How to Behave on the Internet - A Guide by NHQ

[NIN]

The only way to win is not to play.

Sadly, the genie is out of the bottle.

Saying "I'm not going to play" is tantamount to saying "Well, I have this newfangled computerthingy and, well, I don't understand this whole 'computer virus' thing, so I just won't play with it, and if I don't play with it, I won't get a virus, and I won't need 'anti-virus,' right?"

You know how well that works. 

Joshua's approach works for Tic-Tac-Toe and Global Thermonuclear War.  In the movies.

[ZigZag911]

Yes, that is quite true.  However, as James' "national board video" plainly shows; it is next to impossible to get control of this; especially using "legacy systems". 

Why can't wing, group and squadron CCs hold members accountable under our current 'conduct unbecoming' regs?

[AirAux]

What confuses me is the Free Speech issue.  We can use free speech to burn my flag.  We can use free speech to make fun of my Christianity.  We can use free speech to place large, loud, armed (with batons) minorites outside of a voting place, perhaps intimidating voters.  But we can't use free speech to denigrate anyone else's flag, religion, or voter interference..  Why does the tolerance always flow in one direction only??  Why are some given preference by calling some crimes "hate crimes" and others aren't given the same protection.  If some one kills a minority, it becomes a hate crime, if someone kills a 4 year old non-minority girl, it is "only" murder and not heightened to a "hate crime".  This is the problem, there is no more common sense.. Only self-centered interests..  So to monitor the internet and our members, we will have to consider all factions..  IMPOSSIBLE..  Nuf Said..

[Eclipse]

The only way to win is not to play.

Sadly, the genie is out of the bottle.

Saying "I'm not going to play" is tantamount to saying "Well, I have this newfangled computerthingy and, well, I don't understand this whole 'computer virus' thing, so I just won't play with it, and if I don't play with it, I won't get a virus, and I won't need 'anti-virus,' right?"

Not really - clearly we have to insure we are current in regards to communications and technology, that doesn't mean we have to engage in "social media" (which is a new way to say "marketware"), or respond to direct attacks.

Our regs and policies spell out clearly what the path for internal grievances are, and the US court system, Congress, and the USAF have systems to address external complaints, including allegations of the violation of the law.

Allowing anything other than the above to dictate our actions is just the "TMZ'ing" of CAP.

[Lancer]

<snip>that doesn't mean we have to engage in "social media" (which is a new way to say "marketware")</snip>

Ugh. We get it, you don't like "social media", quit already. Besides, this thread has nothing to do with "social media" to begin with, and just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it bad. Quit being such a 'Chicken Little' about it; the sky is not falling, nor will it anytime soon. "social media" works, prove to me that it doesn't! Hollywood wouldn't have invested millions of dollars in making a movie about how Facebook got it's start if it didn't (http://www.thesocialnetwork-movie.com/).

Besides, the Jackwagon who prompted this thread isn't even using "social media" as a mechanism for his tirade, just some poorly laid out HTML pages and a Yahoo group or two. How 1998-ish of him.

The bottom line is member conduct, period, in person, in print, 'on line', etc. The organization expects you, it's members, to only say wonderfully wonderful stuff about it, because 'it's the right thing to do'. Ok, sure...I've done that, as evident from the posts on my blog, but even that will get you frowned upon by some people, mainly because, and this is entirely my opinion, you made them look bad; but I digress. There have been MANY times I've thought about making posts 'disagreeing' with things in our organization, but, when it comes to my blog, I'm of the opinion of 'if you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say it at all' (thanks, Mom). I love CAP, even with it's faults, through no fault of its own, most issues are brought about by it's members, or in this case, ex-members.

[FW]

Yes, that is quite true.  However, as James' "national board video" plainly shows; it is next to impossible to get control of this; especially using "legacy systems". 

Why can't wing, group and squadron CCs hold members accountable under our current 'conduct unbecoming' regs?

The "Bloggers" in question are not members.  We do not know their sources nor, could we find out.
If a member states an opinion on a blog, discussion group or news page, what would be our options?  "Conduct Unbecoming" can be a slippery slope to witch hunts and pogroms.  I'm not for either and don't think it would help CAP.  All "unacceptable" remarks are made anonymously and impossible to determine authorship.  It's better we deal with this stuff in other ways.
YMMV.

[Pylon]

Is this a draft or something that wasn't supposed to be released?   CAP doesn't have communiqués, we use memorandums for written communication.  It's also not on letterhead, and not signed or from any particular author or office.  That's pretty strange.

[FARRIER]

IMHO, this letter should never have seen the light of day.  I have no idea who is the author and, no inclination why, as members, we should be concerned with these sites other than for entertainment purposes.  We can't control their content nor can we influence the decisions of the Board of Governors, NEC or NB by acting in bad faith.  This letter appears to serve no purpose other than the possible threat of adverse actions taken on members who may voice an opinion which may be contrary to the leadership.  I hope I'm wrong in this assessment.

I felt the same tone in the letter also. Since no one signed the letter, it does beg the question, why was it published. It makes me think of movie "The Last Temptation of Christ", 1988. When it came out the were some protest about it. A member of the Catholic Clergy came out and said perfectly that the protest only hightend the movies visibility. It would have been better just to ignore it. The anology is the former members blog is the movie, this letter is the protest, and all it will do is bring more people to his site who had no clue it existed. I'm not saying that NHQ does not have the right to defend itself, but this particular approach is way off.

Respectfully,

[JC004]

Now that people mention it and I look at his site, I see that it clearly isn't a blog or any other type of social media.  The only thing close that he has is some type of news group.  I don't blame National for not being masters of social media (few people are), but it'd be good if they could recognize the difference.  Otherwise, putting something like this out looks silly once you look at the site in question and realize that it isn't as described.  I get the POINT of the letter, but National should be communicating that they know what this is, what's going on here, and what the members are supposed to do about it.  Of course, the person who typed the letter may also have simply not looked at the site first (as I hadn't).  Since it's unsigned, it'd be appropriate to give them the benefit of the doubt there.

I too wondered why the letter is not in an official CAP format but I've seen a lot of stuff come from various HQ, NHQ included, that didn't meet the correspondence regulations.  So it doesn't strike me as being out of sync with other things that have been done and therefore doesn't by itself make me question its origin.  Many of the memos, letterheads, logos, and the like that I've seen don't follow our written standard format.

[RADIOMAN015]

Hmm, decided to run a Google search  "civil air patrol scandals"
Looks like the former member from FL ain't the only website:

http://[bannedurl]/perl/cap.pl/sky/0292670786.htm
This website has been around for 6 years!!!!

RM

[JC004]

hm.  I never saw that one.  The other two I saw was the one that FW was talking about and one other.  These don't interest me.  I have enough fun following the latest logo trends.

[ZigZag911]

We need to distinguish between defamation, slander, and such and simple negativity.

If someone expresses an unpopular opinion, or one not in keeping with the 'party line', so long as the individual maintains civility and speaks to the issue, this indeed is free speech.

If, however, one engages in personal attacks, invective, disrespect or character assassination, then I believe it in fact becomes a matter of "conduct unbecoming" for a member.

[FW]

^ The keyword is member.  We can only deal with the member who engages in unacceptable conduct.  And, then, we can only deal with members we can identify making unacceptable statements on sites. 

Also, one member's opinion may mean another's "attack".  If there is to be a new "regulation", we need specific guidelines defining such without infringing on our 1st amendment rights.

For non members making such comments, there is little we can do.  Legal action is usually non productive in such cases unless we can prove harm was done.  Since membership is up, missions are up and, business goes on, where is the harm?

If an individual member is harmed, that member may wish to persue legal action however, at the rates lawyers charge, I doubt there would be a financial incentive to follow through with it.

Being at the "top of the heap" carries certain benefits and risks.  Being the target of internet "critique" is one of the risks.  We need to live with this and, learn effective ways to deal with it.  This form of "communique" will simply NOT go away.

[Major Lord]

Hmm, decided to run a Google search  "civil air patrol scandals"
Looks like the former member from FL ain't the only website:

http://[bannedurl]/perl/cap.pl/sky/0292670786.htm
This website has been around for 6 years!!!!

RM

Hillarious! "Rainbow of Terror": it just does not get much wackier than that. Homosexuals in our national leadership is news? Vanguard sells sensible shoes for a reason...

Major Lord

[RADIOMAN015]

You've got to have a deep understanding of this medium in order to win here.

The only way to win is not to play.

Maybe.  That doesn't seem to have worked so far and now they ARE playing. 

Fred, I agree with you & the legal eagles that controlling CAP members' use of social media is going to be a lot like herding cats!

Having said that, though, I also support Dog Collar's point: people need to realize that actions have consequences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_MaJDK3VNE

Actually some in the volunteer leadership roles may subscribe to additional regulations that would see the general membership as this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHED46nPkxE&feature=related
:angel:
RM

[RVT]

Hillarious! "Rainbow of Terror": it just does not get much wackier than that. Homosexuals in our national leadership is news? Vanguard sells sensible shoes for a reason...Major Lord

I think the fact that nobody thought to grab, or managed to later get "civilairpatrol.com" says a lot.  I really cannot see NHQ losing a domain name dispute over that no matter how inept they may be.

[JC004]

Hillarious! "Rainbow of Terror": it just does not get much wackier than that. Homosexuals in our national leadership is news? Vanguard sells sensible shoes for a reason...Major Lord

I think the fact that nobody thought to grab, or managed to later get "civilairpatrol.com" says a lot.  I really cannot see NHQ losing a domain name dispute over that no matter how inept they may be.

I brought this up a long while back when I called them to discuss 110-1.  The issue didn't seem to be on their radar and I don't think they cared.  I think they would win a dispute hands down and considering we have legal counsel on staff, it wouldn't be like we had to go out and hire some expensive lawyers.

[Eclipse]

A related story today on CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/07/19/commenting.on.news.sites/index.html?hpt=C2

News sites reining in nasty user comments

(CNN) -- User comments on news sites, while vital to interactive storytelling in the digital age, often read like scribblings on a bathroom stall: anonymous, offensive and full of hate...


I find it amusing that CNN feels I care about the random opinions of "Mr. & Mrs. America".  Many of their newcasts are now just aggregations of Twitter and Facebook.  Just tell me what happened.

[raivo]

They are most certainly referring to a former, a certainly disgruntled, CAP member who does frequently post defamatory E-mails on his website.

Oh... that guy again. Great.

I hadn't heard from him in a few years, I assumed his ego had imploded into a black hole due to its incredible mass and taken him with it.

[JayT]

What confuses me is the Free Speech issue.  We can use free speech to burn my flag.  We can use free speech to make fun of my Christianity.  We can use free speech to place large, loud, armed (with batons) minorites outside of a voting place, perhaps intimidating voters.  But we can't use free speech to denigrate anyone else's flag, religion, or voter interference..  Why does the tolerance always flow in one direction only??  Why are some given preference by calling some crimes "hate crimes" and others aren't given the same protection.  If some one kills a minority, it becomes a hate crime, if someone kills a 4 year old non-minority girl, it is "only" murder and not heightened to a "hate crime".  This is the problem, there is no more common sense.. Only self-centered interests..  So to monitor the internet and our members, we will have to consider all factions..  IMPOSSIBLE..  Nuf Said..

Yeah, because white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants have been so oppressed over the decades.....