A By Invitation FORUM? Good or Bad idea?

[Major Carrales]

Some "food for thought..."

Could you imagine a forum where there were no "phantom" threadsters.  Where everyone was who they said they were and CAP membership, unless otherwise waived by the moderator, was necessary to join.  A place where a man or woman had to stand by what they said as their word.

This is just for ponderance, not a criticism of this or any of the active CAP forums.

Lately there have been a few threadsters here that are not even CAP members causing a degree of disturbance.  Or, people using assumed names.

To mitigate this I would...

1) Create a "by invitation" forum where one had to apply for membership and have someone vouch for them.

2) As forum regulars grew in number it would be necessary for three current members to confirm the individual.

This would insure toadies and the like could not penetrate into the conversation to an unexceptable point and cause damage to the organization with unfounded and questionable rumors.  I have seen it done where a section of an otherwise open forum was done in a similar manner.

Is this a good idea or a bad one?

Again, this is only for disucssion's sake...

[mmouw]

I think it would be a healthy idea. CAP for CAPers.

[shorning]

Could you imagine a forum where there were no "phantom" threadsters.  Where everyone was who they said they were and CAP membership, unless otherwise waived by the moderator, was necessary to join.  A place where a man or woman had to stand by what they said as their word.

So start a forum.

[A.Member]

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.)? 

This forum is just fine.  Frankly, I don't see a significant difference between what you propose and what exists.  Do you want to foster discussion or do you want to foster control?  That's the tradeoff I see.  There is a limited audience for such discussions.  The mods here have done a good job so far as I can tell - they've stepped in when needed but otherwise are unobtrusive and allow ideas to be exchanged.

[Major Carrales]

Could you imagine a forum where there were no "phantom" threadsters.  Where everyone was who they said they were and CAP membership, unless otherwise waived by the moderator, was necessary to join.  A place where a man or woman had to stand by what they said as their word.

So start a forum.

I would hate to say this is a "test ballon" for such a thing, but this is merely presented for discussion...not policy.  In any case, I am soliciting opinions... not disciples.

[Major Carrales]

This forum is just fine.  Do you want to foster discussion or do you want to foster control?  That's the tradeoff I see. 

Agreed, and you bring up some interesting points.  I imagine it depends on one's intent for visiting such a forum.  Does one come here to learn?  Or to Manipulate?  ...Spread a gospel/agenda?  ...communicate with friends distant?

Again, excellent points.

[BlackKnight]

Ditto-  Try it and see how it works.

Personally, I prefer an open laisse-faire style forum.  "Phantom threadsters" occasionally come up with interesting proposals and observations, and I like to see those, especially when they're controversial.  It doesn't bother me to burn a few neurons separating out the quality posts from the background noise. 

'Course, I'm the guy who still won't use a spam filter because I might miss that special email about my great uncle once-removed winning the Nigerian lottery the same day he got hit by a bus...   

[Major Carrales]

Ditto-  Try it and see how it works.

Personally, I prefer an open laisse-faire style forum.  "Phantom threadsters" occasionally come up with interesting proposals and observations, and I like to see those, especially when they're controversial.  It doesn't bother me to burn a few neurons separating out the quality posts from the background noise. 

'Course, I'm the guy who still won't use a spam filter because I might miss that special email about my great uncle once-removed winning the Nigerian lottery the same day he got hit by a bus...   

See, that is a valid reason for the laisse-faire style. 


One quick un-pointed non-loaded question...

"Would you maintain the same point if such a threadster were funneling a libelous attack at you or your unit?"

If I were to counter your point I might say that unfounded rumors cause more harm than all the PA work in the nation put together does benefit to CAP.

Still, I can see it from your point.  Thanks...

[Lancer]

'By Invitation' sounds very exclusionary even to CAP members.

I've been a supporter of having a private forum for CAP members, but just that, private and open to all CAP membership. Administration of such a system would be a feat for sure. Feasibility for such a system could be setup through NHQ/eServices, but I'm sure there are those 'outspoken' members who would not participate for fear of the 'Black Van' showing up at their house.

No matter how you slice it, there is no pleasing everyone, and the admin would be a semi-headache. Right now, if we could get more moderator involvement on captalk.net I think that would be a start.

[CAP428]

Personally, I would not like a "by invitation" forum because of its predisposition toward exclusion.  And you would still face many of the same issues found on this site and any other like it currently, because if someone wants to be hateful toward someone, the "obstacles" put forth by a "by invitation" forum probably won't stop them.

I'm all for keeping it open to whoever may come.


And here's one more point:
If it's by invitation for CAP members only, what about the potential members that can currently stumble across the forum and be introduced to CAP, but who otherwise might not know about it?  Sure they can see some bickering with the current format of this forum and similar ones, but they still see that it is full of people who care about the organization.  Shutting out the general public would make us seem elitist.

[BlackKnight]

...

[BillB]

I don't think limiting it to CAP members would be productive. For example, I'm not currently a member of CAP but was a member for 50 years as cadet and senior. I think there are several posting on CAP Talk that aren't members, but their posts provide information or bring up questions of interest.
You may also have a problem of joining by invitation in that, how many people know a member in other Wings? You may just have opinions or ideas from specific Squadrons where members were invited to the forum from that Squadron. This could leave large areas of the country with no participation in the forum. Since problems in North Dakota are different that California, the same ideas would be rehashed.

[mikeylikey]

I would have to pass on this idea.  I like the openess of say an open forum!

[Major Carrales]

Thank you everyone for your contributions.  I have always been of the mind to post ideas and see if the merits of the various viewpoints can assist me in seeing an issue more clearly.

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.

Please, continue...

Major Carrales

[RiverAux]

I've been a supporter of having a private forum for CAP members, but just that, private and open to all CAP membership. Administration of such a system would be a feat for sure. Feasibility for such a system could be setup through NHQ/eServices, but I'm sure there are those 'outspoken' members who would not participate for fear of the 'Black Van' showing up at their house.

I understand that the CG Aux used to have an official forum.  It may have been CG Aux-members only, but it was before my time.  I've just heard about it.  Apparently used to have a lot of high-ranking folks participating. 

If you want to find out more about how it worked, go over to the CG Aux board at military.com and start a thread and in particular ask for comments from FL51D7. 

[fyrfitrmedic]

 I don't know if 'by invitation only' is necessary, but a forum without anonymous users and 'sock puppets' wouldn't be a bad idea, IMHO.

[shorning]

...it's called the CAP Knowledgebase.

How is a KB a forum?

[Major Carrales]

...it's called the CAP Knowledgebase.

How is a KB a forum?

I don't know...that was the answer I got.  Likely he was coming from the idea that it is free of all the specualtion and actually "officially" answers questions, whereas all the other forums descend into attacks.

It is moderated to the ultimate level, yet most questions are answered formally and with documented evidence.

Major Carrales

[Pylon]

Give a shot and let us know how it goes... unless of course, I'm not invited. 

[Lancer]

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.

[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.

[sandman]

My thought is that in a closed forum with only a small corps of regular contributors, that forum could only ruminate the same ideas and complaints back and forth, in a way developing a sort of cronyism. Allowing lurkers and part time contributers to post comments and ideas in an open forum will ignite an occasional bright idea, fresh thought, or good thread.

Bottom line, not a good idea.

Let us break thread together this season...

[Eclipse]

See, this assumes we care, or want to see a bunch of nonsense.

I would love a place to go where you could ask a question, get an answer, and hear from current members with real-world experience.

What we get here and other places is too much, "What if?" crap.

"What if we were deputized, enlisted, commissioned, could fly helos, and
got to wear real uniforms, but weren'y required to actually work for it? Thoughts?"  ((*sigh*))

No one on this board is making policy, or taking action based on what a bunch of disgruntled current and ex members think.

If CAP blows hard enough for you to knock it publicly, LEAVE.

There is no reaason to stay in, and bouncing your head against a brick wall just makes you bleed and pisses off the wall.

[sandman]

See, this assumes we care, or want to see a bunch of nonsense.

I would love a place to go where you could ask a question, get an answer, and hear from current members with real-world experience.

What we get here and other places is too much, "What if?" crap.

"What if we were deputized, enlisted, commissioned, could fly helos, and
got to wear real uniforms, but weren'y required to actually work for it? Thoughts?"  ((*sigh*))

No one on this board is making policy, or taking action based on what a bunch of disgruntled current and ex members think.

If CAP blows hard enough for you to knock it publicly, LEAVE.

There is no reaason to stay in, and bouncing your head against a brick wall just makes you bleed and pisses off the wall.

Sounds like you're working through a few issues yourself. I hope no one forced you to participate in CAP or related activities such as a forum...

Throw you questions out there...yes, you may have to sift through some background noise to get your answer...in contrast, the supposed benefit of a closed system is outshined by a dynamic open forum such as this one...in my opinion.
Maybe CAP can develop a system such as Navy Knowledge Online, Army Knowledge Online, or the Air Force equivalent. The CAP Knowledgebase pallors in comparison (anyone out there care to expand on NKO and AKO?)