One of the -- if not THE -- most critical tenets of this site is respect for all branches of the US military, their membership, and their leadership, even when we may disagree with their actions or decisions. We may joke around a bit (especially during Army/Navy week) but underlying any such commentary is true respect and appreciation for everyone who is serving or who has served honorably in our armed forces. No one service is better than any other.
To that end, comments that disaparage the military, a fellow service, a SA, or military/civilian leadership -- up to and including POTUS -- will not be tolerated on this site. Period.
It is permissible and appropriate to post news stories about the military, even if those stories include "negative" comments. However, even on the OT forum, there are limits. Discussion should relate to FACTS, not speculation. Thus, for example, it's fine to debate whether the way in which the USCG member raised the omission of the USCG to POTUS was the right way to do it or whether Pres. Obama's staff should have prepared him better for the event. It is NOT acceptable to disparage that military member or rag on USCG personnel for being upset that their service was omitted. In addition, commentary should focus on what did happen, not what might happen. And, while you may respectfully disagree with a leadership decision that has been made, cynical and/or derogatory comments about military or civilian leadership are never appropriate.
A second major tenet of this site is respect for fellow posters. Polite disagreement is fine -- that's one of the reasons we have the OT forum. However, insulting other posters, questioning their commitment to the military, questioning the integrity of their service, and similar comments will also not be tolerated. Similarly, "baiting" other members -- posting comments intended to provoke an angry retort -- is also not permitted.
If you have any questions about the above, please refer to the forum and site rules, which spell out the above quite clearly.
One final comment. Some of you mistake a lack of immediate moderator reaction to a potentially inappropriate post as tolerating or condoning such comments. To those of you, I would point out three things:
First, moderators have real, full-time jobs. Thus, we are not on the site 24 hours/day and, even when we are here, each of us may not review every single post on every visit. Thus, it is quite possible that a thread can go along for several hours without a mod seeing it.
Second, the mods try to interfere as little as possible. Thus, we may allow a few "grey"/borderline posts to stand without interference in the hope that the posters will get back on track and on topic without a lot of edits and warnings. Most of the time, it works. Sometimes, it doesn't. But we generally believe in the integrity of the posters on this site and prefer not to "overmoderate" every thread. That may at times appear to be "inconsistent," but we are a group of human beings, not robots.
Third, moderators post in threads as "regular posters" with an interest in the topic, not always in our role as mods. So the fact that a moderator posted in a thread doesn't mean that he/she agrees with every comment or has even read every comment.
Thus, if you have an issue with a post or a poster, CONTACT A MOD. We will do our best to address the issue as quickly as possible, keeping in mind that we may be at our "real jobs" when your comment comes through and thus it may take a bit of time to address your concern. Please, DO NOT TAKE MATTERS INTO YOUR OWN HANDS. That rarely turns out well.
With the above in mind, we are reintroducing this thread. It will be monitored very carefully. Any attempts to resurrect items that have been edited or removed -- or any other violations of forum rules -- will be responded to swiftly.
