www.cadetcommandertools.org

[Eclipse]

http://www.cadetcommandertools.org/

Found this by accident today.  Haven't reviewed the specifics of the docs provided, but looks like an interesting resource.

The question continues as to why NHQ isn't providing these types of sites and resources.

[Salty]

Probably because it's easier for NHQ to rely on motivated members to fill the voids.

[THRAWN]

It's too bad that he'll probably get a C and D order...

[a2capt]

It was posted on here a while back, it's grown quite a bit. C&D would just be stupid. Utterly stupid and boneheaded.

[jeders]

It's too bad that he'll probably get a C and D order...

Why would he get a C&D, he's not selling anything or using the CAP name/logos in order to personally profit.

[JeffDG]

Probably because it's easier for NHQ to rely on motivated members to fill the voids.

NHQ is more interested in shutting down member-created tools than they are in creating tools themselves.

[Eclipse]

It was posted on here a while back, it's grown quite a bit. C&D would just be stupid. Utterly stupid and boneheaded.

I didn't see it on a search.  Did the URL change.

Looks to be mostly useful spreadsheets and related docs to running a unit.

[lordmonar]

Probably because it's easier for NHQ to rely on motivated members to fill the voids.

NHQ is more interested in shutting down member-created tools than they are in creating tools themselves.

I got to call BS on that.

There are lots of member owned tools out there that NHQ has not shut down.

I agree that NHQ is not really interested in taking one/buying out some of these member created tools and using them in place of their legacy systems....but that is another story.

[Tim Medeiros]

Probably because it's easier for NHQ to rely on motivated members to fill the voids.

NHQ is more interested in shutting down member-created tools than they are in creating tools themselves.

Do you have evidence of this?


I ask because this, http://www.capmembers.com/cap_university/best-practices-exchange/  is loaded with member developed tools and the first entry in the Help Desk KB is a well known member developed tool, https://capnhq.crmdesk.com/answer.aspx?aid=4909&back=search.aspx%3F.  These seem to fly in the face of your comment about NHQ being more interested in shutting down member-created tools.

[Eclipse]

^ I think "loaded" might be a stretch.

[Garibaldi]

^ I think "loaded" might be a stretch.

Not this morning.

*pours another cup o morning joy*

[JeffDG]

Probably because it's easier for NHQ to rely on motivated members to fill the voids.

NHQ is more interested in shutting down member-created tools than they are in creating tools themselves.

Do you have evidence of this?


I ask because this, http://www.capmembers.com/cap_university/best-practices-exchange/  is loaded with member developed tools and the first entry in the Help Desk KB is a well known member developed tool, https://capnhq.crmdesk.com/answer.aspx?aid=4909&back=search.aspx%3F.  These seem to fly in the face of your comment about NHQ being more interested in shutting down member-created tools.

I guess you were never in the middle of a mission when NHQ decided to change a field somewhere in WMIRS for the sole purpose of breaking IMU then.

[Tim Medeiros]

Probably because it's easier for NHQ to rely on motivated members to fill the voids.

NHQ is more interested in shutting down member-created tools than they are in creating tools themselves.

Do you have evidence of this?


I ask because this, http://www.capmembers.com/cap_university/best-practices-exchange/  is loaded with member developed tools and the first entry in the Help Desk KB is a well known member developed tool, https://capnhq.crmdesk.com/answer.aspx?aid=4909&back=search.aspx%3F.  These seem to fly in the face of your comment about NHQ being more interested in shutting down member-created tools.

I guess you were never in the middle of a mission when NHQ decided to change a field somewhere in WMIRS for the sole purpose of breaking IMU then.

You got me there, I was never in the middle of a mission, especially running IMU, where NHQ deemed there was a security risk (no, I don't know what the risk was) with how IMU was entering the information.  However, I do recall NHQ working with the developer of IMU to get things back on track.

Edit: source of my info, https://www.capnhq.gov/news/Documents/IMU_Interface_Update.pdf as you see, it wasn't just some one-off decision to kill the link.

[JeffDG]

Probably because it's easier for NHQ to rely on motivated members to fill the voids.

NHQ is more interested in shutting down member-created tools than they are in creating tools themselves.

Do you have evidence of this?


I ask because this, http://www.capmembers.com/cap_university/best-practices-exchange/  is loaded with member developed tools and the first entry in the Help Desk KB is a well known member developed tool, https://capnhq.crmdesk.com/answer.aspx?aid=4909&back=search.aspx%3F.  These seem to fly in the face of your comment about NHQ being more interested in shutting down member-created tools.

I guess you were never in the middle of a mission when NHQ decided to change a field somewhere in WMIRS for the sole purpose of breaking IMU then.

You got me there, I was never in the middle of a mission, especially running IMU, where NHQ deemed there was a security risk (no, I don't know what the risk was) with how IMU was entering the information.  However, I do recall NHQ working with the developer of IMU to get things back on track.

No, I mean when NHQ would just change stuff like field names, for no actual purpose, in order to make IMU break.  Generally happening right before any major exercise in an IMU-using wing.  Multiple times, as a matter of fact.

[Tim Medeiros]

Probably because it's easier for NHQ to rely on motivated members to fill the voids.

NHQ is more interested in shutting down member-created tools than they are in creating tools themselves.

Do you have evidence of this?


I ask because this, http://www.capmembers.com/cap_university/best-practices-exchange/  is loaded with member developed tools and the first entry in the Help Desk KB is a well known member developed tool, https://capnhq.crmdesk.com/answer.aspx?aid=4909&back=search.aspx%3F.  These seem to fly in the face of your comment about NHQ being more interested in shutting down member-created tools.

I guess you were never in the middle of a mission when NHQ decided to change a field somewhere in WMIRS for the sole purpose of breaking IMU then.

You got me there, I was never in the middle of a mission, especially running IMU, where NHQ deemed there was a security risk (no, I don't know what the risk was) with how IMU was entering the information.  However, I do recall NHQ working with the developer of IMU to get things back on track.

No, I mean when NHQ would just change stuff like field names, for no actual purpose, in order to make IMU break.  Generally happening right before any major exercise in an IMU-using wing.  Multiple times, as a matter of fact.

With that, I've got nothing, other than I'm fairly sure it wasn't specifically to break IMU, unless they've actually come out and said that.  It could very well be that certain fields were not lining up with certain naming conventions or it was causing something else to break.


Considering Pete Andersen was invited a number of times to National Conference to do training on how to use IMU, one could argue that they in fact supported it.

[TexasCadet]

I was looking at some of the documents, and some of them said that they required data from CAPWATCH. I wanted to know if cadets were allowed access to it. I can download it from my eServices account, but is it something cadets are authorized to download? I'm a little leery of downloading it because I don't want to get into a mess of trouble from NHQ.

[Huey Driver]

Previously restricted modules in eServices will now be accessible to cadets with certain duty-assignments in eServices - "You should expect to see them sometime in the future" ...enough said.

[TexasCadet]

Previously restricted modules in eServices will now be accessible to cadets with certain duty-assignments in eServices - "You should expect to see them sometime in the future" ...enough said.

Since I can see it, does that mean I am allowed to use it?

[lordmonar]

Previously restricted modules in eServices will now be accessible to cadets with certain duty-assignments in eServices - "You should expect to see them sometime in the future" ...enough said.

Since I can see it, does that mean I am allowed to use it?

yes.   It is just a data base.  Have fun.  Please remember that some of the information is FOR OFFICAL USE ONLY and there may be Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and should be controlled accordingly.

[TexasCadet]

Previously restricted modules in eServices will now be accessible to cadets with certain duty-assignments in eServices - "You should expect to see them sometime in the future" ...enough said.

Since I can see it, does that mean I am allowed to use it?

yes.   It is just a data base.  Have fun.  Please remember that some of the information is FOR OFFICAL USE ONLY and there may be Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and should be controlled accordingly.

I will make sure to remember. I am planning on showing my squadron commander and deputy commander for cadets the spreadsheets. I have to say, as a person who loves analyzing data, I am drooling over these spreadsheets.