CAP Cleaning House?

[DakRadz]

Alright, so when CAPTalk is a bit slow, I go through the "All Unread Topics" list- often I learn something, and my OCD makes me want to get rid of the 282 pages of topics I've never read.

I ran across this quote (from way back in the day), clicked the link to check the site out (I'm a multi-program cadet and military hopeful, so it's nice to know cheap suppliers.

True.  But I have both the service jacket and the sweater.  I get annoyed at having to switch uniform items back and forth. 

I got mine for $6.25 each from www.1800nametape.com. I already bought two just in case I scratch one.

Now, if you click the link, the following appears:

NOTICE:

From the National Headquarters Civil Air Patrol United States Air Force Auxiliary, we don't have the "exclusive right to name, insignia, copyrights, emblems, badges, marks and words" the corporation adopts. 

So, we no longer offer C.A.P. items. 



Please direct any and all questions or comments to the Civil Air Patrol Headquarters.

Now, I know all about thehock.com

This site is also up to date, so did NHQ start cleaning house of many sites this year, or is this in the past?

[a2capt]

Long Past ..  Ever since the CAPMart phase out.

However the sewing machine is less discriminatory, and will make whatever it's told. ;-)

[O-Rex]

Of all the services, Auxiliaries, SDF's and anyone else who wears some type of uniform, note that only CAP sends out the nastygrams to vendors-I love the fact that we are spinning our wheels looking for a viable operational mission in a post-121.5 world, but we are spot-on about vehemently defending 'exclusive rights' to $1 uniform gee-gaws.

Simply a reflection of the petty nastiness that now permeates our organizational culture.......

[DakRadz]

I thought it might be a graveyard occurrence. Ah well.

I've noticed that on many websites, the White on Blue tapes are cheaply available- just insert a certain organization name and voila! I do see your point, noticed it early on in another site's legal dispute.

So... anyone know of other sites that got burned? I recall a morale patch site they took out, the above link, and thehock.

[SarDragon]

Those companies are best left unidentified. Some, though not advertising it publicly, will still make tapes and patches if you ask nicely. We don't want the Alabama spies gettring info here or on CS.

[NCRblues]

i got all my name tape's, and white on blue civil air patrols from a source that was not vanguard..... it was called something like "clothing sales" on Whiteman AFB  .... now that would be a funny nastygram....

[Eclipse]

Of all the services, Auxiliaries, SDF's and anyone else who wears some type of uniform, note that only CAP sends out the nastygrams to vendors...

Since you can't prove the negative, I won't ask you to cite anything, but rest assured the US Government spends thousands of dollars and hours managing the lucrative licensing of the various indices of our military services and agencies, including plenty of C&D's to people
slapping logos on junk.

The difference is that CAP, Inc., has chosen to grant an exclusive license to one vendor, vs. spreading it around, primarily much because the market is so small that the only way to get the low-run insignias made with manageable quality and availability is to give the whole catalog to one company.  A company which is also a major supplier to the other services as well.

i got all my name tape's, and white on blue civil air patrols from a source that was not vanguard..... it was called something like "clothing sales" on Whiteman AFB  .... now that would be a funny nastygram....

AAFES sells them, too - not really a secret.

[DakRadz]

i got all my name tape's, and white on blue civil air patrols from a source that was not vanguard..... it was called something like "clothing sales" on Whiteman AFB  .... now that would be a funny nastygram....

AAFES sells them, too - not really a secret.

With all due respect, I wouldn't put it past NHQ to try to go after AAFES. After all, Vanguard has our only license to sell.

Does that license include rights to manufacturing? As in could NHQ (legally, not logically) go after someone for making their own tapes? Just to wear, if they had the proper machinery and used it for personal CAP tapes

[Eclipse]

^ No.

Non-commercial internal use is what the logos and emblems are for.  External commercial sale is where licenses are required.

AAFES is an agency of the DOD, so it probably doesn't need a license.

[Ned]

With all due respect, I wouldn't put it past NHQ to try to go after AAFES.

Whenever someone uses the phrase "with all due respect", it often (as here) carries quite the opposite connotation.

Please feel free to review - coincidentally enough - the CAP Core Value of Respect and see if your post meets our standards.

This Core Value talks about treating our members (including our volunteer leaders and NHQ emloyees) with fairness and dignity

As a cadet, you might also want to review the USAF Core Value of Service Before Self which talks about Faith in the System.

To lose faith in the system is to adopt the view that you know better than those above you in the chain of command what should or should not be done.  In other words, to lose faith in the system is to place self before service.  Leaders can be very influential in this regard: if a leader resists the temptation to doubt 'the system', then the subordinates might follow suit.

Wise words for all members, especially cadets.

[NCRblues]

Or Ned, he could exercise his *wait for it* freedom of speech and say what he wants to, even if he is a cadet....

Almost every cadet that comes on this board is torn a new one, from one person or another.

Ned, where is your soap box when senior members insult our volunteer leaders or nhq employees, or did you just pull it out because he was a cadet?

P.S. IMHO i don't think the "connotation" he was aiming for was the (very hollywooded up) "screw you sir" style, more like the 'well sir, i believe your wrong nhq and our "leadership" have done crazy things before" style....

[HGjunkie]

Or Ned, he could exercise his *wait for it* freedom of speech and say what he wants to, even if he is a cadet....

Almost every cadet that comes on this board is torn a new one, from one person or another.

Ned, where is your soap box when senior members insult our volunteer leaders or nhq employees, or did you just pull it out because he was a cadet?

P.S. IMHO i don't think the "connotation" he was aiming for was the (very hollywooded up) "screw you sir" style, more like the 'well sir, i believe your wrong nhq and our "leadership" have done crazy things before" style....

+5. members on this board need to learn that. this is an informal board, and i think formalities should be left at the door.

[a2capt]

Umm... yeah, good luck with that viewpoint.

[SarDragon]

Or Ned, he could exercise his *wait for it* freedom of speech and say what he wants to, even if he is a cadet....

Almost every cadet that comes on this board is torn a new one, from one person or another.

Ned, where is your soap box when senior members insult our volunteer leaders or nhq employees, or did you just pull it out because he was a cadet?

P.S. IMHO i don't think the "connotation" he was aiming for was the (very hollywooded up) "screw you sir" style, more like the 'well sir, i believe your wrong nhq and our "leadership" have done crazy things before" style....

+5. members on this board need to learn that. this is an informal board, and i think formalities should be left at the door.

Ummm...

Might I direct your attention to here?

A brief quote:

Also please recall that the primary purpose of CAPTalk is a professional resource for CAP members to share information, tips, resources, and ideas.  We are not primarily intended to be a rumor mill or to be the Civil Air Patrol water cooler; Jerry and I would much rather see more discussion along these lines.

There are those members who seemingly live to see what they can get away with regarding the MCoC, but it's not a good example for cadets to follow. Flinging barbs at folks who help determine the future of CAP doesn't show yourself in a good light.

To quote another esteemed member: "You'd better checkity-check-check yourself before your wreckity-wreck-wreck yourself."

[NCRblues]

hey, from your little link that was posted...

"All members will respect the opinion and dignity of other members, whether or not they may be present.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and certainly discourse on varying opinions is excellent. However, members will not attack others based on their opinions and beliefs, regardless of whether they agree or not."

But i guess it only applies to SM's, certainly not cadets no no no. SM can bash the leadership all they want to, but if a cadet even thinks about questioning something they are shown the "core values" and shown a statement about never ever questioning the leadership.

Like i asked Ned and ill ask you as well, where is this soap box when senior members do it??

To never question well, That works in the military because of Article 92 ucmj, but, sorry it doesn't work in C.A.P.

And Mr. Bowles, i cant question Ned because he "helps determine the future of CAP"?? Give me a break, Ned is a good guy but, all "leadership" should expect to be questioned at some point in time.

Jump off your high horse and join us little people, because i know that's what you think of me.

[SarDragon]

My last post was aimed at HGjunkie, not you. Regarding your commentary, SMs should know better, and those who go too far afield of the MCoC get their turn in the counseling barrel. Cadets sometimes need a little more up front guidance. Some pay attention, some don't. It's their call.

I already said my piece to you a while back, and you didn't seem to get the point, so I've got you mostly on ignore. I suspect you have the same attitude about me. It all matters little in the grand scheme of things.

[edit] I suspect the Click Clock is ticking away as we speak.

[flyboy53]

^ No.

Non-commercial internal use is what the logos and emblems are for.  External commercial sale is where licenses are required.

AAFES is an agency of the DOD, so it probably doesn't need a license.

AAFES gets its insignia under contract from Vanguard. It doesn't need a license to sell it because Vanguard has to meet a DoD standard to fill the contract. However, I agree that those few suppliers out there that we still deal with should remain incognito. Since I have been on active duty, I've used a certain uniform supplier for my leather aircrew ASNP and I'll remain with the company forever because the quality and service is so much better than Vanguard.

This whole mess was another one of those HWSRN items that was intended to generate income for the CAP. The excuse to the membership was one of controlling quality. However, CAP gets a percentage of everything we buy there, and forcing it has left the membership with insignia that's sometimes junk.

The last ASNPs I bought through Vanguard were disgusting and the velcro peeled off the back only after a mnonth's use. Some quality controlled insignia comes out darker and looks dirty on a uniform. Some uniform items like swords have no meaning for the CAP; let alone being affordable for the membershp.

Than there's the whole thing about shipping charges and the time it takes to ship items....

[SJFedor]

^ No.

Non-commercial internal use is what the logos and emblems are for.  External commercial sale is where licenses are required.

AAFES is an agency of the DOD, so it probably doesn't need a license.

AAFES gets its insignia under contract from Vanguard. It doesn't need a license to sell it because Vanguard has to meet a DoD standard to fill the contract. However, I agree that those few suppliers out there that we still deal with should remain incognito. Since I have been on active duty, I've used a certain uniform supplier for my leather aircrew ASNP and I'll remain with the company forever because the quality and service is so much better than Vanguard.

This whole mess was another one of those HWSRN items that was intended to generate income for the CAP. The excuse to the membership was one of controlling quality. However, CAP gets a percentage of everything we buy there, and forcing it has left the membership with insignia that's sometimes junk.

The last ASNPs I bought through Vanguard were disgusting and the velcro peeled off the back only after a mnonth's use. Some quality controlled insignia comes out darker and looks dirty on a uniform. Some uniform items like swords have no meaning for the CAP; let alone being affordable for the membershp.

Than there's the whole thing about shipping charges and the time it takes to ship items....

...and the part where the same exact item is several dollars more for CAP members than it is when you buy it from the RM side of the site.

[DakRadz]

P.S. IMHO i don't think the "connotation" he was aiming for was the (very hollywooded up) "screw you sir" style, more like the 'well sir, i believe your wrong nhq and our "leadership" have done crazy things before" style....

This was more my intent, in all honesty. I was hoping to avoid offending Eclipse while stating my own opinion. No reason to go making enemies of someone who could destroy my name and reputation on CAPTalk- AND provide cites!

I do this often, because other than trolls and an unnamed member, I will do my best not to offend- I'm a cadet, and that can be left to SM v. SM (and it's still usually unnecessary)

With all due respect, I wouldn't put it past NHQ to try to go after AAFES.

Whenever someone uses the phrase "with all due respect", it often (as here) carries quite the opposite connotation.

Please feel free to review - coincidentally enough - the CAP Core Value of Respect and see if your post meets our standards.

This Core Value talks about treating our members (including our volunteer leaders and NHQ emloyees) with fairness and dignity

To lose faith in the system is to adopt the view that you know better than those above you in the chain of command what should or should not be done.  In other words, to lose faith in the system is to place self before service.  Leaders can be very influential in this regard: if a leader resists the temptation to doubt 'the system', then the subordinates might follow suit.

Wise words for all members, especially cadets.

Ned, you are right- that's something I will keep in mind from now on.

Do I think I could run NHQ better? No- I'm not an adult with years of CAP experience. I'm only just completely my first year as a member. (Well, I could institute some good ideas for the Cadet Leaders For A Week []; I couldn't do day-to-day basic skills, simply because I don't know how)

I think I have plenty of faith in my leaders. The best example I can give (and this is truthful):
Now, even the recent NC who was... asked to leave, I'll say- despite several issues I've read about here and heard about elsewhere (this incident was before my time in CAP, by the way)- but DESPITE all the negative things people have to say:
1) We are still an organization, running pretty much as before
2) We do not have berryboards or the like.
3) We still recruit and keep members (my entire squadron on the cadet side joined after this, and half on the SM side)

So I have faith in this leader because he knew how to run the organization to some extent- even if he only knew to let others do it.

Also, I don't imagine our top level execs making these decisions which are generally rather infeasible. I imagine some mid-level member who gets extremely gung-ho and decides to do one task to exhaustion- say, hunting down every unauthorized seller of CAP merchandise. I've been guilty of the like before- human nature.

[Ned]

Ned, you are right- that's something I will keep in mind from now on.

Do I think I could run NHQ better? (. . .)

Two things.

First, it is perfectly fine to disagree with your leadership.  It is even OK to express your disagreement here, IF it is done in a respectful way.

For example, some members disagree the National Board decision on  the Vanguard contract.  It is not inherently disrespectul to say why one disagrees with the decision.  One could say "the contract allows Vanguard to charge more for some CAP items than vendor X used to charge."  Or "the whole agreement was unnecessary because CAPMart did a fine job."

It is when folks trash talk our leadership that they run afoul of our Core Values, assigning incompetence or stupidity as the only possible reasons for our leaders to have made a given decision.

My point is that all of our membership owes each other a duty of respect and courtesy, even on the internet.  Even when speaking "anonymously." 

Second, many of us use "NHQ" as a short of shorthand to mean our national leadership from Gen Courter down through the wing commanders.  These are the volunteer leaders who - acting as in their individual capacities as commanders as well as collectively as  the National Board and NEC - make the policies carried out by our members and employees.

It is a bit of a historical misnomer because the hardworking corporate employees who actually work at our NHQ in Alabama do not actually make policy - they just carry out the directives of our volunteer leaders.  If someone at NHQ is issueing "cease and desist orders" to manufacturers that pirate our name, insignia, and logos for their own personal profit, it is because those actions are required by the NB-directed contract or at the direction of the senior leadership. 

Finally, for the others who reacted to my reference to our Core Values, let me note that I have made virtually the identical post to several others in the past.  But it is correct to assume that as the national cadet programs guy I take special interest in the postings of our cadets.

It looks like the Mitchell is in your immediate future.  Congratualtions!  That is an award earned by only 15% of our cadets.  On to the Earhart.

Ned Lee

[DakRadz]

^ Point taken sir. But the original "with all due respect" really was intended respectfully.

Incompetence? That's strong for my tastes. Leadership is a learning experience, and everyone makes mistakes- I'd say that our leaders have to learn from mistakes just like us, and I can understand that to a point. [joke]The point will be reached if the Triangle Thingy is kept [/joke]

Point also taken about companies pirating insignia for their own profit- however, this isn't the intent of all of them, and when a lower cost alternative is shot down (even with the contract requiring this be done when discovered) it can lead to anger. I personally buy my own items often, and Vanguard is just so expensive... Hard to afford sometimes.

While I'm not sure the Core Values were applicable to be cited, it's never a bad thing to remind other of them, especially here. And the USAF Blue Book quote was rather refreshing, actually.

Thank you sir! I look forward to my promotion

EDIT:
P.S. I know that I'm not anonymous. Two cadets in my flight at encampment watch CAPTalk (one actually guessed my username after hearing my real name) and the other has corrected me on Encampment Stories (see the topic). A flight officer is on this board whom I know from above activity.
These are only a few who know me partly through CAPTalk- plus, any Officer who felt I needed to be personally reprimanded could do so rather easily. Not that I'll make it easy and tell you how.

[Eclipse]

Point also taken about companies pirating insignia for their own profit- however, this isn't the intent of all of them,

What is the "intent" on the others?  Charitable contributions and free product?

Let's not kid ourselves here - no one who is or was selling CAP insignia or related items is doing it as a "service" to CAP.
The bottom line is a profit motive, that's why people get up in the morning.

About 3 years ago a fellow member and I considered buying an embroidery business, with the main emphasis being all the "cool things we could make for CAP..."  then we realized that as much fun as that would be, its not exactly a good business plan.  The equipment needed to make this stuff isn't remotely free, and unless you are independently wealthy, retired, or get your business advice from Jim Cramer, you're only going to make the investment if you can make some cash, that includes farming it out to the 3rd world.

[a2capt]

...and the part where the same exact item is several dollars more for CAP members than it is when you buy it from the RM side of the site.

On many occasions I've tried to find specific examples of this and it does seem they have corrected the difference. They also apparently have backed down on their shipping, though their lead time still kinda sucks, but they probably don't have the staff of Netflix, or Wal*Mart, but they most certainly do have a larger operation than the Hock, if someone's job was solely CAP I'm not unconvinced they could get all those orders pulled in the same day they came in.

[HGjunkie]

My last post was aimed at HGjunkie, not you. Regarding your commentary, SMs should know better, and those who go too far afield of the MCoC get their turn in the counseling barrel. Cadets sometimes need a little more up front guidance. Some pay attention, some don't. It's their call.

I already said my piece to you a while back, and you didn't seem to get the point, so I've got you mostly on ignore. I suspect you have the same attitude about me. It all matters little in the grand scheme of things.

[edit] I suspect the Click Clock is ticking away as we speak.

Bullet dodged. I think on CAPtalk everybody should be on the same level with one another, Sm or cadet. It would make the Cadets more interested in joining in on other discussions.

[Eclipse]

I think on CAPtalk everybody should be on the same level with one another, Sm or cadet.

In the words of ICENINE, "It's nice to want things...".

Welcome to the internet - "freedom of speech" does not equal "freedom from responsibility for what you say or how you say it".
It is a lesson hard-learned by many.

[HGjunkie]

I think on CAPtalk everybody should be on the same level with one another, Sm or cadet.

In the words of ICENINE, "It's nice to want things...".

Welcome to the internet - "freedom of speech" does not equal "freedom from responsibility for what you say or how you say it".
It is a lesson hard-learned by many.

I'm not saying we should adopt a "fire and forget" mindset about posting, but that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and even though we don't have to agree with someones opinion, we should respect that they have that right.

[Eclipse]

I'm not saying we should adopt a "fire and forget" mindset about posting, but that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and even though we don't have to agree with someones opinion, we should respect that they have that right.

You absolutely have a right to your opinion, but never forget that cadets and seniors are not peers, here or anywhere else.

If one was interested in the discussion, one could argue that senior members are all peers because at the end of the day we're
"just" adults working towards the same end and for the same pay, but not so for the cadets who are being served by the seniors.

Internet forums like this, without the reminders, tend to breed an inappropriate level of familiarity and informality, which for an organization like ours is a very bad idea.

Your ideas will stand or fall on their own merits, but as Ned commented, we all have a duty to exhibit faith in the system and our leaders,
and give them the benefit of the doubt in regards to their actions.

[Flying Pig]

I think on CAPtalk everybody should be on the same level with one another, Sm or cadet.

In the words of ICENINE, "It's nice to want things...".

Welcome to the internet - "freedom of speech" does not equal "freedom from responsibility for what you say or how you say it".
It is a lesson hard-learned by many.

I'm not saying we should adopt a "fire and forget" mindset about posting, but that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and even though we don't have to agree with someones opinion, we should respect that they have that right.

You can have your opinion all day long.  That doesnt mean you have the right to voice it.  Many a young cadet has learned that the hard way.  One of the draw backs of the internet.  In a SQ setting, you, as a C/SSgt would not typically be permitted to stand around and just shoot the breeze with Seniors about the things we discuss here.  Here, you are able to because its the open internet.  So by coming on CAPTalk, cadets are afforded a privilege outside the realm of the Cadet/Senior relationship.  In my unit,  I would be talking to the DCC and asking why C/SSgt HGJunkie is out of place and not with his flight.
You think we are equals because on CAPTalk, LTC Joe Smith can post a response and immediately after, C/B Yahoo can post (anonymously or not, their choice) telling LTC Smith hes full of himself.  Because of your access to us here on CAPTalk, you may think we are equals, but we are not.  If you have the word "Cadet" anywhere in your title as a CAP member, you are not a peer and are not equal.  You are a subordinate and I am your superior.  You are not any less important or any less valued.  In fact, I would say you are more "important" than any Senior Member.  However, do not forget your place in the food chain.  A lesson that will pay you dividends in the end.  BELIEVE ME!
This does not mean we cant have discussions. I know many cadets who are grown men and women and are very educated.  But again, superior vs. subordinate relationship until you switch to the Senior side.

[RiverAux]

I have noticed that some senior members here are very likely to start a response to a cadet's post with "Cadet...." while they never do the same thing in response to a senior member's post.  A not so subtle way of putting the cadet in their place.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I have noticed that some senior members here are very likely to start a response to a cadet's post with "Cadet...." while they never do the same thing in response to a senior member's post.  A not so subtle way of putting the cadet in their place.

Which sometimes is needed in all honesty. Kinda reminds me of that one cadet who in his first post suggested that disagreements between cadets is resolved with fists, not words...

Really no different if I were to begin it with "Airman".

[Lt Oliv]

You know, I never really considered cadet participation and the like.

I don't see anything wrong with respecting boundaries (calling one "cadet" or "sir" in this case) or in expressing disagreement respectfully.

I think one thing that is a bit "over the line" is when we take an on-board issue and bring it into CAP.

CAP Talk, while fun, is not a CAP event. It is a rather informal gathering of CAP members in cyberspace. If a cadet or a senior says something and we then try to take it off of the board, that is a boundary I think we should not cross.

If a cadet (or senior) is overly disrespectful, I say suspend them from the board, don't approach their unit.

[O-Rex]

Of all the services, Auxiliaries, SDF's and anyone else who wears some type of uniform, note that only CAP sends out the nastygrams to vendors...

Since you can't prove the negative, I won't ask you to cite anything, but rest assured the US Government spends thousands of dollars and hours managing the lucrative licensing of the various indices of our military services and agencies, including plenty of C&D's to people
slapping logos on junk.

Big diff between logos and branch tapes.....

The Army licenses a watch with the 'Star in the box logo" that you can get in major dept stores, but that's not what we're talking about.

Vendors who sell flightsuit nametags don't get C&D letters from RM: how do I know? because I asked them.

It's an intimidation issue: no one's ever had the gumption to call CAP Legal to task on the whole 'exclusive rights' thing: simply declaring that you have rights doesn't mean you in-fact have them.  Either you copyright something/register a trademark or you don't.  Its' just that the cost/benefit of pushing the issue is not worth it for most (again, I asked) or in the case of the Hock Shop, just a little-guy (who incidentally IS a CAP member) that doesn't have an attorney on retainer.

[Ned]

It's an intimidation issue: no one's ever had the gumption to call CAP Legal to task on the whole 'exclusive rights' thing: simply declaring that you have rights doesn't mean you in-fact have them.  Either you copyright something/register a trademark or you don't.  Its' just that the cost/benefit of pushing the issue is not worth it for most (again, I asked) or in the case of the Hock Shop, just a little-guy (who incidentally IS a CAP member) that doesn't have an attorney on retainer.

You know, it is always easier to stand on the sidelines and urge other people to engage in expensive (for both sides) legal battles, especially if one only has a fuzzy idea of the legal principals involved. 

For instance the "sound legal advice"  of: 

Either you copyright something/register a trademark or you don't.

doesn't appear to adequately consider the applicable  federal law, specifically 36 USC 40306, which provdes

The corporation has the exclusive right to use the name "Civil
    Air Patrol" and all insignia, copyrights, emblems, badges,
    descriptive or designating marks, words, and phrases the
    corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights.

which appears to afford CAP, Inc. a great deal of protection for its intellectual property, even without a trip to the US Copyright Office or the US Patent and Trademark Office.


(And, BTW, if one's company is so small as to not have an attorney on retainer, then perhaps the better practice on a cost/benefit basis is not to pirate the intellectual property of other companies, large or small. )

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

[O-Rex]

All this hullaballoo for $1 nametapes and $5 nametags (since that's primarily what we are talking about)  both of which I can get for much better quality in places other than Vanguard.

Again, I say two words that speak volumes: organizational culture.

Kool-Aid conneiseurs flame away. 

[Ned]

All this hullaballoo for $1 nametapes and $5 nametags (since that's primarily what we are talking about)  both of which I can get for much better quality in places other than Vanguard.

Again, I say two words that speak volumes: organizational culture.

Kool-Aid conneiseurs flame away. 

I wholeheartedly agree that the issue is not worth a hullaballoo of any sort among folks who have informed themselves about the issue or simply place some amount of faith in their volunteer leaders.

Folks who have not bothered to carefully look at the issue, or who enjoy criticiszing their leadership anonymounsly on the internet, however, seem to really enjoy talking about it.

And I also agree that that is an issue of organizational culture that free and open discussion is designed to assist.

I remain ready to disucss the issues openly, calmly, and respectfully.

Ned Lee
NHQ Apologist

[jimmydeanno]

The exclusive contract with Vanguard affords CAP certain monetary benefits.  Not having to supply their members through an "in-house" store removes a significant amount of overhead from the books in the form of employees, inventory, insurance, etc.  Additionally, with the contract they get to engage in a profit share.

If CAP is getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from Vanguard because of their contract, it only makes financial sense for the corporation to stop other vendors from producing CAP stuff.

Assume that The Hock Shop had 1 million in sales.

Assume that Vanguard kicks back 10% of their CAP sales to CAP.

That 1 million in sales that went to The Hock just cost CAP $100,000 - or the price of several NCSAs.

The multitude of vendors using CAP's name on things is costing our program money.  Just like Ford and Robert Kearns.

[HGjunkie]

I think on CAPtalk everybody should be on the same level with one another, Sm or cadet.

In the words of ICENINE, "It's nice to want things...".

Welcome to the internet - "freedom of speech" does not equal "freedom from responsibility for what you say or how you say it".
It is a lesson hard-learned by many.

I'm not saying we should adopt a "fire and forget" mindset about posting, but that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and even though we don't have to agree with someones opinion, we should respect that they have that right.

You can have your opinion all day long.  That doesnt mean you have the right to voice it. Umm, excuse me? care to elaborate? Many a young cadet has learned that the hard way.  One of the draw backs of the internet.  In a SQ setting, you, as a C/SSgt would not typically be permitted to stand around and just shoot the breeze with Seniors about the things we discuss here. Well, since i'm the second highest ranking cadet in the squadron, and have good relations with my Commanders, we do talk about CAP related things. Here, you are able to because its the open internet.  So by coming on CAPTalk, cadets are afforded a privilege outside the realm of the Cadet/Senior relationship.  In my unit,  I would be talking to the DCC and asking why C/SSgt HGJunkie is out of place and not with his flight. Could you elaborate? I can't understand if your saying this would go on because it happened at Sq. or online.
You think we are equals because on CAPTalk, LTC Joe Smith can post a response and immediately after, C/B Yahoo can post (anonymously or not, their choice) telling LTC Smith hes full of himself.  Because of your access to us here on CAPTalk, you may think we are equals, but we are not.  If you have the word "Cadet" anywhere in your title as a CAP member, you are not a peer and are not equal.  You are a subordinate and I am your superior.  You are not any less important or any less valued.  In fact, I would say you are more "important" than any Senior Member.  However, do not forget your place in the food chain.  A lesson that will pay you dividends in the end.  BELIEVE ME! Really? Even though my cadet status only applies to me when conducting CAP official business? I think if a person can be mature about their posts and back up their POVs, arguments, etc, and contribute to the forum, then they should be equal to everyone on the forum ON THE FORUM.
This does not mean we cant have discussions. I know many cadets who are grown men and women and are very educated.  But again, superior vs. subordinate relationship until you switch to the Senior side. Yes, while conducting official CAP business.

Anyways, I thought this Forum was to act as "a discussion Board for the Civil Air Patrol community," not a place to remind cadets of their place in the "food chain."

You know, I never really considered cadet participation and the like.

I don't see anything wrong with respecting boundaries (calling one "cadet" or "sir" in this case) or in expressing disagreement respectfully.

I think one thing that is a bit "over the line" is when we take an on-board issue and bring it into CAP.

CAP Talk, while fun, is not a CAP event. It is a rather informal gathering of CAP members in cyberspace. If a cadet or a senior says something and we then try to take it off of the board, that is a boundary I think we should not cross.

If a cadet (or senior) is overly disrespectful, I say suspend them from the board, don't approach their unit.

You nailed it Ma'am.  :clap: :clap: :clap:

My comments in red.

[EMT-83]

I was going to send this in a PM, but here goes...

We've seen this so many times before, where a cadet signs up for the forum and thinks it's his personal responsibility to post in every topic, regardless of any knowledge or expertise in the topic under discussion.

This would be a good time to go back and review your 200+ postings and see what you have really contributed to the conversation. Not a personal attack, but a request that you gain some understanding of why people may be upset. Your tone doesn't necessarily reflect your limited experience in the program.

This topic is sure to be locked at this point, but please accept this is as a constructive comment, and maybe slow down just a bit.

[Short Field]

If a cadet (or senior) is overly disrespectful, I say suspend them from the board, don't approach their unit.

Might be a good thought - but more than one member has gotten in trouble in their home unit based on what and how they posted something on CAP Talk.  This forum is read by a LOT of people in senior positions in a many many squadrons, groups, wings, and regions who never post. 

[SJFedor]

I think on CAPtalk everybody should be on the same level with one another, Sm or cadet.

In the words of ICENINE, "It's nice to want things...".

Welcome to the internet - "freedom of speech" does not equal "freedom from responsibility for what you say or how you say it".
It is a lesson hard-learned by many.

I'm not saying we should adopt a "fire and forget" mindset about posting, but that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and even though we don't have to agree with someones opinion, we should respect that they have that right.

You can have your opinion all day long.  That doesnt mean you have the right to voice it. Umm, excuse me? care to elaborate? Many a young cadet has learned that the hard way.  One of the draw backs of the internet.  In a SQ setting, you, as a C/SSgt would not typically be permitted to stand around and just shoot the breeze with Seniors about the things we discuss here. Well, since i'm the second highest ranking cadet in the squadron, and have good relations with my Commanders, we do talk about CAP related things. Here, you are able to because its the open internet.  So by coming on CAPTalk, cadets are afforded a privilege outside the realm of the Cadet/Senior relationship.  In my unit,  I would be talking to the DCC and asking why C/SSgt HGJunkie is out of place and not with his flight. Could you elaborate? I can't understand if your saying this would go on because it happened at Sq. or online.
You think we are equals because on CAPTalk, LTC Joe Smith can post a response and immediately after, C/B Yahoo can post (anonymously or not, their choice) telling LTC Smith hes full of himself.  Because of your access to us here on CAPTalk, you may think we are equals, but we are not.  If you have the word "Cadet" anywhere in your title as a CAP member, you are not a peer and are not equal.  You are a subordinate and I am your superior.  You are not any less important or any less valued.  In fact, I would say you are more "important" than any Senior Member.  However, do not forget your place in the food chain.  A lesson that will pay you dividends in the end.  BELIEVE ME! Really? Even though my cadet status only applies to me when conducting CAP official business? I think if a person can be mature about their posts and back up their POVs, arguments, etc, and contribute to the forum, then they should be equal to everyone on the forum ON THE FORUM.
This does not mean we cant have discussions. I know many cadets who are grown men and women and are very educated.  But again, superior vs. subordinate relationship until you switch to the Senior side. Yes, while conducting official CAP business.

Anyways, I thought this Forum was to act as "a discussion Board for the Civil Air Patrol community," not a place to remind cadets of their place in the "food chain."

You know, I never really considered cadet participation and the like.

I don't see anything wrong with respecting boundaries (calling one "cadet" or "sir" in this case) or in expressing disagreement respectfully.

I think one thing that is a bit "over the line" is when we take an on-board issue and bring it into CAP.

CAP Talk, while fun, is not a CAP event. It is a rather informal gathering of CAP members in cyberspace. If a cadet or a senior says something and we then try to take it off of the board, that is a boundary I think we should not cross.

If a cadet (or senior) is overly disrespectful, I say suspend them from the board, don't approach their unit.

You nailed it Ma'am.  :clap: :clap: :clap:

My comments in red.

And without going too far into it, you stated somewhere above that

my cadet status only applies to me when conducting CAP official business

Allow me to remind you this. You're in a public forum, representing yourself as a member of the Civil Air Patrol (as indicated by your insignia in your signature line), and as such, you are expected to conduct yourself in a professional manner as a CAP cadet, including understanding your place in the food chain. If you have knowledge of the subject matter, by all means, contribute to it, but as you are a younger, just-into-Phase 2 cadet, odds are you don't have a lot of subject knowledge on the in's and out's of how this organization works, and while your opinions should be used to judge what you read here, and using this to learn more, you probably need to do less talking and more learning.

Just because you're behind a computer screen and not sitting their in uniform (unless you're someone that does, in which case, to each their own) does not excuse you nor make you less responsible for your conduct and remembering your place in the food chain. This is all too true in real life, and this is something you'd be much better for learning early on. Many people have been subject to discipline, suspension, or firing from their jobs because of the stuff they put online. Just because you're not acting in the role when you post it, doesn't mean you're not still responsible for it.

[JayT]

My comments in red.

Pump your breaks a little Sergeant, what Captain Steht said is good advice. Really good advice.

It doesn't matter if you're the second highest cadet in your squadron. You're still a cadet, a student. Would you give a superior officer an attitude in person? Why would you do it over the internet? Yeah, it's an 'informal' discussion board, but who knows who you're going to run in during the course of your career?

Throughout the rest of your life, you're always going to be in some relationship with a boss or supervisor. Right now, in CAP, the consequence of being disrespectful are relativity minor in the scheme of things.

When you get to college, you'll communicate with your professors and TA's over discussion boards and eMails. Even the 'virtual' classroom has a level of decorum. I've been in situations where my TA is actually younger then me, but you still talk to them respectfully because they're the one grading me. When I post on EMS related boards, I still make sure I run stuff through spell check, because, frankly, these are the same people I hope to work for at some point in my life. I'd rather be the kid they remember from the forum who asked an interesting question then the one who made an ass of himself.

If I have to talk to one of my supervisors over email, I wrote the same way as if it's a formal letter. If I run into one in the bar, they're still 'Sir' or 'Boss' until they tell me otherwise.

Frankly, many of your posts have consisted of a bunch of smiley faces or 'plus one.' Is that really contributing anything?

Listen, we're not busting on you because we don't like you, want you, don't value your opinions or views. We're busting on you because it's important to reinforce the lessons you learn at your CAP meetings. I went through a phase where I was mouthing off and being extremely disrespectful to older, wiser, and higher ranking officers here and on CS and the only thing it did was give those guys a bad impression of me, and make them less likely to hear me out.

I'm only twenty two years old. Since I was a cadet, I realized the most important lessons that I learned in CAP was the value of respect and courtesy. Those values don't end just because you're behind a computer screen, or not in uniform.

[SJFedor]

^--- True story.

[HGjunkie]

My comments in red.

Pump your breaks a little Sergeant, what Captain Steht said is good advice. Really good advice.

It doesn't matter if you're the second highest cadet in your squadron. You're still a cadet, a student. Would you give a superior officer an attitude in person? Why would you do it over the internet? Yeah, it's an 'informal' discussion board, but who knows who you're going to run in during the course of your career?

Throughout the rest of your life, you're always going to be in some relationship with a boss or supervisor. Right now, in CAP, the consequence of being disrespectful are relativity minor in the scheme of things.

When you get to college, you'll communicate with your professors and TA's over discussion boards and eMails. Even the 'virtual' classroom has a level of decorum. I've been in situations where my TA is actually younger then me, but you still talk to them respectfully because they're the one grading me. When I post on EMS related boards, I still make sure I run stuff through spell check, because, frankly, these are the same people I hope to work for at some point in my life. I'd rather be the kid they remember from the forum who asked an interesting question then the one who made an ass of himself.

If I have to talk to one of my supervisors over email, I wrote the same way as if it's a formal letter. If I run into one in the bar, they're still 'Sir' or 'Boss' until they tell me otherwise.

Frankly, many of your posts have consisted of a bunch of smiley faces or 'plus one.' Is that really contributing anything?

Listen, we're not busting on you because we don't like you, want you, don't value your opinions or views. We're busting on you because it's important to reinforce the lessons you learn at your CAP meetings. I went through a phase where I was mouthing off and being extremely disrespectful to older, wiser, and higher ranking officers here and on CS and the only thing it did was give those guys a bad impression of me, and make them less likely to hear me out.

I'm only twenty two years old. Since I was a cadet, I realized the most important lessons that I learned in CAP was the value of respect and courtesy. Those values don't end just because you're behind a computer screen, or not in uniform.

Does it really matter how many smiley faces I use? I use them so people can relate them to how I feel about something when I post. And BTW, not a whole lot of my posts are +1 types.

All members will respect the opinion and dignity of other members, whether or not they may be present.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and certainly discourse on varying opinions is excellent. However, members will not attack others based on their opinions and beliefs, regardless of whether they agree or not.

The  discussion boards are intended to be an open community where all Civil Air Patrol members can participate freely.

This is where my opinion comes from- the membership CoC on CAPtalk.

I think on CAPtalk everybody should be on the same level with one another, Sm or cadet.

In the words of ICENINE, "It's nice to want things...".

Welcome to the internet - "freedom of speech" does not equal "freedom from responsibility for what you say or how you say it".
It is a lesson hard-learned by many.

I'm not saying we should adopt a "fire and forget" mindset about posting, but that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and even though we don't have to agree with someones opinion, we should respect that they have that right.

You can have your opinion all day long.  That doesnt mean you have the right to voice it. Umm, excuse me? care to elaborate? Many a young cadet has learned that the hard way.  One of the draw backs of the internet.  In a SQ setting, you, as a C/SSgt would not typically be permitted to stand around and just shoot the breeze with Seniors about the things we discuss here. Well, since i'm the second highest ranking cadet in the squadron, and have good relations with my Commanders, we do talk about CAP related things. Here, you are able to because its the open internet.  So by coming on CAPTalk, cadets are afforded a privilege outside the realm of the Cadet/Senior relationship.  In my unit,  I would be talking to the DCC and asking why C/SSgt HGJunkie is out of place and not with his flight. Could you elaborate? I can't understand if your saying this would go on because it happened at Sq. or online.
You think we are equals because on CAPTalk, LTC Joe Smith can post a response and immediately after, C/B Yahoo can post (anonymously or not, their choice) telling LTC Smith hes full of himself.  Because of your access to us here on CAPTalk, you may think we are equals, but we are not.  If you have the word "Cadet" anywhere in your title as a CAP member, you are not a peer and are not equal.  You are a subordinate and I am your superior.  You are not any less important or any less valued.  In fact, I would say you are more "important" than any Senior Member.  However, do not forget your place in the food chain.  A lesson that will pay you dividends in the end.  BELIEVE ME! Really? Even though my cadet status only applies to me when conducting CAP official business? I think if a person can be mature about their posts and back up their POVs, arguments, etc, and contribute to the forum, then they should be equal to everyone on the forum ON THE FORUM.
This does not mean we cant have discussions. I know many cadets who are grown men and women and are very educated.  But again, superior vs. subordinate relationship until you switch to the Senior side. Yes, while conducting official CAP business.

Anyways, I thought this Forum was to act as "a discussion Board for the Civil Air Patrol community," not a place to remind cadets of their place in the "food chain."

You know, I never really considered cadet participation and the like.

I don't see anything wrong with respecting boundaries (calling one "cadet" or "sir" in this case) or in expressing disagreement respectfully.

I think one thing that is a bit "over the line" is when we take an on-board issue and bring it into CAP.

CAP Talk, while fun, is not a CAP event. It is a rather informal gathering of CAP members in cyberspace. If a cadet or a senior says something and we then try to take it off of the board, that is a boundary I think we should not cross.

If a cadet (or senior) is overly disrespectful, I say suspend them from the board, don't approach their unit.

You nailed it Ma'am.  :clap: :clap: :clap:

My comments in red.

And without going too far into it, you stated somewhere above that

my cadet status only applies to me when conducting CAP official business

Allow me to remind you this. You're in a public forum, representing yourself as a member of the Civil Air Patrol (as indicated by your insignia in your signature line), and as such, you are expected to conduct yourself in a professional manner as a CAP cadet, including understanding your place in the food chain. If you have knowledge of the subject matter, by all means, contribute to it, but as you are a younger, just-into-Phase 2 cadet, odds are you don't have a lot of subject knowledge on the in's and out's of how this organization works, and while your opinions should be used to judge what you read here, and using this to learn more, you probably need to do less talking and more learning.

Just because you're behind a computer screen and not sitting their in uniform (unless you're someone that does, in which case, to each their own) does not excuse you nor make you less responsible for your conduct and remembering your place in the food chain. This is all too true in real life, and this is something you'd be much better for learning early on. Many people have been subject to discipline, suspension, or firing from their jobs because of the stuff they put online. Just because you're not acting in the role when you post it, doesn't mean you're not still responsible for it.

I actually do have a basic knowledge of how things work in CAP.

And nowhere on this Forum did the admins put a post up that says cadets should remember that they're low in the food chain compared to the SM's on the board. They actually posted that this is a board where members can participate freely. They just put up that there should be a professional manner in which we conduct ourselves, which you and flying pig interpreted as the chain of command. And i'll say it again, Lt Oliv nailed it on the Head.

[RVT]

The exclusive contract with Vanguard affords CAP certain monetary benefits.  Not having to supply their members through an "in-house" store removes a significant amount of overhead from the books in the form of employees, inventory, insurance, etc.

There has to be more to it than that.  Every Coast Guard Aux district (their equivalent of a Region) has its own store, and any member can buy from any of them.  National is not even visibly involved.