Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 16, 2018, 03:30:52 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: Restructure CAP ranks: change "SM without grade" members into "Senior Airmen"
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7 Print
Author Topic: Restructure CAP ranks: change "SM without grade" members into "Senior Airmen"  (Read 6893 times)
Fubar
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 737

« Reply #40 on: November 07, 2018, 02:19:52 PM »

I've found that the audience dictates the terminology that I'll use. Internally everyone knows what senior member means and even SMWOG. Externally I'll use "adult members" if the discussion needs to delineate between adults and kids. When talking with outsiders I don't think I've ever used terms like "officer" or one of our grades since they don't translate well externally (especially when working with members of the military).

We do so much and run in so many directions, it doesn't seem surprising to me that we have these types of issues. When you look at other organizations that are even older than CAP such as the Red Cross or Boy Scouts, they don't seem to have these challenges since they are far more focused. I don't say that as a criticism to CAP, only to say we can't fit much of what we do into nice little boxes.
Logged
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,529

« Reply #41 on: November 07, 2018, 02:36:33 PM »

Way back in the beginning, there were no ranks in CAP. There were positions. That didn’t last long. Ranks were introduced. Everybody in CAP was then simply a member of CAP. But...some members  were officers, some were NCO’s, some were Private’s.

The need to differentiate membership classes didn’t arise until there were two classes. Then there were cadets and members.

Senior Member has always been a poor choice, to me. It only has meaning within CAP. Telling an outsider “I am a Senior Member” makes sense to the SM, but is an odd term to outsiders. “Senior Member?” As in, been around a long time? (With ensuing puzzlement when the 20-year old “Senior Member” I traduces himself). Does “Senior Member” mean a Member over 65?

It’s just weird. Might as well say “I’m Poobah Member Jones. I’ll be introducing Grand Poobah Smith in a few minutes. Meanwhile while we are waiting, Cadet Snuffy will be drilling some cadets and we can watch. It’s actually his time doing that as a cadet. Cadet Snuffy will become Poobah Member Snuffy next week, on his birthday. Yes, CAP is divided into cadets and Poobah Members...

Anyway, “Senior Member” is just weird. It isn’t clear as to where the Seniority is and makes no sense without an explanation that might never find an opportunity to happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Member" would suffice, as in "I'm a Civil Air Patrol Member" or "I'm a Member in Civil Air Patrol."

We over-complicate things by trying to provide internal clarity. The result is the outside public that we market to or work alongside has no idea what the heck we're talking about.
Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,304

« Reply #42 on: November 07, 2018, 09:25:10 PM »


 Might as well say “I’m Poobah Member Jones. I’ll be introducing Grand Poobah Smith in a few minutes. Meanwhile while we are waiting, Cadet Snuffy will be drilling some cadets and we can watch. It’s actually his time doing that as a cadet. Cadet Snuffy will become Poobah Member Snuffy next week, on his birthday. Yes, CAP is divided into cadets and Poobah Members...


^^^  Made me think of this:



Maybe we could go for these hats. The color is good. :)
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,714

« Reply #43 on: November 07, 2018, 10:03:53 PM »

Those hats in that color? Will have to be for the Corporates. The AF will not accept them with the Blues.

In Blue, they match the tie.

In Grey, since the pants are grey.

And another advantage, should be warm in winter.

Logged
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 843
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #44 on: November 08, 2018, 04:18:55 AM »

Way back in the beginning, there were no ranks in CAP. There were positions. That didn’t last long. Ranks were introduced. Everybody in CAP was then simply a member of CAP. But...some members  were officers, some were NCO’s, some were Private’s.

The need to differentiate membership classes didn’t arise until there were two classes. Then there were cadets and members.

Senior Member has always been a poor choice, to me. It only has meaning within CAP. Telling an outsider “I am a Senior Member” makes sense to the SM, but is an odd term to outsiders. “Senior Member?” As in, been around a long time? (With ensuing puzzlement when the 20-year old “Senior Member” I traduces himself). Does “Senior Member” mean a Member over 65?

It’s just weird. Might as well say “I’m Poobah Member Jones. I’ll be introducing Grand Poobah Smith in a few minutes. Meanwhile while we are waiting, Cadet Snuffy will be drilling some cadets and we can watch. It’s actually his time doing that as a cadet. Cadet Snuffy will become Poobah Member Snuffy next week, on his birthday. Yes, CAP is divided into cadets and Poobah Members...

Anyway, “Senior Member” is just weird. It isn’t clear as to where the Seniority is and makes no sense without an explanation that might never find an opportunity to happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Member" would suffice, as in "I'm a Civil Air Patrol Member" or "I'm a Member in Civil Air Patrol."

We over-complicate things by trying to provide internal clarity. The result is the outside public that we market to or work alongside has no idea what the heck we're talking about.

But...”Member” does nothing to delineate that one particular oddity. Because EVERYONE who belongs to CAP is a Member, including Cadet Staff Sergeant, Cadet Colonel, Senior Flight Officer, Lieutenant General or Major General. Not to mention the Patrons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,974

« Reply #45 on: November 08, 2018, 10:41:52 AM »

Quote
Something better than "Senior Member Without Grade Smith." (Doesn't really roll off the tongue smoothly now, does it?)

Obviously, the proper way to say SMWOG Smith is "Smaug Smith"...
Logged
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,529

« Reply #46 on: November 08, 2018, 10:47:43 AM »

Way back in the beginning, there were no ranks in CAP. There were positions. That didn’t last long. Ranks were introduced. Everybody in CAP was then simply a member of CAP. But...some members  were officers, some were NCO’s, some were Private’s.

The need to differentiate membership classes didn’t arise until there were two classes. Then there were cadets and members.

Senior Member has always been a poor choice, to me. It only has meaning within CAP. Telling an outsider “I am a Senior Member” makes sense to the SM, but is an odd term to outsiders. “Senior Member?” As in, been around a long time? (With ensuing puzzlement when the 20-year old “Senior Member” I traduces himself). Does “Senior Member” mean a Member over 65?

It’s just weird. Might as well say “I’m Poobah Member Jones. I’ll be introducing Grand Poobah Smith in a few minutes. Meanwhile while we are waiting, Cadet Snuffy will be drilling some cadets and we can watch. It’s actually his time doing that as a cadet. Cadet Snuffy will become Poobah Member Snuffy next week, on his birthday. Yes, CAP is divided into cadets and Poobah Members...

Anyway, “Senior Member” is just weird. It isn’t clear as to where the Seniority is and makes no sense without an explanation that might never find an opportunity to happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Member" would suffice, as in "I'm a Civil Air Patrol Member" or "I'm a Member in Civil Air Patrol."

We over-complicate things by trying to provide internal clarity. The result is the outside public that we market to or work alongside has no idea what the heck we're talking about.

But...”Member” does nothing to delineate that one particular oddity. Because EVERYONE who belongs to CAP is a Member, including Cadet Staff Sergeant, Cadet Colonel, Senior Flight Officer, Lieutenant General or Major General. Not to mention the Patrons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, and?

CAP Member --- everything applies
Aerospace Education Member --- sub-category of membership
Patron --- sub-category of membership
Cadet Sponsor Member --- sub-category of membership
Cadet --- sub-category of membership

"The standards set forth in this regulation apply to CAP Members in generality, including cadet members, but exclude all other sub-categories of membership." or "Unless otherwise mentioned, this standard applies to all CAP Members."

Why is this such a difficult thing? Where is the issue with distinctly identifying a membership group in the regulations?

The oddity isn't the 'senior member;' the oddities are the other sub-categories that really don't fall under most of the regulatory guidelines for the many texts we have. Identify them in specificity when applicable, and ignore them for the remainder of the standard.

"Senior Member" is only a problem in one single area of CAP....public relations.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,246

« Reply #47 on: November 08, 2018, 10:53:07 AM »

"Senior Member" is only a problem in one single area of CAP....public relations.

Honestly, is it there either?  HWSRN decided it was, that was when most of the "concern" about
the term started, before then, no one cared.
Logged


TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,529

« Reply #48 on: November 08, 2018, 12:30:56 PM »

"Senior Member" is only a problem in one single area of CAP....public relations.

Honestly, is it there either?  HWSRN decided it was, that was when most of the "concern" about
the term started, before then, no one cared.

Well, I do think that under public perception, "senior member" is not an attractive term, especially for younger CAP members who were not formerly cadets. It's a term I can somewhat talk to parents whilst using, but it's not appealing to the person who is interested in joining because it doesn't describe what it is that a "senior member" is: Is it an older person? Is it a higher-ranking person? Why is it 'senior?'

I can tell someone I'm a member of CAP. They get what that means. I tell someone that I'm a senior member of CAP, and I get asked "Oh, what's that?" All the time.
Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,304

« Reply #49 on: November 08, 2018, 01:21:17 PM »


I can tell someone I'm a member of CAP. They get what that means. I tell someone that I'm a senior member of CAP, and I get asked "Oh, what's that?" All the time.

Thinking back, I can't remember many times even saying member. I will usually say something like "I do some volunteer work with the Civil Air Patrol". While yes, I'm very active, thats how I think of it. I'm a volunteer that helps out when I can.

I tell folks we are a volunteer org that can always use more "help". Come check us out.  That seems to get a better initial reaction and interest than to say "I'm a member and we are looking for new recruits".
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,464
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #50 on: November 08, 2018, 03:11:57 PM »

"Senior Member" is only a problem in one single area of CAP....public relations.

Almost.

A major issue, IMHO and that of others, is the rank/grade block on forms. That field MUST be filled in the database. SM has been chosen as the appropriate filler for those members not having a different/higher grade.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,714

« Reply #51 on: November 08, 2018, 04:07:24 PM »

In my 20 or so years in CAP, I have never had a problem when explaining that adults are referenced as senior members and cadets as those members under 18, while those between 18 and 21 can be cadets or senior members. The people that I talked to understand that senior member is only a category. Nor I have been concerned or felt a put-down  when I had to look at me as a senior member.

Logged
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,529

« Reply #52 on: November 08, 2018, 04:43:56 PM »

"Senior Member" is only a problem in one single area of CAP....public relations.

Almost.

A major issue, IMHO and that of others, is the rank/grade block on forms. That field MUST be filled in the database. SM has been chosen as the appropriate filler for those members not having a different/higher grade.

And, in that case, we're back at square one on the OP:
What do we call people who are senior members who do not have a grade?

SM(WOG) does not seem to be inappropriate. "Officer Candidate" is inappropriate for NCO-bound members.
Logged
CAP_truth
Seasoned Member

Posts: 254

« Reply #53 on: November 08, 2018, 07:40:33 PM »

We have Cadet Basic why not Senior Basic.
Logged
Cadet CoP
Wilson
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,529

« Reply #54 on: November 09, 2018, 11:02:56 AM »

We have Cadet Basic why not Senior Basic.

We don't have "Cadet Basic." We have Cadet Airman Basic, just as we have C/Amn, C/A1C, and so forth.

"Basic" cadets was a term used for Encampments, which has been done away with after the revised Encampment program was introduced to refer to them as "Students."

Logged
Holding Pattern
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,282
Unit: Worry

« Reply #55 on: November 09, 2018, 02:18:31 PM »

I can't believe I missed this thread!

One of the rare opportunities to plug my favorite military grade that would be so perfect for CAP:

Temporary Third Lieutenant
Logged
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,529

« Reply #56 on: November 09, 2018, 02:25:43 PM »

Temporary Third Lieutenant

Staff Rear Vice Petty Lance Master Gunnery Third Lieutenant Specialist, Chief Second Class
Logged
CAPOfficer
Member

Posts: 67

« Reply #57 on: November 09, 2018, 03:35:45 PM »


Why not call them what they are, Senior Recruit or Senior Trainee; after all, both can be defined as; an apprentice, a learner, a novice or a beginner.  Isn't that what exactly how we view and new personnel.

As far a how to address them, it’s still Mr./Ms. (last name).

Logged
Color Guard Rifleman
Forum Regular

Posts: 100
Unit: GLR-MI-265

Grand Rapids Metro Cadet Squadron
« Reply #58 on: November 09, 2018, 03:52:26 PM »


Why not call them what they are, Senior Recruit or Senior Trainee; after all, both can be defined as; an apprentice, a learner, a novice or a beginner.  Isn't that what exactly how we view and new personnel.

As far a how to address them, it’s still Mr./Ms. (last name).

Recruit wouldn't work due to CAP being volunteer service, not a part of the armed forces. How about "Senior Associate"? Most anything but "recruit" would work.
Logged
C/TSgt Killeen
GLR-MI-265 Cadet Public Affairs NCO                                        

See the source image 
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,314

« Reply #59 on: November 09, 2018, 03:55:55 PM »


Why not call them what they are, Senior Recruit or Senior Trainee; after all, both can be defined as; an apprentice, a learner, a novice or a beginner.  Isn't that what exactly how we view and new personnel.

As far a how to address them, it’s still Mr./Ms. (last name).

Recruit wouldn't work due to CAP being volunteer service, not a part of the armed forces. How about "Senior Associate"? Most anything but "recruit" would work.


Recruit is a Navy/Coast Guard thing.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7 Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: Restructure CAP ranks: change "SM without grade" members into "Senior Airmen"
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.406 seconds with 26 queries.