A question concerning ugliness.

[Bob Hubbard]

A few unpleasant things have recently come to my attention. Because of this, I'm looking for feedback from the membership before making a particular policy change.

The question is: Should MartialTalk refuse and/or revoke membership to those found to be falsely claiming to be military veterans, or falsely claiming military honors?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That would be up to you, but personally, I would have no respect for a person claiming to be a veteran who was not. Same for claiming military honors they did not earn.

 

[bribrius]

A few unpleasant things have recently come to my attention. Because of this, I'm looking for feedback from the membership before making a particular policy change.

The question is: Should MartialTalk refuse and/or revoke membership to those found to be falsely claiming to be military veterans, or falsely claiming military honors?

so you would technically be revoking membership for lying. In which you would have to know who is lying on the web. I am not sure how practical that would be..
As some may not care about military, would you make it a blanket policy for all lying? What if lying about having a cat is more important to some members than military service? Is nationalism a issue? what if have a person that is anti-usa and is from yemen or somewhere but is established and knowledgeable in their art?

I have no idea what the military problems are, am fairly new, but i could see how something like that could be too difficult to actually act on. Or could even see where one would prefer not to as moderators would be out looking for someone lying. A headache in itself. And then one would have to make a judgement call, over the internet which is near impossible, on if there is enough evidence to support the claim and/or if it could just be a misunderstanding.

whatever brought this problem on one would also have to consider if a policy change has a purpose of just a individual, or for the forum as a whole. If it is a change just for the purpose of a single individual than such subjective tendency could cause future problems. As you may end up with a thousand guidelines for each individual you make a subjective change because of.

If it were me i would avoid it like the plague. Too much a can of worms. Too much picking, choosing, subjective, hard to verify, and hunting. In most forums the forum members have a tendency to "weed out" problems without any oversight type action. And it makes for easier work for the mods and site owners. But that is your decision of course. Doesn't really have anything to do with me and i suppose i don't care whatever way you choose..

 

[MA-Caver]

I think lying about anything of yourself is definitely ugly. If you find someone doing that ... even if they're lying about their MA-rank/belts or saying they're a LEO, firefighter or anything else along those lines you should...

It's all about the integrity of the forum and it's members.

 

[jks9199]

A few unpleasant things have recently come to my attention. Because of this, I'm looking for feedback from the membership before making a particular policy change.

The question is: Should MartialTalk refuse and/or revoke membership to those found to be falsely claiming to be military veterans, or falsely claiming military honors?

Bob -- this is one thing that I personally support zero tolerance policies. You know if you served or not. I never did, and have never claimed to have served in the armed forces. And, if you served, you know which awards you got or didn't get. I could buy a minor mistake, especially if the listing was prepared by someone else -- but you make it right when you find out.

If we've got people claiming service they never did or awards they never earned -- boot 'em. Isn't that what we came up with for people found to martial arts frauds? I can see allowing them an opportunity to recant or explain, and making a decision on what they say... but they'll have to offer one hell of an explanation.

But... isn't this already in the Rules:

4.16.5 Non-Desirables
In some cases, non-desirable individuals might attempt to join our community. When found, they are subject to ban.
Who do we deem as non-desirable here?

1- Convicted Sex Offenders.
2- Convicted Frauds
3- Anyone falsifying their rank, achievements or experience for the purpose of misleading clients and prospects.
4- Anyone selling, issuing or otherwise distributing falsified, counterfeit or unauthorized modified credentials such as diplomas, certificates and rank.
5- Anyone impersonating a lawyer, law enforcement or government official.
6- Anyone falsifying their identity under our RealName policy.
7- Anyone falsifying military experience in a verifiable manner.

Acceptable proof of wrong here is:
1- Verifiable Court Documents such as court orders and court decisions.
2- Newspaper articles in credible papers
3- News releases direct from credible organizations
4- Government Records

Unacceptable Proof
1- Threads on so called "advocate" sites that are little more than sloppy research and angry teen angst
2- Emailed notes stating "hey so and so is a liar"

 

[CoryKS]

That would be up to you, but personally, I would have no respect for a person claiming to be a veteran who was not. Same for claiming military honors they did not earn.

What he said.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

How reliable are the phony vet sites?
Should the standard used be a court conviction, or a pile of unprosecutable evidence?
Etc?

 

[bribrius]

um...

i am beginning to wish i didnt give my real name. After reading that i am concerned about someone stalking me.

How would you have this evidence unless you were stalking your members.

 

[Carol]

If we were, say, a home improvement forum....or an arts and crafts forum....what would happen if someone claimed military service or honors?

The person might get a few attaboys, but it wouldn't lend a whole lot of truck to home improvement or arts and crafts discussion. If the person was lying about his or her experience in that context, there would certainly be some people offended by the act, but I doubt it would derail the core of the discussion.

Here in a MA forum, however, military experience/honors, like LEO experience, lends a good bit of authority.

I agree with JKS. I'd support giving the person the boot, esp. for an egregious misrepresentation. Give the person a chance to explain themselves...and if they don't have a good answer...buh bye

 

[MA-Caver]

um...

i am beginning to wish i didnt give my real name. After reading that i am concerned about someone stalking me.

How would you have this evidence unless you were stalking your members.

He doesn't have to... but eventually a lie becomes to heavy to support. Eventually someone claiming this or that will show what they know or don't know from simple posting that throws up red flags to those that REALLY DO know. A few pointed questions where the answer can't be wiki-ed or simply looked up or where the answer is such where only a few actually know the truth... etc. etc. etc. all of that.

Almost like the cliche in some hollywood films where a guy said: "I served in Nam..."
"oh yeah? what unit were you with?"
"Uhh, 2nd batallion green berets Airborne station A in Da-nang..."
"Yeah, that's too bad..."
"OH?"
"There was no 2nd batallion in Da-nang"...

Either way they're going to get found out sooner or later.
:asian:

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I have little tolerance for liars. However Bob make sure you have all your ducks in a row before taking any action. Still if someone has been found and proven to lie regarding their service or lack thereof then I think you need to let them go!

 

[jks9199]

How reliable are the phony vet sites?
Should the standard used be a court conviction, or a pile of unprosecutable evidence?
Etc?

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.

 

[bribrius]

He doesn't have to... but eventually a lie becomes to heavy to support. Eventually someone claiming this or that will show what they know or don't know from simple posting that throws up red flags to those that REALLY DO know. A few pointed questions where the answer can't be wiki-ed or simply looked up or where the answer is such where only a few actually know the truth... etc. etc. etc. all of that.

Almost like the cliche in some hollywood films where a guy said: "I served in Nam..."
"oh yeah? what unit were you with?"
"Uhh, 2nd batallion green berets Airborne station A in Da-nang..."
"Yeah, that's too bad..."
"OH?"
"There was no 2nd batallion in Da-nang"...

Either way they're going to get found out sooner or later.
:asian:

i prefer that route. I am paranoid enough i don't need anymore of it.

btw. i served in the military and i didnt like it. In fact i don't miss it a bit. Not even a little bit. And all i got was this stupid service ribbon and some b.s. nat. defense medal or something.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

um...

i am beginning to wish i didnt give my real name. After reading that i am concerned about someone stalking me.

How would you have this evidence unless you were stalking your members.

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. )

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.

 

[Archangel M]

I suppose it depends on the extent. Lies in the bio=change them or else. Lies in threads? Tall tales of heroism and using the lies as debate authority? Teaching or selling merchandise under the lies? Ban em.

 

[MA-Caver]

i prefer that route. I am paranoid enough i don't need anymore of it.

btw. i served in the military and i didnt like it. In fact i don't miss it a bit. Not even a little bit. And all i got was this stupid service ribbon and some b.s. nat. defense medal or something.

I don't think having to LIKE your service to our country or not is going to be an issue. It doesn't matter (to me anyway) if you liked being in the military or not. Some take to it, some don't. Some do their duty and are done with it, others do their duty and are damned proud of it and are willing to do it again.

Just don't want people saying they did and they actually didn't.

Just like someone saying they have a 3rd degree black-belt and stepping out on the mat during a tournament. If they're lying... they're going to get their asses handed to them.
Just like they will here on MT (and beyond) if/when they're found out and get banned.

I love Martial Talk and just about everyone here. But what I love MORE is integrity/honesty from the people I associate/befriend. I try to give them no less.
:asian:

 

[seasoned]

This is an MA site. There is a certain standard you must adhere to in a dojo or any other MA training facility with any credibility, and those same standards should apply here. I have seen the BS meter applied in some cases, on some thread, and have seen posters fad away. In order for MT to be considered a premier site it must adhere to it's own rules at all times. Everyone comes to this site to learn, share, or lurk, and should leave their ego at the door so to speck. "The question is: Should MartialTalk refuse and/or revoke membership to those found to be falsely claiming to be military veterans, or falsely claiming military honors"? Boot them, one bad apple spoils the whole bunch.

 

[Bruno@MT]

A few unpleasant things have recently come to my attention. Because of this, I'm looking for feedback from the membership before making a particular policy change.

The question is: Should MartialTalk refuse and/or revoke membership to those found to be falsely claiming to be military veterans, or falsely claiming military honors?

No. They should refuse or revoke membership to people misrepresenting themselves in a fraudulent way.
Whether you are misrepresenting yourself as a veteran, supersoke or president of the US is irrelevant imo.

 

[KELLYG]

I am hung somewhere between the rules as outlined. No fraudulent info allowed and no fraud busting allowed. I like other people do not like liers, they are usually found out embarassed and fade away. Bob it is your show proceed as you wish.

 

[Touch Of Death]

A few unpleasant things have recently come to my attention. Because of this, I'm looking for feedback from the membership before making a particular policy change.

The question is: Should MartialTalk refuse and/or revoke membership to those found to be falsely claiming to be military veterans, or falsely claiming military honors?

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?
Sean