|
|
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old
|
|
|
585 Guests, 13 Users (3 Hidden)
Cwes, AdolphBurg, Techdude, Mountie, Karel Doorman, Altair, tomydoom, GAP, the_one_next_door, Leafymaple
|
|
|
Total Members: 67,095
Total Posts: 1,437,892
Total Topics: 71,501
Total Categories: 13
Total Boards: 124
|
|
|
|
April 26, 2018, 14:53:06 by ScottNext to the Staff turnover last year, the largest change we've had is in how we apply and manage warnings. In the old days, it was by manually slapping a huge banner on a user's account, writing it up and then manually removing it when the time came. The new approach is simpler and more transparent, for everyone. It's also streamlined to keep the Staff from becoming bogged down in managing warnings. Overview: - A 0% warning can be used if a "warning shot" is needed, with no impact.
- Users may apply a +5% warning to another user via the MilPoints Assessment screen, this falls into line with our users policing users approach.
- At 10% a user is added to a watch list for the staff.
- At 25% a user is moderated (all posts must be approved)
- At 50%+ a user is muted (they cannot post)
- Warnings automatically decay at a rate of 10% per day.
- Each Staff can apply no more than 50% to a given user, on a given day.
- This means any Staff can mute a user immediately, but concurrence from another Staff is required to keep it in place.
- E.G. A user with 70% warning will be unable to post for 2 days, and back to normal usage in 7 days.
- A user's entire warning history is displayed on the warning screen.
- Staff can decrease warning % at any time.
- All messages and warnings are logged, this helps any review process.
If you receive a warning that you wish to dispute, PM me and I will look into it. Please do not PM any Staff you see online. We're trying, as much as possible, to streamline how we handle matters like this, and a common approach is what is required. Any questions, don't hesitate to contact me. | Write Comment
|
|
|
June 13, 2018, 17:21:18 by DimsumLong but very good article by the New York Times on PTSD and its effects on RPA crews and intelligence analysts. In one recent survey, Wayne Chappelle and Lillian Prince, researchers for the School of Aerospace Medicine at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Fairborn, Ohio, drew on interviews that they and other colleagues conducted with 141 intelligence analysts and officers involved in remote combat operations to assess their emotional reactions to killing. Far from exhibiting a sense of carefree detachment, three-fourths reported feeling grief, remorse and sadness. Many experienced these “negative, disruptive emotions” for a month or more. According to another recent study conducted by the Air Force, drone analysts in the “kill chain” are exposed to more graphic violence — seeing “destroyed homes and villages,” witnessing “dead bodies or human remains” — than most Special Forces on the ground. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/magazine/veterans-ptsd-drone-warrior-wounds.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news | Write Comment
Found this on Twitter. Interesting!
Matthew Fisher Retweeted OneDadsFinance
Needs careful thought, not Tweet. Never happen but off top of my head, 120 F-35s, 10 C-17s, if only five new ones were available, half dozen more aerial tankers, C-130s. Several dozen attack helos. 20 warships including three assault ships, 10 subs, 4 brigades, not 3, double SOF
OneDadsFinance @
Replying to @mfisheroverseas
What would be your ideal force makeup for Canada? Lay it all out
8:33 PM - 4 Jun 2018
36 comments | Write Comment
|
|
|
|
Milnet.ca Forums
MilPoints FAQ
