of walking away, with no notice. That, to me, is a risk where I would have a serious conversation with that person should they contact me and want to randomly return.

Make one last attempt to contact the member.  Email, phone.  In the email, stipulate a "if we do not hear back from you by DDMMMYY, then we understand that you are presently unable to actively participate, and we will update your membership to Patron status".  Please phrase in a positive and not punitive manner.
o Emphasize the fact that should the member wish to return to an active status, that the unit stands ready to make the change quickly

I would agree with this. Make the "last ditch" attempt. Really, it's probably for the sake of just documenting it to say that you did and heard nothing back.

If they don't respond by that deadline, make the cut.

The key is that this is being done cooperatively and collaboratively, and that you are truly value the member and their contributions to the unit (which, we should).

I'm going back to the top of my reply. What contribution?

[Bayareaflyer 44]

- Do NOT transfer to a -000 holding unit.  This will keep the member engaged at the unit level should they decide to come back.

I guess I'm just lost on this concept. If the person hasn't engaged in a year, or more in many cases, why hold onto them and assume that they're just one day going to suddenly come back and be completely reengaged?

That person clearly has a history now of walking away, with no notice. That, to me, is a risk where I would have a serious conversation with that person should they contact me and want to randomly return.

Make one last attempt to contact the member.  Email, phone.  In the email, stipulate a "if we do not hear back from you by DDMMMYY, then we understand that you are presently unable to actively participate, and we will update your membership to Patron status".  Please phrase in a positive and not punitive manner.
o Emphasize the fact that should the member wish to return to an active status, that the unit stands ready to make the change quickly

I would agree with this. Make the "last ditch" attempt. Really, it's probably for the sake of just documenting it to say that you did and heard nothing back.

If they don't respond by that deadline, make the cut.

The key is that this is being done cooperatively and collaboratively, and that you are truly value the member and their contributions to the unit (which, we should).

I'm going back to the top of my reply. What contribution?

Thank you for the questions. 

1.  National has the policy of not to move individuals to a holding unit.  In fact, they simply will not allow the transfer.  So, in light of not having another unit to place these individuals in, it is incumbent for the originating unit to retain them.  They can choose to rejoin, or self-terminate by not re-upping next dues cycle.

2.  The contribution was the original intent to participate.  Remember, your unit membership board in theory fully vet these individuals, and should have only allowed an individual to join if the intent was to fully participate.  Flash forward and time as passed, and they are no longer active.  However, they clearly are still supporting the program because they are paying dues as active members.  At this point, you recognize the fact that they still believe in the aims of the organization enough to keep paying dues, so out of respect of the fact that they could return to their former participation level (which, on several occasions I have witnessed – some do), holding the member at a patron level is appropriate.  This takes care of the not carrying the member on the safety compliance, as well as giving the member an option to stay informed about CAP.

Thanks again.

[NIN]

You're characterizing one of the administrative challenges nicely - NHQ wants bulked up
member numbers, while at the same time it wants compliance with various initiatives
like AGH and Safety.

Please cite your source.

Because in 5 years as the recruiting and retention manager,  nobody ever said "Ninness,  we need to bulk up our numbers. Get on that."

So this mythical idea that "NHQ" wants "[something]" (you decide the something), absent a policy letter,  doctrinal publication,  secret email trail,  whatever,  is not really a thing.

[miked95]

So only Commanders and Personnel officers can move members to patron? and we need to fill out 002a or can we just transfer on eservices some how.

[Bayareaflyer 44]

I personally like to make sure that I am following the regulation, so for initiating the transfer process please reference the CAPR 39-2
Page 6
1.11.4. Transfer Procedures:

1.11.4.1. When a member transfers to another unit, the gaining unit will normally initiate
the transfer through the online transfer application. Once the gaining commander has approved
the transfer action the member's record will immediately be updated to reflect the new unit of
assignment. A notification of the transfer action will then appear in the losing unit commander's
online Commanders Corner. If there is any reason why the transfer is not acceptable to the losing
unit, the commander may simply deny the transfer. Losing commanders must deny the transfer
action within two months of the notification. Commanders not wishing to use the online
application may submit a CAPF 2A, Request for and Approval of Personnel Actions (Section IV,
Transfer). The personnel officer initiates the personnel action which is approved by the unit
commander and forwards the form to CAP/DP. If there is any reason why the transfer is not
acceptable to the losing unit, the losing unit commander must notify CAP/DP within two months.
The transfer will then be declared void and the member returned to the losing unit until the
problem can be resolved.

[Eclipse]

You're characterizing one of the administrative challenges nicely - NHQ wants bulked up
member numbers, while at the same time it wants compliance with various initiatives
like AGH and Safety.

Please cite your source.

Because in 5 years as the recruiting and retention manager,  nobody ever said "Ninness,  we need to bulk up our numbers. Get on that."

So this mythical idea that "NHQ" wants "[something]" (you decide the something), absent a policy letter,  doctrinal publication,  secret email trail,  whatever,  is not really a thing.

You and I both know that's not the case, and we both know that a certain HEADCAP was on the
burner about not increasing the membership as he'd committed to, the result of which was
in-person directives not to do any culling or normalization.

This was a directive given to me by an eagle, presented as being given to him by an eagle.

The other piece is "Have you ever heard anyone at NHQ direct CC's to cull the ranks and normalize
members?" Because that's what any similar operational organization would do in regards to
reporting member strength and readiness, or is CAP always excited to print the highest number possibly
which include Patrons, AE's, CSM, and other NPCs, not to mention having zero interest in terminating,
or even identifying empty shirts?

NHQ literally has no idea how many active members it actually has.

[Eclipse]

So only Commanders and Personnel officers can move members to patron?

Correct, ultimately I believe it has to have a CC sign on it.

and we need to fill out 002a or can we just transfer on eservices some how.

2A required for status change to Patron, transfer to another unit can be done by
the gaining Commander in eServices. If you're pushing 15 people to 000, best bet is discuss
with Wing and have them click the box.

[Bayareaflyer 44]

And because this erroneously keeps coming up, again, please refer to the latest CAPR 39-2.  In the summary of changes, it specifies:
"It also deletes the requirement for a cadet sponsor nametag, the ability to join as a patron at the National level, and
prohibits transfers into the National Patron Squadron (NHQ 996)."

So, to reiterate, National does not want individuals transferred to a holding unit, nor will the request be honored.

Yes, you can change membership status via eServices.  Both the CC and DP can facilitate.

[TheSkyHornet]

2.  The contribution was the original intent to participate.  Remember, your unit membership board in theory fully vet these individuals, and should have only allowed an individual to join if the intent was to fully participate.  Flash forward and time as passed, and they are no longer active.  However, they clearly are still supporting the program because they are paying dues as active members.  At this point, you recognize the fact that they still believe in the aims of the organization enough to keep paying dues, so out of respect of the fact that they could return to their former participation level (which, on several occasions I have witnessed – some do), holding the member at a patron level is appropriate.  This takes care of the not carrying the member on the safety compliance, as well as giving the member an option to stay informed about CAP.

Let's be clear here that membership renewal is an automatic process in which nobody in the unit is actually aware that Member A renewed their membership. Even if a person falls off the roster, and renews late, they reappear on the roster with nobody being the wiser.

I think we're on the same page here as far as this being a mandatory process, regardless of which route you go: whether moving them to Patron status or removing them altogether.

My personal preference is to let them expire and hope they don't auto-renew, or, if they're not making contact for an extensive period of time, I'm going to file 2Bs.

[RiverAux]

leaving the 000 units for their original purpose of a legitimate holding unit for members
between units due to charter retirements, disciplinary action, etc.

Citation please....

Way back, decades ago now, the commander of California group 19 cleaned up his roster this way.  And eliminated group 19, as there were no longer enough members in it to justify its existence.

This was back when CAWG was so large there was another level of command between groups and wing called "Sectors", a name and concept probably copied from the USCGAUX which still has these. 

Incorrect. The Coast Guard Auxiliary does not have Sectors in their administrative structure.  Sectors are a Coast Guard structure though Coast Guard Auxiliary units are sort of aligned with Sectors in some regards. 

Additionally, Sectors are very new to the Coast Guard and were only created in the early 2000s.

[Eclipse]

Additionally, Sectors are very new to the Coast Guard and were only created in the early 2000s.

The early 2000's were literally decades ago - as to the purpose of 000,it is ill-defined in the regs,
(however the single line in 20-3 supports my position), inconsistently implemented, and what they are used for varies with regime change.

[N6RVT]

Incorrect. The Coast Guard Auxiliary does not have Sectors in their administrative structure.  Sectors are a Coast Guard structure though Coast Guard Auxiliary units are sort of aligned with Sectors in some regards. 

Additionally, Sectors are very new to the Coast Guard and were only created in the early 2000s.

Well, I am in sector LA/LB so I sort of think it exists.

[RiverAux]

Yes, Sectors exist, but as part of the Coast Guard, not the Coast Guard Auxiliary.  There is absolutely no administrative linkage between the Auxiliary and Sectors even though a given Auxiliary unit may be within the boundary of a Coast Guard Sector.  Yes, Sectors can have some operational control over Auxiliary units while on patrol, but that doesn't make them part of the Sector.   

[TheSkyHornet]

Welp, we managed to invoke the Coast Guard Auxiliary in a CAP membership discussion.

I think we can agree that the CGAUX is the new "bring up uniforms" thread derailment topic.