# A question concerning ugliness.



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 13, 2010)

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 (Sep 13, 2010)

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 (Sep 13, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 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 (Sep 13, 2010)

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 (Sep 13, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 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?
> 
> ...


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 13, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> 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 (Sep 13, 2010)

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


----------



## bribrius (Sep 13, 2010)

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 (Sep 13, 2010)

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 (Sep 13, 2010)

bribrius said:


> 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 (Sep 13, 2010)

*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 (Sep 13, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 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 (Sep 13, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> 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?"
> ...


 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 (Sep 13, 2010)

bribrius said:


> 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 (Sep 14, 2010)

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 (Sep 14, 2010)

bribrius said:


> 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 (Sep 14, 2010)

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 (Sep 14, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 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 (Sep 14, 2010)

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 (Sep 14, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 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


----------



## Steve (Sep 14, 2010)

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 (Sep 14, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Sep 14, 2010)

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 (Sep 14, 2010)

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 (Sep 14, 2010)

sfs982000 said:


> 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 (Sep 14, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> 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 (Sep 14, 2010)

bribrius said:


> 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 (Sep 14, 2010)

This reminds me of my Nam days.  LOL
Sean


----------



## Steve (Sep 14, 2010)

bribrius said:


> 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 (Sep 14, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> 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 (Sep 14, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> 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 (Sep 14, 2010)

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 (Sep 14, 2010)

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


----------



## fireman00 (Sep 14, 2010)

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 (Sep 14, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 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.
> ...


 
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 (Sep 15, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 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.
> ...


 
*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 (Sep 15, 2010)

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 (Sep 15, 2010)

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 (Sep 19, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Sep 19, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 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.
> ...





Archangel M said:


> 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.


----------



## xJOHNx (Sep 20, 2010)

I do not believe that there is someone in this world that speaks the truth 100% at all times.

But claiming something you did, which you didn't goes further than a white-collared lie!
No need for exposure, a silent ban is good enough.


----------



## yak sao (Sep 20, 2010)

Or, instead of banning them, give them a "scarlet letter".
It could be a replacement for their avatar, that basically says this person is a liar, or, have an automatic disclaimer that appears with their every post that says 'this post should be taken with a grain of salt because they have lied about serving in the military'


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 20, 2010)

yak sao said:


> Or, instead of banning them, give them a "scarlet letter".
> It could be a replacement for their avatar, that basically says this person is a liar, or, have an automatic disclaimer that appears with their every post that says 'this post should be taken with a grain of salt because they have lied about serving in the military'


hmmm......TO be honest, I like it.....but I dunno if it'd fit our culture here.


----------



## Fiendlover (Sep 22, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> 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.


 Agreed.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 22, 2010)

I see one of the major problems in the martial arts world is people claiming things that are false.  While I don't think actively trying to out everyone as a fraud is a good idea, when someone is uncovered as a fraud there should be repurcussions.  If there are no consequences to being caught lying, in a way we are telling those people it is okay.


----------



## shihansmurf (Sep 23, 2010)

I'm oddly ambivilant about it.

I can spot "PX Soldiers" pretty quickly and tend to ignore them. Overall though, I've learned to read the forums for quite a bit to get a feel for an individual posters content before I really grant any real creedance to what they are saying.

A persons belt rank is pretty meaningless to me, real or imagined, I read what they write and judge it based on its own merits. 

I support whatever position that you take on the matter, Bob, with the caveat that one of the reasons I enjoy Martial Talk as well as Kenpotalk, is the atmosphere. I think it is too easy to get overly distracted in fraud busting untill that takes away from the rest of the quality of the site by changing its focus. If I want that then I can just hop over to Bullshido.

Verification of military service is pretty easy to accomplish, as is rank verification(in theory). Is it worth the time and hassle to do so?

Just my view,
Mark


----------



## Gemini (Sep 28, 2010)

While I have no love for such people, I don't really have any use for BS'rs in general regardless of topic and prefer to just keep my distance from them. I don't think it's in your interest to start making policy based on moral judgements. The "morale" meter moves constantly because we each have our own definition of what we find acceptable or deplorable. BS'rs will always come and go. If it's not for this, it's for that. If and when they get found out, they pretty much get called out, become isolated and leave anyway.


----------



## knuckleheader (Oct 1, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 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?


 
They should be "outed". If they claim false "honors" besides outed, 
perhaps delete the "honor" claim. If they contonue, cut'em off!


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 1, 2010)

http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Walts

By the way American chappies there's now a section for American service people on Arrse.


----------



## Balrog (Oct 5, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 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 would say yes.

Traditional m. a. training stresses honor and integrity.  Lying about military service shows neither; such a person really has nothing of value to add.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 5, 2010)

Balrog said:


> I would say yes.
> 
> Traditional m. a. training stresses honor and integrity. Lying about military service shows neither; such a person really has nothing of value to add.


Part of me wants to disagree, but there was a guy claiming to be a vet who wasn't that came into a bar where I used to work and vets were pulling out knives to deal with the situation. I would say, as a result, that people claiming to be a vets that aren't have some sort of deathwish, and I don't think a person like that has much to offer, either
Sean.


----------

