Is it appropriate for CAP members to be publicly critical of CAP leaders, military leaders and elected officials?
I know that membership in an organization does not take away individual rights. To ask another way, is it appropriate in this forum to speak ill of an USAF general or the President?
QuoteIs it appropriate for CAP members to be publicly critical of CAP leaders, military leaders and elected officials?
No. I think it is in a regulation somewhere.
QuoteTo ask another way, is it appropriate in this forum to speak ill of an USAF general or the President?
You could never prove Bag o doughnuts posted something without a physical witness.
For what it is worth... I think that it is disrespectful to do so on a "discussion board for the Civil Air Patrol community" but then again I am a bit old fashioned on such matters.
Quote from: 754837 on June 03, 2012, 12:57:39 AM
Is it appropriate for CAP members to be publicly critical of CAP leaders, military leaders and elected officials?
I know that membership in an organization does not take away individual rights. To ask another way, is it appropriate in this forum to speak ill of an USAF general or the President?
Permissible? Probably. Smart? Not really. It has been determined that membership in CAP is a privilege, not a right. Open criticism of elected leaders and CAP leaders could be determined to be prejudicial to good order& discipline.
I think it is acceptable to do so as long as you are not libelous - you would be subject to the same regulations as any other author. If you say something about someone that is libel and they call you on it that is on you..
Basically, my recommendation would be temper your words carefully before you post anything that is critical of your leadership.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on June 03, 2012, 01:06:36 AM
You could never prove Bag o doughnuts posted something without a physical witness.
Uhmm.. Yes you can, it's really easy... IP Address logs hold up as evidence in criminal cases all the time..
Quote from: krnlpanick on June 03, 2012, 01:11:06 AM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on June 03, 2012, 01:06:36 AM
You could never prove Bag o doughnuts posted something without a physical witness.
Uhmm.. Yes you can, it's really easy... IP Address logs hold up as evidence in criminal cases all the time..
http://torrentfreak.com/judge-an-ip-address-doesnt-identify-a-person-120503/ (http://torrentfreak.com/judge-an-ip-address-doesnt-identify-a-person-120503/)
There has been a few cases like this.
Yes there are many cases like that - but there are also many cases where ip logging holds up as evidence in court. It also depends on the type of case. Cyber-Piracy != Civil Libel.. Just sayin. :)
Quote from: krnlpanick on June 03, 2012, 01:15:15 AM
Yes there are many cases like that - but there are also many cases where ip logging holds up as evidence in court. It also depends on the type of case. Cyber-Piracy != Civil Libel.. Just sayin. :)
Please cite a case were they use Judge Brown's ruling and lose.
Let's move to PMs so we don't disturb this thread anymore.
No. Just like how you wouldn't be openly critical of a boss, the same basic reasons (except for firing of course) apply. Just like leaders shouldn't openly be critical of their men and women to the media. Keeping things internal makes things so much easier. The only real reason to be critical of a leader openly is to try to put pressure on them or get them removed from their position, or atleast from my experience.
Quote from: 754837 on June 03, 2012, 01:07:22 AM
For what it is worth... I think that it is disrespectful to do so on a "discussion board for the Civil Air Patrol community" but then again I am a bit old fashioned on such matters.
There is nothing old fashioned about showing courtesy and respect towards members of the organization.
Just because it's blatantly missing on this forum doesn't mean it's totally disappeared. At least I hope it hasn't.
IP addresses can have been used and upheld as evidence in criminal cases. The link used was for civil court as that is where a vast majority of you download cases end up.
And as far as proving stuff, a user id signature block etc are enough to "prove" that someone did post an item. Case in point a Marine was discharged for comments he said about the President on his Facebook page.
It can be considered highly unprofessional to slam or speak ill of leadership in a public forum. I did it many years ago and I got my rear end dragged into my commander's office to find out what was going on. There is a time and place to be critical of leadership and any decisions that the make, but a public forum is not the place to do it.
We have had members in hot water for some things that they have posted here and I can think of one case in particular and only suspect on another. Bottom line as many have said if you can't or won't say it to the person if they were in front of you don't post it.
Our Commander in Chief, regardless of our individual political opinions, should not be criticized in this forum.
CAP Talk has a code of conduct of which the mods enforce very well. "Criticizing" anyone is considered, IMO, a violation of the code however, there is nothing wrong with giving criticism on actions or policies of Civil Air Patrol or its leadership. It's what makes this forum tick. As far as our president is concerned; his actions and policies are open to critical commentary too. There is no regulation prohibiting open and honest discusion or, our feelings about the happenings of our organization or country... As long as we keep it civil.
Quote from: FW on June 03, 2012, 03:09:12 AM
CAP Talk has a code of conduct of which the mods enforce very well. "Criticizing" anyone is considered, IMO, a violation of the code however, there is nothing wrong with giving criticism on actions or policies of Civil Air Patrol or its leadership. It's what makes this forum tick. As far as our president is concerned; his actions and policies are open to critical commentary too. There is no regulation prohibiting open and honest discusion or, our feelings about the happenings of our organization or country... As long as we keep it civil.
Unless you are in the Armed Forces.
Quote from: 754837 on June 03, 2012, 12:57:39 AM
Is it appropriate for CAP members to be publicly critical of CAP leaders, military leaders and elected officials?
I know that membership in an organization does not take away individual rights. To ask another way, is it appropriate in this forum to speak ill of an USAF general or the President?
Not appropriate, unless you have a really really good way of it being "on topic". This site is unique in that we do not have a "chit chat" section. Anything that wouldn't be considered as a meeting topic at your average squadron probably doesn't belong here. And politics are a big no-no unless it directly involves CAP.
But regardless of "proving" who made a post, members have been punished in one way or another for things they've said on forums. I even know of a cadet officer that from being weeks away from being cadet commander to getting a forced transfer to another unit.
Quote from: 754837 on June 03, 2012, 02:49:37 AM
Our Commander in Chief, regardless of our individual political opinions, should not be criticized in this forum.
Last I checked, we do not have a chain of command that is topped by the president. It stops with the national commander. That said, it is in poor taste to do so on s forum such as this. My opinions are just that: mine. I will not normally make such comments. I may and will discuss specific actions that have direct impact such as: congress moves cap to homeland security. I will not say that Gen so-and-so is a moron for suggesting we get moved to hs. But always in a professional tone giving them the honor and respect they have earned.
As these forums are anonymous for the most part, there there are ones who publicly places their name in their signature, it is hard to know if one is a former member, current member, or not event a member of all to be critical of CAP leadership.
Someone could make an account and say they don't like XYZ leadership and cite point by point why they don't like him, and be a former member or not even a CAP member at all (another person from another agency who has worked with XYZ leadership).
Yes this is a public forum, but this isn't an official CAP operated website, while the tag is "a discussion for the Civil Air Patrol community" there's no requirement on CAPTalk that a member of CAPtalk actually be a member of Civil Air Patrol nor are there ways to verify if a person is or not part of CAP.
Any case, for me, it depends on who's doing the writing and what's being written.
Actually, membership verification is easier than you think. ;)
Quote from: RogueLeader on June 03, 2012, 04:03:37 AM
Last I checked, we do not have a chain of command that is topped by the president. It stops with the national commander. That said, it is in poor taste to do so on s forum such as this. My opinions are just that: mine. I will not normally make such comments. I may and will discuss specific actions that have direct impact such as: congress moves cap to homeland security. I will not say that Gen so-and-so is a moron for suggesting we get moved to hs. But always in a professional tone giving them the honor and respect they have earned.
Nonetheless, as the Auxiliary of the Air Force, we should not be publicly critical of the Commander-in-Chief...regardless one's personal feelings toward him/her. This country is polarised way too much as it is; one thing I like about CAP is that it is relatively apolitical when it comes to national politics (internal politics is another matter). There are times when, at a CAP function, if a discussion has gone political I either remove myself from it or, in a couple of cases when I have been senior in rank to the others, I have said to stop it until you're off CAP time (one of the rare occasions I have actually "pulled rank").
Whether or not Barack Obama wins another term, or Mitt Romney wins office, whoever wins is still the CinC.
Even though I have ambivalent feelings about some elements of our leadership, I recognise that is what they are - leaders set over me - and it is not my place to say "Gen so-and-so is a moron" (to borrow your phrase) on a public forum.
My dad always said "don't say something behind someone's back you wouldn't say to their face." I try to live by that.
However, if we
were ever moved away from the Air Force, I
would make a statement - my resignation.
Having been on this forum for years I can't think of any threads where any President was criticized, probably because there are very few situations where the President has anything to do with CAP. Since this forum is fairly restrictive on what subjects can be discussed, I don't see it as any sort of issue.
Now, we have talked about Congress in regards to various CAP-related bills and I recall a few hits on John McCain for statements he made about CAP many years ago.
IMHO, it is perfectly acceptable to criticize CAP and its national leaders as well as the AF and its leaders for policies and other decisions that they make so long as you're not just launching nasty personal attacks on them. I'm fine with someone saying that Gen. X made a stupid decision, but calling General X stupid is a different story.
Over the past seven years I could have made negative comments on the National Legal Officer, several Wings Commanders and a former disgraced National Commander. But if you look at my posts all have been positive. Well, Ok, some were humorous. I see no reason to bring dirty laundry to CAP Talk and vent or rant. CAP Talk serves a purpose of informing the members of CAP or those interested in the organization. A few people that post on CAP Talk have had negative actions taken against them, and none that I have seen have posted critical comments about the leadership involved. There was one person years ago that did but was barred and returned under another name and was barred again. That that was only one person with an axe to grind. If anyone has the "right" to make critical comments oabout the leadership of CAP it's me, but you will not ever see my posts with negative comments. MY venting on CAP Talk with negative comments about Bag of doughnuts only hurts the organization and accomplishs nothing constructive.
Many posts bring up problems internal to CAP. discussion of these may provide some answers that have some value. But in general little can be done to correct the problems by ranting about them on this forum. After 50 years in CAP, I value the organization to much to critize the leadership or the missions of the organization.
Critical of leaders? Yes we can be critial of leaders in and out of CAP.
Our Core Value of RESPECT alwasy rules though.
It is okay to say "I think (The Presidient/NHQ/Gen Carr/My wing Commander/my Flight Sgt) mad a bad decision....let's discuss it".
It is wrong to day "The POTUS/NHQ/Gen Carr/My wing Commander/My Flight Sgt) is a [censored].....let's call him names and belittle him/her/them."
Cyborg, my comment was that we do NOT have a commander in chief like the military. I agree with you that it is in poor taste to bash them. Even if it might be warranted.
My understanding is that in day-to-day business the CoC ends with the National Commander and when on AFAM the CoC then changes to SECAF then CinC.
Quote from: krnlpanick on June 03, 2012, 06:38:13 PM
My understanding is that in day-to-day business the CoC ends with the National Commander and when on AFAM the CoC then changes to SECAF then CinC.
Unless there is some provision in any cap regulation, that is the case, and I've never heard of it. I KNOW we would have talked about it, RM would have made a point of it I'm sure.
Quote from: RogueLeader on June 03, 2012, 06:56:23 PM
Quote from: krnlpanick on June 03, 2012, 06:38:13 PM
My understanding is that in day-to-day business the CoC ends with the National Commander and when on AFAM the CoC then changes to SECAF then CinC.
Unless there is some provision in any cap regulation, that is the case, and I've never heard of it. I KNOW we would have talked about it, RM would have made a point of it I'm sure.
No he's too busy worrying about all us wannabees joining CAP and using up his benefits.
Quote from: krnlpanick on June 03, 2012, 06:38:13 PM
My understanding is that in day-to-day business the CoC ends with the National Commander and when on AFAM the CoC then changes to SECAF then CinC.
Nope, CAP is always ONLY under the command of CAP. The AF can tell us to stand down from a mission and the State Director has some authority to stop certain activities but in no way are they in our chain of command even on an AF authorized (not commanded) mission. If we're on an AFAM and General Blowhard orders that we search grid 241B rather than 241A we can tell him no.
I stand corrected - thanks for clarifying :)
One would think that they would have the sense to not overstep their bounds. From what I've seen, they stay in their lanes.
Ok, I have read through this entire thread in one sit down, and by the fourth post I was surprised that RM hadn't came up, and about post ten, I thought... Cool, maybe it is being gotten over, but I can see now hat it is not. It's been a few days since I have noticed a post from him, maybe I have gotten good at blocking him out, but let's just drop it, and see how long he is gone for.
I take the stance on this topic as I was ordered to in the Army.
You can have your own opinions and views and beliefs, but keep them to yourself. We have no reason or gain from speaking about POTUS or any high ranking military official personally no matter in a good light or negative. Speak of the policies, discuss about how you view the policy and if you think it is a good one or not, and how it helps or hinders, but do not speak of the individual or individuals that made the policy. Nor should you us any sort of language that can be used to identify a person. The term stupid should not be used because a person can be called stupid, thus could be construed as you stating that you think the policy maker is stupid.
There is no reason that I can see that we should be talking about the individual policy maker, because even if we are speaking of them in a good light, it could be construed as an endorsement by our organization.
Quote from: 754837 on June 03, 2012, 12:57:39 AM
Is it appropriate for CAP members to be publicly critical of CAP leaders, military leaders and elected officials?
I know that membership in an organization does not take away individual rights. To ask another way, is it appropriate in this forum to speak ill of an USAF general or the President?
Captalk is essentially private property, so the "owners" ( which may be too nebulous a word) get to decide where the boundaries lie. I think that if you choose to keep to the facts, that they would not object to criticism of anyone, insofar, at least, as it relates to CAP. I think its important to distinguish between critical observation, and baseless criticism when you offer critical comments about anyone inside our chain of command (or higher) . An example might be that calling the POTUS a "Kenyan" is unsupportable by the facts on record, but calling him a "Keynesian" is clearly supported by a basis in fact. The truth of the latter proposition is so self-evident that many might not even consider it "criticism", and many proudly wear the description without shame.
Major Lord
Owner. http://whois.domaintools.com/captalk.net (http://whois.domaintools.com/captalk.net)
Only one person is on the WHOIS data.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on June 03, 2012, 09:35:44 PM
Owner. http://whois.domaintools.com/captalk.net (http://whois.domaintools.com/captalk.net)
Only one person is on the WHOIS data.
I think we can include at least Messrs. Kieloch and Horn into the 'owner' group. They run the site. There are also moderators who participate in control functions.
Domain contact information means zero in terms of ownership.
Bottom line, some people view "Free Speech" in the same way they view "All You Can Eat" - as a challenge.
If you act that way, there may well be consequences.
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 03, 2012, 03:20:06 AM
Quote from: FW on June 03, 2012, 03:09:12 AM
CAP Talk has a code of conduct of which the mods enforce very well. "Criticizing" anyone is considered, IMO, a violation of the code however, there is nothing wrong with giving criticism on actions or policies of Civil Air Patrol or its leadership. It's what makes this forum tick. As far as our president is concerned; his actions and policies are open to critical commentary too. There is no regulation prohibiting open and honest discusion or, our feelings about the happenings of our organization or country... As long as we keep it civil.
Unless you are in the Armed Forces.
Members of the Military just as in this forum are more than welcome to disagree with the Commander in Chief on policy as does any citizen on this forum. The Marine that was recently discharged went further than just stating he disagreed with policies. He made libelous comments and even stated he would not obey the orders of the Commander in Chief which is in direct contradiction to the Oath of Enlistment to which he was sworn to. So the Question is did he lie about not being willing to obey lawfully issued orders or did he lie when he took his oath of enlistment? Very different.
As an aside, he said he would disobey UNLAWFUL orders, and never said, posted,commented, etc that he would disobey any lawful order.
Quote from: RogueLeader on June 04, 2012, 12:18:18 AM
As an aside, he said he would disobey UNLAWFUL orders, and never said, posted,commented, etc that he would disobey any lawful order.
It is the duty of all soldiers to not obey an unlawful order. He was under the impression that the Commander in Chief was unqualified for the job making all orders issued therefor unlawful. He's not the first to try that argument, he's also not the first to lose at that argument.
Quote from: SARDOC on June 04, 2012, 12:25:40 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on June 04, 2012, 12:18:18 AM
As an aside, he said he would disobey UNLAWFUL orders, and never said, posted,commented, etc that he would disobey any lawful order.
It is the duty of all soldiers to not obey an unlawful order. He was under the impression that the Commander in Chief was unqualified for the job making all orders issued therefor unlawful. He's not the first to try that argument, he's also not the first to lose at that argument.
But yet a senior officer can make contemptuous remarks about former President Bush and get off scott free.
I'm not aware of the above incident, but if the President is out of office, then he is not the Commander in Chief.
Quote from: SARDOC on June 04, 2012, 12:06:00 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 03, 2012, 03:20:06 AM
Quote from: FW on June 03, 2012, 03:09:12 AM
CAP Talk has a code of conduct of which the mods enforce very well. "Criticizing" anyone is considered, IMO, a violation of the code however, there is nothing wrong with giving criticism on actions or policies of Civil Air Patrol or its leadership. It's what makes this forum tick. As far as our president is concerned; his actions and policies are open to critical commentary too. There is no regulation prohibiting open and honest discusion or, our feelings about the happenings of our organization or country... As long as we keep it civil.
Unless you are in the Armed Forces.
Members of the Military just as in this forum are more than welcome to disagree with the Commander in Chief on policy as does any citizen on this forum. The Marine that was recently discharged went further than just stating he disagreed with policies. He made libelous comments and even stated he would not obey the orders of the Commander in Chief which is in direct contradiction to the Oath of Enlistment to which he was sworn to. So the Question is did he lie about not being willing to obey lawfully issued orders or did he lie when he took his oath of enlistment? Very different.
This Marine Sgt. never received a Court Martial, he was just ejected with an "other than honorable" discharge. When you state that he committed libel, you are libeling him! (That's the thing about irony....) As you know, truth is a valid defense to the charge of libel or slander, and in some 40 some odd suits brought thus far, only one court has found a single party to have standing to question whether the President is a "Natural Born Citizen" as defined in Section one of Article 2 . At some point, this will be heard by the Supreme Court. Even absent a Commander in Chief, I think the idea that the entire chain of command below the Presidency is moot because the POTUS is illegally holding the office won't stand. The Officers appointed by Congress above the Sgt do not rely on the President to have lawful authority. In all fairness, they warned him, so he should have known the likely consequences of his actions.
Major Lord
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 04, 2012, 12:34:58 AM
Quote from: SARDOC on June 04, 2012, 12:25:40 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on June 04, 2012, 12:18:18 AM
As an aside, he said he would disobey UNLAWFUL orders, and never said, posted,commented, etc that he would disobey any lawful order.
It is the duty of all soldiers to not obey an unlawful order. He was under the impression that the Commander in Chief was unqualified for the job making all orders issued therefor unlawful. He's not the first to try that argument, he's also not the first to lose at that argument.
But yet a senior officer can make contemptuous remarks about former President Bush and get off scott free.
How do you make a Contemptuous remark about a former President? If he was still the current President at the time then the same rule should apply. If they failed to enforce it that would be on the administration. I'm not condoning what either military member did or whether their differential treatment was fair.
It's about disagreeing with policy...not making libelous accusations which I feel is wrong for any member of the Military, the Auxiliary of the Civil Air Patrol or really any citizen. I disagree with anyone making wrong allegations against anybody, when the discussion turns unprofessional you lose me.
The incident occurred while Bush was in office and was basically swept under the rug. Now I am not saying that the former marine was in the right or his actions are/were acceptable but this shows a gross inequality in the system.
Officers ARE held to a higher standard than enlisted folks when in come to dissing officials. You can find this in Article 88 of the UCMJ.
Major Lord
Quote from: Major Lord on June 04, 2012, 01:00:06 AM
This Marine Sgt. never received a Court Martial, he was just ejected with an "other than honorable" discharge. When you state that he committed libel, you are libeling him!
While he was not subject to a Courts Martial, his case was reviewed during a hearing by a Marine Corps discharge review board and they determined he violated rules limiting political conduct by service members and they called his conduct as a "Serious Offense" and issued him an "Other than Honorable Discharge" I'm sure the Marine could have exercised his appeal rights through the Courts Martial Process but declined to do so because that could have led to an equivalency to a Felony Conviction...which for someone getting discharged would just be insult to injury which I'm sure his legal representation advised him against. (Hypothesis on my part).
I personally feel the Discharge Category was more severe than it should have been. It was the DRB that called his comments Libelous and being the officiating body in this matter, I'm inclined to agree with them.
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 04, 2012, 01:13:09 AM
The incident occurred while Bush was in office and was basically swept under the rug. Now I am not saying that the former marine was in the right or his actions are/were acceptable but this shows a gross inequality in the system.
Like Major Lord says...Officers are held to a higher standard which if making these remarks while an active service member against a current Commander in Chief it should have been dealt with. Officers and Enlisted members again are welcome to disagree with policy, but must obey their oath and the rules that limit their conduct.
Quote from: SARDOC on June 04, 2012, 01:24:48 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 04, 2012, 01:13:09 AM
The incident occurred while Bush was in office and was basically swept under the rug. Now I am not saying that the former marine was in the right or his actions are/were acceptable but this shows a gross inequality in the system.
Like Major Lord says...Officers are held to a higher standard which if making these remarks while an active service member against a current Commander in Chief it should have been dealt with. Officers and Enlisted members again are welcome to disagree with policy, but must obey their oath and the rules that limit their conduct.
Disagree yes but can not say so publicly and while people should be held to a higher standard usually it's not the case. Case in point Gen McChrystal.
Quote from: Major Lord on June 04, 2012, 01:00:06 AMEven absent a Commander in Chief, I think the idea that the entire chain of command below the Presidency is moot because the POTUS is illegally holding the office won't stand. The Officers appointed by Congress above the Sgt do not rely on the President to have lawful authority. In all fairness, they warned him, so he should have known the likely consequences of his actions.
Major Lord
Speaking of officers in the chain below the CinC...at the time in question, SecDef was a holdover. He was appointed by President Bush, not by President Obama. That remained in place until Sec. Pineta replaced Sec. Gates at the Pentagon.
That said, Congress does not, ever, "appoint" officers. The power of appointment rests solely with the President. The Senate must advise and consent to certain positions (I think O-9+ IIRC), but they do not appoint the officer, the President does.
Quote from: JeffDG on June 04, 2012, 01:34:43 AM
That said, Congress does not, ever, "appoint" officers. The power of appointment rests solely with the President. The Senate must advise and consent to certain positions (I think O-9+ IIRC), but they do not appoint the officer, the President does.
The House authorizes the Number of Positions by funding them. Officers are selected by the President and the Commissions are confirmed by the Senate. All Officers serve at the Pleasure of the President. The appointment of Senior officers to Certain positions like the Chief of Staff, Chairman, and Major Commands are reviewed by the Senate Armed Services Committee than confirmed by the Senate. I believe it's not the paygrade but the nature of the position itself.
Why, is someone crticizing the president?
CAP members are not prohibited from speaking their mind, but doing so while representing yourself as a member of CAP would be inappropriate. You're still a private citizen with the right of free speech. You didn't sign that away by joining CAP unless someone can show me a regulation to the contrary.
As far as criticizing leaders? Well I've been told that every member is a leader, so I think there are at least three or four comments in this thread alone that would cross that line...
Quote from: bflynn on June 04, 2012, 01:26:05 PM
Why, is someone crticizing the president?
CAP members are not prohibited from speaking their mind, but doing so while representing yourself as a member of CAP would be inappropriate. You're still a private citizen with the right of free speech. You didn't sign that away by joining CAP unless someone can show me a regulation to the contrary.
As far as criticizing leaders? Well I've been told that every member is a leader, so I think there are at least three or four comments in this thread alone that would cross that line...
Can you ever just contribute to a thread without trying to be devil's advocate, overly critical, or trying to find something more there?
If you want to crtiicize me, please PM me - it's really bad form to drag the thread down.
Otherwise, I guess it was too subtle that the last line of my post was meant as a dry humor joke...
Quote from: bflynn on June 04, 2012, 02:59:55 PM
If you want to crtiicize me, please PM me - it's really bad form to drag the thread down.
Otherwise, I guess it was too subtle that the last line of my post was meant as a dry humor joke...
Wasn't criticizing at all.
The op did indicate the higher echelons.
Quote from: bflynn on June 04, 2012, 01:26:05 PM
As far as criticizing leaders? Well I've been told that every member is a leader, so I think there are at least three or four comments in this thread alone that would cross that line...
The concept of "the loyal opposition" is a necessary part of the followership/leadership dynamic. Pointing out "issues" with policy from above and how it effects the CAP populace is key to adjusting these policies. Taking "pot shots" at CAP leadership with ad homoniem attacks or attacks that also destroy/tarnish character is a violation of the CAP CORE VALUES of RESPECT, INTEGRITY and, to some degree EXCELLENCE.
DEATH TO DRAMA!
I can't think that is a problem either.
I'm not sure this entire thread represents a problem, unless people want to use it as justification to silence the opposition.