Defencetalk Members Could Be Just Google Experts?

[gf0012-aust]

Whilst I do agree that the purpose of forums is to discuss and evaluate topics and questions, most of the gripes the more senior people on the site seem to have is when people ask about a basic statistic or figure about a particular weapon system or when some people are determined to argue basing their arguments on false information, meaning it's understandable to reply with 'use google'.

I wasn't trying to get across that I thought you meant everyone uses google to answer, what I was trying to get across was that it's not as standard a reply as you alluded to

I have to say though, google is a fantastic resource to use.

Nobody is averse to google (we all use it in some form or fashion!) , but I think the frustration kicks in when it (esp Wiki) is used as the only source of supporting evidence in a debate. Its why we have a forum rule that deals with copy and paste and states that people need to add some insight to whatever they link to. we're not interested in the copy and paste by itself, we are however interested in what people can contribute to it above and beyond the norm.

what makes my eyes bleed is when some take a fundamentalist approach to a subject, cut and paste links which are known to be loaded, and then seek to go batsh!t when others hilight the flaws in the linked citations. The question that then forms up in my head that they're invested more in their pet idea than in actually seeking open debate. "hyde park" debates don't work in here...

 

[Gremlin29]

Some defpros must be very careful about what they post. There is all manner of classified information publicly available, being on the net or readilly accessible to the general public. Presence of this information in the public domain does not declassify it. It goes without saying I will not be discussing classified information, even if said information is already well known.

This may seem silly but the truth is, information is generally validated by the person providing it. For instance, a 20 year college student can communicate potentially classified information but since there is no formal basis for this persons expertise, the information has not been validated. On the other hand a person in uniform provides validity to the same information by virtue of who they are and what the uniform represents. To give you an idea on how serious this can be, a certain popular publication is avoided like the plague as a potential information source for unclassifed briefs (prefered when possible), which are easier to schedule and conduct.

My question is, when does the defpro pay differential kick in?

 

[AegisFC]

That is why I find it annoying that most people don't believe things unless a DefPro posts on it as all this info can be found easily in other ways. It must take a lot to become a DefPro though as I submitted paperwork a long time ago stating that I served for 9 years in Naval Intelligence and continue to work as a Defense Contractor and still can't get DefPro status.

Oh well.

Actually we did review it and you are legit. However we (the mods) also have an informal policy of waiting for around 50 posts. We've been burned in the past with guys with the right paperwork and the knowlege but had bad posting styles and were combative or caused other problems.
I thought I PM'ed you about your paper work, and to tell you we were waiting on your post count. If you didn't get it I appologize for keeping you in the lurch like that.

 

[RobWilliams]

Nobody is averse to google (we all use it in some form or fashion!) , but I think the frustration kicks in when it (esp Wiki) is used as the only source of supporting evidence in a debate. Its why we have a forum rule that deals with copy and paste and states that people need to add some insight to whatever they link to. we're not interested in the copy and paste by itself, we are however interested in what people can contribute to it above and beyond the norm.

what makes my eyes bleed is when some take a fundamentalist approach to a subject, cut and paste links which are known to be loaded, and then seek to go batsh!t when others hilight the flaws in the linked citations. The question that then forms up in my head that they're invested more in their pet idea than in actually seeking open debate. "hyde park" debates don't work in here...

I know the rest of us are fine with google (i love it, the number of official documents i've found about particular topics I needed information about is amazing), I was talking about the OP earlier who was scoffing at most of the links being to books, magazines and other online material than some secret documents

I'm very familiar with how much 'people in the know' hate Wikipedia, being at University we've been explicitly told that if we put Wikipedia as a reference in any of our reports, we will be penalised heavily. I do however point to Wikipedia in this forum every-so-often but do admit to it's shortcomings + look for other material to support it

 

[StobieWan]

See ? The system works - defpro in waiting welcomed with open arms, troll banned, life is good


Back on topic - quality of debate is critical, no matter if it's from a defence professional or a random bloke on the internet - state your point simply and reasonably, reference it with sources you can verify as being neutral and well informed and draw your conclusions from there and I don't think you can go far wrong.

Having said that, there was a time you could quote David Irving as being a noted and respected historian

 

[Smokin' Joe]

Actually we did review it and you are legit. However we (the mods) also have an informal policy of waiting for around 50 posts. We've been burned in the past with guys with the right paperwork and the knowlege but had bad posting styles and were combative or caused other problems.
I thought I PM'ed you about your paper work, and to tell you we were waiting on your post count. If you didn't get it I appologize for keeping you in the lurch like that.

I had a message from you, but for some reason I couldn't open it for some reason. Thanks for clearing this up.

 

[dragonfire]

Just adding my two cents worth.

My Personal experience here was such that when i started out i was not a knowledgeable person in terms of defence matters, atleast not as much as i would have liked to be. However i wanted more information to ensure healthy discussions, for which i did quite a bit of secondary research through google, various defence sites, other forums, military-related blogs, wiki etc. Which made me more knowledgeable and enabled me to hold informed discussions with the members here. But i also played the game within the parameters of rules, it is important to give and expect respect and be mature. On the latter i have also experienced condescending behavior and have been patronized, perhaps this is also a wake-up call to all members, especially Moderators, Def-pros & Senior Members that a more respectful communications behavior is taken up. Words like 'circle-jerk', 'fan boy' etc etc should not come up in such conversations irrespective of how deserving a person is for the same

 

[gf0012-aust]

On the latter i have also experienced condescending behavior and have been patronized, perhaps this is also a wake-up call to all members, especially Moderators, Def-pros & Senior Members that a more respectful communications behavior is taken up. Words like 'circle-jerk', 'fan boy' etc etc should not come up in such conversations irrespective of how deserving a person is for the same

Point taken, and I'll freely admit that there are times when my absolute exasperation at people who don't have a basic comprehension of systems or platforms issues seek to challenge experienced members on technical detail (and I refer to articulated and demonstrated competency). i amp up pretty quickly. esp when I have a clue as to the DefProfs or Snr Members background

when you see someone arguing about the effectiveness of an anti-tank weapon against a given battle tank, and its patently apparent that the person trying to assist does have actual black hat competency and real world experience - it is decidiedly difficult in letting them continue to berate that professionals actual experience as though its superseded by google.

I have said before, that even the most reputable of the early publications such as Janes (pre IHS-Fairplay) could only be trusted on empirical data because the manufacturers don't provide real performance data (eg RHA equivalency/thickness).

Unfort we live in an environment where the internet is regarded as king - and its not.

OTOH I have seen members who started off quite badly and then turned into model members.

the system, for all its constraints, works more than it fails.

 

[StobieWan]

when you see someone arguing about the effectiveness of an anti-tank weapon against a given battle tank, and its patently apparent that the person trying to assist does have actual black hat competency and real world experience - it is decidiedly difficult in letting them continue to berate that professionals actual experience as though its superseded by google.

It's painful to watch from an outsider perspective as well - I sat in on a discussion regarding the G36 trials with the US army in Iraq and from my perspective *This is fricking awesome* - two very lucid people talking about their experiences with the M4A1 and the results of the G36 in trial conditions and frankly my jaw is on the floor. At which point both people get shouted down by people who's trigger time is limited to periods clutching an X-Box controller. We're back to Philip K Dick's rules on Kipple being extended to "informed debate" - ie, uninformed debate drives out informed debate".

 

[Dodger67]

Someone who is not a "Defpro" can still be a valuable member of the forum.

Given good research skills and some in-depth study of the subject, such a member can discuss a topic with as much or even more authority as a "Defpro".

I've known plenty professional soldiers who are very good at their jobs but have only superfiacial knowlege of the technologies they use. They know just enough to operate the gizmo and have no need or desire for an in-depth understanding of the physics, chemistry or data processing technology that makes the thingamybob go bang when the big button is pressed.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Someone who is not a "Defpro" can still be a valuable member of the forum.

Given good research skills and some in-depth study of the subject, such a member can discuss a topic with as much or even more authority as a "Defpro".

Hence why we say people need to judge others on content and consistency of quality of their dialogue

 

[mybacker46]

Hence why we say people need to judge others on content and consistency of quality of their dialogue

I know I'm new here and just wondering what makes an individual to be considered a defense professional (Defpro)? Is it sufficient for someone to just work for defense to be known as a Defpro? What are the qualifications, etc.? Is there a minimum rank and/or grade for one to be called as such? Is there a minimum number of years for someone to work for any defense? Would that be in government or industry, i.e., US, Germany, Australia, Great Britain, China, Philippines, Canada? For industry, Boeing, General Dynamics, ATK. etc. Does it matter where this individual is from?

 

[the road runner]

I know I'm new here and just wondering what makes an individual to be considered a defense professional (Defpro)?

Look on Page 1 of this thread,GF explains what it takes in post 4 .what it takes to get DefPro status.

I for one have been a member of this forum for 5 odd years and have to say i have learnt alot of the Professional's from this site.I have seen a number of people come here and place patriotism above fact,but they are called out and had fact explained to them why they are wrong in their posts.

You will soon realise the wealth of information from Def Pro's is amazing and explained with real world experience.People like me are very lucky to have issues explained to us on any above topic.