new here

#21
This is why I love this forum, where else can you start a conversation with can I re apply to the forces, and ends with child molesting cadet instructors, brillant!
 
#22
You, J_C, should be ashamed of yourself - 'Twas not so long ago ago you were wearing a v. big 'Be Kind To Newbies' hat and now you have jumped into bed with the Conspirators. Tch Tch.

:roll:
I really don't see how this compromises my position. Being kind to n00bs who ask what some would see a 'bone' questions is one thing, having a go at people who dish out poor advice is another.
 
#25
I really don't see how this compromises my position. Being kind to n00bs who ask what some would see a 'bone' questions is one thing, having a go at people who dish out poor advice is another.
Joe,

So lets see; if there are no nOObs with a 'bone' question then why not invent-a-gemma to discover who would dish out any advice, good/bad?

I suppose it all seemed like 'a good idea at the time' but that gemma scheme seemed just a little bit hypocritical, to me anyway - Bearing in mind the RR/ARRSE ethos of flushing out Walts, pseudo-posters, calling 'Wahs' etc.

If a poster offers less than good advice why not just continue as before by posting a correction to that advice?

You must admit it takes a newbie some time to find their way around RR and to find where the lines are; let alone discerning who is 'trustable' or not. Likewise it takes regular contributors a little while to see how genuine that newbie is.

IMO inventing 'Gemmas' can only muddy the waters for all but the conspirators.

Bob
 
#27
I see your point, but conversely, if a Q-n00b helps modify people's behaviour, then it will mean that less real n00bs may be put off the site in future. It's also worth bearing in mind that having fake n00bies means having access to the personal messages that they may receive.......

Earlier today A N Other posted this answer to a purpose query elsewhere;

<<......for people early in the App Process or Training to find information from people who have experienced or happen to possess relevant facts.....>>

I believe that this largely applied to the newby thread, too.

On that basis, Joe, your 'converse' view is through lenses of a rather more Machavellian hue than those of mine:

Illusions are hazardous, and so are disillusions. Mason Cooley
 

Ninja_Stoker

War Hero
Moderator
#28
When all's said and done with regard hypothesising over the morality of fake & real posters, I'd like to think (unofficial though RR is) that genuine queries get a fairly accurate answer in amongst the flack. Yep, we all get drawn-in by duff posts.

As always, definitive careers advice can only be given from official sources and this site has never ever claimed to be official. Long may it remain the case.

The disadvantage of official forums (I know, I help run one) is two-fold: Firstly people are wary as they think we spy on them (if only we were that smart) and secondly, anything they don't agree with is met with the default setting "Well you would say that wouldn't you".

To my mind on here, as well as the official line, people will relate anecdotal experience which may well contradict current official policy- which is fine - providing that it doesn't give rise to false hope.
 
#30
BreathingOutOnTheWayUp said:
Earlier today ...
There will always be n00bs who come across as arrogant, and it is right (in my opinion anyway) that they are challenged about their attitude. That does not conflict with my view that those who genuinely seek answers should not be ridiculed for their lack of knowledge, or the gauche way their questions are posed.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top