Input on forum organization?

We are planning a major upgrade to the board software. As we do that, it is an appropriate time to review the organization of the board and consider whether any changes to the forums might better meet Council members' needs.

It is easy enough for us to see which forums are busy and which are dead, and we'll take that into consideration. It is far harder to intuit which ones make sense to you, which ones don't; what forums you feel might be lacking, are too broad, or too narrow; whether they all work as a whole; etc. Please make your observations and suggestions in this thread.

Note that the point of a forum is to allow grouping of like-minded folks and/or their topics together to increase signal-to-noise ratio for people that frequent that area, e.g. window shopping the list of threads, or subscribing to the forum. The point is distinctly NOT to taxonomize and bucketize every last topic into an inch-wide cul de sac. Forum structure is a foundation but it works with various board features (including search, new posts, related thread suggestions, etc.) for managing complexity. If anything, we want to come out of any re-look with fewer forums, not more.

I think that The Coalition Speaks area is unnecessary and should be eliminated. First, it implies that that rest of the forum is US-Centric, which I do not believe has turned out to be the case. Second, every single thread there could logically be slotted elsewhere on the forum.

We should be doing our best to ensure that a spectrum of national views and perspectives are provided in all topic areas (which has already been occurring quite a bit, as we have several very active non-US members) and not keep an area singled out solely for non-US viewpoints.

Agree with Jedburgh about "coalition speaks."

I use the "new posts" functionality pretty muche exclusively, so categorization of threads only matters to me when I want to create one. For example, if I want to highlight something in the news about intelligence in Afghanistan, I have at least three possible categories to choose from.

In that regard, I think the "participants and stakeholders" section probably could use some consolidation. Also, I don't think it makes much sense anymore for OIF to have 5 separate topics while Afghanistan still only has one. Each should probably have perhaps 3-4 broad categories in my opinion.

If you want to make the board less US-focused, you could move the GWOT/ Iraq sections to their respective geographical section, but to me that's not a huge deal.

Overall though, I think you've a pretty good job of organizing so if things stayed as they are I certainly wouldn't be upset about it.

Quote:

---

Also, I don't think it makes much sense anymore for OIF to have 5 separate topics while Afghanistan still only has one. Each should probably have perhaps 3-4 broad categories in my opinion.

If you want to make the board less US-focused, you could move the GWOT/ Iraq sections to their respective geographical section, but to me that's not a huge deal.

---

Yup, it's almost amusing that the board was re-organized at the height of OIF, as we were headed into the surge, and Afghanistan was just that distant annoyance that no one really wanted to deal with quite yet. How things have changed.

I think the Afghanistan PTP forum should stay, because there are some tidbits there that can be an exceptional learning tool, and it could be populated with a lot more; more folks just need to know about it and get in there. I would be willing, if there was a standing announcement posted, to vet folks who would desire to gain access to that folder. I am a member of the Military/Law Enforcement forum of another large board, and the discussions are always fruitful and engaging. There is considerable self-policing, but the mods address any deviation from posting norms fairly fast.

My vettting consisted of providing a .mil address, as well as the phone number of my first supervisor. They never called him (Col Fitzpatrick) but through simple means, the numbers can be run to ground pretty easily. Other coalition forces would be a challenge that I'm not sure I know how to resolve, but Red Rat and some of his clan are already in there through personal contact with David, so maybe there are other tools to use for members from Commonwealth nations.

We could also simply steer clear of any sensitive material and simply narrow the focus down to PTP cycles, and the topics that should be relevant to deploying troops. I for one think our cultural awareness model has got it all wrong, and the forum could expand in interest to allow veterans to offer their two cents on what is important and what is just white noise in the training.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcustis

I for one think our cultural awareness model has got it all wrong, and the forum could expand in interest to allow veterans to offer their two cents on what is important and what is just white noise in the training.

---

Agree. We had a test trial and although several of us disagreed, the program went forward as it was. A shame as the point was to make it worth something for deploying troops in Africa.

You two have done an excellent job and this forum is a shinning example.

A clarifying note -- the Afghanistan PTP is a private forum restricted to members of a publicly joinable, moderated custom usergroup (see UserCP>Group Memberships). It was set up to support a small group project. The group leaders are evaluating the future of that forum and what content we might move into more public areas.

Concur, the Coalition Speaks in on our short list for hospice care.

The operational culture topic is a good one. At the moment, I guess threads on the topic belong in either AO-specific forums or Training & Education. Like the coalition aspect, I see the topic as so pervasive that a forum of its own is probably not indicated.

Please keep the comments coming.

One thing I'd like to see is some thought put into attracting more non-military input. We do have some, and much of it is of very high quality and caliber, but there are communities and information sources that we haven't really tapped into yet. Some of the changes mentioned by Jed and others would certainly help, but I am wary of a "soldier uber alles" type of groupthink that can crop up.

In line with that, some streamlining in the current operations section might be in order, as was mentioned earlier. Also, I think we could possibly combine or eliminate a few of the "Participants & Stakeholders" sub-forums. Personally, I could live with the current ops stuff actually shifting into the Regions forums. That would give us the flexibility to adjust to new conflict regions (possibly even those without a significant US presence) and not appear as though we limit discussion to OIF-type events.

To add to what Steve is trying to say, I think it may be time to recommend a change to the construct at large. The quoted text below is from the "About" section of the SWJ homepage:

Quote:

---

Small Wars Journal facilitates the exchange of information among practitioners, thought leaders, and students of Small Wars, in order to advance knowledge and capabilities in the field. We hope this, in turn, advances the practice and effectiveness of those forces prosecuting Small Wars in the interest of self-determination, freedom, and prosperity for the population in the area of operations.

---

May I recommend an addition:

"More importantly, we hope to advance understanding about conflict and conflict resolution to prevent small wars before the become conflagrations in the first place."

The old hands here know we do this through our discussions, but it may not be readily apparent to the non .mil passers-by who have so much to add to the discussion.

For that matter, do we have a Conflict Resolution sub-forum?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcustis

For that matter, do we have a Conflict Resolution sub-forum?

---

I don't think so, and that would be a very valid addition.

No issue with removing the Coalition speaks.

I really think it is time we deeply reorganize the site versus removing and adding a line here and there.

I think less big categories would be better. Some thoughts:

SWJ internal largely focused on admin issues.

Irregular Warfare broken into:

Stability Operations
Unconventional Warfare
Counterterrorism
Counter insurgency
Foreign Internal Defense

Somewhere we need to add a forum on the global commons (sea ways, cyber, space, etc.) because irregulars can challenge some of these areas now, and may even be able to challenge space in future.

Change GWOT other to just GWOT.

OEF-A
OEF-P
OEF-TS
Other

Transnational Crime

History

Strategy (hopefully we'll stop seeing sites focused on tactics being hijacked by those who keep blaming everything on strategy)

I agree we need a forum that welcomes non-military members to offer solutions to the problems associated with Small Wars, this includes law enforcement (local and federal and international), NGOs of all stripes, individual citizens (global), USAID members, Dept of Agriculture, etc. Normally they're not as thick skinned as Soldiers, so somehow they need to be allowed to post without getting swarmed on.

Based on recent posts, maybe we should offer a truth to power forum under OEF-A. Several posts from guys and gals on the front challenge the assumptions that we're doing COIN well. The recent UN report clearly points out that many of us our confusing our own propaganda with fact, and we sure as heck don't want decision makers confusing the facts with the narrative. Just wait, someone will jump out of the woodwork and explain we don't do propaganda.....

What's the difference between Small Wars Community of Interest and Small Wars Participants,....? Looks like two broad categories we can merge.

I agree that many foreign people post elsewhere, so it makes sense for the name to be changed, but I personally like a section dedicated to news about coalition/ally activities and news.

So perhaps change Coalition Speaks to: News & Notes about Coalition Efforts or something like that?

From Rachel:

Quote:

---

So perhaps change Coalition Speaks to: News & Notes about Coalition Efforts or something like that?

---

Perhaps given SWC is US-dominated 'We are not alone: Coalition Efforts'.

Or in line with this idea: "International Efforts" or "International Perspectives"?

Just tossing it out there since a "coalition" is a rather vague thing that can shift over time and may actually exclude some perspectives if they aren't in the current framework.

I think the therm "coalition" tends to have a militaristic cant to it as well. If that's the angle we aim for, then fine, but if not, I think we could use a different one.

Add a section where we can discuss tactics from the insurgent and terrorist point of view. You can call it red cell if you like, but whether they're red or blue depends on the group and who they're fighting. Remember our friends in Afghanistan that were fighting the Soviets?

In all seriousness I think we have excessive discussion of our approach with minimal discussion on Taliban, AQ, anarchists in Italy, etc. approaches.

The revised forum should have an Officers and NCOs Club with a menu something like this! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Add a section where we can discuss tactics from the insurgent and terrorist point of view. You can call it red cell if you like, but whether they're red or blue depends on the group and who they're fighting. Remember our friends in Afghanistan that were fighting the Soviets?

In all seriousness I think we have excessive discussion of our approach with minimal discussion on Taliban, AQ, anarchists in Italy, etc. approaches.

---

There are actual threads orienting on this in the Adversary/Threat forum. They aren't always the busiest topics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Add a section where we can discuss tactics from the insurgent and terrorist point of view. You can call it red cell if you like, but whether they're red or blue depends on the group and who they're fighting. Remember our friends in Afghanistan that were fighting the Soviets?

In all seriousness I think we have excessive discussion of our approach with minimal discussion on Taliban, AQ, anarchists in Italy, etc. approaches.

---

I agree, but those threads tend to get hijacked pretty quickly.

Posted by Steve Blair,

Quote:

---

I agree, but those threads tend to get hijacked pretty quickly.

---

You got me, but hijacking has a long been a terrorist tactic (now practiced on blogs) worth exploring in more detail. :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Posted by Steve Blair,



You got me, but hijacking has a long been a terrorist tactic (now practiced on blogs) worth exploring in more detail. :o

---

Good point...:D

Levity aside, I do think it's a good idea to keep (possibly under a different name) some special area for "red cell"-type discussions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

Good point...:D

Levity aside, I do think it's a good idea to keep (possibly under a different name) some special area for "red cell"-type discussions.

---

And we could end up with some Russians and Terrorists as members. That would indeed be interesting !

Here are some of my thoughts on points raised so far. Far from the last word. Most importantly, in some cases I'm sharing a theory and at issue is how practice has departed from, or will depart, from the theory.

For background on the current macro approach and commentary on things that belong in multiple places -- see this FAQ.

Global Commons --
An important set of topics. It was very much behind the Global Issues & Threats section at the top of the regional conflicts section. Perhaps we could expand the description of the forum. Some of the topics may fit more nicely in some of the participant/stakeholder forums (assuming we keep those).

Red Team --
As mentioned, aligns with the Adversary/Threat forum. Also any real region-specific discussion would make a lot of sense in the regional forum.

Participants & Stakeholders consolidation --
Perhaps. Or may be a key to expansion and better serving a broader audience (see Bill Moore discussion in post #10). I really don't know. The real outliers I see at the moment are the Military Art & Science section which I think could combine some elements into the Participants & Stakeholders section and do away with others.

Conflict Resolution --
Important topic. I'm not sure how that makes sense as a forum that is distinct from a conflict-specific thread in a regions forum (my first reaction); a stakeholder-specific domain or a grand strategy area (TBD?); or a series of forums (not on my short list, but?) re different phases from pre-hostility through resolution and maintaining the peace (or non-war). Would love to hear more.

Coalition Speaks --
I agree with Jedburgh in the sense that everything is or should be coalition and we have perhaps evolved to be less US-centric than we feared, but also with others that there is still plenty of US-dominance in the Council. I do not like the idea of herding non-US perspectives or non-US news into one forum, it belongs everywhere. When formed, the idea of the forum was to provide a spot to remind US to practice what we preach regarding broader perspectives and to discuss US-centricity. It hasn't really emerged that way in practice, for whatever reason.

Region Refresh
Absolutely needed. Especially OIF / OEF weigthing.

IW slicing and dicing
StabOps, UW, CT, COIN, FID, etc. -- I think we've got a heck of a job as a community keeping up with our own terminology and with the utility of applying it in practice. There's a whole theory and doctrine discussion that could backstop any of those terms and make a mixing bowl of all of them. I don't see forum organization along those lines being fruitful. I do, however, think we might make some hay out of cleaning up the theorists & doctrine/TTP sections.

Thinking vs doing
Whatever method there is to our madness (again, see here), we must do a good job of communicating it and still have modest expectations for a) just how understandable it is; b) just how useful it is even when understood.

Pete, if you can figure out how to make room service or take out work for the Kitakidogo Social Club, you will be our next hero.

I still think it would be good to have a separate place to read up on perspectives and news written by foreigners that we here comment on, not US commentaries on foreign efforts where US and foreign people comment, does that make sense? That's why the suggestion International Efforts kind of sums that requirement up....What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HumanCOGRachel

I still think it would be good to have a separate place to read up on perspectives and news written by foreigners that we here comment on, not US commentaries on foreign efforts where US and foreign people comment, does that make sense? That's why the suggestion International Efforts kind of sums that requirement up....What do you think?

---

International Efforts replacing Coalition Efforts in other words...

Something I would really like to see is the resumption/inclusion of Journal Articles on the Forum. At the moment, many really good articles simply never get discussed on the boards as the folks to "comment" instead.

The Comment threads are usually very inferior to the forum discussion. ....IMO.

Wilf, we're doing some work to realign the blog, Journal, ref lib, etc. That should net out in a few months to a site-wide login and hopefully will make more Council regulars comfortable in the rest of the site. In the interim, as always, if there's a Journal article that's particularly deserving of some discussion here, anyone can open up a thread.

HumanCOGRachel, I believe I understand what you are saying and concur that, from one perspective of having a neat forum to go for non-US commentary, it would be a good idea. But the flip side of that is that all non-US commentary should then belong in that spot, and that looks to me like a bad way of going about keeping a pervasively international perspective in the other 98% of the board. So, in the net, I'm not a fan. Perhaps there are some tagging tools that we can use to offer some of the former pro without the latter con. For any of it to be successful, we need more commentary from foreign shores.

It does not seem that the intended forum topic of US-centricity is gaining traction as a forum itself, so we'll reevaluate that.

In the words of Mr. Burns, "Eeeeexcellent....."

Irregularly forgotten small wars appear, most recently the Estonian nationalist resistance and another which I've forgotten already:o

Perhaps a thread within History? When I have time I will find the recent references and start a thread. We already have expertise in this area, like Steve Blair and history keeps on catching up with us.

^ I think a thread within the Historians forum is a great spot for that.

I wanted to suggest some sort of medical related area since I noticed there wasn't one+... I'm hazy on how that might work, but coverage of related issues might be something people find useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonamatic

I wanted to suggest some sort of medical related area since I noticed there wasn't one+... I'm hazy on how that might work, but coverage of related issues might be something people find useful.

---

Concur, I've got this growth/mole thingy on my arm. Just won't go away...too embarassed to se my Dr........;)

..how is it that commercial sellers have access to advertise on the site? Is it down to pure initiative on the part of promoters to log on and become members? Not being too hot on all this WWWWWW.net/com/etc stuff I'd just like to know. Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

I agree we need a forum that welcomes non-military members to offer solutions to the problems associated with Small Wars, this includes law enforcement (local and federal and international), NGOs of all stripes, individual citizens (global), USAID members, Dept of Agriculture, etc. Normally they're not as thick skinned as Soldiers, so somehow they need to be allowed to post without getting swarmed on.

---

Coming from the "individual citizens (global, thick-skinned)" perspective, I don't think it's really necessary to provide a sheltered zone for thin-skinned civilians. This is about the most civil place I've been on the internet, and anyone too thin-skinned to post here would make Casper Milquetoast look like Rambo.

Modifying structure to promote civilian input might be an option, if that's a goal, but I don't really see excessive abrasiveness as an obstacle to civilian participation. Certainly I've never felt that anyone from the .mil side has ever been excessively rough with me.

did you ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore
I agree we need a forum that welcomes non-military members to offer solutions to the problems associated with Small Wars, this includes law enforcement (local and federal and international), NGOs of all stripes, individual citizens (global), USAID members, Dept of Agriculture, etc. Normally they're not as thick skinned as Soldiers, so somehow they need to be allowed to post without getting swarmed on.

---

Everybody's arguments and assertions (including horse$h!t evidence) should be "swarmed on" - and done so big time. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

That "hunting license" BTW does not extend to ad hominem attacks - attack the argument or assertion; and not the person who in ignorance, passion or whatever, makes that argument or assertion.

We don't need or want 50 pullups for "military types" (some of whom make really dumb arguments or assertions) and 5 or less pullups for "non-military types" (however, you might define that; some of whom also make really dumb arguments or assertions).

Frankly, Moore, I'm being too harsh on you. This post is much more a reaction from having to deal with a$$ho!e, quibbling lawyers for the last 40+ years - most non-military; but, some were military, as to which I could give you some gems.

Regards (to both Bill and Steve - from the Armidillo):

http://blogs.technet.com/blogfiles/m.../Armadillo.png

Not my best photo, but what the hay (or hei, or hej).

Mike