Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Federal Soup 2.0

We encourage your suggestions and ideas for ways we can improve your experience, and welcome feedback. While we are unable to respond to every comment and/or email message, we are listening!

Our user-generated content is extremely valuable to us, but we also recognize the problems that can occur as a result and are steadily working toward improvements. This is the place to share!

Please ONLY post topics here that are related to the FederalSoup interface and user experience. Any topic posted that is not related to the forum interface will be moved to the appropriate forum.

(HINT: If you don't know exactly where your topic fits, post it in the General Conversations forum.)

2 Pages12>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
SF18C  
#1 Posted : Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:33:09 AM(UTC)
SF18C

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/25/2007(UTC)
Posts: 293



Having reviewed the Terms of Use I wish that admins would start to enforce some of these rules!


Term of Use


Participation on FederalSoup.com is subject to your compliance with our Terms of Use.


1.    Please do not post any form of advertisement for commercial products or business soliciting.


2.    Each member may only register once.


3.    No name calling, accusations, threats, personal attacks, or deliberately provocative messages (trolling).


4.    FederalSoup.com assumes no liability for the accuracy or
reliability of any information posted on this Web site. The information is not checked, verified, or edited, and is used at your own risk.


5.    FederalSoup.com may, at its sole discretion, prohibit access by
any party violating these policies, or for any reason we deem suitable. We may also moderate certain accounts to monitor what is being posted.


6.    We reserve the right to block, remove, or edit any post or message that is:


o    off-topic


o    abusive


o    harassing


o    slanderous


o    primarily about politics or religion


o    in poor taste or objectionable


o    advertising or notice of items for sale or lease, by you or others


o    primarily about the promotion of a Web site


o    out of context with the forum topic


o    violates any site policy


The decision to block, remove, or edit any post or message is made at our sole discretion.

 

Really can you help us out???????


Gray45  
#2 Posted : Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:38:43 AM(UTC)
Gray45

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/13/2011(UTC)
Posts: 255


SF18C wrote:


Having reviewed the Terms of Use I wish that admins would start to enforce some of these rules!



Since you are obviously one of the many bully militant types on here, if you notice the forum is now under an "open idea policy".  This means that people can actually voice their opposition to things and you and your other militant vets on here don't have a say anymore to try and control/censor the forum anymore.

Listen pal, there are many who oppose vet preference and there is not a thing you can do!!!

Sucks to not be able to have complete control over everyone doesn't it? 

Smile
SF18C  
#3 Posted : Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:44:46 AM(UTC)
SF18C

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/25/2007(UTC)
Posts: 293


Gray45 wrote:

SF18C wrote:


Having reviewed the Terms of Use I wish that admins would start to enforce some of these rules!



Since you are obviously one of the many bully militant types on here, if you notice the forum is now under an "open idea policy".  This means that people can actually voice their opposition to things and you and your other militant vets on here don't have a say anymore to try and control/censor the forum anymore.

Listen pal, there are many who oppose vet preference and there is not a thing you can do!!!

Sucks to not be able to have complete control over everyone doesn't it? 

Smile

 

Way to stay on topic...

 

See what I mean admins...you can't post anything on this site without some comment about vets preference!

Gray45  
#4 Posted : Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:53:34 AM(UTC)
Gray45

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/13/2011(UTC)
Posts: 255

SF18C wrote:


Way to stay on topic...

 

See what I mean admins...you can't post anything on this site without some comment about vets preference!



How is it off topic when you brought up this topic?  You are just a punk control freak that is used to having your way and silencing any critic because they are not in lock step with your ideas.  OPEN IDEA POLICY on this forum.

You brought up the terms of service so how is my comment about the terms of service off topic?  If people want to talk about how much they hate vet preference or how vets are handed federal jobs on a gold plate let them!  OPEN IDEA!! Big smile
SF18C  
#5 Posted : Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:59:23 AM(UTC)
SF18C

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/25/2007(UTC)
Posts: 293



My original post made no mention of any vet preference
issues...so again another thread is tainted over an issue that is not even part of the discussion.


So here is the funny thing...you think you know my stance on vets-pref and then open an attack based on an OPEN IDEA POLICY!


I am done here...admins, anything????

Federal HR  
#6 Posted : Tuesday, March 13, 2012 3:59:48 PM(UTC)
Federal HR

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/17/2011(UTC)
Posts: 325

This current admin or group of admins is better than the last admin that was here. The problem used to be too much censorship not allowing for any debate. The old admin would take down posts and block users with any dissenting opinions. My husband actually stopped using the forum due to this fact, but now the old problems of censoring users has subsided with the new admins which is good.

I commend you on implementing a more open discussion policy, and adhering to this openness since the policy states it.

If anyone is unfamiliar with the vet preference debate, there used to be a couple of very litigation fixated vets on this forum with a long history of real litigation. These individuals were not even fit to qualify as GS-5 admin clerks, but they were litigating every vacancy announcement they were not hired for. They were actively belligerent to non-vets on the forum and created a lot of hostility by saying things like all non-vets should hurry down to the unemployment line, and be fired immediately under the FCIP ruling and be replaced by vets.   

These same belligerent vets went around to different government-centered forums and tried to recruit more vets to "litigate". The funniest thing with all of this is it looks like the chickens have come home to roost here on this forum. But as far as the vet preference debate goes, it is important to hear both sides of the argument because vet preference is a big grievance for many trying to get around it and land their first federal job. The debate needs to continue, not be censored.     
15 years of federal HR experience.
oktoots  
#7 Posted : Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:33:10 AM(UTC)
oktoots

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/17/2009(UTC)
Posts: 2,485

I agree with you up to a point. But with this latest set of crackpots, or one or two individuals with multiple identities, we see post after post of the same non-thinking rhetoric. This litigation nonsense is brought up even when the topic or problem someone is posting about has very little to do with sour grapes. This troll shouldn't be doling out legal advice to anyone, especially since he's not a veteran and has no expertise in discrimination litigation.
   Open discussion is fine, but these crackpots don't want and discourage differing opinions. When you disagree, they return with posts that call you a "corrupt hiring official" and anti-veteran. What kind of skewed thinking is this?


multiple identities to 0%
SF18C  
#8 Posted : Wednesday, March 14, 2012 5:20:11 AM(UTC)
SF18C

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/25/2007(UTC)
Posts: 293

Well I think I have finally figured it out.

 

Trolls add to off topic issues

Off topic issues add to flame wars

Flame wars add up posts

Post add to the number of views for the site

The number of views increase flash ad/popup ad revenue.

Trolls = $$$ for Fed Soup!

 

I do recall several years ago this site was a useful tool for Federal employees to seek answers & opinions. It was a nice quite place to see if “my agency” is handling issues like other agencies, bounce ideas off of other feds to improve processes or cut thru bureaucracy.  Non-Feds could come ask for advice on how to improve their resumes or chances to land a position.  I have tried to follow a simple rule…read more/post less and the search function does wonders!

 

Now it is drowning in drivel; one side vs the other side on vet’s preference, posts about litigation (with zero guidance or insight on how to do so) and the general low brow bickering that would not take place if these individual were seated at a table in a public place!  And it is so easy to see that there are a few identities that come from a single source…username X logs on posts in 5 to 10 threads, username y logs in and regurgitates the same asinine comments in the same 5 or 10 threads. 

 

Funny thing is I have made a few real life friends from this site and there are many more that I would like to meet.  Heck, there are some that I don’t agree with but respect their level of discourse when debating a topic.  I have learned some good stuff here and hopefully helped out a few folks from time to time, even helping one or two land a job!  I have offered my services in the past to assist with moderating certain forums; I do like the way Ed Z runs a tight ship down in Fed Employees Befits Q&A.  So having said all of that, I think until the current administration takes this site a little more seriously and CHOOSES to do something (anything!) about these juvenile account holders I am gonna take a break from Fed Soup for a while.  We LONG TIME users of Fed Soup know the admins can do it (again look at Ed Z’s area) but what can only be deduced as a profit motive,  DON’T ACT ….I hope I am wrong.

 

  Those that want help or wish to exchange ideas know who to get ahold on me.

grieveit  
#9 Posted : Wednesday, March 14, 2012 7:46:35 AM(UTC)
grieveit

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/3/2012(UTC)
Posts: 177

Federal HR wrote:
This current admin or group of admins is better than the last admin that was here. The problem used to be too much censorship not allowing for any debate. The old admin would take down posts and block users with any dissenting opinions. My husband actually stopped using the forum due to this fact, but now the old problems of censoring users has subsided with the new admins which is good.

I commend you on implementing a more open discussion policy, and adhering to this openness since the policy states it.

If anyone is unfamiliar with the vet preference debate, there used to be a couple of very litigation fixated vets on this forum with a long history of real litigation. These individuals were not even fit to qualify as GS-5 admin clerks, but they were litigating every vacancy announcement they were not hired for. They were actively belligerent to non-vets on the forum and created a lot of hostility by saying things like all non-vets should hurry down to the unemployment line, and be fired immediately under the FCIP ruling and be replaced by vets.   

These same belligerent vets went around to different government-centered forums and tried to recruit more vets to "litigate". The funniest thing with all of this is it looks like the chickens have come home to roost here on this forum. But as far as the vet preference debate goes, it is important to hear both sides of the argument because vet preference is a big grievance for many trying to get around it and land their first federal job. The debate needs to continue, not be censored.     
 
Yes God forbid that HR folks comply with the law of the land...I didn't realize that it was optional
Auroras  
#10 Posted : Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:10:39 AM(UTC)
Auroras

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/7/2011(UTC)
Posts: 231


There is nothing wrong with encouraging Veterans to litigate since Veterans are continually discriminated against in the federal hiring process.  Corrupt federal hiring managers and selecting officials make a career out of discriminating against Veterans and try to hire as many non-Veterans as possible. 

The only solution to this corruption is through litigation.  There are so many federal hiring managers and selecting officials on this forum pretending to support Veterans, but are secretly trying to tell Veterans not to litigate when they are wronged.  These plants and moles are everywhere on here. 

 

Litigation is the garlic that will keep these blood sucking vampire selecting officials hiding out in a dark office closest until the sunlight exposes them.  Their day in court.   

martyb  
#11 Posted : Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:21:44 PM(UTC)
martyb

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/3/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,505

Aurorass, check the yellow pages in your area for mental health professionals.  Don't be ashamed, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Forum trolls to 0%
Tic3  
#12 Posted : Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:44:08 PM(UTC)
Tic3

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/1/2005(UTC)
Posts: 415

SF18C wrote:
The number of views increase flash ad/popup ad revenue.

Trolls = $$$ for Fed Soup!


I agree and mentioned this same thing in another thread.  If you look at the forum "views" and post counts, you will see many of the topics with the most views and post counts tend to be the ones discussed here.

Addressing problem members means reducing ad revenue and it's not likely to happen.

In fact, many ad supported forums have staff who create identities which they use to post controversial and inflammatory comments because they DO generate discussions and flame wars, which in turn generates more ad revenue.

Not saying that's what happens here, but I do know it happens on other forums.

The only way to deal with the problem is to not respond to the bait (yes, very hard to do sometimes!).

I'm pretty sure admin is aware that some members may have more than one account and they are aware that there is quite a bit of off-topic and nonproductive bickering that takes place. 

For whatever reasons they may have, they choose not to address it.


stana  
#13 Posted : Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:38:06 AM(UTC)
stana

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/15/2011(UTC)
Posts: 161

SF18C wrote:
I am gonna take a break from Fed Soup for a while.


Don't let the door hit you on the way out!  One of those military forums will probably suit you better where you can complain about not being handed enough things in life and how discriminatory federal hiring is even though you are handed federal jobs without any real competition. 
stana  
#14 Posted : Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:39:17 AM(UTC)
stana

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/15/2011(UTC)
Posts: 161

Federal HR wrote:
This current admin or group of admins is better than the last admin that was here. The problem used to be too much censorship not allowing for any debate. The old admin would take down posts and block users with any dissenting opinions. My husband actually stopped using the forum due to this fact, but now the old problems of censoring users has subsided with the new admins which is good.

I commend you on implementing a more open discussion policy, and adhering to this openness since the policy states it.

If anyone is unfamiliar with the vet preference debate, there used to be a couple of very litigation fixated vets on this forum with a long history of real litigation. These individuals were not even fit to qualify as GS-5 admin clerks, but they were litigating every vacancy announcement they were not hired for. They were actively belligerent to non-vets on the forum and created a lot of hostility by saying things like all non-vets should hurry down to the unemployment line, and be fired immediately under the FCIP ruling and be replaced by vets.   

These same belligerent vets went around to different government-centered forums and tried to recruit more vets to "litigate". The funniest thing with all of this is it looks like the chickens have come home to roost here on this forum. But as far as the vet preference debate goes, it is important to hear both sides of the argument because vet preference is a big grievance for many trying to get around it and land their first federal job. The debate needs to continue, not be censored.     


Fully agree with what you are saying.  If the vets can get on here and
complain about federal jobs even though they are handed out federal jobs
all the time without any real competition, then people can get on here
and voice their opposition to this kind of stacked and rigged hiring system.
58FedVet  
#15 Posted : Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:59:46 AM(UTC)
58FedVet

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/15/2012(UTC)
Posts: 126

You do realize that none of the people that "complain" are real, right? If you actually believe that real vets act like that, then those trolls have accomplished what they set out to do.
Banned_from_Intel  
#16 Posted : Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:27:06 AM(UTC)
Banned_from_Intel

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/25/2011(UTC)
Posts: 18

grieveit  
#17 Posted : Thursday, March 15, 2012 11:45:30 AM(UTC)
grieveit

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/3/2012(UTC)
Posts: 177


stana wrote:
Federal HR wrote:
This current admin or group of admins is better than the last admin that was here. The problem used to be too much censorship not allowing for any debate. The old admin would take down posts and block users with any dissenting opinions. My husband actually stopped using the forum due to this fact, but now the old problems of censoring users has subsided with the new admins which is good.

I commend you on implementing a more open discussion policy, and adhering to this openness since the policy states it.

If anyone is unfamiliar with the vet preference debate, there used to be a couple of very litigation fixated vets on this forum with a long history of real litigation. These individuals were not even fit to qualify as GS-5 admin clerks, but they were litigating every vacancy announcement they were not hired for. They were actively belligerent to non-vets on the forum and created a lot of hostility by saying things like all non-vets should hurry down to the unemployment line, and be fired immediately under the FCIP ruling and be replaced by vets.   

These same belligerent vets went around to different government-centered forums and tried to recruit more vets to "litigate". The funniest thing with all of this is it looks like the chickens have come home to roost here on this forum. But as far as the vet preference debate goes, it is important to hear both sides of the argument because vet preference is a big grievance for many trying to get around it and land their first federal job. The debate needs to continue, not be censored.     


Fully agree with what you are saying.  If the vets can get on here and
complain about federal jobs even though they are handed out federal jobs
all the time without any real competition, then people can get on here
and voice their opposition to this kind of stacked and rigged hiring system.
Of course those people who you have disdain for are protected by the law and have done something for their country. Now what did you say you did for this country again??
grieveit  
#18 Posted : Thursday, March 15, 2012 11:46:20 AM(UTC)
grieveit

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/3/2012(UTC)
Posts: 177


58FedVet wrote:
You do realize that none of the people that "complain" are real, right? If you actually believe that real vets act like that, then those trolls have accomplished what they set out to do.
but the folks like the poster wet their beds
Big Sarge  
#19 Posted : Saturday, March 17, 2012 2:28:52 AM(UTC)
Big Sarge

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/9/2010(UTC)
Posts: 741


Admin/Mods, I'm sure you have better things to do than read some of the garbage that is posted here let alone even acknowledge this thread.  There are a few members who are just upset that the facts about hiring discrimination towards honorable military Veterans have been exposed and people are coming to this site to read about it.   The word is out and there's nothing to be done about it.  This is an information gathering and sharing site.  If any of you don't like what another member posted then ignore it and move on.  Stop your whining! 

 

MFTECFH (Members for the Elimination of Corruption in Federal Hiring)
martyb  
#20 Posted : Sunday, March 18, 2012 9:39:06 AM(UTC)
martyb

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/3/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,505

Sarge, unlike you, I really am a vet, and I wish you'd shut your pie hole.
Forum trolls to 0%
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.


This page was generated in 2.310 seconds.