Should current fratenization policies change to encompass social media?

PO1 Brian Turpen — Fri, 20 Jun 2014 03:26:44 -0400

Real gray area here in a current military that is trying hard to eliminate gray areas.

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Jun 20 at 2014 5:22 AM

SSG Ed Mikus — Fri, 20 Jun 2014 05:22:07 -0400

yes, they should

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made Jun 20 at 2014 6:38 AM

MSG Wade Huffman — Fri, 20 Jun 2014 06:38:24 -0400

Try as they might, not all grey areas will ever be eliminated, nor do I believe they should be. There needs to be a certain degree of latitude for Commanders to use their judgement and discretion. That's why they earn the big bucks! LOL. As for social media in particular, I don't believe there is a simple answer for this. This very site could be considered a social media site and I don't believe it should be regulated by any fraternization policies. Where would the 'line' be? The last thing we would want would be a blanket policy with unintended consequences. Best answer I can give is 'situation dictates'. We all know (for the most part) improper when we see it, so I guess this is one of those areas that may very well have to remain grey.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2014 7:01 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Jun 2014 07:01:47 -0400

I keep things like facebook for friends/family, period. I've had a few requests from people I work with, but I have to decline. Personal life is personal, professional life is professional. It's important to maintain bounderies.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2014 7:31 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Jun 2014 07:31:43 -0400

I think somewhere between MSG Huffman and MAJ Dews views are the answer. I think its up to the individual person to determine what they allow on social media. If your intent is to keep "friends/family" and deny folks in your work life. That is your choice. But there are always going to be folks that have the same views interests, hobbies and they will gravitate towards each other.

Besides even if there was a blanket reg or rule it would be virtually unenforceable. For example, I am a gamer. I play on Xbox Live and PC Games. I have names on those areas that are completely different from my email/facebook. How would you be able to determine based on a screen name that I am actually the person on there and "fraternizing" with someone I am not supposed to be fraternizing with. I don't use personal photos or my name?

There would still be lots of gray areas.

Response by PO1 Brian Turpen made Jun 20 at 2014 9:22 AM

PO1 Brian Turpen — Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:22:19 -0400

I found it odd i received a request from a female junior officer that i barely interacted with professionally. A quick glance at her friends list showed many many enlisted junior and senior sailors on her list that really could not justify the reason for contact outside of normal shipboard interaction.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2014 9:26 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:26:40 -0400

no.. thats overstepping human rights boundaries. they age of nobility and peasantry died a long time ago.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jun 21 at 2014 8:32 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sat, 21 Jun 2014 08:32:51 -0400

I would say yes for the sake of continuity and military sameness. There is a reason that Social Media refers to them as "Friends" lists.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2014 8:40 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Jun 2014 08:40:33 -0400

Let's talk about one of the biggest gray areas. OPSEC. I'm not big on Facebook or anything like that. Always to much drama. But it's a know fact that soldiers cannot keep stuff to themselves when it come to movement and other operations.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2014 10:47 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:47:50 -0400

Simple: If it violates UCMJ in real life, it doesn't change because you did it online. I don't know that more rules are needed.

Really, it is easier to prove that an inappropriate action/relationship took place. 10 years ago, the equivalent defenses were, "I never said that," or "I wasn't there." In recent years, almost every 15-6 I have been involved in alleging "inappropriate relationships," e-mails, texts, and screen shots were submitted as evidence. Sure, SSG Sedlacek, you could claim, "it wasn't me," but that defense gets weak when I'm holding 50+ e-mails, 100+ texts, etc. If someone else is imitating you, hand me your laptop and phone and let's do the forensics and catch this impostor!

I believe all Soldiers have a responsibility to set the standard: if your posts are not for co-workers, don't invite them to see your posts; if your want to engage co-workers via social media, keep your posts professional. This is common sense! If you get caught for doing something stupid, you clearly have brought the punishment on yourself. Shut up about your "rights." You do have the right to say whatever you want, but are not immune from the consequences. You have the right to remain silent too - give that a try.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2014 12:57 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:57:30 -0400

On certain social media sites like Facebook it might be a could idea to stay away from fraternization. But on websites like Rally Point, the mixing of the ranks spreads knowledge and understanding as long as it remains professional.

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made Jun 21 at 2014 3:53 PM

MAJ Jim Woods — Sat, 21 Jun 2014 15:53:37 -0400

I keep Social Media to family and friends. I do have a few from RP in my circle but am very careful who I let in. Of course it helps that I am not an SM.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2014 9:08 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Jun 2014 21:08:51 -0400

I prefer anti social media sites. No one tries to friend you there...