A By Invitation FORUM? Good or Bad idea?

[pixelwonk]

Your high-ranking official seems to have little knowledge of either.

The CAP Knowledgebase is most certainly not a forum, and the accuracy of it's information is only somewhat better than what you'd find on a forum.
Furthermore, it does not have the benefit of being edited by it's membership.  That'd be a wiki.  and we've already had that discussion, haven't we?

As an aside, when We had CAPboard, which I did not create, but became an administrator of, we validated membership in CAP.
That was a pain, and those members who were on there, would agree that the topics were no more or less salty than those here.

Let's review:
KB: not forum
Wiki is good, but hard to manage for the small CAP online community
Forum restriction: bad
New forum: Why?

[Eclipse]

Would you also create the authentication software and maintain the security/integrity of such software (assuming you want to verify membership and that you'd be allowed access to such info), not to mention the forum cost themselves (domain, hosting, etc.)? 

Nice FUD - there are too many free forum services to list.

Once thing's for sure, there would be no one named "A.Member" posting.

This gets my vote.  I am 100% against anonymous posters.

As pointed out, this is not supposed to be a place people can lob libel bombs.

For every piece of good information, there is 10 tons of nonsense by the same 10 or so people (myself included).

[Major Carrales]

If it contributes anything, I spoke with a "high ranking offical" about this and he said such a forum already exists...it's called the CAP Knowledgebase.

That's the kind of 'Talking out of the side your mouth' answer that I would expect as a response from a 'high ranking official'.  Which means, in no uncertain terms, this is what you're getting as an 'official forum', take it or leave it.

I mean, I can see where that response is coming from, but, as a member, I don't buy it.

There is a little bit more to the story than that, but I think the nature of many posts creates too much of a PA issue.  I mean, cadets regularly lecture active duty Airmen and Officers on life in the USAF at some similar CAP forums.  Then there is the whole issue of allegations made and, as we have seen here, wiped causing a defacto cover-up.

The more this topic goes the more convinced I am the the private forum is the best.  Thank you all for your contributions.

By the way, on another forum someone brought up that the 1st Amendment does not apply to a private forum.  It might to one that was govenrment driven.

[Eclipse]

By the way, on another forum someone brought up that the 1st Amendment does not apply to a private forum.  It might to one that was govenrment driven.

Negative - a private forum is just that, private.  Those with opposing views are free to don tinfoil hats and dodge black helos elsewhere.

The 1st Amendment does not guarantee "speech" as a concept.  You cannot come into my home and say whatever you want.  If I ask you to leave, you have to go or be removed.

[A.Member]

Nice FUD - there are too many free forum services to list.

No FUD, just fact - I've created forums.  Free software (php, UBB, etc.) is different than free hosting.  A person can get all the free software they want but it has to be hosted somewhere to be of value to anyone.  I know of no free hosting that accommodates message board software.  Then there is authentication software component - if access to that info was even allowed (which I'd doubt unless such a board was sponsored by corporate).  Before allowing someone to participate, are you going to make a call out to an active list of members in some NHQ database, do a compare, and return the results, all the while keeping the transmission encrypted and data secured?  Not overly complicated technically for someone that understands how to do this but it certainly doesn't just happen.   The bottom line: it's not free. 

Once thing's for sure, there would be no one named "A.Member" posting.

And I'm sure A.Member would have no interest posting in such a forum.    Seriously, I'd have no heartburn over that.  If you're the person paying the bill, definitely run the forum as you see fit.  However, based on the comments here so far, it sounds like you wouldn't get the results that you'd hope for.  Nonetheless, if you think it's a good idea, by all means, go for it and I'll wish you well.   

Of course, this "invitation" approach also begs the question, what would you do when someone you've granted access to quits or is removed from CAP?...how would you know (you're not going to do daily compares against the NHQ database)?  Would you care (if not, then why authenticate in the first place - which leads you right back to this forum)? 

As to the high ranking official's comment about Knowledge Base, I agree with tedda's post.  Knowledge Base is not a forum.

[DNall]

I'll give you my quick take on it. First I sure as hell wouldn't call it anything like an "invitation-only forum." That does sound exclusionary.

Second, there's pros & cons. On the one hand there's a case to be made for the ability to hide from the petty political vendettas that seem to turn up in CAP when you piss off the wrong person. This place gives you the choice to put it in your user name (like me) or sig line, or to hide if you prefer. You can make the argument that people are free to say what they wish cause no one is judging them by grade, experience, politics, etc. That's fine. I understand all that & got nothing against it, it's just not the way I chose to go.

On the other hand, we see a lot of conversations that I know a lot of us would agree aren't always beneficial to talk about in the public eye. For instance, we want to talk about uniforms but we don't want to have the rest of the world see us as obsessed with the issue and think us wannabe posers. Another example would be the couple threads I  saw last day or two concerning issues that need to be investigated & serious, possible criminal, actions taken. It might be that those are worthy of discussion, but I'm not sure I want the press quoting me or my comments used by the defense in court to claim something like "a mob mentality drove the prosecution." I'm sure most of you can think of other examples as well. I think it might be a good idea to have a vetted password area to have such conversations. And, I think with such an area in place you can prevent those conversations here in the open & ask that they be shifted behind closed doors.

Logistically it's no big deal at all. You have the option in the admin menu to require admin approval of new accounts before the activation email goes out. You can easily put new instructions in the create acct screen to specify how you want user names done & what info (CAP ID) you need to make verification on eServices easy. You can do all that & still have the option of allowing anonymous screen names if you like, or not, whatever policy you want to enforce. It's all easily done. The forum software is free by the way & webspace can be if you want some hassles or you can use the back end of some paid space for free also, all non-issues.

[flyguy06]

If I wanted people to know who I was I wouldnt use the name flyguy06. I am a real CAP member. But I dont want nor need for people from my wing to know my identity. If I say something that someone in a position to do something to me doesnt like then that scorns me. Thats why I like anonymity. Now some people know who I am based on the comments I make and they know me personally but the vast majority do not and I likeit that way. I have callnames on many forums I post messages on. I never use the same name twice. Again thats for anonymity reasons.

Is this a bad thing or way to think?

[pixelwonk]

keeping non-CAP members from seeing certain boards like uniforms etc, is quite simple with a few clicks in the forum admin panel.

[Eclipse]

I'll give you my quick take on it. First I sure as hell wouldn't call it anything like an "invitation-only forum." That does sound exclusionary.

That's the whole point...

[Eclipse]

Nice FUD - there are too many free forum services to list.

No FUD, just fact - I've created forums.  Free software (php, UBB, etc.) is different than free hosting.  A person can get all the free software they want but it has to be hosted somewhere to be of value to anyone.  I know of no free hosting that accommodates message board software.  Then there is authentication software component - if access to that info was even allowed (which I'd doubt unless such a board was sponsored by corporate).  Before allowing someone to participate, are you going to make a call out to an active list of members in some NHQ database, do a compare, and return the results, all the while keeping the transmission encrypted and data secured?  Not overly complicated technically for someone that understands how to do this but it certainly doesn't just happen.   The bottom line: it's not free. 

Once thing's for sure, there would be no one named "A.Member" posting.

And I'm sure A.Member would have no interest posting in such a forum.    Seriously, I'd have no heartburn over that.  If you're the person paying the bill, definitely run the forum as you see fit.  However, based on the comments here so far, it sounds like you wouldn't get the results that you'd hope for.  Nonetheless, if you think it's a good idea, by all means, go for it and I'll wish you well.   

Of course, this "invitation" approach also begs the question, what would you do when someone you've granted access to quits or is removed from CAP?...how would you know (you're not going to do daily compares against the NHQ database)?  Would you care (if not, then why authenticate in the first place - which leads you right back to this forum)? 

As to the high ranking official's comment about Knowledge Base, I agree with tedda's post.  Knowledge Base is not a forum.

So...you've never heard of Yahoo, MSN, or Google groups? 

If I was interested in doing this, I would require a CAPID and real email. Period.

A quick search of eservices or the WMU would tell me whether a member is real or not.

Would I police the thing for old members? No.  Would people know they are subject to termination if it comes out they quit?  Yes.

Frankly, I don't care what a former member, disgruntled and pissed off, says or thinks about CAP.  And I don't understand why they think we SHOULD care. it’s a volunteer org, its not for everyone, and things didn't work out.  Got a legal beef? Sue!

Otherwise, get over it and move on.  Stop believing you're going to somehow "save the world from CAP".  You're not going to change a [darn] thing, and you're just making it harder for those of us trying to change things.

I would love to have a place I could go, discuss regs, rules and ideas about running the program, with people who actually DO IT, know the program, and don't have a shoulder chip or hidden agenda about the fact that we are "too military, not enough military, whatever".

And this NOTF crap.  This board went to hell as soon as CAP Portal died and the naysayers lost the "voice" they had there.

And it is a character flaw of my own that I get involved.

Look at this place - some of you guys are coming HERE to get info to argue with people on other forums.  MY GOD!  Open a window and go outside people.

And at the end of the day, its the same 20-30 people arguing about the same crap in all the different boards.

Its pathetic.

And the saddest part is that real discourse - questions about things that really matter, get lost in the background noise.

[A.Member]

You have the option in the admin menu to require admin approval of new accounts before the activation email goes out. You can easily put new instructions in the create acct screen to specify how you want user names done & what info (CAP ID) you need to make verification on eServices easy. You can do all that & still have the option of allowing anonymous screen names if you like, or not, whatever policy you want to enforce. It's all easily done. The forum software is free by the way & webspace can be if you want some hassles or you can use the back end of some paid space for free also, all non-issues.

True, assuming permission from NHQ was granted to do so (there is the FOUO issue) and the information was required for account activation, an administrator could take that info and manually go out to eServices and verify each one.  Has the potential of being rather tedious from an administration stand-point but certainly is a viable manual workaround.  The admin. could then set permissions accordingly.  

Still, I see no need or useful purpose in doing so.  

[A.Member]

So...you've never heard of Yahoo, MSN, or Google groups? 

Yes, I have.  Do you think their free accounts support bulletin board software?  They don't.

Look at this place - some of you guys are coming HERE to get info to argue with people on other forums.  MY GOD!  Open a window and go outside people.

And at the end of the day, its the same 20-30 people arguing about the same crap in all the different boards.

Its pathetic.

I trust that you're including yourself in this group as well, correct?  There's a term for what you described - it's called "feeding the troll".  Forums are what the participants choose to make them...just like CAP.

The discussion appears to be deteriorating and nothing new is being said - opinions differ.  So, I'll refrain from responding further.

[pixelwonk]

If I was interested in doing this, I would require a CAPID and real email. Period.

A quick search of eservices or the WMU would tell me whether a member is real or not.

Been there, Verified that, doesn't make a hill of beans difference in how members behave themselves.

I would love to have a place I could go, discuss regs, rules and ideas about running the program, with people who actually DO IT, know the program, and don't have a shoulder chip or hidden agenda about the fact that we are "too military, not enough military, whatever".

You may find the bathroom mirror works well for that.
Apart from that, accept the others for who they are or move on.

And this NOTF crap.  This board went to hell as soon as CAP Portal died and the naysayers lost the "voice" they had there.

NOTF crap and CAP portal?  how do they equate?  Perhaps if you actually read the site you would've noticed that I was one of the biggest public opponents of NOTF (and still am.)  True, some people are new to CAPTalk after being CAP Portal members and they have brought along somewhat "interesting" views.  You'll also find, however that most were dual members and our forums fed off of each other.  You might as well  blame CAPblog for attracting these "naysayers", too, since many came from there, and now are on this site.  So, I'd say this board thrives more than ever, as I have monitored both boards for several months before closing the hangar door on CAPortal's forum and have seen the forum stats.

And it is a character flaw of my own that I get involved.
  MY GOD!  Open a window and go outside people.

Please read that ten times and then take your own advice.

And at the end of the day, its the same 20-30 people arguing about the same crap in all the different boards.

Yup, but you could change that to 19-29 people if you wanted to.

[Eclipse]

So...you've never heard of Yahoo, MSN, or Google groups? 

Yes, I have.  Do you think their free accounts support bulletin board software?  They don't.

Yes, they do - Yahoo Groups, MSN Groups & Google Groups are all 100 % free,  (ad-supported) community sites with as many, if not more, features as any PHP forums.

[Johnny Yuma]

Keep things the way they are.

Let's look at the description of the forum from the CapTalk main page:

"Feel free to talk about anything and everything in this board. Get to know one another, chat with other CAPers, and field topics not covered elsewhere."

It's obvious that the support for cranking up the membership requirements are from those who are objecting to the content of the forum and less on those anonymous posters.

The content is on-topic, it's CAP-related and moderated. Misconduct is handled already by the moderators and I've seen very few personal attacks against forum members. Not one single person is required to view, post or reply to content ones considers bad, wrong, stupid, evil, lies, etc. so I'm not sure why there are those on here who feel they need the mods to make the boards exclusive. Yeah, there are a couple trolls but if you can't ignore them or feel compelled to "engage" them who's the bigger idiot, you or them?

Someone always brings this up whenever someone objects to a board topic, usually if it involves NOTF specifically. Bad news is bad news and no amount of board restricitons is going to change that, nor will it stop discussion of same.


Johnny Y.

[Pumbaa]

Been there done that.. not only in my professional life but also on my squadron website...  A couple people come along and that is about it.

Generally closed forums do not work...  You can never build the traffic to make it worthwhile.

The only other option is to have an "open" forum, then have a ..paid or non paid... closed side.  BUt again those are tough to build...

The dynamic of the internet is the open wild west atmosphere, people like to come along and have it easy to join the 'community'.. slap on restrictions and even the ones who would generally be interested will bug out.

I was on a photographer forum.  Since the free side was becoming cluttered with Moms with cameras a new invite only pro side was created.. funny thing.. most of the pros still posted 95+% on the open side.

[BillB]

There were several former CAP members on Civil Air Portal that never were negative about CAP. They had been in responsible positions, often at Wing or Region level and were just burned out and dropped membership. But they still have the interests of CAP at heart and most plan on coming back to the program. But if you start a forum that requires that ID numbers be checked through eServices, you'll be losing a wealth of experience information.
You'll find that disgruntled CAP members at any level with current ID number, will present the negative views and misinformation you're trying to avoid. Society has people with all kinds of viewpoints, some you'll agree with, others you won't but hearing all viewpoints often provides an idea that can be modified to work in your unit.
So leave the forum's open to anyone, and if necessary an Administrator can bar someone that goes overboard and starts personal attacks etc.

[DNall]

You have the option in the admin menu to require admin approval of new accounts before the activation email goes out. You can easily put new instructions in the create acct screen to specify how you want user names done & what info (CAP ID) you need to make verification on eServices easy. You can do all that & still have the option of allowing anonymous screen names if you like, or not, whatever policy you want to enforce. It's all easily done. The forum software is free by the way & webspace can be if you want some hassles or you can use the back end of some paid space for free also, all non-issues.

True, assuming permission from NHQ was granted to do so (there is the FOUO issue) and the information was required for account activation, an administrator could take that info and manually go out to eServices and verify each one.  Has the potential of being rather tedious from an administration stand-point but certainly is a viable manual workaround.  The admin. could then set permissions accordingly.  

That's what I meant. It'd be stupid to design something automated. It would get tedious if you were doing a lot, but it might end up at a few hundred after a couple years. It's not that big a deal.

Made my case for both sides in my original post. You can't cut the negative aspect out of the conversation. I don't care about that, it's part of life. What I care about is what topics/conversations are in the open & which ones are behind closed doors. It's not about stifeling opinions at all, just controlling public image while allowing those wide open conversations.

There's no reason other people (select former members) wouldn't ba able to participate, that's just the call of the admin & you'd have to sell him on it.

[BlackKnight]

...

[Lancer]

Made my case for both sides in my original post. You can't cut the negative aspect out of the conversation. I don't care about that, it's part of life. What I care about is what topics/conversations are in the open & which ones are behind closed doors. It's not about stifeling opinions at all, just controlling public image while allowing those wide open conversations.

I think you and I are the only ones who see it this way. A lot can be said for this manner of running a forum and keeping the general public from forming an incorrect opinion of what we do, simply based off some casual e-banter. I'd keep some publicly accessible forums for newbie/public questions and then anything else, is behind closed doors.

Creating an all together NEW forum would be pointless really. When the portal was around, I posted there because that was where most of the activity was, and now since it's gone, we're all on here and it's good. Even though we do have the occasional cadet post here, it's good that they have the 'stuff' to post on. I know there's plenty of AO's that post there as well, but mostly in a question answering capacity from what I've seen. The other CAP related forums out there are a joke really, esp. the one on Military.com, as it seems the only people out there posting are, in my mind, baiting 'real' members into posting and/or correcting ignorant comments and questions.