PL dot org "The Man's" website

[Sammy Sandbag]

Yeah, looks like "The Man" is increasing his strangle hold on the free exchange of ideas over at platoonleader.army.mil. I was just returning for a visit when I was greeted with this message:


To the PlatoonLeader Team:

Please accept our apology for the temporary cessation of the PlatoonLeader.org website. We know the value of this site to our collective growth as a profession.

In the last few weeks, CompanyCommand.com, our sister site dedicated to professional growth at the Company-Command level, has been the subject of mass-media news stories. This has drawn an incredible amount of interest in the site. PlatoonLeader.org, operating below the horizon of its sister site, has continued to provide an honest medium to discuss, teach, and share lessons among our fellow Platoon Leaders about the awesome responsibility entrusted to us to lead the sons and daughters of America.

That ‘below the horizon’ approach is about to change. We do not believe the exposure about to be given to this site is in the best interests of those who have contributed through conversation, dialogue, mentorship, tools, and AAR’s.

We believe it is in the PlatoonLeader community’s best interests to limit access to the site to military personnel only. This will allow the positive, solutions-focused dialogue to continue—and to flourish. For that reason, we are very excited about the days ahead. We are in the process now of working through a strategy on how to best accomplish this.

Thank you for your understanding. Thank you for your dedication. Thank you for sharing what you are learning so that we may all grow in our understanding of the profession of arms.

To those who are visiting PlatoonLeader.org for the first time:

Welcome. Please accept our apologies for not allowing instant access to the site. We believe that with the increasing media attention, it is in the best interests of the members who have contributed to the site in a brutally honest and open forum to provide a degree of protection to them. These junior leaders are at the forefront of implementing our National Security Strategy in every corner of the world. This forum exists to allow them the opportunity to do it better, with the ultimate end being the completion of missions assigned and the happy return of all their soldiers to their families and loved ones.

If you are interested in the Army, and what the Army does, please follow this link: http://www.goarmy.com.

Your PlatoonLeader Team.

Actually it sounds more like they didn't like what certain people were writing using anonymous usernames. Now with this new system they'll know exactly who is writing what. I don't know about the rest of you, but I rather not express my opinion on a military controlled board where they know exactly who says what. It was my understanding that the original purpose of platoonleader.org was to foster an environment where all users could voice their concerns without fear. The excuse that they don't want trade secrets made public is just that, an excuse.

[airjun]

"the last few weeks, CompanyCommand.com, our sister site dedicated to professional growth at the Company-Command level, has been the subject of mass-media news "

What news are they talking about?

[roger29]

Yeah, Sammy, I was checking pl.org yesterday right after coming here and saw the message...what the RUCK is that all about?

[cornbread]

I was in the airport yesterday and CNN Headline news was running a story about CompanyCommand. The story was basically a woman reading several posts about conditions in Iraq, saying it was hell mostly, and naming the people who posted... things like that. then at the end of the story it said companycommand is now being restricted to military personnel only. i'm guessing they didnt like the new media attention to the site.

[Sammy Sandbag]

Well no shit, it sucks in Iraq. You don't need to find a website where Army officers are writing about it to prove it. But at the same time, I had read several articles on PL and CC where officers had written about how the situation was improving and that the majority of Iraqis were thankful that they were over there. CNN will continue to find the worst part of any situation and report it, that's why I no longer watch the Communist News Network.

While that may be one reason they are now restricting access, I believe another major motivator is what I mentioned earlier. Several topics of discussion were springing up, and the PL.org powers that be didn't approve. They actually deleted several threads and censored several others. Not because they contained classified information, but because they expressed differing opinions from the moderators.

[cornbread]

and to think the sites are run by people stationed at west point...conspiracy? i dunno....

[Sammy Sandbag]

and to think the sites are run by people stationed at west point...conspiracy? i dunno....

Are they really? I did not know that... Hmm, I know there was some bad blood rising when there were a few posts debating the usefulness/uselessness of the Point, and that's where a bit of censorship had taken place. I was under the impression that all the moderators were simply volunteers, but then again I didn't know who actually started/ran the site.

[The Sharaffe]

The site is run via West Point, hence Capt LaBelle. Anyway, now they can track who said what, blackball you if you say something big brother doesn't like. Fuck that! The people who defend freedom get none of their own, good call Army.

[The Sharaffe]

To all

Please write God about this problem.
God@heaven.mil

[MAJ. Payne]

I think you guys might be looking to far into this. It seemed to me that PL.org just wants to limit its access to those people actually in the military. I think it makes sense to allow only those who have a vested interest in what is being exchanged over there, i.e platoon leaders, possibly cadets, be the only ones who can use it. I've seen some of the threads that get started and they can be pretty ridiculous (such as the "Which Commissioning Source is the Best" thread) I think the real purpose behind this was simply to keep the site more professional and more focused.

But hey, that's just my opinion.

[Sammy Sandbag]

Yes, that's a risk you take when it's an annonymous board. You'll have stupid, pointless, discussion springing up every now and then. Rather than making a forum just for that, as we have here, they've elected to require you show proof of service. MAJ. Payne, I don't have a problem with them limiting access to soldiers only, I've got a problem with the moderators and admins, and whoever else knowing exactly who I am. Will you be as willing to share your opinions on your superiors, once your handle actually has your AKO info next to it? I sure as hell wouldn't. With this change, there will be opinions already formed on an officer before he arrives at a duty station, maybe not always good ones.

I don't really know the answer to this one, but there's got to be a method to ensure that users are military, without them losing their anonymity.

Imagine this. You and your CDT buddies go out for a beer after lab on thursday and discuss your battalion. You talk about things that need improvement, what could be different, what you like, etc. You probably even criticize a few of the BC's decisions, but it's okay because you are among your peers and it's constructive. Now imagine that the BC has wired the booth you're sitting in, and is recording everything you say. That's exactly the effect these changes at PL.org will have. Are you going to freely question and criticize the policies of your leaders in a public forum where they now have a name and a face?

[Gambit]

I don't really know the answer to this one, but there's got to be a method to ensure that users are military, without them losing their anonymity.

Easy to do, not easy to make happen. Take a page from the AIFA handbook... how do you ensure that people are granted access to the correct group forums on the site, but still keep them anonymous? Simple... have a way of verifying, but don't publicize it. If these guys can link you to your AKO account, that's fine. But that doesn't mean that said link must be displayed to the world... it doesn't even mean that said link has to be shared with ANYONE, or even stored at all. You just need a good lawyer to protect the link from the imbeciles that will undoubtedly try to exploit it. Possible? Absolutely. Probable? In the military, unlikely.

[Sammy Sandbag]

Yes, that's the easy part Gambit. The hard part is insuring that their moderators, many of which are CPTs, will not know that information. On AIFA, I verify users for the private forums by either asking them questions (the PR forum) or taking a look at their IP address (school forums.) I still have no idea what their name is, but I know they are accessing from that school.

[Gambit]

Well, strictly speaking, the problem is less that a CPT will verify them (although there are indeed problems with "small army syndrome") and more with the issue of whether or not the CPT can re-access the information. Either way, you should be able to write something fairly easily that can sit in your AKO profile and verify youraccount. Shit, just have a section in your PL.com/CC.com account that lets you log into your AKO account. If it logs in OK, flip a switch and activate the account. The main problem, still, are going to be the people that want to record WHO flipped the switch. Chances are good that one of those jokers will be at the top of the decision-making chain, so the idea is essentially never gonna get off the ground.

[MAJ. Payne]

excellent point sammy. i'll admit i didn't see that the first time. i guess putting a name and a face next to something that is supposed to allow anonimity(sp?) would be wrong. that part i would have to disagree with as well.

[Pete]

The choice to offer anonymous posts depends on what kind of discussion you want to have.

When, last September, pl.org required that users had to log in to post, "flames" and other unhelpful comments dropped from 23% to 8% of all posts.

What percentage of those posts addressed topics (like your o-club example) that were professionally relevant but needed relative anonymity (e.g., username, not ako name)? Zero. Zero.

The more helpful the comment (e.g., sharing useful experiences, offering advice on post or bracch), the more likely the person was to include his/her signature block.

Seems to me, if you want a professional forum, then having real names isn't an issue. If you want a forum full of flames, then allow anonymity.

In case you're wondering, I'm not "the man." I'm a grad student Army officer who has followed pl.org for the last couple years.

91-94PL

[Jackmackler]

In spite of the hoopla, we still have anon commenting here on aifa...or do we?

[CombatCady]

*Shifty eyes*
Shit! They're catching on...
*Prepares cyanide capsule*

[jehgunnz]

what sucks about matters like these is, that almost any military website that has no distribution restriction can receive unwanted attention from the public. If they find out that a bunch of terrorists were downloading our FMs, TMs, and ARTEPs from adtdl.army.mil, would they shut that down too?
Looks like the Army will eventually re-evaluate its standards for approving sources for public release.

[jehgunnz]

and...i can't seem to log onto the early bird anymore. anyone else have the same problem?

[Sammy Sandbag]

Pete,
I agree with what you said, and I think that point was understood. Having a forum where your actual personal info is included will prevent "flaming". It will also prevent sharing of relevant experiences to a certain extent. For instance, if a user is dissatisfied with the leadership of his unit and would like to comment on different improvements to make, he might be less likely to do so if his name is attached to the post. True, the user could simply write it as a hypothetical situation or use the old "my buddy's unit" number, but that shouldn't be necessary. Obviously I have no say in the matter, and it has little affect on me. I posted this topic more to start a discussion on the matter, rather than change anything PL dot org does.

Perhaps another reason this bothers me is that in the weeks leading up to this recent change, the PL.org's moderators had been very quick to censor/delete/edit users' post, whether they were of merit or not. There were several productive discussions going that were prematurely ended because they were in disagreement with what a moderator believed. I've got no beef with them deleting simply useless drivel, but that wasn't the situation. I feel that as officers and soldiers, we experience enough censorship, whether it be active or passive, during our duty hours. Even by-the-book leaders need a chance to discuss their work in both an analytical and cynical manner. We can't learn or improve if we are to be simply yes-men. True discussion doesn't take place until you begin to critique yourself and your contemporaries.

[airjun]

have you try bringing this up over at Military.com? You could get more imput and discussion on this