...apparently.
CAPR 900-2, June 2012: http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R900_002_8A8354F4FD7C3.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R900_002_8A8354F4FD7C3.pdf)
CAPP 52-25, June 2014: http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Cadet_Encampment_Handbook_2014_Redu_A9889EFC2C232.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Cadet_Encampment_Handbook_2014_Redu_A9889EFC2C232.pdf)
This...
(http://www.anonimg.com/img/41b24c906cfb50a3195705cbca6b641c.png)
The current pubs bulletin on the e-services home page still has CAPR 900-2.
So, you have a cite for this?
Are you even reading these threads? Your last three or four responses would seem to indicate otherwise.
900-2 was pub'ed in 2012, specifically disallowing the use of the Happ Arnold wings surrounding CAP organizational
symbols.
The encampment guide was published in 2014 yet no one seemed to even notice that pixelated, reg-breaking
abomination on the top of the "Honor Agreement".
Further, that purple-pixelated abomination continues to appears in various forms, along with other versions of
H-A wrapped organizational insignia, in direct violation of 900-2, not to mention good taste and sense, in publications,
slide decks, and even coins, all produced by NHQ.
So there are only two possible options - 900-2 was double-secret rescinded, or people producing and editing
documents and media for NHQ can't be bothered to comply with these regulations.
So...no they have not been rescinded.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 03, 2015, 02:45:01 AM
So...no they have not been rescinded.
If a reg is ignored, does anyone care?
(A play on trees and forests).
Yes Bob, I do read these threads but I was responding to your latest post stating that the 900-2 had been recinded.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 03, 2015, 03:31:40 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 03, 2015, 02:45:01 AM
So...no they have not been rescinded.
If a reg is ignored, does anyone care?
(A play on trees and forests).
In this case....I don't care.
Feel free to notify NHQ of the offending pages and submit a change request.
I always feel like you two would be awesome on a debate panel. I can almost picture something like the old Weekend Update segment with Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtin...only I'm not sure who is who. "Jane, you ignorant ****! Your grasp of CAP regs is laughable, exceeded only by your willful negligence in blah blah blah etc etc..."
I say this with love, guys. I really like the give and take. >:D
Quote from: Eclipse on March 03, 2015, 02:33:52 AM
So there are only two possible options - 900-2 was double-secret rescinded, or people producing and editing
documents and media for NHQ can't be bothered to comply with these regulations.
Yawn.
Thanks for the catch, Bob. I've added it to our list of revisions for the next update. That one just got by us. (And everyone else when it was circulated for comment.) Totally our bad.
By the way was CAPR 1-1 (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/R001_001_AACFE68A86CC5.pdf)rescinded? Not to mention CAPP 50-2 (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/P050_002_C64238751B2E9.pdf)?
You know, the reg and pamphlet that talk about the CAP Core Value of Respect.
Quote from: CAPP 50-2Therefore it is important that members treat each other with fairness and dignity and work together as a team."
I suppose reasonable minds may differ, but snide comments on the internet implying that members deliberately violate regulations (as opposed to making a simple editing error) does not seem to comport with our Core Value of Respect.
Next time we make an error just let us know and we will gladly fix it. As a senior CAP officer bound by our Core Values, please reflect that public sarcasm and ridicule directed at fellow members and corporate employees may feel good, but is less effective at producing the changes you would like to see.
Quote from: Ned on March 03, 2015, 05:10:45 PM
I suppose reasonable minds may differ, but snide comments on the internet implying that members deliberately violate regulations (as opposed to making a simple editing error) does not seem to comport with our Core Value of Respect.
I guess the same goes for the new signature requirements. I've yet to get one from any level in CAP that actually is accurate, as published (without any standards).
Quote from: Ned on March 03, 2015, 05:10:45 PM
I've added it to our list of revisions for the next update. That one just got by us. (And everyone else when it was circulated for comment.) Totally our bad.
People mentioned the ash tray, and most seemed to favor removal/replacement. Difference of opinion? Maybe.
But if we're talking drugs, why tobacco and not something legitimately illegal?
The history section STILL purports the sinking of 2 subs, even though the National Historian has been unable to find any evidence.
Also mentions 20 coastal bases, but mentions (and shows) 21?
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/10633999_10102353921993278_7540197521803564697_o.jpg)
Since there appears to be a commendable willingness to suggest changes and corrections to existing CAP publications here, let me quote one more reg:
Quote from: CAPR 5-4 (Publications and Forms Management), para 3(f)Suggestions for changes to existing regulations or for implementation of new regulations from the field shall be submitted to the CAP/XO through the chain of command. The CAP/XO will forward these suggestions to the NHQ/CO for routing to the OPR for consideration. If the OPR rejects the recommendation, he/she will coordinate the decision with the NHQ/CO before forwarding to the CAP/XO for presentation to the CAP/CC for concurrence and notification of rejection to the submitting party. If a recommendation is accepted the OPR will ensure it is incorporated into the next revision/change to the regulation. The CAP/CC or his/her designate in conjunction with the NHQ/CO shall determine the date when the regulation will be revised or changed to reflect the policy change. An interim change letter may be issued in the intervening time between policy adoption and incorporation into the applicable directive publication.
While there is no specific guidance on how to suggest improvements to pamphlets and other publications, it might make sense to follow the same general guidance. I'm glad to help where and when I can, but it is unrealistic to expect NHQ staff to follow unofficial internet fora to search for suggested changes.
Quote from: Ned on March 03, 2015, 06:07:52 PM
Since there appears to be a commendable willingness to suggest changes and corrections to existing CAP publications here, let me quote one more reg:
Quote from: CAPR 5-4 (Publications and Forms Management), para 3(f)Suggestions for changes to existing regulations or for implementation of new regulations from the field shall be submitted to the CAP/XO through the chain of command. The CAP/XO will forward these suggestions to the NHQ/CO for routing to the OPR for consideration. If the OPR rejects the recommendation, he/she will coordinate the decision with the NHQ/CO before forwarding to the CAP/XO for presentation to the CAP/CC for concurrence and notification of rejection to the submitting party. If a recommendation is accepted the OPR will ensure it is incorporated into the next revision/change to the regulation. The CAP/CC or his/her designate in conjunction with the NHQ/CO shall determine the date when the regulation will be revised or changed to reflect the policy change. An interim change letter may be issued in the intervening time between policy adoption and incorporation into the applicable directive publication.
While there is no specific guidance on how to suggest improvements to pamphlets and other publications, it might make sense to follow the same general guidance. I'm glad to help where and when I can, but it is unrealistic to expect NHQ staff to follow unofficial internet fora to search for suggested changes.
Correcting typos, mistakes, and wrong usage doesn't seem to fall under these guidelines. Fixing mistakes is neither a change, nor new regulation. But even if that's the process to be followed, having minutiae travel through the whole CoC is neither logical, nor practical. When members can't get PD awards to ever make it down from Wing, or get Wing level approvals back in a timely matter, who can expect any recommendation to make it through all the levels to NHQ for consideration, merit or not?
I am working on 1-sheet drill test critiques, and while transcribing the info, ran into a few incorrect explanations, as well as some header issues. Minor stuff. Most people wouldn't even catch it. But if I have to submit this to my Unit CC to the Group CP guy, to Group CC, to wing CC, to region CC, to NHQ...why bother? That's about 5 people who don't care/don't need the distraction, and chances are, will never clear higher than wing.
So, if you don't want to use the chain of command for its intended purpose, feel free to drop NHQ a note with typos, minor corrections, etc. Send it to the attention of the OPR. (I suggest you let your CAP boss know that you are going direct to NHQ to avoid any surprises when we send a thank you note for pointing out the errors.)
But I reiterate that just putting typos and suggested corrections onto an internet forum and thinking that it somehow gets magically communicated to the right people is probably wishful thinking and is less likely to get the errors corrected.
The address for CP folks at NHQ is:
105 South Hansell Street
Bldg. 714
Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6332
Quote from: Ned on March 03, 2015, 06:37:20 PM
So, if you don't want to use the chain of command for its intended purpose, feel free to drop NHQ a note with typos, minor corrections, etc. Send it to the attention of the OPR. (I suggest you let your CAP boss know that you are going direct to NHQ to avoid any surprises when we send a thank you note for pointing out the errors.)
But I reiterate that just putting typos and suggested corrections onto an internet forum and thinking that it somehow gets magically communicated to the right people is probably wishful thinking and is less likely to get the errors corrected.
The address for CP folks at NHQ is:
105 South Hansell Street
Bldg. 714
Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6332
But which process? I'm compiling my findings, but it's on a back burner. I've got squadron matters, encampment matters, that take priority over a wrong column over line formation issue.
If I go by the 5-4 process, that seems unnecessary, and not as mentioned.
If there's an email that is used to collect such tips (not changes, or new policy), that's probably the best way to deal with it (and yes, the Squadron CC is always CC'd).
Ned,
the problem with the chain is many time things just vanish as there is no requirement for anyone to inform lower echelons of any action taken, unless, by some major miracle a suggest actually reaches the CAP/CC's desk, then the requirement is if he rejects it. Even when following up on things, all you get is "I sent it up" and no one will say where it went from being sent "up" to being sent "up in smoke". Sorry, if this contradicts the plan National may have, but the view from the trenches is very different than from on high. Heck, I sent up a proposal to fix this, but no one knows where it went!
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on March 03, 2015, 06:45:52 PM
I'm compiling my findings, but it's on a back burner. I've got squadron matters, encampment matters, that take priority over a wrong column over line formation issue.
I suspect is may be some sort of "generational thing" but it almost sounds like you are saying that not only is it too much trouble to use the Chain of Command, but it is also it is too much trouble to drop suspected typos and corrections into the mail.
Really?
There are indeed emails for NHQ staff and they have phones on their desks but I can't / won't put them here where they would be bot-harvested. But they are available on the NHQ website.
I have to tell you, though that they get a lot of phone calls and emails from members. A written note (whether through the CoC or VFR-direct) is going to be a heck of a lot more effective.
But you already knew that, right?
Quote from: Ned on March 03, 2015, 05:10:45 PM
By the way was CAPR 1-1 (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/R001_001_AACFE68A86CC5.pdf)rescinded? Not to mention CAPP 50-2 (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/P050_002_C64238751B2E9.pdf)?
You know, the reg and pamphlet that talk about the CAP Core Value of Respect.
Quote from: CAPP 50-2Therefore it is important that members treat each other with fairness and dignity and work together as a team."
The Core Values are not a menu. You don't get to wheel out "Respect" when "Excellence" is ignored. I'd also be very curious
how this:
Quote from: Ned on March 03, 2015, 05:10:45 PM
Yawn.
...equals "Respect".
Why is it never considered how incredibly disrespectful of the rank and file membership it is when staff at any level
willfully disregard simple regulations to their own ends and then pretend no one sees it or ignores?
Quote from: Ned on March 03, 2015, 05:10:45 PM
I suppose reasonable minds may differ, but snide comments on the internet implying that members deliberately violate regulations (as opposed to making a simple editing error) does not seem to comport with our Core Value of Respect.
This is not an "editing error", unless you are suggesting that the insignia created itself. This was someone on the staff drafting the
document who took the time to cobble it together, place it in the document, and then any number of other staffers who are responsible
for vetting the indices and insignia within documents either being unaware that it's an issue, or unwilling to change it.
There's simply no other option.
Quote from: Ned on March 03, 2015, 06:07:52 PMbut it is unrealistic to expect NHQ staff to follow unofficial internet fora to search for suggested changes.
And yet the reality is that there is no more direct and demonstrable instrument of change then the light of day.
This particular example was published nearly a year ago, and was mandated to be used at every encampment since June 2014.
Every cadet who attended an encampment last year signed the "Honor" Agreement, as did their CF and TO, and hopefully those signatures
were vetted by someone else on staff as well.
In any number of cases where there was an issue that violated that agreement, the very document used to remind a cadet of
their promises contained, at the
top of the page, a blatant violation of a CAP Reg, at least one AFI, and the intellectual property
rights of CAP's parent service.
CAP has no issue C&Ding people who they feel violate their own rights, but has no compunction to ignore the situation elsewhere when they do it.
When are the core issues going to be addressed instead of deflecting or impugning the character of the people who are knowledgeable
enough to actually care about and notice these problems?
Who cares? No one's going to even notice? What's the big deal?
Agreed, because clearly no one does and no one did, however that's the problem. If it was important enough to canonize in a regulation,
it's important enough to be held to the standard. And if the latter isn't true, even a little, then neither is the former, and the effort
used to create and maintain those regs is wasted and counterproductive, because as soon as anyone actually reads them, and compares them
to reality, the credibility meter starts falling. One little point at a time.
It's all small stuff, but it adds to the entropy and apathy that prevents CAP from fulfilling even a portion of its considerable potential.
Quote from: Ned on March 03, 2015, 07:05:57 PM
I suspect is may be some sort of "generational thing" but it almost sounds like you are saying that not only is it too much trouble to use the Chain of Command, but it is also it is too much trouble to drop suspected typos and corrections into the mail. Really?There are indeed emails for NHQ staff and they have phones on their desks but I can't / won't put them here where they would be bot-harvested. But they are available on the NHQ website.I have to tell you, though that they get a lot of phone calls and emails from members. A written note (whether through the CoC or VFR-direct) is going to be a heck of a lot more effective.But you already knew that, right?
Besides the fact that I said I'm compiling my remarks (as in, I'm not fully done with the process, so perhaps more are to be found), and stating that I do have my plate full with my ACTUAL duties, OUTSIDE of my side-projects that I feel are for the BETTERMENT of the experience cadets under my charge get compared to how I got my start in CAP, I'll leave you with this:
Quote from: Ned on March 03, 2015, 05:10:45 PMI suppose reasonable minds may differ, but snide comments on the internet implying that members deliberately violate regulations (as opposed to making a simple editing error) does not seem to comport with our Core Value of Respect.
Not aimed at anyone specific, here or CAP at large, but there seems to be an attitude of "core value of the moment". If I question someone on their integrity or excellence, all of a sudden someone shoots back with respect. They aren't mutually exclusive. Pointing out that a situation seems to lack integrity, or someone doesn't live up to excellence, CAN be done respectfully. Can't hide behind one value from another.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 03, 2015, 02:33:52 AM
So there are only two possible options - 900-2 was double-secret rescinded, or people producing and editing
documents and media for NHQ can't be bothered to comply with these regulations.
I haven't rescinded anything.
Quote from: DoubleSecret on March 03, 2015, 08:52:15 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 03, 2015, 02:33:52 AM
So there are only two possible options - 900-2 was double-secret rescinded, or people producing and editing
documents and media for NHQ can't be bothered to comply with these regulations.
I haven't rescinded anything.
Nice.
Bob,
You should really consider stepping back for a moment and taking a deep breath.
To go on an extensive rant about a minor editing error seems a wildly disproportionate response.
Look, I get the whole "for the want of a nail the kingdom was lost" argument, but to start talking about "credibility meters" and the rest of it just reflects more on you than the hard working corporate staff at NHQ.
Cuz this really is about the most minor issue I can imagine in CAP. A bit of a "yawn."
You found an error in an illustration in a 60-page pamphlet issued last year. You brought to my attention. I added it to the list of things to fix the next time around.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 03, 2015, 07:20:49 PM
Why is it never considered how incredibly disrespectful of the rank and file membership it is when staff at any level
willfully disregard simple regulations to their own ends and then pretend no one sees it or ignores?
If the membership feels disrespected every time a typo appears in a CAP publication, then of course we would have a problem. Thank Goodness the membership is not so unreasonable.
How you manage to leap from a minor editing error to "willful disregard of simple regulations to their own ends" will, I suspect, have to remain a mystery.
QuoteThis is not an "editing error", unless you are suggesting that the insignia created itself. This was someone on the staff drafting the
document who took the time to cobble it together, place it in the document, and then any number of other staffers who are responsible
for vetting the indices and insignia within documents either being unaware that it's an issue, or unwilling to change it.
There's simply no other option.
Really? No other option. How about this one: We used an existing file (that was both common and perfectly correct before the regulation changed in 2012) as one of the hundred or so illustrations in the pamphlet. It was not cobbled together for this particular publication. And "any number of other staffers" turns out to be the number "1," as in the other cadet program manager. And me, I guess. And, FWIW, we are not unwilling to change it. As I said in my first reply, we will change it if it conflicts with existing regulations.
QuoteCAP has no issue C&Ding people who they feel violate their own rights, but has no compunction to ignore the situation elsewhere when they do it.
Oddly, no one has contacted us about the issue. But if anyone does, we will do exactly what we ask anyone else to do: take a look, and if there is a problem, we will fix it. No fuss, no muss, no big deal.
Quote
Who cares? No one's going to even notice? What's the big deal?
Well, at least you and I care. That's two.
And, apparently out of the thousands of people who reviewed the document before publication, no one else noticed and let us know about it. If anyone did notice, clearly there were not as upset as you.
And I certainly agree that it is no big deal.
Quote
It's all small stuff, but it adds to the entropy and apathy that prevents CAP from fulfilling even a portion of its considerable potential.
Good leaders have to discern between important matters requiring urgent attention, and less important matters that can be fixed at a more leisurely pace.
Peace, my friend. Let's save the big arguments for policy issues.
Not typos.
Quote from: Ned on March 03, 2015, 09:27:04 PM
Really? No other option. How about this one: We used an existing file (that was both common and perfectly correct before the regulation changed in 2012)
Thank you for making my point about not knowing the regs. That insignia was not "common", nor was it >ever< correct by the
regs or the AFIs. In fact, that version of the "Civil Air Patrol Logo" didn't
exist until December 2012 when it was included in the revision of 900-2, the same publication that prohibits the use of the Happ Arnold wings, so whoever created it, did so >after<
the regulation was published that prohibited it.
Ned, this isn't an isolated issue, just one on the pile. That is the larger point.
Odd. I thought the larger issue was "typos happen, and do not mean the sky is falling. Correct them using existing procedures and do so respectfully."
It is interesting how two people can look at the same issue and see it differently.
YMMV.
Quote from: Ned on March 03, 2015, 09:54:30 PM
Odd. I thought the larger issue was "typos happen, and do not mean the sky is falling. Correct them using existing procedures and do so respectfully."
It is interesting how two people can look at the same issue and see it differently.
YMMV.
There's a difference between a typo and a design decision.
This is decidedly
not a typo, and neither is the broader issue.
So...summing up...
Discrepancy observed. Discrepancy mentioned. Discrepancy placed in hopper for correction.
Is there really anything else that needs to be added, or can the 26 (now 27) posts on this topic be placed in the "done" file?
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on March 03, 2015, 10:14:22 PM
This discrepancy observed. This discrepancy mentioned. This discrepancy placed in hopper for correction.
FTFY.
Acknowledgment that there is a larger, mostly ignored issue, and that logos don't spontaneously generate themselves due to keystroke errors might be nice, too.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on March 03, 2015, 10:14:22 PM
So...summing up...
Discrepancy observed. Discrepancy mentioned. Discrepancy placed in hopper for correction.
Is there really anything else that needs to be added, or can the 26 (now 27) posts on this topic be placed in the "done" file?
So...no. 8)
Quote from: Eclipse on March 03, 2015, 10:19:12 PM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on March 03, 2015, 10:14:22 PM
This discrepancy observed. This discrepancy mentioned. This discrepancy placed in hopper for correction.
FTFY.
Acknowledgment that there is a larger, mostly ignored issue, and that logos don't spontaneously generate themselves due to keystroke errors might be nice, too.
Nothing to fix.
Discrepancy. Singular.
I never said discrepancies, plural.
Your fix simply affirmed what I wrote. Therefore, I'll take it that you concur and will hope (against hope) that you will be moving on, resuming your endless quest to fill your life with CAPTALK.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on March 04, 2015, 03:29:21 AM
Discrepancy. Singular.
The point of this thread, and the broader conversation, is discrepancies plural.
Plenty to fix.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 04, 2015, 03:40:55 AM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on March 04, 2015, 03:29:21 AM
Discrepancy. Singular.
The point of this thread, and the broader conversation, is discrepancies plural.
Plenty to fix.
Just curious, what does it cost for a lifetime subscription to "Getting the Last Word" magazine?
Quote from: Ned on March 03, 2015, 09:54:30 PM
Odd. I thought the larger issue was "typos happen, and do not mean the sky is falling. Correct them using existing procedures and do so respectfully."
It is interesting how two people can look at the same issue and see it differently.
YMMV.
I agree with you sir. 8)
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on March 04, 2015, 04:38:57 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 04, 2015, 03:40:55 AM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on March 04, 2015, 03:29:21 AM
Discrepancy. Singular.
The point of this thread, and the broader conversation, is discrepancies plural.
Plenty to fix.
Just curious, what does it cost for a lifetime subscription to "Getting the Last Word" magazine?
Free subscription when you're the President-for-Life of the society.
There are many here that could fall in that category, on both sides of the fence. Why don't we just focus on the discussion and not on the people arguing opposing viewpoints?
Seven years later and we still can't play nice.
*lock*