Sub-forum for Officer Recruiting/AOSB etc

Discussion in 'Officers' started by cpunk, Feb 24, 2009.

  1. Good idea

    0 vote(s)
  2. Bad idea

    0 vote(s)
  3. Don't know

    0 vote(s)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    The suggestion has once again been made that we should create a sub-forum for potential officers where topics like AOSB, regimental choice etc can form the main focus.

    The advantages of this are that it will focus questions of this sort in one area and lead to less clutter in the main officers' board. It ought to lead to less annoyance when the same questions come up again and again.

    On the other hand, it strikes me that a possible disadvantage is that members who might chip in usefully on a thread in the officers forum won't actually bother to look at an 'officer recruiting' forum and this may tend to cut potential officers off from useful advice.

    What do we think?
  2. IMHO I think it should be kept as one. The FAQ's could be dealt with by compiling an FAQ or updating the Wiki with all of the pearls of wisdom of the AOSB thread, which some people cannot be bothered to trawl through.

    I suspect that some of the crusties actually enjoy sharing their worldly wisdom, non?
  3. The views that serving ARRSERS contribute here; erudite, soothing, experienced and scathing as they are, are what makes this element so valuable to aspirants. These contributions are golden. Granted the irritation that the same question raised forty times produces, IMHO the status quo holds greatest benefit to the greatest number.

    Done my bit, I'm off for a kip.

    Old Rat
  4. I value the input of current/past officers on most topics, if you throw all us wannabes and new kids together were just going to dig each other our own graves with respect to approaching AOSB.
  5. As someone who is not yet a member of the Army community but hoping to be, I often wonder if ARRSE is a blessing or a curse on those who are in my position.

    The trouble is for people like myself with very little actual experience of anything millitary is that you are looking through the small window of ARRSE at a huge entity and culture: the armed forces.

    It's pretty easy to pick up a skewed view of it from half-truths, in-jokes etc. I almost think it would be better to come to it knowing nothing, rather than having a little knowledge, which as they say can be a dangerous thing.

    Anyway, to locate the point I wanted to make:

    The AOSB thread is a good example of this, with what I am sure are very useful pieces of advice buried among bits of advice from those of us who have either experienced the board only the once firsthand and whilst are able to offer a view of what we experienced are not really in a knowledable position or those who haven't been at all just repeating what they think they have heard.
  6. Since I have PM'd CPunk on this topic I should also state my opinion publicly.

    I believe the current situation works only for aspirant officers. When - for example, today - I look at the forum I see a number of topics which recurrad nauseam.

    The following have all been covered extensively elsewhere:

    Fam Visits ( x 2 )
    AOSB Advice
    Sports at RMAS
    The HDiv - Am I posh enough?
    Are my A Levels & GCSEs sufficient to get me to RMAS?
    Commissioning from the ranks

    ... and answers to each of them could easily have been found by their authors by the simple and quick process of looking through existing sticky threads, searching for past threads or googling for official rules on line - and - if those fail - by phoning a real human being who deals with their problems as their job.

    These threads clutter up what is intended as a forum for officers / officer-related issues. So, in a way, its an online mess.

    If I walk into a real mess for tea & toast and find a gaggle of enthusiastic potential officers skwarking about AOSB, their A level grades and whether they need a £400 suit and a polo pony to ensure they pass & succeed at Sandhurst then I'll grab my tea and veer into a corner to avoid them. I'll probably end up next to a gruff & malevolent LE growling at a nearly imperceptible subsonic level to let me know that if I try to cadge a couple of thousand rounds for next Tuesday, or think of pinching his copy of The Sun, he'll throw me to the RP's dogs, or worse, into the Sgts Mess after a Burns Supper. So I'll sip my tea, and bu.gger off, which is pretty much what I - and I suspect many of us - do online. I may offer a comment to the POs as I leave, particularly if they're wearing an offensive suit or positively vibrating with discomfort, but that'll be it.

    If the mess allows me to sit and chat at length - which rarely happens online, as the forum is so often clogged with trivia - and the POs are chatting amongst themselves in a corner, away from the bum-warmer & the only copy of the Sun, under the eye of some keen YOs delighted to have the opportunity to share their wisdom with receptive audience, all the better. And I'd be more likely to wander over occassionally to comment, and possibly guide the conversation if its getting out of hand. And to remind the YOs that if any of these POs leave with air-rifle pellets in their legs, thereby crippling their performance over an 8-foot wall in the near future, they'd better re-think their plans for Christmas leave.

    To me, the best way of achieving this is a sub-forum. That way we can ensure this continues:

    Without the annoyance to the many, the :
    I half-acknowlege the point of:

    ... but, hard lines. The fact is that none of the advice I have seen on the AOSB threads would fail you, although some is marginally off the mark. The only thing that will pass or fail you is... you. Cliche or not, its true. Given my general cynicism about the Army, I am slightly suprised that I have such a high opinion of AOSB. Regardless of your affectations, background, or momentary performance as opposed to true character, it is a good judge, especially given you are observed for such a short time. I read my RCB report again recently and was struck by how accurate it was as a snapshot of me then, and guide to my strengths and weaknesses since.

    If you feel more confident attending it in a fine twill 2 button suit, fine. But as the official bumpf says - get fit, read the papers, learn yer sums, tie a few knots and show exceptional Christian tolerance to the OTC know-it-all in loud moleskins & big hair who assures you that its all a formality for him. Its not, and unbenownst to him, he'll be rejected and you'll bump into him on ops to find he's a bitter estate agent guarding an oil pipe-line in the middle of the ulu as part of a gash FP coy. In my experience anyway.

    And as for RMAS? Just wait until you get there, you'll be told. And I do mean told. :wink:

    I would like to see a recruiting sub-forum as has worked elsewhere on ARRSE, and is one of the reasons the TA forum works so well. It leaves the established members to bang on about equally recurring, but more serious and lengthy subjects close to their hearts.

    Debate, polemic and experience make for a vibrant and interesting forum that people ( or at least I ) want to read, not answering fact-seeking questions.

    I don't think this forum lives up to its potential. TheCheerfulSubbie's rant about the speed at which YOs gallop through key early appointments is a hot topic among young officers, and should be a source of concern to the grownups. But his thread - and others like it - are too quickly covered by the weekly blizzard of topics similar to those I cited earlier.

    We could encourage posters to routinely refer FAQs to stickies ( which are very long ) or Arrsepedia entries ( inexplicably not popular ). To me this appears rude, is hard to consistently apply and would not in any case stop the forum becoming clogged up.

    Well, there's my rant for the evening.

  7. Does the 'Joining Up' forum suffer because there are 'Juniors' and 'Seniors' forums? Perhaps Officer recruitment could be a subforum of Joining Up?
  8. msr

    msr LE

    Thank you for your kind words..

    I think... :)

    Just create a sub forum and see how it works. It is as easy to set up as it is to delete if it does not work out.

    The TA forum does require a certain of moderation to keep posts in the right place and the 'usual suspects' out of the Joining the TA forum, where people can ask questions and get (generally) straight answers.

  9. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    Right, well I think we might try it out for an experimental period...
  10. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    I am largely in agrement with Charlies views. However, I'm unsure if it isn't enough to have just the one forum. We already have a mass of other hidden forums and this is more dilution.

    Give it a go and see how it does
  11. Why not make 'Charlie C' the Moderator?.
  12. Good idea. But I'm off to be a brave soldier quite soon. Happy to look after it when I get back though.

  13. Soon?

    I wonder if an alternative or supplementary action to prevent the repetition of new threads asking old questions may be to bar thread creation for the first n posts? This may force new users to find the suitable thread for their question and read through it rather than creating a new thread to ask a previously answered question.

    Anyhow that was just a thought; but I do think that Charlie is correct and that this forum is in danger of being swamped with joining questions to the detriment of discussion amongst officers and that threads such as 'Rant - No response required' are far rarer than 'I am going to the ACIO should I wear a top hat?'.

    Whilst a new sub forum may not garner as many replies as the questions do currently on this thread, I suspect that unless the repetitive, dull threads are somehow diminished then over a period of time no serving officers will bother to post in this forum.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.