RallyPoint - The Military Network

I do believe Sandy had a valid question in the case cited. But that appears to be a matter of judgement. I also appears that it is the judgement of the admins that whenever they see a link in the body/details of the question, they assume that the link is the meat of it. They don't even bother to see if it is used by the author to illustrate the question or concern. And, you know about "assume"...

SGT Ben Keen - I was asking what members would feel or think about the option to be married posthumously. I have seen too many instances where there was clear intention to marry - where service member, intelligence officers, foreign service officer, police officer, fireman, medic, or other first responder died prematurely - often leaving his/her fiancé and/or children behind - with no insurance, pension, or benefits which they would ordinarily be entitled. The included link to French and Chinese law solely illustrated what happens when posthumous marriages are permitted. Yes, I do believe there are members who would be personally interested and potentially google marriage rights - but the question raises the broader policy and legal question - would this be something we believe, feel, and would want as an option in our culture? The fact I included a link referencing a news story was an incidental illustration. I could have left his out - and question retains its integrity. So, what I have done in the past is delete as much of my posting and comments - and repost the questions without the included link. That is the point here - turning a question that is sufficient on its own into a link purely because it includes an illustrative link - is not in the best interests of anyone at RP or elsewhere. The reason I included Yinon is to date the admins contacted have been unable to constrain the other admins who choose to convert questions into links with no regard for the intentions, Warmest Regards, Sandy :) LTC Yinon Weiss

Judge for yourself - here is the original content. The question is the intent - not the link. The question stands on its own - the link could be deleted without destroying the intent.

Intriguing Concept: Posthumous Marriage. What do you think?

I never conceived of this concept. But, while rare, this is a French legal practice. What do you think - how do you feel - about this practice - and would it be something that may be of value to military officers, first responders, and other government officials - who may unexpectedly die?

France: A Legal Option for the Bereaved and Betrothed
France is the rare country in which it is explicitly legal for a living person to marry a dead one. Article 171 of the French civil code—the laws by which the country is governed—states that “the President of the Republic may, for grave reasons, authorize the celebration of the marriage where one of the future spouses is dead.”

The story…begins with a disaster: on December 2, 1959, the Malpasset Dam just north of the French Riviera collapsed, unleashing a furious wall of water that killed 423 people. When then president Charles de Gaulle visited the devastated site, a bereaved woman, Irène Jodard, pleaded to be allowed to marry her dead fiancé. On December 31, French parliament passed the law permitting posthumous marriage.

Hundreds of grieving French fiancées have since married their departed sweethearts…Posthumous marriages continue to be granted in France, usually under heartbreaking circumstances. In 2009, 26-year-old Magali Jaskiewicz married her deceased fiancé and father of her two children Jonathan George, who died at 25 in a car accident two days after asking her to marry him.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/europe/france-officer-posthumous-wedding/?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool
CPT Jack Durish SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" SFC William H.

SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" - I regard you as a very kind and supportive friend. I do not seek to overturn anyone's decision. I seek to change a regulation that appears to encourage admins to blindly convert any question - including questions that stand entirely on their own - into a link merely because the question includes an illustrative link - even though the link does not even begin to convey intention and point of the question. The regulation should encourage admins to look at the totality of the question - and avoid edits where they destroy the intention and point of the original question. Warmest Regards, Sandy
LTC Yinon Weiss CPT Jack Durish SGM (Join to see)

1LT Sandy Annala - I would have converted the original post too. Adding things like "what do you think" falls into the "tell me a story" category and the subject matter is not directly related to the military Community. That would be my reasoning to convert it and I'm sure that was the rationale that LTC Kevin B. used as well.

Your approach to complain anytime any of your stuff is changed and to run up the flag pole puts a bad taste in my mouth as well. You and I have had run inside in the past concerning your behavior. Removing a comment and replacing it with just a period than sending an email to feedback@ does not allow us the time to truly review the claim completely. If you truly have a problem with something leave your post alone so we can see it and let SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" know. You don't have to jump right up to MAJ Weiss.

SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" - If the members don't think that guidance is working for them anymore, don't they have the right, and the obligation, to speak up to the other members and the admins and let you know? Guidance is simply that: guidance. It should be flexible and it should be able to be changed when it's no longer relevant or no longer meets the needs or purposes for which it was originally developed. So the real question here is, "Is RallyPoint a site for the benefit of the members to communicate with assistance from the admins, or is it a site for the benefit of the admins, who allow members to communicate only within their guidelines?" Would that question fit the guidelines for me to post here in this section?

SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" - Thank you for your response, but I'm not really sure I was clear enough in the point I was making. I wasn't questioning any admin's "right" to ask someone to stop doing something they believed was against the rules or take whatever actions they deemed necessary. I don't know from 3-star or 5-star or community managers or anything about the RP hierarchy; to be honest I didn't come here for another chain-of-command type of situation. I didn't see the OP's post or what the issue was about, other than the post was not in the form of a question.

Now that you've raised it though, what is the "official" path when community members disagree with one of the 'rules' or 'guidelines' or whatever they're called in this RP 3-1? I suppose the answer is in there somewhere, but again, I didn't come here to spend my time reading regulations and studying the finer points of RP bureaucracy, either. So maybe you could save me and anyone else in the same boat some significant time and just tell us here once something you obviously already know.

Thank you,

Dr. Dave

SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" - I just spent some time re-reading your response to me. I'm not being disrespectful here, but am more than a little confused. In the response it states, "RP admins aren't not here to control you." But other than the first two sentences in the response, everything else is telling me how and why the admins will and are authorized to control "the populace." So I just found the statement a little disingenuous. Can you see how I might be confused by this?
FYI: Just wanted you all to see my thread above so you can tell me to shut up and leave SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" alone if I'm off base or out of bounds here. Not trying to drag anyone into our conversation. SGM Erik Marquez 1LT Sandy Annala CPT Jack Durish

SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" - No, No - I was telling the three folks at the end they should tell me to STFU if I was out of bounds! They wouldn't hesitate to tell me, and I wouldn't feel disrespected by any of them telling me to. Don't worry about the partial post - your son needed your attention more than we did, that's for sure! Thanks for the response, though. I'm still a little confused, but it could just be me. My Gulf War Illness leaves me a little fuzzy sometimes, and the sleep problems it causes has left me awake for the past five days, which makes me even more fuzzy. Hopefully this will be more clear if I can get some sleep soon.