I have noticed several posts on CAPTalk that make reference to member's records in eservices. These are records that people are looking up and describing to some extent on this forum. There have been references made about their current qualifications, ranks, and the like. This is not what our "granted access" is for. That information is supposed to be used for CAP purposes and not for forums.
Those members that request and are granted access need to remember that it is not a "right" it is a "privilege" granted by CAP. They need to be mindful of the OPSEC training you should have taken. If you have access to eservices and are posting this information on CAPTalk or any other forum you are violating that trust.
Good points.
Just because you can access some information doesn't mean you should. And certainly sharing confidential information, regardless of how widely distributed it is within an organization, outside the organization is a big no-no, and I'm not even talking about OPSEC, just basic confidentiality provisions that almost every employer has.
An example, as an IT guy, I have access rights to just about anything on the network at work...does that mean I can go pawing around in HR or payroll records to see what I can find about co-workers? Nope...I have the access rights, but with that goes the responsibility to determine what I actually need to do...
If CAP followed the military classifcations, the information on eServices would be classified as RESTRICTED. Someone accessing eServices in an area that doesn't concern them and posts it on CAPTalk or CadetStuff should have their access revoked.
It does say right there in the top:
This Data is for OFFICIAL CAP USE ONLY All other use is prohibited. Read Me (https://www.capnhq.gov/CAP.INTERACTIVEPERSONNEL.WEB/Documentation/InstructionsCAPUtilities.pdf)
But since it's access is available from the left side of the screen, it isn't asked for by the member specifically, either, though one could argue, and the ToS agreement probably confirms it, that by requesting password access to the system at all is in effect requesting access.
There are times when use of access to membership data may be a proper use in a non-official forum like this, when abuse of other members or impersonation is taking place, and dealt with behind the lines.
I think fouo ist theterm you are looking for
In other words, ypu should only be accessing, let alone releasig information for official use
Busting this might be actionable...
Though maybe not the way capis set up, heh
Wrt it, you shouldnt even as an admin, have complete access. Leas privilege ftw :). Thats a breach waiting to happen
I'm sure some person will attempt to defend the practice citing all sorts of nonsense or even real technicalities...however, Integrity should be placed into practice and Respect should be considered as being part of our core values.
Additionally...
I have noticed the above practice many times. It seems to be that we should attack one's message not on as an individual. An ad hominem attack has little place here...and one backed up with data from e-services has NO PLACE here. Imagine that...looking up such things for the purpose of one-upsmanship?
What message is it supposed to be saying? Maybe "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM? Don't MESS WITH ME" and "I CAN SQUASH YOU LIKE THE WORM YOU ARE!"
I hope to never use such tactics.
The general info available to all members is:
Name
Grade
CAPID
Unit
I don't see how someone can do much harm with just those items. Many CT members put much more info in their profiles.
YMMV.
Quote from: SarDragon on January 29, 2011, 12:51:08 AM
The general info available to all members is:
Name
Grade
CAPID
Unit
I don't see how someone can do much harm with just those items. Many CT members put much more info in their profiles.
YMMV.
True, about the profiles, but what I or another member chooses to reveal about him/her self is a different matter entirely from what someone else reveals on their behalf.
Quote from: SarDragon on January 29, 2011, 12:51:08 AM
The general info available to all members is:
Name
Grade
CAPID
Unit
I don't see how someone can do much harm with just those items. Many CT members put much more info in their profiles.
YMMV.
The difference is that those CT members who display more
chose to display more.
Most members would have some reasonable expectation that information in e-services would not be used/misused by other members for personal reasons. Depending on permissions, a lot more information can be obtained for members inside and outisde of a unit. Just today, a CT member posted the aircraft rating/currency of another member.
I would bet that members outside CT also have used e-services for personal reasons but hopefully they are not passing on information on message boards, blogs, social media or elsewhere. AND I am sure that they know that e-services is to be used for official CAP business!
IMO it is, at the least, a clear violation of core values of respect and integrity and should be subject to disciplinary action.
Last I checked, making false statements to or concerning CAP was a terminable offense.
Uncovering wrongdoing in that regard is not a violation of trust, it's upholding our core values.
Quote from: Mustang on January 29, 2011, 01:33:43 AM
Last I checked, making false statements to or concerning CAP was a terminable offense.
Uncovering wrongdoing in that regard is not a violation of trust, it's upholding our core values.
That may be, but I would suggest that the prudent course of action if you believe you have uncovered wrongdoing is to contact your Inspector General or your Commander, NOT to post it on a public forum.
Thom
I feel that if anyone uses there access to eservices and puts that info on a forum of this sort, there access should be removed.
If a member chooses to put their info in the forum than that is their business.
There is no justification for using access and then putting that info out.
Let me start off by saying, i do not believe that information from eservices should be used here on captalk, or anywhere else for that matter except for official CAP business.
Quote from: Thom on January 29, 2011, 01:44:16 AM
Quote from: Mustang on January 29, 2011, 01:33:43 AM
Last I checked, making false statements to or concerning CAP was a terminable offense.
Uncovering wrongdoing in that regard is not a violation of trust, it's upholding our core values.
That may be, but I would suggest that the prudent course of action if you believe you have uncovered wrongdoing is to contact your Inspector General or your Commander, NOT to post it on a public forum.
Thom
Now i have to ask a question. What happens when contacting the IG, or your commander doesn't pan out? A public forum would be your only answer then. If the chain fails you (and it does fail sometimes, don't try to brief me that it never fails) where do you turn next? Who will listen when no one in the chain cares anymore? Sometimes public uproar is the only thing that can bring people back down to earth from their positions on high. Information is power, and secret squirrel stuff in CAP has gotten out of hand again. So when all else fails, where do you turn if you cant turn to the general CAP members on a public forum?
Quote from: SarDragon on January 29, 2011, 12:51:08 AM
The general info available to all members is:
Name
Grade
CAPID
Unit
I don't see how someone can do much harm with just those items. Many CT members put much more info in their profiles.
YMMV.
Don't play coy. What is being described here are those occasions when someone "looks up" someone for the purpose of making a "cool come back" or "THREADSTER KILL SHOT."
Looks something like this...
CAPTHREADSTER: "Hello, every one. Just came up here to ask about SUBJECT X. I was told by my squadron commander that PRACTICE X was used at a local SARex. I prefer PRACTICE X to how is it generally done."
OFFENDER: "PRACTICE X is not the way it should be done. We have used PRACTICE Y and it works for us. PRACTICE X is ridiculous."
CAPTHREADSTER: "I disagree...PRACTICE X is used through out our Wing, even mentioned in SUPPLEMENT K under CAPR 60-X."
OFFENDER: "That is WRONG. In our Wing we found that MATTER Z, does not allow PRACTICE X to work. (sarcastic) It's not like I'm and expert or anything...I am only SO-AND-SO and appointed as X in my Wing."
CAPTHREADSTER: "That might be so, MATTER Z does not exist in our area and is not a factor. SUPPLEMENT K was approved for this purpose."
(here it comes...wait for it)
OFFENDER: "Well, I looked up/googled your email as it is in your profile and you are assigned to SQUADRON W and are listed as only GES and UDF. You don't having anything compared to me. Suppose I send a letter to Capt SOMEONE. How dare you try to hold a candle to me?"
This is what is being discussed here. Using the "transfer," "Ops Qual," WIMIRS and other sorts of thing I could imagine using to get this information for the purpose of the classic "CHEAP SHOT."
Nowhere is it even close to being acceptable to use CAP E-SERVICES for such a thing. Also, this place is "unofficial" and the data there in is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.
Nice jab, but none of what you brought up - "transfer," "Ops Qual," WIMIRS - is in my list, nor is it available to the general membership.
It's OK to bust my chops, but be fair about it. Address the specifics of my post when doing so. If you want to throw out fangs in general, be general all the way around.
Quote from: SarDragon on January 29, 2011, 02:48:01 AM
Nice jab, but none of what you brought up - "transfer," "Ops Qual," WIMIRS - is in my list, nor is it available to the general membership.
It's OK to bust my chops, but be fair about it. Address the specifics of my post when doing so. If you want to throw out fangs in general, be general all the way around.
Oh please...suddenly your thin skinned?!? I'm addressing things that I have seen in this forum and the nature of the topic at hand.
The topic begins...
Quote
I have noticed several posts on CAPTalk that make reference to member’s records in eservices. These are records that people are looking up and describing to some extent on this forum. There have been references made about their current qualifications, ranks, and the like. This is not what our “granted access” is for. That information is supposed to be used for CAP purposes and not for forums.
This means that what you are talking about isn't even germane to the topic at hand since "current qualifications, ranks, and the like" indicates that it is commanders and other command level persons (those "granted access") doing this.
Quote from: NCRblues on January 29, 2011, 02:34:25 AM
Let me start off by saying, i do not believe that information from eservices should be used here on captalk, or anywhere else for that matter except for official CAP business.
Quote from: Thom on January 29, 2011, 01:44:16 AM
Quote from: Mustang on January 29, 2011, 01:33:43 AM
Last I checked, making false statements to or concerning CAP was a terminable offense.
Uncovering wrongdoing in that regard is not a violation of trust, it's upholding our core values.
That may be, but I would suggest that the prudent course of action if you believe you have uncovered wrongdoing is to contact your Inspector General or your Commander, NOT to post it on a public forum.
Thom
Now i have to ask a question. What happens when contacting the IG, or your commander doesn't pan out? A public forum would be your only answer then. If the chain fails you (and it does fail sometimes, don't try to brief me that it never fails) where do you turn next? Who will listen when no one in the chain cares anymore? Sometimes public uproar is the only thing that can bring people back down to earth from their positions on high. Information is power, and secret squirrel stuff in CAP has gotten out of hand again. So when all else fails, where do you turn if you cant turn to the general CAP members on a public forum?
These questions are moot until the proper avenues of redress have failed. And even then, we must sometimes accept that we are powerless to change things, even when we know they are wrong.
If a situation so grieves you, after exhausting all avenues, including direct contact with the IG at a higher level, that you are unable to bear the thought of the situation continuing then I would recommend that you resign. This organization has a very comprehensive review and oversight program, much more open, available, and powerful than in many other organizations, and if that entire program has failed to address an issue to your satisfaction, then it is likely that you are incompatible with the organization.
Anyone who wants to air dirty laundry in a public forum to address a wrong should consider it only as a last resort when fraud, waste, and abuse so shock the conscience that no other course is justified. I would suggest that in the presence of evidence of such overwhelming evildoing or negligence, one would be better off contacting one's congressman than a public forum. The congressman at least has some (roundabout) method of investigating and correcting the issue at hand, at least insofar as CAP still accepts taxpayer dollars.
On any matter lesser than that level of FWA, I would suggest you salute and execute. Life is too short to bemoan that the IG won't make Major so-and-so stop wearing the blues even though he is 30 pounds overweight, or that the Transportation Director always gives your squadron the oldest van in the wing.
Worrying about these things, after you have addressed them to the proper avenues, is counterproductive to our goal: Citizens Serving Communities, Performing Missions for America.
Thom
CAPTALK is not a forum for addressing grievances against individuals, gather disciples for personal perceived injustices or for influencing policy. There are official channels and those are the only channels that matter in terms of policy. The problem has been, in CAP forums, that people seems to think that this is a place to do all that and more.
Someone has a problem with a WING, REGION or NATIONAL COMMANDER and comes here to try that person in the court of public opinion. In the end, all that does is further rumor and innuendo of all kinds.
I have seen, between the existing forums, people posting speculations at one forum and then it quoted as fact on another and then the "if you see it in more than one place it must be true" axiom used to turn lies and half-truths into COLD HARD FACTS. Then those facts turn people against one another.
These sorts of things cause nothing but division since, even if all CAPTALKERS vote in a poll on here, it will not change, IAW regulation et al, the outcome of anything...but WILL make enemies of people who should be friends.
We should be here to help each other...not play petty politics and use every item at our disposal, be it quals, unit location or the like, to basically "blackmail" a person off of a point TO WIN AN ARGUMENT IN CAPTALK? Am I the only one that sees how ridiculous that is? How inappropriate it is?
I'm sorry, did I miss something? Like perhaps the thread where we allowed members to make attacks against other members? Or willfully "out" a member who wished to remain anonymous? Or where we allowed people to make unsubstantiated accusations against people?
Because I don't recall any of these things going on. Not sure why this thread is even going on so long. We have a member code of conduct and an expectation of professional behaviour from all of forum members, and our policy and expectations haven't changed since day 1.
I see two different lines of discussion brewing here. The first is using FOUO eservices information to violate the CT code of conduct. The mods would take care of that pronto (thanks guys).
The second line is diving into a can of worms. Trying to correct wrongs by posting here "when proper channels fail". Well, there may be some instances when this would be appropriate. After all, we are US citizens and there is something called the 1st amendment. However, to accuse or criticise someone, I would attach hard evidence backing up an accusation to the post. Otherwise, I would clearly state it is your opinion that there is a wrong because of x, y and or z. It can't be fact and rumor/inuendo.
I have absolutely no problem with adding sunshine to a cover-up when discovered. That's the American way and, those who do wrong should be warned.
YMMV :D
My ending commentary follows.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 29, 2011, 02:54:20 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on January 29, 2011, 02:48:01 AM
Nice jab, but none of what you brought up - "transfer," "Ops Qual," WIMIRS - is in my list, nor is it available to the general membership.
It's OK to bust my chops, but be fair about it. Address the specifics of my post when doing so. If you want to throw out fangs in general, be general all the way around.
Oh please...suddenly your thin skinned?!? I'm addressing things that I have seen in this forum and the nature of the topic at hand.
You quoted my post, and then attached commentary not related to its content. I made no mention of any of these items - "transfer," "Ops Qual," WIMIRS - therefore I shouldn't be taken to task because others dig out this information and post it. If you think I've done something improper, then address things that
I have done, and not those of others. Don't lump me in with the others just because it's convenient. If I screw up, and get caught at it, I'll take responsibility for it. I am not compelled to be responsible for the behaviour of others. That, IMHO, is not being thin-skinned.
QuoteThe topic begins...
Quote
I have noticed several posts on CAPTalk that make reference to member's records in eservices. These are records that people are looking up and describing to some extent on this forum. There have been references made about their current qualifications, ranks, and the like. This is not what our "granted access" is for. That information is supposed to be used for CAP purposes and not for forums.
This means that what you are talking about isn't even germane to the topic at hand since "current qualifications, ranks, and the like" indicates that it is commanders and other command level persons (those "granted access") doing this.
I repeat for the benefit of anyone who missed it the first time:
The general info available to
all members (perhaps only SMs) is:
Name
Grade
CAPID
Unit
Anyone (perhaps only SMs) who can log into eServices can click Member Search on the left hand menu, and get the above info on any current member in the database. [I add the SM comment, because I don't know what a cadet screen in eServices looks like.]
So it's not just commanders and other command level persons who are able to see, and use, this info. BTW, I don't recall posting any of this
specific info on anyone myself, although I may have discussed things on a general basis without revealing personal info.
I'm done. Y'all can battle on without me. I'm gonna lurk for the entertainment value now.
Quote
Name
Grade
CAPID
Unit
Anyone (perhaps only SMs) who can log into eServices can click Member Search on the left hand menu, and get the above info on any current member in the database. [I add the SM comment, because I don't know what a cadet screen in eServices looks like.]
Hi, Cadet here. Before everyone goes all "Leave this thread and never come back, SM are talking" (which predictably is coming)
A) Remember, Cadets can and are reading this and every thread..
B) I can confirm, that the only information I see in "member search" is my own.
peanut gallery out.
Quote from: FW on January 29, 2011, 05:25:13 AM
I see two different lines of discussion brewing here. The first is using FOUO eservices information to violate the CT code of conduct. The mods would take care of that pronto (thanks guys).
The second line is diving into a can of worms. Trying to correct wrongs by posting here "when proper channels fail". Well, there may be some instances when this would be appropriate. After all, we are US citizens and there is something called the 1st amendment. However, to accuse or criticise someone, I would attach hard evidence backing up an accusation to the post. Otherwise, I would clearly state it is your opinion that there is a wrong because of x, y and or z. It can't be fact and rumor/inuendo.
I have absolutely no problem with adding sunshine to a cover-up when discovered. That's the American way and, those who do wrong should be warned.
YMMV :D
That, sir, is an unfounded assumption.
^Yes, a clear case of unfounded assumption indeed. I ask forgiveness for my "senior moment" :-[ ;D
Quote from: FW on January 29, 2011, 01:16:39 PM
^Yes, a clear case of unfounded assumption indeed. I ask forgiveness for my "senior moment" :-[ ;D
I know it was unfounded, because I looked in my last CAPWATCH download at the "Citizenship" field and....nah, just kidding, I knew it was unfounded because I'm from the GWN.
And, I'm pretty sure our friend from Lichtenstein is in the "other than U.S. citizen" field as well; aye?
Quote from: SarDragon on January 29, 2011, 05:43:14 AM
My ending commentary follows.
I'm done. Y'all can battle on without me. I'm gonna lurk for the entertainment value now.
Have it your way, friend. Just be advised that it is possible that I, or anyone else, can make more than point in a post or thread. The world does not necessarily revolve around you and thus, if someone replies to your post...then makes another point contributing to the greater discussion, its not "calling anyone out" its a discussion.
If its all that improper to further a discussion, the mods can lock the thread.
Still, I cannot see how anyone (including and excluding you) could defend the practice of using the CAP official e-services to try to "one up" someone here.
I don' t know about using it to "one up" someone, but to establish the bonafides of a particular individual?
ie. If I came on here and started spouting a bunch of crap about how I like to fly our planes in > 60 degree banks and less than 1000 ft AGL during a search, I'm _reasonably_certain_ that everybody with access to the appropriate modules would be in the database going "Is this dude for real?"
Why? Because they wanna see if I'm a hoopie, stirring up crap in the forums (a heck of a sport, as evidenced by this thread), or if I'm a for-real CAP pilot who needs to have his ability to fly CAP planes revoked (and maybe a certificate action) so he doesn't wind up taking himself and three others to their reward in a 100LL-soaked pile of twisted aluminum.
Now, I make some statement like "I prefer to make my approaches at 100kts and only a notch of flaps" someone might go "Uh, what?" and then see if I'm a pilot or not (I'm not, BTW) and say "OK, shennanigans. You doing this in Flight Simulator?" Or, I might say "Yeah, I'm fully checked out in MT-7s, C-172s, T-41Bs, C-182, C-206s, the GA-8 and the Blanik gliders.." and someone might say "Wait, this sounds fishy, I need to check this out." So maybe I am checked out in those things (I'm not) and that person sits back and says "Hmmm, ok, cool. Sounds like this guy has his stuff in one sock" and is able to lend further credence to things I say WRT C-206 weight & balance, or the best way to crab a Blanik on short final.
Or, maybe, its determined that I _don't_ have those qualifications. Then I say "I'm a unit commander, I give cadets pushups, and I put $100 from the unit's petty cash in my pocket each week.." Now you say "Uh, wait, he was full of it on that other thing, is he just kidding?"
I'm not saying you should post people's info. But certainly, confirming that they're not a poseur is probably not a bad thing.
NIN, I have to cry foul on some of that (I see what you are saying, but am bothered by one aspect).
CAPTALK discussions, in the grand scheme of all this, are not worthy of using official e-service materials to be "outing people." If some fellow comes on here and makes statements about flying...this or that...I would think that the OFFICIAL CAP safety and flying programs would be the appropriate authority, not CAPTALK discussions.
No one should take CAPTALK as serious as it seems some people do. I take it serious as a place where I can float ideas, filter proposed squadron programs against the experience and knowledge of those here. Also, to promote communications with other people in CAP from across the nation.
I try not to use it as a place to influence policy (as in let me post the way I think I should be so that some Col and read it and bring it up at the National Board), hammer some Wing Commander I don't like or try to zoom in on some new cadet here for a "really cool" dog-pile on them with threats to contact their commander.
It is often claimed here the CAPTALK is not an "official" place, however, over time that is forgotten. This issue is one such occasion. Using e-services FOUO info to win arguments in CAPTALK crosses a certain line.
As for unsafe practices being boasted about on CAPTALK...one has to run this rubric...1) Is this person even in CAP, (a few "in forum" questions will address that after a while) 2) if so, is what they claim truthful and 3) if it is genuine, what official channels do we follow. People come onto forums all the time causing trouble. Until there is an official forum one has to be a CAP member to join, this will always be an issue.
As for using CAPTALK as a whistle-blower's tool? Can't say I can speak for that either way. I have seen, already written about this in an above thread, seen alleged "lies" become "questionable suspicion" then to "rumor" and then make the leap to becoming "gospel fact," on these forum with no substantiation. But using FOUO info on CAPTALK is inappropriate. There are official channels and systems in place for that...this is not one of them.
Okay Joe, I'm calling the bluff. Can you link to any thread where someone inappropriately used e-services information to "one-up" someone, win an argument, make another person uncomfortable, or "out" an anonymous user? One single instance? Ever?
I'm not seeing the "enemy" that this "crusade" is getting all preachy about. It looks like a lot of vitriol about a non-issue to me.
Quote from: Pylon on January 29, 2011, 10:06:11 PM
Okay Joe, I'm calling the bluff. Can you link to any thread where someone inappropriately used e-services information to "one-up" someone, win an argument, make another person uncomfortable, or "out" an anonymous user? One single instance? Ever?
I'm not seeing the "enemy" that this "crusade" is getting all preachy about. It looks like a lot of vitriol about a non-issue to me.
Here's one...
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=77.msg6045#msg6045
QuoteMhmm, and on what system are you a Mission Scanner? 'Cause e-services doesn't say you are.
Oh, and how do you get GTM 3 through GBD all done in the same month? Is that when your wing switched from paper to MIMS?
Here is a page where someone is asking for instructions on who to access e-services for uses of less then official nature...
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2127.msg36565#msg36565
QuoteIs there anywhere where I, as a humble worker bee in CAP, can search for other members? Im just curious to see if some people are still around.
I hate to sound like a school boy but, uh-hum....."OH ITS ON!! ITS ON LIKE DONKEY KONG" >:D
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 29, 2011, 05:59:58 PM
NIN, I have to cry foul on some of that (I see what you are saying, but am bothered by one aspect).
Cry foul all you want. I wasn't talking about outing people or whatever. I spoke of establishing bonafides. Entirely different.
Like Pylon, I run a message board. Occasionally (and thankfully, in almost 10 years, only _very_ occasionally) we get someone who tries to make like they are someone who they are not. They act like they're an authority on flying or the infantry or something. And then something they say comes across "odd," and we think "What, uh, hold on one sec.." and we do a little careful checking.
Why? Because people tend to believe crap they read on the Internet more and more every day. And cadets (sorry, guys, its true) are pretty gullible sometimes in that regard. "But it was in Wikipedia.."
Let me put this in another way.
You're an educator. Thankfully, schools check the credentials of educators pretty carefully before they hire them. But what if they didn't? Or maybe they were in a pinch for a substitute that day?
What if you had a suspicion, based on what a fellow teacher was saying around students, that something wasn't quite right? (Cops would use the world "hinky" here..)
And it just so happened that you had access to the school's personnel system for some reason (you know, you're on the social committee, right??) and could find out where the guy worked last?
Since you didn't want to just march right up to the principal on a hunch and potentially wrongly accuse the guy of being a dirtbag or a liar, you poked your head in the personnel system, saw where he worked last, and called a buddy who worked at that same school.
So you buddy says "Oh, he's a great guy, real squared away, but occasionally its like he has tourettes or something, weird things just pop out of his mouth.." (*whew* Glad I didn't toss this guy under the bus with the principal...)
Or your buddy says "Him? Jeebus, dude, call the cops. He's not supposed to be within 200 ft of anybody under the age of 21, let alone IN a school..."
Was it wrong to use the personnel system to potentially avoid embarrassment and scorn, or to potentially keep a person who should not be around students away? In that case, sure.
(Think it can't happen? Think again. A couple year back, many of us got burned by a Canadian Forces "LCol" who not only purported to be a currently serving CF officer whilst being a Canadian Air Cadets officer, but in fact had been ejected from his cadet organization against his will due to, ahem, improprieties, and was still associating with cadets! And was not ever in the Canadian Forces in any capacity, let alone as an officer and let alone as a LCol. And this kept on because nobody bothered to check his bonafides until he started saying things that were... odd. And then, someone just did a "stupid check" against what he was saying, and not only was what he was saying bogus, but the reasons he was saying it, supposedly as a CF officer, was bogus, too. Mind you, I stood in my living room on a casual summer day one year chatting on the phone with a CF Captain in the Canadian Forces personnel division at CFHQ in Ottawa, Canada, ascertaining that I had a fraud on my hands. I've seen this one up close and personal, let me tell you. And I had to tell two of my best friends in the world that a guy they trusted was a phony. Man, that was a tough one..)Again, I'm not saying you should "out" someone just to out them. But if you find evidence of impropriety while just checking to make sure someone is on the level? Its in your best interest to do so post-
freakin'-haste.
Quote
It is often claimed here the CAPTALK is not an "official" place, however, over time that is forgotten. This issue is one such occasion. Using e-services FOUO info to win arguments in CAPTALK crosses a certain line.
Yeah, again, I'm not saying that e-services data should be used in that way at all. Winning an argument on the Internet is like winning a race at Special Olympics: Even if you do win, you're still retarded.
Quote
As for using CAPTALK as a whistle-blower's tool? Can't say I can speak for that either way. I have seen, already written about this in an above thread, seen alleged "lies" become "questionable suspicion" then to "rumor" and then make the leap to becoming "gospel fact," on these forum with no substantiation. But using FOUO info on CAPTALK is inappropriate. There are official channels and systems in place for that...this is not one of them.
Well, since the 5,000 lb elephant in the room is that this bruhaha got started over the discussion of whether Sean Fagan overstated his qualifications a little during an interview, and someone just did some basic fact checking, you tell me: Is a CAP colonel making a statement about being qualified to "fly everything," when it appears to be that he's qualified to "not fly everything" or even "not qualified to fly -anything-" in the press a smart move? Is it indicative of a leader you would tend to trust?
I don't know the guy from Adam. Hell, I'm not even in CAP anymore (check out my dead sexy "Retired" ID card...Gets me a cup of coffee if I hand it over with a buck...) so I don't have a dog in this fight, even.
As far as I knew, he's probably the greatest GA pilot ever to grace the skies since, uh, who was that guy? Roscoe Turner! Maybe he's checked out on everything from a Piper Cub to a B-747. Awesome. Thats a guy from whom I would believe aviation information.
Oh, wait, he's not? Whoops.
NIN, you and I are in agreement some 90%. Fact is, if I were to try to do some "fact checking" of the sort you mentioned in my school district I would likely be fired...or censured. Every person in Texas has to undergo a fairly strict background check with photo ID issued and any withholding of info (as in if the background check revealed something or if one committed an infraction and attempted to hide it from the police) warrants instant termination. Putzing around (narrowed term from Pylon, I am familiar with its Yiddish origins) with personal/personnel date is verboten!
And since Pylon suddenly is the "works cited" police...
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=6.msg17#msg17 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=6.msg17#msg17)
Normal teachers are not privy to that information. We are privy to student info, but on an FOUO basis if you will. Let's say, for example, I taken an instant dislike to some student I do not have and start pulling up all sorts of info from the "on line grade book." The using this info on a student I have no official dealings with? The ethics of that are questionable.
Now if I were a coach or other sponsor, I could look into their grades and the like to monitor their academic achievement...but I have an "official capacity" as a coach.
Same as here...aside from being a member of the organization I have little need or cause to have access to, let's say, Pylon's records...unless he was down here for Hurricane Relief or visiting our unit. But in those cases, I would have an official capacity to look it up...the prior as a likely MS looking up ES data for a mission the latter to examine his credentials to participate fully/interact in the activities of the Squadron...again, in my official capacity as squadron commander.
But to look it up to win a CAPTALK debate or make an ad hominiem attack here? Specious argument at best.
Look, Pylon challenged me to find an instance of the practice, I found one...I suspect there might be a handful of others (I have a Mariachi gig in Alice, Texas at 7:00 so I can't waste too much "real life" time scouring through posts looking for them.)
Despite that, the practice is, in my opinion, a violation of ethics. If its has happened here more than once...let us just resolve to prevent it in the future. Gentleman's Agreement?
Quote from: Pylon on January 29, 2011, 10:06:11 PM
Okay Joe, I'm calling the bluff. Can you link to any thread where someone inappropriately used e-services information to "one-up" someone, win an argument, make another person uncomfortable, or "out" an anonymous user? One single instance? Ever?
I'm not seeing the "enemy" that this "crusade" is getting all preachy about. It looks like a lot of vitriol about a non-issue to me.
It's been happening on a semi-frequent basis here.
Just to put a slightly different spin on this, there are a whole lot of NB members who wish they'd been alerted to the fact that Chuck Carr had a domestic violence conviction on his record prior to casting their ballots for National Vice Commander.
Just sayin'.
Knowledge is power. Withholding knowledge is...well, abuse of power.
Quote from: NIN on January 29, 2011, 11:28:33 PMWinning an argument on the Internet is like winning a race at Special Olympics: Even if you do win, you're still retarded.
Insensitive, but hilarious!
Quote from: AirDX on January 30, 2011, 10:59:59 AM
Quote from: NIN on January 29, 2011, 11:28:33 PMWinning an argument on the Internet is like winning a race at Special Olympics: Even if you do win, you're still retarded.
Insensitive, but hilarious!
Totally.
And thats coming from the parent of a kid with special needs.
Quote from: NIN on January 31, 2011, 02:01:18 AM
Quote from: AirDX on January 30, 2011, 10:59:59 AM
Quote from: NIN on January 29, 2011, 11:28:33 PMWinning an argument on the Internet is like winning a race at Special Olympics: Even if you do win, you're still retarded.
Insensitive, but hilarious!
Totally.
And thats coming from the parent of a kid with special needs.
That's nothing compared to her dad's special needs! ;-)
Why don't we crank it down a notch every body and do what we usually do in this situation. Turn it into a unform thread. ;D ;D
Quote from: ol'fido on January 31, 2011, 11:24:24 PM
Why don't we crank it down a notch every body and do what we usually do in this situation. Turn it into a unform thread. ;D ;D
Let's not, and say we did.
I'd rather see it turn into a Grammar Cop thread. There's quite a bit of material right here on this thread! >:D >:D