Think Tank Analysts and Site Staff

[LeveragedBuyout]

Where can I find a list of all of PDF's think tank analysts, along with their specialties?

EDIT: Apparently, the list is a state secret. If we can't do it the easy way, let's do it the hard way, and crowdsource it. If anyone wants to volunteer areas of expertise, I will add it to the list.

Administrators
Aeronaut
WDN
Webmaster

Moderators
Adios Amigo
blain2
Chaku Bamu
Emmie
Fulcrum15
Jungibaaz
Manticore (weapons systems/platforms)
Oscar
T-Faz
TaimiKhan
test

International Moderators
Hu Songshan
Kaan
Serpentine

Professionals
AlpErTunga
asad71
gambit
jhungary
Joe Shearer
Rashid Mahmood

Veterans
Andromache
Cheetah786
dabong1
genmirajborgza786
IceCold
Imran Khan
MastanKhan
SMC
Spring Onion

Think Tank Staff (expertise)
500 (weapons/platforms, Israeli history and politics)
A1Kaid (small arms)
Aamna14
ajpirzada
Arsalan
AUSTERLITZ (military history, strategy, general history)
Azlan Haider
balixd
cabatli_53 (Turkish defense industry, Turkish weapons/platforms)
Casus Belli (Turkish defense industry, Turkish weapons/platforms)
Chinese-Dragon (Chinese economy, politics)
DaRk WaVe
Dazzler
Developereo
Dillinger
Donatello
fatman17
FaujHistorian
forcetrip
F.O.X
Indos
Jessica_L
KAL-EL
Last Hope
Luftwaffe
mafiya
MBI Munshi
Munir
Najam Khan
niaz
Penguin (general military, naval focus)
sancho
sandy_3126 (aeronautics, small arms)
Secur
siegecrossbow
Slav Defence
SpArK
S.U.R.B.
Tempest II
That Guy
The Deterrent
TOPGUN
TruthSeeker
vostok (Russian military, Russian history and politics)
Wholegrain
Xeric

Other
Abu Zolfiqar
Hyperion
Safriz The Chutiya

 

[MastanKhan]

Sir,

That is a good question. I have been wondering about their specialities myself for the last 9 years & you want to get the answer within 30 days of your joining----

 

[halupridol]

Sir,

That is a good question. I have been wondering about their specialities myself for the last 9 years & you want to get the answer within 30 days of your joining----

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

My working assumption is that PDF is seeking to continually improve the professionalism of the site, and that was the reasoning behind the think tank analyst (TTA) title. I am also assuming that the TTAs are intended to resemble their real-world namesakes, i.e. subject matter experts. There are two drivers behind asking for a public list of think tank analysts (TTAs):

Positive
1) When I have a question about a specific subject, or if I'm participating in a discussion and want a more authoritative opinion, it would be nice to have a qualified TTA weigh in.
2) If I am interested in a specific area, I can review a TTA's previous posts to see what was previously contributed.

Negative
Measurement is the foundation of accountability. If we don't know who is a TTA, why they were elevated, how often they have contributed useful material, etc., then the title becomes meaningless. Why should someone who has no expertise in a particular area be given the power to positively or negatively rate another user's contribution? I have read several times that the staff of PDF sometimes feel overwhelmed with the administrative work, so perhaps they should have the regular users police the TTAs by having us all scrutinize their posts. Perhaps have a negative version of the "thanks" button, so after a TTA has accumulated a certain threshold, site administrators will review the TTA's worthiness of the title.

The catalyst for this question is the lack of uniform standards among TTAs. I have seen a handful of knowledgeable and level-headed TTAs that raise the quality level of discussions through their contributions, or through starting threads with original research and analysis. I have seen TTAs come into threads with abusive language or one liners. And I occasionally see TTAs come out of the woodwork who have not contributed anything meaningful for extended periods of time. The rank of TTAs should periodically be reviewed and trimmed to keep the value of the title high.

Again, this is assuming that the PDF staff want more fact-based analysis and discussion, and less valueless input of the variety.

 

[MastanKhan]

Sir,

Please don't forget that you are in " pakistan "---here not everyone is there because they have qualifications----dare I say more.

 

[OCguy]

My guess (only a guess since I'm new as well) is that the staff is currently busy dealing with the growing pains that any expanding community has to deal with.

I bet fighting off spammers, returning banned members (RBM), trolls, and dealing with the usual forum drama between adversarial groups or countries is the focus, and fine-tuning some of the procedural details will come at a later date.

 

[Developereo]

I would suggest that people focus more on the content of the post rather than the poster's title.

I will never understand the obsession with titles, thanks and ratings.

 

[MilSpec]

This is actually a very good suggestion. There should be a list of TTA/TTC/Mods with established attributes in certain subjects listed. @Oscar @WebMaster

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

My guess (only a guess since I'm new as well) is that the staff is currently busy dealing with the growing pains that any expanding community has to deal with.

I bet fighting off spammers, returning banned members (RBM), trolls, and dealing with the usual forum drama between adversarial groups or countries is the focus, and fine-tuning some of the procedural details will come at a later date.

I would suggest that people focus more on the content of the post rather than the poster's title.

I will never understand the obsession with titles, thanks and ratings.

If this is the case, why have the TTA title at all? There is no shame in being a regular user here. Since TTAs have been invested with some degree of authority (the ability to rate, a special title), they represent PDF in a way that regular users do not. If you don't believe the title to have any meaning, then TTA should be a ceremonial title, with no power to rate other posts.

Sir,

Please don't forget that you are in " pakistan "---here not everyone is there because they have qualifications----dare I say more.

Heh, I know better than to respond. Cheers.

 

[Developereo]

If this is the case, why have the TTA title at all? There is no shame in being a regular user here. Since TTAs have been invested with some degree of authority (the ability to rate, a special title), they represent PDF in a way that regular users do not. If you don't believe the title to have any meaning, then TTA should be a ceremonial title, with no power to rate other posts.

A title is an acknowledgement that a poster has risen above trolling and useless posts and has demonstrated the capacity to conduct rational debates. It is also an incentive for regular posters to lift their game. Of course, everyone's human and lapses occur, but that's the general idea.

As for formal qualifications, no one has the resources to verify international credentials, so the best option is to judge by the content of the post rather than any specific claims. I personally don't give two hoots about academic credentials. I decide based on actual performance. But that's just me.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

A title is an acknowledgement that a poster has risen above trolling and useless posts and has demonstrated the capacity to conduct rational debates. It is also an incentive for regular posters to lift their game. Of course, everyone's human and lapses occur, but that's the general idea.

As for formal qualifications, no one has the resources to verify international credentials, so the best option is to judge by the content of the post rather than any specific claims. I personally don't give two hoots about academic credentials. I decide based on actual performance. But that's just me.

If you truly believe that, then you should agree that those TTAs who have not risen above trolling, who serially post useless invective, who have not contributed useful content, and in general, have not performed to a higher standard should be demoted back to regular user status. If you agree, then a public list of TTAs and their areas of contribution is not unreasonable. If you disagree, please explain the purpose of the TTA designation.

 

[Hyperion]

Someone with less than 200 posts to his credit, and one month of membership........ you certainly are spazzy........ perhaps you deserve my title more than me?

Btw, what's your field of interest, or in your case, 'field of expertise'? If you'd be so generous to inform us... take your time and make it as detailed as your critique / "analysis" of other TT's and JTT's!

I have seen a handful of knowledgeable and level-headed TTAs that raise the quality level of discussions through their contributions, or through starting threads with original research and analysis. I have seen TTAs come into threads with abusive language or one liners. And I occasionally see TTAs come out of the woodwork who have not contributed anything meaningful for extended periods of time. The rank of TTAs should periodically be reviewed and trimmed to keep the value of the title high.

Again, this is assuming that the PDF staff want more fact-based analysis and discussion, and less valueless input of the variety.

 

[Iggy]

A title is an acknowledgement that a poster has risen above trolling and useless posts and has demonstrated the capacity to conduct rational debates. It is also an incentive for regular posters to lift their game. Of course, everyone's human and lapses occur, but that's the general idea.

As for formal qualifications, no one has the resources to verify international credentials, so the best option is to judge by the content of the post rather than any specific claims. I personally don't give two hoots about academic credentials. I decide based on actual performance. But that's just me.

 

[Developereo]

If you truly believe that, then you should agree that those TTAs who have not risen above trolling, who serially post useless invective, who have not contributed useful content, and in general, have not performed to a higher standard should be demoted back to regular user status. If you agree, then a public list of TTAs and their areas of contribution is not unreasonable. If you disagree, please explain the purpose of the TTA designation.

As I explained, the designation is a reflection of a person's behavior over their tenure. Since people are human, lapses will occur. Also, since most discussions are on controversial subjects, different people will have different opinions on what constitutes useful v/s useless debating.

The designation is based on voting by existing title holders, who come from a diverse mix of nationalities and a VERY wide range of political opinions.

 

[Donatello]

It's okay, the Indians are feeling left out. We can't really go down to their level and argue.