Is this Forum Officers Only?

How should we change this forum to make it clear that it isn't officers only?

  • Do nothing, that should be pretty clear anyway

    Votes: 32 66.7%
  • Change the name of this forum to something better

    Votes: 7 14.6%
  • Add another forum for all ranks discussion on serious defence topics

    Votes: 9 18.8%

  • Total voters
    48
  • Poll closed .
#1
Its been suggested to me that there is a perception that this forum is only for officers and that "lesser mortals" may not feel happy contributing to the discussion. Personally I don't feel that this is, or should be, the case but accept that the title of the forum may be misleading.

I've therefore put up the poll to let people think whether we should change the name of this forum to make it clear that it isn't just about Officers (Defence Discussion?), add in another separate forum for all ranks discussion or not change anything.

Let me know what you think?
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#2
I think with a title "Staff College & Staff Officers" it does kind of lend itself to those and them.

Now while I agree that some officers do have their uses :) for an all round discussion bringing in the experience of many of the older ARRSERs who have not succumbed to a commission (yet) a new Defence Matters forum could be started. You never know, it might even encourage the older commissioned officers who did not get to Staff College are were only 'sq'.!! :)

There are a lot of experienced WOs & Staffys who could and should contribute to the discussion.

An excellent subject for starting off a new Forum would be to take forward the discussion started in Book Reviews on Behavioural Conflict. A lot of good stuff there and I am sure that many who do not frequent the Library would be more open to discussion in a straight forum - one whose title does not exclude a large part of the Army (and other Services).
 
#3
My only concern that is if this becomes either a) an extension of the NAAFI (the usual suspects are not welcome here frankly) or b) an extension of the harrier/CVS/abolish the RAF bore-off that surfaces quite frequently in CA.

A-Y has a point about behavioural conflict being moved here, if only for a little more discussion.

How about Developments, Concepts and Doctrine?
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#4
My only concern that is if this becomes either a) an extension of the NAAFI (the usual suspects are not welcome here frankly) or b) an extension of the harrier/CVS/abolish the RAF bore-off that surfaces quite frequently in CA.

A-Y has a point about behavioural conflict being moved here, if only for a little more discussion.

How about Developments, Concepts and Doctrine?
Is that
a: No- don't change
b: Yes - change to D,C,D,
c: New Forum for D,C,D?

I am not clear where you stand.
 
#5
If someone is so thick as to believe any public part of the Internet is ringfenced by rank, current or former, it is unlikely you are missing any great contribution to defence thinking. And it seems pretty moribund anyway.

C_C

Late Corporal, Her Majesty's Corps of Intelligencers, and quite at ease talking (slowly and clearly, with pauses) to staff officers.
 
#6
IMHO nothing should change. People should realise that this is an internet forum and as such rank is not an issue here. As a none officer type chap I am more then happy to contribute (well, write something) on this forum should the need arise, and if some officer type thinks that I shouldn't then they will soon understand otherwise.
 
#7
Is that
a: No- don't change
b: Yes - change to D,C,D,
c: New Forum for D,C,D?

I am not clear where you stand.
Then I am a perfect Staff Officer :D
 
B

bokkatankie

Guest
#8
My only concern that is if this becomes either a) an extension of the NAAFI (the usual suspects are not welcome here frankly) or b) an extension of the harrier/CVS/abolish the RAF bore-off that surfaces quite frequently in CA.

A-Y has a point about behavioural conflict being moved here, if only for a little more discussion.

How about Developments, Concepts and Doctrine?
We have Developments, Concepts and Doctrine?
 
#10
#11
Honestly, I don't really mind. I just don't want the type of threads on here that I mentioned initially. If you are unwilling to write here because it has the word "Officer" or "Staff" in it, then I'm not sure you should be writing here at all.....

What might be interesting, if possible, is multi-boarding threads, i.e. it might start (and be housed) in CA, SDSR 2010, SCSO, but by clicking pre-generated 'tags' at the bottom, have it show up in the other boards. I suspect that might be an utter mare to programme, but it is a concept ;)
 

Ravers

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#13
Officers have shit chat and gopping civvies. I'm all for giving them their own place where they can freely talk about pink shirts, Audi A3s and being bummed by their public school prefects.
 
B

bokkatankie

Guest
#14
Officers have shit chat and gopping civvies. I'm all for giving them their own place where they can freely talk about pink shirts, Audi A3s and being bummed by their public school prefects.
Audi A3's are for chavs and hair dressers, I assume you have one.
 
#16
I see no reason for any change.

Charm City's comments resonates here
 
#18
I reckon that it would be a good idea to have somewhere for grown up discussions on topics other than current affairs.I think that the former rank of participants is not really relevant as there are a lot of well educated,articulate and clever members who served in the ranks and who can add value to the discussion.

In addition, the level of pretention and dullardry in the officers' forum can be pretty depressing.

I therefore suggest that a "grown ups" section be created for intelligent discussion of topics that don't fit neatly into the other "serious" corners of Arrse.
 
F

fozzy

Guest
#19
We have Developments, Concepts and Doctrine?
Our battles are planned??

Like the idea of a rebrand to D,C & D to try and open it up to those otherwise put off. After all, arent we supposed to be an experience sharing Army now? :)

I would request rigourous use of the "SO1's red pen" for the usual crayon merchants
 
#20
Late Corporal, Her Majesty's Corps of Intelligencers, and quite at ease talking (slowly and clearly, with pauses) to staff officers.
"W-O-U-L-D Y-O-U L-I-K-E M-I-L-K A-N-D S-U-G-A-R, S-I-R?" being about the sum of it?
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top