Posted on Apr 6, 2015
Un-Verified Accounts: What do you think about them? How long should one have to verify it?
42.6K
510
234
55
55
0
I believe that once a profile has not been verified within a certain time limit, that the said account should be pulled off of RallyPoint. What say you??
IF you don't know how to verify your account, go to
http://support.rallypoint.com/customer/portal/articles/1342956-how-do-i-verify-my-account-
Thank you!
IF you don't know how to verify your account, go to
http://support.rallypoint.com/customer/portal/articles/1342956-how-do-i-verify-my-account-
Thank you!
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 74
I wholeheartedly agree.
At the very least, I think that un-verified accounts should come with limitations. For example, a person with an unverified account should not be able to up or down vote [or, should have a smaller number of up votes (less than verified members have) --- and no down votes --- at their disposal].
Good topic SGT (Join to see) --- thanks!
At the very least, I think that un-verified accounts should come with limitations. For example, a person with an unverified account should not be able to up or down vote [or, should have a smaller number of up votes (less than verified members have) --- and no down votes --- at their disposal].
Good topic SGT (Join to see) --- thanks!
(29)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Also I think that they shouldn't able able to view everything on our profiles. Who knows what these people are doing on here.
(4)
(0)
GySgt Joe Strong
No verification, in light of current security threats, should not be able to view profiles.
Up votes, meh.
Down votes, no.
Topic posting - increased scrutiny by the moderators, especially for controversial topics?
Up votes, meh.
Down votes, no.
Topic posting - increased scrutiny by the moderators, especially for controversial topics?
(2)
(0)
(4)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
The captain just needs another case of rip it's. Fixes everything outside of sleep apnea.
(1)
(0)
I would agree. I have seen some accounts that are shady to be honest. First, I also believe that one should use their full name. Just as you and I do. It lends to responsibility of our statements. Using a pen name or just letters seems odd to me. It is really hard to take you serious. A picture is great also. I use my one in uniform. I think it only adds value to what I say. You can see that I am not just a new LT. I have a bit of flair that shows my experience. When the picture is blank it is just old to me too. I have seen some profiles that I was thrown off when I clicked them. I thought they were much younger. It is rare to see anyone retire as a 1LT. A picture would have clarified that.
I way to set a restriction to posting after a certain time frame would be a good idea.
I way to set a restriction to posting after a certain time frame would be a good idea.
(23)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Cpl Christopher Bishop I think it has more to do with the level of professionalism here. If you are discussing a something as a professional I would expect courtesies such as using your name. I suppose it factors on how you look at RallyPoint.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Christopher Bishop
I got your intention, 1LT Eric Rosa, but there are some people who say some pretty whack things, and the fact they listed their full name in the process does not make their words any less whack. Courtesies are fine but they should not become the meat and potatoes of any conversation.
(1)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Verified accounts I can get behind, but forcing full names and or disclosure only provides opportunities to punish an individual for a perceived injustice. That is already taking place on FB. If we make it too strict and too professional then membership will steeply decline in the vet/ret and junior personnel sectors. If the vet/ret population declines we have nothing to compare ourselves to for insight and if the juniors are not interested in RP out of fear the do not get our insights.....everyone stops developing, which I thought was the exact point of RP.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
CPL Thomas Fields I think cooler minds would prevail. We are not the VA here. The verification is so that RallyPoint can ensure quality control. I am sure you have been to a golden corral on veterans day. Everyone says they are a vet and go. I know well that there wasn't that many vets were I live. It is insane. I know full well that some of those guys are pure fakes. The verification process is a way to insure that the members here are who they say they are.
As you know stolen valor is becoming more and more common. The last thing we need here is a fake here telling others bad information.
As you know stolen valor is becoming more and more common. The last thing we need here is a fake here telling others bad information.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see), outstanding topic for discussion.
For what it's worth, here are my thoughts on the subject.
1) 1 month max. to verify.
2) Verify by Form DD214 for veterans and retired, Active Duty Orders for Service Members, School Records for Cadets and some type of official paperwork for National Guard and Reserve. Military email address that is verified. NO VOUCHING FOR ANYONE.
3) Limited to READ ONLY until verified.
4) Remove if unverified for one month.
5) Rank and full name required.
6) For security purposes, make photo optional to protect identity for Special Operators, for example.
If by these standards one cannot comply, they must have something to hide, like stolen valor.
For what it's worth, here are my thoughts on the subject.
1) 1 month max. to verify.
2) Verify by Form DD214 for veterans and retired, Active Duty Orders for Service Members, School Records for Cadets and some type of official paperwork for National Guard and Reserve. Military email address that is verified. NO VOUCHING FOR ANYONE.
3) Limited to READ ONLY until verified.
4) Remove if unverified for one month.
5) Rank and full name required.
6) For security purposes, make photo optional to protect identity for Special Operators, for example.
If by these standards one cannot comply, they must have something to hide, like stolen valor.
(14)
(0)
PO3 Tanis Huston
SPC Edward Tapper - thank you kindly for your information, I know that over time and many moves things got missed placed and last. After my friends mom had passed away and the roller-coaster ride her family went on to get her Amy information it got my dad thinking about me and what I would have to through because he doesn't have mush of it anymore and Sandi still had the great majority. He will be happy to know this information! Thank you again!
(2)
(0)
SPC Edward Tapper
PO3 Tanis Huston, you are most certainly welcome, I am always happy to help if I am able. Be blessed in all you do.
In His Service,
Pastor Edward L. Tapper
In His Service,
Pastor Edward L. Tapper
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Disagree on the DD-214. There is PII on that form. Anything that cannot be released under a FOIA request should NEVER be required. Also, RP already uses a method to verify service. I think that is more than sufficient.
As for the full name and rank... I agree with the Rank. I believe that there should be some allowance for privacy on names. I'm not saying people should be allowed to us something other than their legal names, I'm just saying members should be allowed to censor all but their initials (like RP already allows). I have seen it stated before that there have been issues with some members causing problems for other members within their organization etc because of something that was said.
As for the full name and rank... I agree with the Rank. I believe that there should be some allowance for privacy on names. I'm not saying people should be allowed to us something other than their legal names, I'm just saying members should be allowed to censor all but their initials (like RP already allows). I have seen it stated before that there have been issues with some members causing problems for other members within their organization etc because of something that was said.
(2)
(0)
SGT Richard H.
Agree, but for most, you don't have to present paperwork. All you have to do is give RP permission to verify you when you sign up. For those few that fall during the records fire, the paperwork could be presented.
(3)
(0)
Outstanding question, SGT (Join to see)! I think 14 days is a sufficient amount of time to get your RP account verified. If you can't get it done in 14 days, you probably don't belong here!
In those rare instances for our older Retirees or Veterans who may be encountering difficulty getting verified, that's when you scroll to the bottom, and click on that little hyperlink that says "support" and let the folks at RP who get paid to assist you do their jobs on your behalf! 14 days, or your locked out until such time as you can verify your eligibility to be here. No exceptions, no excuses.
I also feel GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad has a sound recommendation in regards to voting, only I would recommend making it a tad more restrictive and propose that until you are verified, you don't get to vote on anything, up or down. Nor do you get to start a new thread. You may comment and contribute to an existing or current post or thread, but if you wish to start post a new discussion or vote on anything, get verified first! This way, the integrity of the activity on the boards is protected from trolls and the establishment of fraudulent accounts. The profiles of verified members and their reputations on RP are safeguarded from those who may "drive by" and down vote their posts and comments on various threads.
To the greatest extent possible, we need to regard RP as an exclusive club, or gated community. The pathway to membership is well-established and easy to comply with; it is neither burdensome nor overly challenging. But if you want to enjoy the full benefits of RP, get yourself verified or be content with the limited access you have.
In those rare instances for our older Retirees or Veterans who may be encountering difficulty getting verified, that's when you scroll to the bottom, and click on that little hyperlink that says "support" and let the folks at RP who get paid to assist you do their jobs on your behalf! 14 days, or your locked out until such time as you can verify your eligibility to be here. No exceptions, no excuses.
I also feel GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad has a sound recommendation in regards to voting, only I would recommend making it a tad more restrictive and propose that until you are verified, you don't get to vote on anything, up or down. Nor do you get to start a new thread. You may comment and contribute to an existing or current post or thread, but if you wish to start post a new discussion or vote on anything, get verified first! This way, the integrity of the activity on the boards is protected from trolls and the establishment of fraudulent accounts. The profiles of verified members and their reputations on RP are safeguarded from those who may "drive by" and down vote their posts and comments on various threads.
To the greatest extent possible, we need to regard RP as an exclusive club, or gated community. The pathway to membership is well-established and easy to comply with; it is neither burdensome nor overly challenging. But if you want to enjoy the full benefits of RP, get yourself verified or be content with the limited access you have.
(14)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Once again, MAJ Paul Hoiland, you hit a home run. I agree with everything you wrote. I think that clown that that was rude, crude, and socially unacceptable, was a troll and some other things I won't say.
(4)
(0)
I posted something along the same lines last year. I think RallyPoint has now grown to such a state that being verified is more important. We are seeing more and more trolls enter the forums and the admins can only get to them so quickly. I would agree that a time limit should be put on new accounts to verify their status. It isn't hard. I also think their access to the site should be locked down to just viewing the forum without having the ability to respond until their accounts are verified. If they don't verify within the time window given, their accounts should be flagged and then removed.
How much weight do you put behind the Verified/Non-Verified member status? | RallyPoint
With more and more people joining RallyPoint, which is great to see, I've gotten a few Connection Requests from members who are not verified (no green SM, V, or R next to their name). As someone who loves networking I do not mind the requests at all but I've started trying to review their profiles looking for some things we share. It could be a unit we both served in, area that we live, interests such as photography, just...
(11)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Last night I approached my 75 contacts request. I was very surprised to see how many contacts have no information about their service and do no not have a picture posted. I do not want to connect to someone I know nothing about. But, that's just me.
(0)
(0)
2LT (Join to see)
Trolling is symptomatic of this kind of site. Forums across the net are always subject to those hopping on just to get a rise out of a community or push some subversive agenda. Military email verification is ace - easy and fast to use, and can't be falsified. The sooner walls like that can be erected, the better for everyone.
(0)
(0)
SFC Mark Merino LTC Yinon Weiss The perennial topic returns.
Ladies and Gentlemen, there are some similar discussions where similar inquiries have been addressed. Some of them are linked here above and right under "similar discussions" ---> ^
I've suggested before an option on your own profile to "view as" various conditions of other users might help users understand how little unverified members get to see based on your security settings.
Finally, anything you type here in answers is fully searchable to any person on google. Your face will be blurred and your name obscured (probably) but keep that in mind. Nothing on the web is truly private.
Ladies and Gentlemen, there are some similar discussions where similar inquiries have been addressed. Some of them are linked here above and right under "similar discussions" ---> ^
I've suggested before an option on your own profile to "view as" various conditions of other users might help users understand how little unverified members get to see based on your security settings.
Finally, anything you type here in answers is fully searchable to any person on google. Your face will be blurred and your name obscured (probably) but keep that in mind. Nothing on the web is truly private.
(9)
(0)
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
Linked where? [Disregard ... just realized where your arrow was pointing. :-)]
(2)
(0)
(1)
(0)
CDR Terry Boles
I enjoy the camaraderie, thoughtful topics and discussions, and verification should be a requirement to participate. Keeping in mind my years of never ending OPSEC what we post on our profiles can be problematic and the option to provide limited generic information should not change. However, RP should maintain a robust verification system with a limited time frame to meet the verification requirement.
(3)
(0)
I think I found something we completely agree on! I would go a step further and say users need to be verified before doing anything. Fake accounts are a security issue and even a means to poison the community.
I tend to side with CPT (Join to see) as well on names. I've noticed that some of the most aggressive, unpleasant members I've encountered tend to have fake names. I also understand why some desire a little more anonymity, so don't think pictures are necessary.
I tend to side with CPT (Join to see) as well on names. I've noticed that some of the most aggressive, unpleasant members I've encountered tend to have fake names. I also understand why some desire a little more anonymity, so don't think pictures are necessary.
(9)
(1)
SFC Mark Merino
Fake names are a no no. Please tag them or contact an admin. Some of them are really vile and need to come down asap. Every day they claim to be a 4-stars (their favorite choice) and we have to root them out. The same day we got a real 4-star, his name appeared next to General Heinrich Buttprobe. I call that a deterrent to landing professional military members.
(10)
(0)
At first I didn't get on Rally Point very much at all, so I did not even realize that my account needed to be verified, but I also was not sure at first what kind of social media this app would turn out to be. I wasn't sure at first that I wanted to be a part of it. So I definitely took awhile to be verified, but I completely agree that we don't need any further stolen valor types or folks that were never "in".
(7)
(0)
It was pretty painless for me as an active service member to verify my account. All I had to do was verify it through my "work" military E-Mail. I understand it is the nature of the beast but unverified service members make me suspicious. That means anyone in the world (regardless of actual military service) can get on here and create an account without accountability.
Maybe we can have a "sponsor" option to where verified members can vouch for unverified members that we personally know. This might offer a more enticing option for those reluctant to verify their accounts through the normal channels. Thoughts?
SSG James J. Palmer IV SFC Mark Merino TSgt Joshua Copeland Capt Richard I P.
Maybe we can have a "sponsor" option to where verified members can vouch for unverified members that we personally know. This might offer a more enticing option for those reluctant to verify their accounts through the normal channels. Thoughts?
SSG James J. Palmer IV SFC Mark Merino TSgt Joshua Copeland Capt Richard I P.
(7)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
PO1 (Join to see) The only issue I see with "sponsoring" is that you will get kind of like linkedin where you get "Open Sponsors" vs people actually taking it seriously and only vouching for people they really know.
(3)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
TSgt Joshua Copeland, maybe there can be a vetting process set up to help curb that issue. Such as verifying how you know the member you are sponsoring (e.g. served together at so and so, members at VFW so and so, etc.) which these things can be verified through profile match ups. However, it was just an idea. :)
(2)
(0)
Read This Next