Posted on May 14, 2014
Should military courtesy be required in RallyPoint?
24K
477
199
16
16
0
For example, should enlisted personnel address higher ranking officers as "Sir" in discussions? Or is courtesy assumed? Do you think veterans "exempt" from courtesy?
Customs and Courtesies
RallyPoint
Policy
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 89
1
1
0
Call me old school but, military courtesy should always be extended regardless of public venue.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I agree with the previous posts. it shouldn't be required but more like second nature really. Its like when i go to write an email or something I always address it as chief, sir, ma'am and so forth because that is what has been instilled in me since day one.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
If I address someone I do not know that is uniform, I will still use their rank.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
My take is: courtesy should be always used in any discussion. We need to remain civil to each other.
I do not need to be addressed with my rank, I have been a civilian for over 30 years, never the less if you so choose I appreciate it, but that should not be an issue. It is more about building relationships and or reconnecting with old friends and acquaintances. Any way that is my take! RLTW Endre
I do not need to be addressed with my rank, I have been a civilian for over 30 years, never the less if you so choose I appreciate it, but that should not be an issue. It is more about building relationships and or reconnecting with old friends and acquaintances. Any way that is my take! RLTW Endre
(1)
(0)
Cpl Dr Ronnie Manns
I agree quite so much with this. Using the military title is a show of ultimate resepct because you are saying you appreciate what that person did to get there, but in civilian circumstances defer to the one to which you wish to address to decide how best to address them and you have shown not only the ultimate respect to him but the greatest of respect to yourself.
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
Everyone should be courtesy when posting on networking/social sites. I have been out of the military for almost 20 years and still use sir and ma'am. No, I do not feel veterans should be exempt. Being courtesy is just polite.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
SPC Pistryakov,
I still use military courtesy by addressing RP members by their rank or by "Sir" or "Ma'am", regardless if they have a "SM", "R", or "V" by their name, unless they prefer to call them by their first name or nick name.
I had posted a similar thread several month ago:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/how-do-you-address-a-fellow-rallypoint-member
I still use military courtesy by addressing RP members by their rank or by "Sir" or "Ma'am", regardless if they have a "SM", "R", or "V" by their name, unless they prefer to call them by their first name or nick name.
I had posted a similar thread several month ago:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/how-do-you-address-a-fellow-rallypoint-member
How do you address a fellow RallyPoint member? | RallyPoint
From Day One of our military service, we were taught how to address our fellow service members based on their rank either as an Enlisted, as a Warrant Officer or as a Commissioned Officer. However, what is the proper way to address someone here on Rally Point? I do address current Service Members on Rally Point by their rank. When it comes to addressing fellow veterans (and retirees) on here, I address them by their first name.How do you...
(1)
(0)
TSgt James Figart
I am no longer in the military. People who know me call me Jimbo. The women call me Jimbone. Enough said.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
SPC,
I try to address everyone with a certain level of military courtesy, but that does not mean I will not tell someone, higher rank or not, that they are wrong when they are wrong...some have taken that as being disrespectful, but this just goes to prove how wrong they really were, at least in my mind.
I try to address everyone with a certain level of military courtesy, but that does not mean I will not tell someone, higher rank or not, that they are wrong when they are wrong...some have taken that as being disrespectful, but this just goes to prove how wrong they really were, at least in my mind.
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Then again, having been out for a long time, and now a civilian professional, I don't want people to see me as a SPC, but rather, the same way they would on linked-in, just as a colleague or peer.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
MSG, debating, oh...but we love debate on here. And most of us do it tactfully, I hope. When it's a pretty controversial subject, I will argue it with whomever. If I see their reasoning, though, I will admit when I'm wrong, or concede their point. I do like the way you think.
(0)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
SPC (Join to see) I think many forget the vast experience our former soldiers bring to the table. To their loss.
SGT (Join to see) I also think all our soldiers have important opinions to share but I think we should maintain a certain level MC on this site too.
SGT (Join to see) I also think all our soldiers have important opinions to share but I think we should maintain a certain level MC on this site too.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I have no problems as a veteran with addressing active duty military by their rank, unless otherwised asked not to in certain situations.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
REQUIREMENT: a thing that is needed or wanted.a thing that is compulsory; a necessary condition.
This site is one of voluntary commitment. When you start making demands (requirements) you will loose contributors who's opinions may have significant relevance to a topic. We who are on here are current or former military personnel. I have as yet to see anyone who doesn't show some form of respect to officers; however, is addressing someone in an open form discussion on a voluntary site a must? Making this a requirement would constitute division in this form just like in the military where only NCO's can go to the NCO clubs and only CO's can go to the officers club. We unite together here in order to avoid division/ segregation by rank. COL Smallfield has 4 good points that outline what should be acceptable.
This site is one of voluntary commitment. When you start making demands (requirements) you will loose contributors who's opinions may have significant relevance to a topic. We who are on here are current or former military personnel. I have as yet to see anyone who doesn't show some form of respect to officers; however, is addressing someone in an open form discussion on a voluntary site a must? Making this a requirement would constitute division in this form just like in the military where only NCO's can go to the NCO clubs and only CO's can go to the officers club. We unite together here in order to avoid division/ segregation by rank. COL Smallfield has 4 good points that outline what should be acceptable.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google