[Serious] Parliament Wants ARRSE

#1
We've been approached by the Houses of Parliament Digital Engagement team who are looking at ways to get a number of websites/forums involved with what the Defence Select Committee does. It would appear that is something that the Treasury Committee does with MoneySavingExpert.com for instance.

The question is whether anyone has any suggestions as to how this could work and/or whether it is a good idea? Also what sort of things should be brought to their attention.

Let's keep this thread serious, I'll start a NAAFI bar one in a moment ........

Added 16:28 8 May 13

Just had the following clarification

We just wanted to thank everyone who has visited the thread to post their comments and suggestions.

We wanted to clarify some points going forward to avoid potential confusion.

Our aim is to inform the public about the work of the House of Commons as a whole, and in this instance we are exploring interest in defence issues. So that would not only be information about the inquiries by committees but also debates inside the Commons Chamber and questions on defence matters. We are also exploring ways in which we can help facilitate greater engagement with the parliamentary process, such as submitting views to committee inquiries.

Any suggestions that you have on how this information could be used on this site and what could be of interest to yourselves, would be extremely interesting for us. These discussions are still very much in an early stage so, we are not making an approach on behalf of any particular committee at this time. We certainly wouldn’t be looking to alter how the Army Rumour Service operates, but exploring how we can facilitate dialogue in a way that is useful to all sides.
 
#2
I think the levels of moderation would need to increase quite a bit and that could ruin the site for many.

The NAAFI would probably need to be put in a closed off area of the site with warnings all over it.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#3
A sensible view, and one that probably formalises what has been going on for a while.

I suggest a separate forum, carefully moderated, that the HCDC could use to ask questions, etc.

There are stuill many gems of well informed comment, and sensible opinion, on tihs site, hidden though they often are in the dross and drivel of some posters - but that's the Internet all over.
 

TheresaMay

ADC
Moderator
DirtyBAT
#4
As we all know, the vast majority of users on this site are ex-serving, and those that are serving are likely to be relatively senior (i.e. able to use office / IT to post during breaks at work etc).

I'm not sure what everyone else thinks, but I reckon the heart of change should be orchestrated by those who it is most likely to effect - i.e. the younger / next generation of Armed Forces / TA / Reservists.

Based on that I feel the work involved will far outweigh any benefit.


Jeez, I feel like a right old party pooper now. On a positive note, is there any financial incentive? (In which case, I think it's a fantastic idea, boss - allow me to throw my hat into the ring...) :)
 
#5
Might want to provide details to MOD's of proof of Military Service, so that any opinions can state % or servicing, served, civilian, or other civilian nationalities. So that interests be varied and not by trolls
 
#6
The money-saving expert does actually contain expert advice, but open forums here are populated largely by people who aren't by any stretch of the imagination 'expert'. Having a closed area where those possessing relevant skills can be engaged by the department concerned, and a parallel area in open fora where opinion can be canvassed from the great unwashed might be more practical.

If it's just an exercise for the Defence Select Committee to be seen to engage then it makes no difference what you do, as it'll just be a PR exercise. There'll be tears before bedtime with whatever you do I imagine.
 
#7
According to the Defence Select Committee's own home page they:

The Defence Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Ministry of Defence and its associated public bodies.

Surely listening to the shop floor, especialy those on Ops is the very least they should be doing. However even the sensible pages on Arrse are probably not where they should be!

Now I'm off to the NAAFI to say what I realy think.
 
#8
I think the levels of moderation would need to increase quite a bit and that could ruin the site for many. The NAAFI would probably need to be put in a closed off area of the site with warnings all over it.
I concur - military humour is not understood by many. The levels, too, of non-military (or, like myself, non-BRITISH military) members could somewhat skew any discussions. Perhaps the opposite to closing the NAAFI off - having a secure discussion area for bona fide serving and ex BritFor members to be able to update, but read-only for all other members of ARRSE?

Perhaps a(n) RSS feed like the MoD's?

*** Ideas already put up bu other posters... slow typing ***
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#9
I suggest a separate forum, carefully moderated, that the HCDC could use to ask questions, etc.
I think that's not a bad idea. There's precedent of course with the hidden, invitation only BAFF forum that was set up here when the groundwork was being done.
 
#10
Does this mean we'll be bombarded (even more than usual) with pointless bland 'chef-cooks-on-tour' RRS feeds?

Also, will ARRSE be expected to toe the party line?
 
#12
I come on to ARRSE because I like the humour and the culture (sic) and find some of the serious postings interesting, I would not like the site to be suddenly bound up in red tape and rules because we are somehow connected to the establishment. They know where we are and can dip in and out any time they want, but by the existing rules.
 
#13
I'm with OldSnowy on the probable need for a separate, carefully moderated forum but don't think that will effect the rest of the site too much.

For those who think the site is mainly read by old farts, then have a look at our stats on quantcast. It would appear that the younger generation is here in force although perhaps they don't post much.
 
#14
I'm with OldSnowy on the probable need for a separate, carefully moderated forum but don't think that will effect the rest of the site too much.

For those who think the site is mainly read by old farts, then have a look at our stats on quantcast. It would appear that the younger generation is here in force although perhaps they don't post much.
Even a carefuly moderated seperate forum would cause problems by the amount of non carefuly moderated posts it would generate in the NAAFI.
 

TheresaMay

ADC
Moderator
DirtyBAT
#15
The majority of users are on £50K+ and the majority of users are 18-24...?

Damn that Army recruiting vid circa 1989-1990

Don't stop me now, indeed.
 
#16
I'm with OldSnowy on the probable need for a separate, carefully moderated forum but don't think that will effect the rest of the site too much.
Committees usually like written evidence, preferably in a single document. Did they give a clear idea of what they want from the website?
 
#17
I would favour an approach of having a private forum, which is added to members deemed to have credible knowledge and understanding of defence matters and who can go into a thread without it turning into either a crayonfest or a single issue thread diversion (I'm thinking the Harrier here).
Membership should be done on an 'invitation only' basis, and should be done on a Chatham House rules- e.g. I would suggest that posters either cannot be quoted outside of the forum, and that anything posted there is done so in a manner which cannot be used in evidence in an HCDC session. I would go so far as to suggest that posters invited to join may wish to create a new handle which can be used in this sub forum, to prevent them being linked to other threads.

I would also suggest that if HCDC wants serious engagement, it should invite those who do participate to meeting them in person at some point, so that they understand the people they are talking to online and can realise the wealth of knowledge they can draw on.
 
#19
Committees usually like written evidence, preferably in a single document. Did they give a clear idea of what they want from the website?
No, they're scoping options at the moment. I'll probably point them at this thread!
 
#20
The Daily Mail 2014:

Army Forum that feeds into MOD committee is sexist and racist!

A major armed forces forum that is monitored and run by the MOD (usual level of Daily Mail reporting here) has been asking questions regarding:

Celebrity tits that should be seen as the Holy Grail
Threads devoted to womens Boobs
Happy St Skyscrapers Day

Shock, horror, outrage, Ohhhh the humanity!


etc etc

It could easily be a nightmare.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top