Defencetalk Members Could Be Just Google Experts?

[boomerdl]

This is a question that I would like the membership to address. What makes an member considered an expert here in this website? All I see and read are quotes from this website or that website, and articles that could be found in newspapers and/or magazines. IMHO, these articles and/or bits of information on various websites, newspapers, and/or magazines are provided intentionally for commercial consumption for so called enthusiasts and website experts found in the forum. Information provided in these forums may have the baseline information, but lacking the real facts and/or test data and analyses that are found in the domain in the highest ranks of the DOD and Civilian decision makers.
These DOD officials and Top USG Civilian are the keepers of these top secret information, etc., and will remain such until information is de-classified for public consumption.

What say you members? Can anyone prove me wrong? I would like to see your opinions if the moderators will allow it?

 

[RobWilliams]

You prove you are a defence professional by providing moderators with information about if you 1) are employed in the defence sector in one capacity or another or 2) you are employed in the Armed Forces in some description or another. The information is then verified.

That's my interpretation of the process, not being a 'defence professional' I don't know more detail about the process. Therefore having the title 'defence professional' is more credible than e.g me, who is a mere 'enthusiast'.

I'd have thought people posting links to articles, or reputable websites is obvious. It gives a statement a little more credibility than 'well I know it is so there', it prevents one from posting absolute bollocks without substance. If i was to say to you "well, i got told it's true" and didn't post any information, I would expect a skeptical response.

I personally AM a google expert as i can't get any info from 'work' (with i'm a student), but i look for information from official and reliable/reputable sources to back up my decisions, that doesn't make my opinions and thoughts any less valid does it in your eyes?

As to looking down on information other than something directly from some super-secret government employee, d'you really expect that anyone would risk their job and post sensitive material here? We post and comment on material that is accessable in the public domain, just because it's not information that's slipped from some high ranking DOD officials briefcase doesn't neccesarily make it a bad source.

You seem to be taking the moderators actions personally when you shouldn't. If you have beef with the moderators (which you appear to have from the end of your post, and others) then PM them, they are reasonable people.

Also, i'm VERY interested on how you expect ANYONE to "prove you wrong", you expecting someone to post the blueprints of the Vanguard SSBN replacement?

 

[StobieWan]

This is a question that I would like the membership to address. What makes an member considered an expert here in this website? All I see and read are quotes from this website or that website, and articles that could be found in newspapers and/or magazines. IMHO, these articles and/or bits of information on various websites, newspapers, and/or magazines are provided intentionally for commercial consumption for so called enthusiasts and website experts found in the forum. Information provided in these forums may have the baseline information, but lacking the real facts and/or test data and analyses that are found in the domain in the highest ranks of the DOD and Civilian decision makers.
These DOD officials and Top USG Civilian are the keepers of these top secret information, etc., and will remain such until information is de-classified for public consumption.

What say you members? Can anyone prove me wrong? I would like to see your opinions if the moderators will allow it?

The distinction is clear - to get a DefPro tag, you have to provide bona fides by mailing from a recognised mail address. It's one of the reasons I hang around on this site - it's a sharp improvement compared to the bulk of the other sites out there.

The people who know, know - they're not going to drop a pile of classified stuff in your lap to just show you that they do.

If you've a serious problem with the site, best move on - the alternative is to take a deep breath, accept that you've gotten off on the wrong foot and basically wind your neck in.

I suspect you won't and will be joining the banned list shortly,

Ian

 

[gf0012-aust]

To get DefProf status people must provide a number of things:

proof of prior service, this is sometimes checked via various means, including checking with ex service people who may have served in that period, served in that unit, or have their own means of validating

additional proof to correlate between discharge papers and current ID, all material is deleted once used

industry validation if claiming industry

first hand referral

cross checking with other defence sites

cross checking current mil address or defence or gov address via various means

we do have a relationship with a number of other sites and we do assist and alert each other if members claims are not legit, so some forums do talk to each other to assist as its all in our interest to do so

some members are mods on multiple sites or some senior members are mods on other sites

eg we invariably get people who claim to be ex SOF. As an example due to prev work and other forum relationships, I am able to reach back into the community and cross check claims of prev SOF history. There are quite a few people who make claims about being ex operators and aren't. In cases like this the operators don't take kindly to it and have in the past published it within as an alert so that all their own members know the fakes if they come across them in their travels.

Some people will invariably slip through, but we have tightened up since having a bad experience a few years back. This person knew key words and functions and managed to get away with it for approx 3 years, however once of the other defprofs picked up some subtle misuse of terminology as well as running his own geolocation checks when the person claimed to be off flying a mission. It took longer than we expected, but we got him in the end. As a legacy of that we are far tougher on trust then verify, its now verify then trust and docs get checked quite tightly.

On top of that, any defprof must pass checking with other defprofs muster. ie the "sniff" test.

just to add, there are people on here who are defprofs by the rules, but have asked that they not be flagged as such because they want to retain some anonimity. that could be due to currrent job sensitivities etc...

there are also senior members in industry who qualify and are considered tlo be def profs even though not blue tagged.

we do take it seriously here, and anyone who scams is banned straight away. even when people have done a mea culpa and asked for acceptance back in it is denied.

Trust is broken.

Anyone who claims prior service or industry relevance will have it called and tested, and won't get tagged just because they make the claim.

finally, everyone will come to their own conclusion, but any member, be they defprof, senior, regular, should be judged on the consistency of their input, even though defprof/senior members have a technical or philosophical disagreement, the measure of their professionalism and maturity is tested by how they play with each other.

hope this adds some clarity.

 

[boomerdl]

The distinction is clear - to get a DefPro tag, you have to provide bona fides by mailing from a recognised mail address. It's one of the reasons I hang around on this site - it's a sharp improvement compared to the bulk of the other sites out there.

The people who know, know - they're not going to drop a pile of classified stuff in your lap to just show you that they do.

If you've a serious problem with the site, best move on - the alternative is to take a deep breath, accept that you've gotten off on the wrong foot and basically wind your neck in.

I suspect you won't and will be joining the banned list shortly,

Ian

Thank you for the vote of confidence Ian? Your comment is the sort of thing that I detect in here that is too condescending. I may actually volunteer to ban myself so you will not get the satisfaction that you're looking for? Sayonara, adios, goodbye...

 

[RobWilliams]

Thank you for the vote of confidence Ian? Your comment is the sort of thing that I detect in here that is too condescending. I may actually volunteer to ban myself so you will not get the satisfaction that you're looking for? Sayonara, adios, goodbye...

You can hardly be suprised with his supposition, after all, you did call the moderators "A**H***" in an earlier comment which is not the attitude of mature people in my opinion, and then scoffing at people posting links to accessable official/reputable/reliable sources which you can view yourself instead of "dod.com/super-duper-top-secret-docs" isn't a particularly nice thing to do either.

If you wish to leave, then please do, nobody here is going to try to persuade you to stay (I for one prefer people to participate willingly). However, there are standards which you must maintain here and if - for whatever reason - you aren't able to keep to them, then you are obviously going to get banned/a stern talking too.

 

[StobieWan]

Thank you for the vote of confidence Ian? Your comment is the sort of thing that I detect in here that is too condescending. I may actually volunteer to ban myself so you will not get the satisfaction that you're looking for? Sayonara, adios, goodbye...

I wasn't being condescending dear boy, simply correctly predicting you wouldn't be willing to amend your behaviour. Thanks for proving me right


Ian

 

[boomerdl]

I wasn't being condescending dear boy, simply correctly predicting you wouldn't be willing to amend your behaviour. Thanks for proving me right


Ian

Thank you Ian dear boy. Yes, you just proved by calling me boy that you are with the mindset that you are better than me, boy!

 

[Smokin' Joe]

While BoomerDL cannot maintain a decent behavior he has a point. Most answers to questions on here can be found on the open source internet simply by googling. I would answer his question by saying that I don't think that this is what forums are set up for. I thought it was more for members to share their thoughts and opinions on subjects rather than try to give out actual information. As everything that is posted on here is open source and not classified then you can find most of it on the internet. The only thing a DefPro can do is put his experiences behind the unclass info. He can't say anything above the unclassified information which can be found with a google search most of the time.

That is why I find it annoying that most people don't believe things unless a DefPro posts on it as all this info can be found easily in other ways. It must take a lot to become a DefPro though as I submitted paperwork a long time ago stating that I served for 9 years in Naval Intelligence and continue to work as a Defense Contractor and still can't get DefPro status.

Oh well.

 

[StobieWan]

While BoomerDL cannot maintain a decent behavior he has a point. Most answers to questions on here can be found on the open source internet simply by googling. I would answer his question by saying that I don't think that this is what forums are set up for. I thought it was more for members to share their thoughts and opinions on subjects rather than try to give out actual information. As everything that is posted on here is open source and not classified then you can find most of it on the internet. The only thing a DefPro can do is put his experiences behind the unclass info. He can't say anything above the unclassified information which can be found with a google search most of the time.

That is why I find it annoying that most people don't believe things unless a DefPro posts on it as all this info can be found easily in other ways. It must take a lot to become a DefPro though as I submitted paperwork a long time ago stating that I served for 9 years in Naval Intelligence and continue to work as a Defense Contractor and still can't get DefPro status.

Oh well.

The information may well be out there but it's the insight I value most - it's one thing to look at some general posts on the internet on various interest sites and news feeds, but it's quite another to have the additional input from peer reviewed input by defence professionals. Another thing - sometimes the information *isn't* easily available on the web, instead it's tucked away in a book that perhaps isn't published any more.


It's interesting for me for sure.

Might be worth giving them another nudge about that Defpro status as it's likely it's simply fallen down the back of the sofa - I'm sure a nudge will get the wheels turning,

Ian

 

[Smokin' Joe]

The information may well be out there but it's the insight I value most - it's one thing to look at some general posts on the internet on various interest sites and news feeds, but it's quite another to have the additional input from peer reviewed input by defence professionals. Another thing - sometimes the information *isn't* easily available on the web, instead it's tucked away in a book that perhaps isn't published any more.


It's interesting for me for sure.

Might be worth giving them another nudge about that Defpro status as it's likely it's simply fallen down the back of the sofa - I'm sure a nudge will get the wheels turning,

Ian

Ian,

That is what I was trying to say for sure. The information is out there somewhere and you can get that, but the insight of personal experiences and views of those who worked with whatever you are talking about is what forums are about. There are also unclass sites that may not be very accurate or misinformed themselves and a DefPro could help clear this up.

On the whole me being a DefPro thing.... I don't care that much. It just makes me want to slap someone when they say, "You can't say that because you are not a defpro" or "I don't believe you until you get defpro status" this is why I don't post often any more. No biggie.

 

[boomerdl]

While BoomerDL cannot maintain a decent behavior he has a point. Most answers to questions on here can be found on the open source internet simply by googling. I would answer his question by saying that I don't think that this is what forums are set up for. I thought it was more for members to share their thoughts and opinions on subjects rather than try to give out actual information. As everything that is posted on here is open source and not classified then you can find most of it on the internet. The only thing a DefPro can do is put his experiences behind the unclass info. He can't say anything above the unclassified information which can be found with a google search most of the time.

That is why I find it annoying that most people don't believe things unless a DefPro posts on it as all this info can be found easily in other ways. It must take a lot to become a DefPro though as I submitted paperwork a long time ago stating that I served for 9 years in Naval Intelligence and continue to work as a Defense Contractor and still can't get DefPro status.

Oh well.

Thank you Smokin Joe. I could be off based by my previous language use but I was provoken basically to counter what is so belittling language that I recieved. I expressed in certain number of words to the webmaster/administrator in an email that I am not going to submit to the vetting process due to the sensitivity of my job with the USG.

I've been reading all these posts and comments here and what I found are information as you also stated could be found in other websites, newspapers, magazines, etc. It doesn't take a lot of intellect to find these information, but what is missing are the exchanges of fresh ideas and opinions that I have been looking for. If one expresses an opinion, these moderators need to be provided with facts and data? What I've been saying all along, opinions are just opinions and not facts.

Therefore, I came to the conclusion that in order to participate in this website and the forums within, that one has to spend inordinate amount time to google the various websites, magazines, and newspapers just to provide the background information that could have been already identified within the forums? Thus, the question that I asked in this particular thread.

 

[Smokin' Joe]

Thank you Smokin Joe. I could be off based by my previous language use but I was provoken basically to counter what is so belittling language that I recieved. I expressed in certain number of words to the webmaster/administrator in an email that I am not going to submit to the vetting process due to the sensitivity of my job with the USG.

I've been reading all these posts and comments here and what I found are information as you also stated could be found in other websites, newspapers, magazines, etc. It doesn't take a lot of intellect to find these information, but what is missing are the exchanges of fresh ideas and opinions that I have been looking for. If one expresses an opinion, these moderators need to be provided with facts and data? What I've been saying all along, opinions are just opinions and not facts.

Therefore, I came to the conclusion that in order to participate in this website and the forums within, that one has to spend inordinate amount time to google the various websites, magazines, and newspapers just to provide the background information that could have been already identified within the forums? Thus, the question that I asked in this particular thread.

USG?? University of South Georgia? Undergraduate Student Government? United Smelly Girls? I made a point but sided with no one. It was just my opinion on the matter.

Things such as broken English, improper grammar and claiming to be someone that you can't prove to be will definitely throw people off.

As for the spending time to be a vital part of this community you are correct. The more time you spend finding your facts the more reliable your posts are going to be. Over time this will prove to people that you are willing to put forth the effort to become knowledgable. The advantage DefPros have is that they can do their research while at work.

 

[boomerdl]

USG?? University of South Georgia? Undergraduate Student Government? United Smelly Girls? I made a point but sided with no one. It was just my opinion on the matter.

Things such as broken English, improper grammar and claiming to be someone that you can't prove to be will definitely throw people off.

As for the spending time to be a vital part of this community you are correct. The more time you spend finding your facts the more reliable your posts are going to be. Over time this will prove to people that you are willing to put forth the effort to become knowledgable. The advantage DefPros have is that they can do their research while at work.

I appreciate the sense of humor! By nature I'm an very courteous individual, that is why I always say "Thank You". If not appreciated in this forum then I have to retract my salutation to you or anyone else as applicable. USG means United State Government! I will not be providing comments and/or opinions if I don't possess the proper background. Have a nice day (there I said something nice again).

 

[Smokin' Joe]

I don't think you do appreciate my sense of humor. LOL If your position with the United Smelly Girls organization is so sensitive then why are you broadcasting on open source that you hold that position. You would in fact be making yourself a target. Now please stop being a troll and sit back and shut up or provide the info that the mods want. #no longer feeding the troll

 

[boomerdl]

I don't think you do appreciate my sense of humor. LOL If your position with the United Smelly Girls organization is so sensitive then why are you broadcasting on open source that you hold that position. You would in fact be making yourself a target. Now please stop being a troll and sit back and shut up or provide the info that the mods want. #no longer feeding the troll

LMAO, no, seriously, if you worked for Naval Intelligence for a while sometime ago, then you should know all the restrictions. I'm not really broadcasting anything? I come here in these forums just to have a break on what I'm doing and read all these nonsense! It is actually very entertaining to me.

 

[RobWilliams]

I don't think you do appreciate my sense of humor. LOL If your position with the United Smelly Girls organization is so sensitive then why are you broadcasting on open source that you hold that position. You would in fact be making yourself a target. Now please stop being a troll and sit back and shut up or provide the info that the mods want. #no longer feeding the troll

If he is who he says he is (i assume they're a 'he' anyway) then there's no problem.

If however, he's determined to claim to work for the US Government and not prove it, then -rightly so - his opinions (at least in my eyes) sink very fast in terms of credibility and the mods will be on his case very quickly. If I - for example - claimed to be an RAF serviceman, and was unwilling to provide any proof, I would expect from this forum a serious degree of scrutiny on everything I say. That comes hand-in-hand with being a mature forum IMO

One thing I have to pick you up on though (sorry ) is earlier you made a generalised statement that most answers are 'use google' which I haven't found to be the case, every time i've made an enquiry it has been met with decent responses, but you do often see questions which can easily be found via google, my personal preference is to look for information myself thoroughly and have my own sources before asking. But then again that could be something to do with that i lurked around this forum for +6 months before joining so i'd read plenty about swotting-up before I post

Like Stobie said, give the Mods a nudge in regards to your status, i'm sure it'll get worked out.

 

[Smokin' Joe]

If he is who he says he is (i assume they're a 'he' anyway) then there's no problem.

If however, he's determined to claim to work for the US Government and not prove it, then -rightly so - his opinions (at least in my eyes) sink very fast in terms of credibility and the mods will be on his case very quickly. If I - for example - claimed to be an RAF serviceman, and was unwilling to provide any proof, I would expect from this forum a serious degree of scrutiny on everything I say. That comes hand-in-hand with being a mature forum IMO

One thing I have to pick you up on though (sorry ) is earlier you made a generalised statement that most answers are 'use google' which I haven't found to be the case, every time i've made an enquiry it has been met with decent responses, but you do often see questions which can easily be found via google, my personal preference is to look for information myself thoroughly and have my own sources before asking. But then again that could be something to do with that i lurked around this forum for +6 months before joining so i'd read plenty about swotting-up before I post

Like Stobie said, give the Mods a nudge in regards to your status, i'm sure it'll get worked out.

I didn't mean to come across that people answering used google to find the answers. What I was saying is that using a search engine I (or you, or anyone else) could generally find the same information. The reason for the forum is to have individual opinions on that information or some sense of confirmation from others about the information that you find on the internet.

Like I said I am not really that concerned with the DefPro status. The only thing I could be considered a pro at is general Navy questions anyway as that is the only information I would be able to share.

 

[RobWilliams]

I didn't mean to come across that people answering used google to find the answers. What I was saying is that using a search engine I (or you, or anyone else) could generally find the same information. The reason for the forum is to have individual opinions on that information or some sense of confirmation from others about the information that you find on the internet.

Like I said I am not really that concerned with the DefPro status. The only thing I could be considered a pro at is general Navy questions anyway as that is the only information I would be able to share.

Whilst I do agree that the purpose of forums is to discuss and evaluate topics and questions, most of the gripes the more senior people on the site seem to have is when people ask about a basic statistic or figure about a particular weapon system or when some people are determined to argue basing their arguments on false information, meaning it's understandable to reply with 'use google'.

I wasn't trying to get across that I thought you meant everyone uses google to answer, what I was trying to get across was that it's not as standard a reply as you alluded to

I have to say though, google is a fantastic resource to use.

 

[gf0012-aust]

On the whole me being a DefPro thing.... I don't care that much. It just makes me want to slap someone when they say, "You can't say that because you are not a defpro" or "I don't believe you until you get defpro status" this is why I don't post often any more. No biggie.

I'm not sure I've seen any DefPro engage as such, in fact there have been times when individual DefPros have had PM's asking them to wind their attitude back in as their approach has not been helpful

The tag does not bless anyone with perfect insight, in fact there's no shortage where DefPros disagree with each other. What it's meant to do however is flag the fact that someone with that tag has served or worked in a capacity which provides them with actual experience and capability in a military or related environment - and may have something more of value to contribute due to their prev/current background. They are invariably contributing from a point of involvement or greater knowledge due to their background. They're not unimpeachable SME's, but they can and usually have some qualified contribution that is worth sitting up and paying attention to

as I said before, we have members on here who have requested not to have it flagged due to their own personal reasons, it becomes quite apparent though when you read their contributions that they are contributing from experience.

hence my continued reference to the fact that its the quality of consistency of comment that drives meaningful and qualitative debate.

there are, and will continue to be times when Mods and other members will become exasperated at levels of debate where basic research should have yielded some answers before posting, its not that people are averse to helping, but its about how people elect to ride into town and make first contact.

some new members ride in and "yee har" down the main street, some lurk for months and then come in, the lurkers are better versed in the tone and culture (because every forum has its own culture) and will do better.

Tags are tags, and this is not meant to be a DefProfs only forum. I learn just as much from Senior Members, and even new members, in fact it never ceases to surprise me at the level of knowledge and expertise that some bring to the table.

It is however, ultimately an issue of how people engage, the consistency of that engagement and the quality of that engagement - even if its an opposing perspective that defines a forum.

for some, its about pause and type.

in military terms its about battle rhythm - determine the tempo and adjust accordingly.