A question concerning ugliness.

[Steve]

I'll go back and read everyone's responses after I post this, so if I'm repeating what's already been said, just consider this a "Me Too" post.

Personally, as I understand the policy here, you don't actively "out" people. But if someone is proven, through the course of events here or elsewhere, to be a fraud, I think they need to be banned. While, in the case of someone like Matt M., this includes martial arts claims, I have NO problem extending it to people who allege to be LEO, active duty military or a veteran. Not only is it very, very lame, it's also misleading if the person uses a false background to establish themselves as an authority on the boards.

 

[Steve]

I'm not impressed by the generic phony vet sites. (You probably know specifics of why, Bob.) The SEAL/Special Forces sites seem better -- but they're dealing with a much smaller community to police the frauds from.

I think if a person's history is called into question by a reliable, reputable source or the accusation is supported by credible evidence -- it can be treated like an identity issue: they have to provide proof of their service. It's easy enough to do; I believe a DD214 not only shows their service, but lists their awards.

To bribrius -- review the site rules. You're required to give your true identity. This information is very protected; Bob has all staff members sign legally binding Non-Disclosure Agreements. We also have a fraud busting policy, as well as at least a policy about stalking.

My guess about this situation is that Bob has become quietly aware of a problem. It seems like he's trying to get a handle for how to define that problem, and what the board's users feel about the issue in general.

It could easily be done like on Bullshido. If you want to enjoy the credibility that being military/ex-military, LEO, or whatever, you could choose to share adequate evidence with the staff to convince them that you're legit and get a badge. It's your choice.

That way, if someone claims to be a vet and has the badge, it's fairly credible. If someone claims to be a vet but doesn't have the badge, it's maybe not going to carry the same weight. Doesn't mean anyone's a liar, necessarily.

I believe its about as smart as burning the Koran, but if we are not out to expose fake martial artists why delve into an obviously troubled person's personal life?

While the site isn't about fraudbusting, once exposed there's no reason to knowingly suffer the presence of a fraud. Is there? The precedent has been set with Matt M and I'm all for it.

 

[bribrius]

l am not so sure why being a leo or a vet is such a great prize. There are millions of them..
Really not anything special about either.
i wouldn't base anything on if someone was a vet or a leo. They could still be scumbags. Scumbags come in all shapes and sizes. so do morons actually. I have met both in the military and leo ranks.

whatever others think, im not sure. But neither lends someone credibility to me. You want to show your worthy of that you get it. It isnt something i personally, just give someone who says they are a leo.. I could care less if your a leo, was a leo, or are a two star general.

 

[sfs982000]

I personally think that if it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt that person has lied or is lying about their military service, LEO status or falsifying their MA rank they should be banned. Then again if a person is lying about what they're status is, it's usually pretty obvious and they'll hang themselves so to speak eventually. I don't think that a person should be publically "crucified" on here if they're caught lying, just ban them and be done with it.

 

[Ken Morgan]

I personally think that if it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt that person has lied or is lying about their military service, LEO status or falsifying their MA rank they should be banned. Then again if a person is lying about what they're status is, it's usually pretty obvious and they'll hang themselves so to speak eventually. I don't think that a person should be publically "crucified" on here if they're caught lying, just ban them and be done with it.

Agreed.

I wouldn't stalk anyone about past military service, LEO service or MA rank, but if it pops up and is proven beyond resonable doubt, sure get rid of them, or give them a chance to come clean and apoligise.

Then again where do you stop? I'm a certified tradesman, I'm a landscaper, I'm in the defence department, I have a graduate degree in Philosophy, I know the Carmilk secret.

Is the concern more about the misrepresenting oneself, or the disrespect towards the military by misrepresenting oneself?

 

[sfs982000]

Agreed.


Is the concern more about the misrepresenting oneself, or the disrespect towards the military by misrepresenting oneself?

I think that if a person is misrepresenting oneself by falsifying their status they are showing a blantant disrespect for the military or LEO, etc.... I know that there are sites that you can verify some information, but realistically can we really verify everything on everyone without getting into some serious Privacy Act violations. I know that there are shady folks out there that don't believe in the "honesty is the best policy", but again those dishonest folks will trip themselves up eventually.

 

[Archangel M]

l am not so sure why being a leo or a vet is such a great prize.

It's not about being a "prize". On a board like this where people are discussing the legalities of self-defense or are talking about tactics or technical information, someone pretending to be an authority can spread false information.

 

[Touch Of Death]

This reminds me of my Nam days. LOL
Sean

 

[Steve]

l am not so sure why being a leo or a vet is such a great prize. There are millions of them..
Really not anything special about either.
i wouldn't base anything on if someone was a vet or a leo. They could still be scumbags. Scumbags come in all shapes and sizes. so do morons actually. I have met both in the military and leo ranks.

whatever others think, im not sure. But neither lends someone credibility to me. You want to show your worthy of of that you get it. It isnt something i personally, just give someone who says they are a leo.. I could care less if your a leo, was a leo, or are a two star general.

It's about context. If I say, "I'm an ex-ranger with 20 years of experience as a tactical counter intelligence anti-insurgence SWAT team leader (if you'll just go with the hyperbole here), and in all of my considerable field experience, I have found X, Y and Z to be true," I'm using my experience as a LEO and as a veteran to support my claim. What for some of us would be a wild assed guess, for someone with tangible experience has more weight.

 

[CoryKS]

Is the concern more about the misrepresenting oneself, or the disrespect towards the military by misrepresenting oneself?

I'd say it's more about using bogus claims of service to lend authority to one's claims in the context of MA.

I was stationed in Quantico when Gulf War I started, and I ran into college guys in D.C. that cut their hair military-style to pick up girls in the Georgetown clubs (I was like, that works?!). Kinda lame, but mostly harmless. On the other hand, coming into an MA site and opining on a certain style or technique because "it saved my *** in VietRaq!" is not so harmless.

 

[CoryKS]

It's about context. If I say, "I'm an ex-ranger with 20 years of experience as a tactical counter intelligence anti-insurgence SWAT team leader (if you'll just go with the hyperbole here), and in all of my considerable field experience, I have found X, Y and Z to be true," I'm using my experience as a LEO and as a veteran to support my claim. What for some of us would be a wild assed guess, for someone with tangible experience has more weight.

We had the same idea, but you said it better.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

What about the "I was a personal student of 'X' but we trainded secretly and no one knows about it but me and 'X' who is now dead." claims?


Keep in mind I'm reading everything here, so please pro/con/could care less, share it.

Thanks!

 

[Archangel M]

Thats more difficult to prove. LE/MIL claims can be cleared up with a phone call or a DD214.

 

[fireman00]

if you can provide proof that a person has lied about their military service or their status in M/A, then yes... ban them.

 

[Ken Morgan]

What about the "I was a personal student of 'X' but we trainded secretly and no one knows about it but me and 'X' who is now dead." claims?


Keep in mind I'm reading everything here, so please pro/con/could care less, share it.

Thanks!

Or the people who trained with the head guy of their MA at a seminar with 300 other people for an hour. "I trained with such and such...." well yeah, technically, but....

I don't think there is much you can do about it. If they post crap, everyone here will jump on them and they'll go away on their own. Kinda Darwin working on forums.

Bob, you just can't police everyone about everything, its impossible. I think you and the mods do a great job here, keep doing as you do as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

What about the "I was a personal student of 'X' but we trainded secretly and no one knows about it but me and 'X' who is now dead." claims?


Keep in mind I'm reading everything here, so please pro/con/could care less, share it.

Thanks!

Typically we all know this is BS!

Some one, some where will be able to connect the two! If no one can then it proabably is fishy!

 

[Shin71]

There is a difference between leading on and lying. If someone claims to be Military (past or present), Police or Fire (past or present) and they are lying then they should be banned.

 

[bribrius]

on the other side. (changing the subject i know) To get away from the negative for a moment. I have read some posts, and there appears to be many on this site that are very knowledgable. I feel somewhat honored just reading some of the posts. In fact, humbled.

 

[jks9199]

We don't stalk our members. Got too many to watch, and I tend to be rather lazy and prefer watching Scooby Doo to working. (Really. )

I know you do! I recall a day of posts that were pretty much straight out of Scooby Do!

This would be a brought to our attention, serious level stuff concern. Not someone who gets a year wrong while recounting a tall tale. It's the 'heavy duty' lie thing.

I share a lot of the concerns with validity, not my desire to see witchhunts kick up, etc. or run on shoddy decisions. There's 2 cases I'm currently looking into and it got some things processing. So, I'm looking for 'public opinion' before making any major decisions. It's also tied into a few things staff have been kicking around for about a year or so now.

But don't worry, no one's stalking. Kinda why we have the privacy policies we do and insist folks don't publish personal info.

Hope that made sense....took some pain meds and my logics not too logicy right now. lol.

I stand by what I've said openly: If the allegation is credible, allow the person to answer. If they cannot answer satisfactorily, take appropriate action.

 

[jks9199]

What about the "I was a personal student of 'X' but we trainded secretly and no one knows about it but me and 'X' who is now dead." claims?


Keep in mind I'm reading everything here, so please pro/con/could care less, share it.

Thanks!

Thats more difficult to prove. LE/MIL claims can be cleared up with a phone call or a DD214.

A note on our LE Policy, as it stands. Nobody is required to state that they're a cop. Nor do we generally go out trying to identify people claiming to be cops and whether or not they are. But, if you claim to be a cop, and questions are raised, you may be asked to verify your status to staff. Probably to one of us that happen to be LE or retired LE. We've never had an issue yet. (Note that on one site, Officer Resource, if you claim to be a cop -- you MUST identify yourself fully to the staff, and be verified in something like 48 hours. They guard membership info strictly -- but if someone there has a verified tag -- they ARE what they say they are. The staff checks.)

For military -- I'd say a similar approach. Admit it, claim it, whatever, or don't as you choose. But if you claim it -- and we receive a credible complaint about the veracity, we'll verify it. Then take appropriate action.