*** READ THIS FIRST! ***

[ClearedHot]

I can’t believe I have to post this, but let this serve as a reminder, do not even think about posting anything close to the line on this site.

1. Declaring your operational background, then using sites like FAS.ORG as a reference for classification is outright dumb and won’t be tolerated.

2. Sending me (someone you don’t know, who could be sitting in Beijing or Pyongyang for all you know), a PM declaring that you fly XXX and that you have a Top Secret Clearance is perhaps the most egregious lack of SA I have ever seen. YGBFSM!!!

Bottomline, this is great site and none of us is perfect, but when it comes to no-shit OPSEC, don’t even think about posting on this site.

[Guest Rainman A-10]

I can’t believe I have to post this, but let this serve as a reminder, do not even think about posting anything close to the line on this site.

A couple tips:

1. Don't type while you're angry.

2. Don't get defensive or react while you're frustrated when someone is obviously clueless or not read-in and they're saying things that are totally wrong. Let it go.

3. Don't try to get credibility by talking about anything specific that might come close to compromise of sensitive info.

4. If you have to think about how to say something without crossing the line, don't.

5. Don't assume you know how to avoid compromising EEI just because you have a security clnc.

6. Don't assume you know who you are talking to around here.

7. Never get rolled up in a PM argument with someone you don't know.

8. Get an .smil address and/or an STE number if you need to do any no shit coordination with someone that "needs to know."

9. Don't BFM the rules around classified to make a point or enlighten someone that has a "question." Just because you can Google something and get a tangential hit doesn't mean you can or should talk about things you treated as classified in an operational environment. There's a reason they're called secrets and you damn well should know that or you shouldn't have access to classified.

10. Pray you never have a security clnc that requires periodic lie detector tests that will make you overly sensitive to OPSEC issues for the rest of your life.

[M2]

Just another friendly reminder to be watchful of what you post on this forum! I know 99.69% of you are trustworthy Americans; but that doesn't mean other people can't log on to see what we are chatting about. If you have any questions on if a topic violates OPSEC rules, 1) it probably does, and 2) if you still aren't sure, PM the mods before posting to be absolutely sure it doesn't. If you post anything that is remotely close to violating the rules, all we are going to do is delete it, so do us a favor and check first!

Another reminder...and thanks to those who posted this in other threads! I am glad most folks here understand the importance of OPSEC, especially as it pertains to BaseOps! If anyone sees anything they feel may be an OPSEC issue in any thread, please send the moderators a note! If I am not sure, I will pull the post until I can get clarification from the poster or through other channels; putting a '(Post removed for review)' in its place in the interim. If deemed to be an OPSEC risk, it will be removed permanently without the poster being notified.

Cheers! M2

[Toro]

There are often new threads that don't need to be started since their information has been covered in the past and needs only to be revived and possibly updated. Here's the ROE on searching and starting new threads.

1. UTFSF: If there is a remote chance that your topic has been discussed, use the search function to find it and re-open that thread.

2. Get something close: It doesn't matter if your specific question was not answered - find a thread that is close and ask your question there. The intent is to consolidate discussion as much as possible so there are a minimal amount of threads discussing the same topic.

3. Disclaimers are unneccesary: You don't need to start your thread with "I used the search function and I couldn't find anything." I've been around for a while and I'm pretty familiar with what's been discussed. If your topic was previously discussed, I'll probably know.

4. Smackdown for offenders: I'm going to lock the topic and send you a PM to inform you that your posting abilities will be disabled until you re-read this thread and the posting rules (these posting rules are all contained within the Posting Rules which are hyperlinked in the registration and required to be read before submitting for an account). Additionally I will increase your warning level (that little meter below your avatar). It’s hardly even a slap on the wrist and barely noticeable, but repeat offenders will get a temporary ban.

This isn’t about preventing new information from being posted – it is about getting people to stop being lazy and look for answers that are already there before they ask the question. Before these rules were put in place, I would routinely locked 20-30 threads a month for new threads that had already been discussed. Posting similar questions under the same topic consolidates these threads. This has exactly zero percent to deal with bandwidth – it simply puts all the information in one place to make it easier for people who want to find it later.

To help out with sorting through an excessive number of old posts on similar subjects, I have consolidated many subjects. I have merged a ton of old threads dealing with the same subject. Try searching for "LASIK" "Vision", "SERE" or any number of common subjects and you'll now only see one or two threads. However, these threads have 6-9 pages with information going back as far as 2002. In some cases the merge function hiccups, so you may the thread as a whole may be slightly out of chronological order, but the posts within the original threads remain in order (so the posts from a 2004 thread may appear before the posts from a 2003 thread). I've spent a good deal of time doing this, so I'm going to be particularly grumpy if any idiots start a new thread asking for questions on these subjects - PUT IT IN THE EXISTING THREADS!

If you can’t find what you’re looking for, here are some techniques to improve your search:

- Use the advanced search. If you simply type your word or phrase into the search container at the top of the page, it will only search that particular forum and will bring up every hit with a thread that has your word in the posts (which may be much more than you need). Instead of typing your info in that container, click “Advanced Search”, which will allow to search in specific forums, as well as search only thread titles for your topic. You can also limiting your search to a date range.

- Don’t look for words with less than three letters. The search engine cannot handle these, so it will give you zero results. If you use one short word that doesn’t bring anything up, try using a phrase that would likely be associated with what you’re looking for.

- Typing in a portion of a word will bring up any words with that fragment (typing "test" will bring up "test", "tests", and "testing")

- Don't use quotes - this doesn't isolate words like it does with other search engines such as Google. If you search for multiple words, the engine will only return results with the words in that exact order.

If you find a subject that has not been consolidated or you're having trouble searching, send me a PM and I'd be happy to merge the threads.

[M2]

There is now a BaseOps Wiki page on SIPRNET...

https://www.intelink.sgov.gov/wiki/BaseOps

...for any detailed discussions that may be sensitive or classified. From here on out, reference that site here and post the info there. It appears that the "powers that be" are allowing that site to exist, as it has already been edited by one of the moderators on there and it still exists.

This is a test case to allow more information to be distributed to those who are cleared for and have the need to know the info, but also keeping this site within established OPSEC and DoD security guidelines. I appreciate everyone's cooperation and understanding...

Cheers! M2

[Toro]

On a related note, do NOT post any sensitive information regarding military safety or accident incidents. While this is not classified in the standard sense, it is privileged information that the general public does not and should not know until the investigation results are publicly released. If you read info from a safety report, heard something in a safety brief, read something in a forwarded e-mail from safety, or even overheard something the bros were talking about in the squadron, it doesn't need to be on here. Let me tell you with absolute confidence based on recent message traffic I have received that there are lawyers keeping an eye on this site.

[M2]

Gentlemen

While I applaud the effort to "spice up" dull threads, I do ask that if you post any picture that makes a thread unsuitable for public viewing that you kindly notify the moderators to add a **NSFW** tag to the title!

You can easily do so by simply "reporting" your post using the exclamation point in the yellow warning triangle located at the bottom left of every post. It is easy to find as it also says ‘Report’ next to it! By doing so, the mods can edit the thread title appropriately; and we all live to fight another day.

I viewed what had been an innocuous thread in the office and was lucky no one noticed the newly-added NSFW picture before I could close it. We don’t need any fratricide on here when it can be easily avoided, so use a little common sense and warn others beforehand!

Those who violate this common courtesy will receive the appropriate

Thanks! M²

[M2]

One to add, since it wasn't specifically noted in the above...

No Porn/Nudity Allowed!

BaseOps has made it clear that there will be no pornographic material posted on the site, and there are several good reasons for so; but mainly it is because many people access BaseOps from government computers and while we may already be pushing the limits with the 'NSFW' content, actual porn will clearly cause problems. As such, it is for our own safety that we impose this restriction.

For guidance on what is allowable, see the

Please contact the mods if there are any questions.

[M2]

And yet another reminder to NOT post any sensitive/critical information even if it is unclassified and/or published in the media!

Examples of which include, but are not limited to:

• Specific details on current and future operations
  
• Travel itineraries, especially those of senior officials
  
• Operational planning information
  
• Personal identification information (PII)
  
• Any security procedures
  
• Specific capabilities, limitations or vulnerabilities (to include degradation of systems or equipment)
  

That is a generic list but if there is any question or doubt over whether some information should be posted, then don't post it!

Feel free to contact me with any questions, I'd rather you be proactive in addressing the issue than my having to be reactive and cleaning up the mess afterward; because after I am done my next target will be you!

Cheers! M2

[M2]

OK, since a few of you don't seem to be paying attention; this is specifically directed towards the recent reporting on a certain system being vulnerable to intercept.

This is the final warning, do NOT start another thread on this subject! Several have been closed already, I removed them due to OPSEC concerns.

This forum is NOT the place where a vulnerability such as this needs to be discussed, even if it's being reported by certain elements of the media!

If anyone has any questions, feel free to PM me; otherwise I do not want to see any more threads started on this subject.

Thanks! M2