Results 21 to 40 of 43
01-05-2013, 06:05 AM #21
just as something inbetween: dont change your habit because of me, that would mean you care. dont. let me be annoyed.
I know I keep banging on about it, but in the system Im talking about, the leader decides on what is done. it just forces him to listen to every opinion before he decides.
Last edited by QuantaCat; 01-05-2013 at 06:07 AM.
01-05-2013, 02:13 PM #22
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
- Durham, UK
I can see the sense in suggesting two people in charge if decisions were going to be life/death profit/loss but it's not that serious. Instead it just takes us in the direction of unnecessary committees. One person (out of several nominated Giraffe leaders) should be able to take a decision without having to get the express agreement of a second leader just to push something forward.
01-05-2013, 03:52 PM #23
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
I agree that one person is normally enough, and do not even think they have to specialise, so long as a reasonable person is able to take all the information/discussion into account and make a decision.
But these specifics aren't the issue. The issue, as Cooper outlines, is that we need more people stepping up to these roles.
How can we accomplish this?
Without wanting to get too clique-ey, maybe a weekly Council of Giraffes, where the Responsible Giraffes meet up and discuss plans, would help promote more active problem solving/leadership discussion? It would not have to be a compulsory thing to attend, and sessions could be as short as discussing the one thing that's going on that week. Sharing ideas and information seems important.
01-05-2013, 05:14 PM #24
I like the idea of a council, not necessarily of officers, but at least of those who care and want to help drive the outfit onwards. Not sure if that will be too big a group?
01-05-2013, 05:50 PM #25
one should decide, but he should be advised by either a small group or all upper tier players. usually, contrary to popular belief, the most inexperienced shouod decide, but his or her advisors should be the most experienced.
01-05-2013, 06:25 PM #26
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
Pictured a Council of Giraffes being more for the leadership to keep each other up to date on what was going on and briefly mention things that might spark ideas/action from someone else. Just something to keep the leadership active.
Last edited by Rizlar; 01-05-2013 at 06:29 PM.
01-05-2013, 06:43 PM #27
01-05-2013, 06:56 PM #28
Again, though, this is probably not what Cooper originally intended, as this relates to gameplay only. Still a valid point, and something that would be very good for us to have, I think. But; probably not relevant to this discussion.
02-05-2013, 12:42 AM #29
Any kind of discussion can and should be open to any member of the outfit. A "War Council" that regularly meets to explicitly discuss in-game issues (rather than the semi-regular "outfit chats" that discuss meta-game outfit issues) I would like to see. But I see no reason to limit these to specific 'leaders'.
Anythin 'sensitive' that we wouldn't want 'spais' at will probably be stuff that involves other TVA allies. In which case representatives from RPS will be there. Recognising such roles as representatives of RPS in inter-outfit meetings is the sort of things a new rank/role would do. A kind of "your are trusted by the community to make decisions in such contexts" recognition.
What would be good is for the "War Council" to be chaired by leaders, and for leaders to then go and do something about what is discussed / decided.
It is that last bit we are not always good at.
The process goes:
Discussion - Decision - Action
We are good at discussion. We always need discussion, I don't want this to produce a group of people who think they can unilaterally decide waht to do nor do I want discussions that lead to decisions to not be open to everyone (even if it's the same people talking, I would rather have 8 people talking and 30 people listening in than just 8 people talking).
We can be good at decision, though not always and action takes too long.
My current thoughts on this issue:
I write up some kind of "charter" (for the outfit guide) that clarifies 'how we do things'.
1) Regular "outfit chats" and 'War Councils' during which we discuss various issues. Any member can bring forward an issue for discussion. We're ok at this. Could be better. Having a pool of people who can chair / run these things other than myself would be welcomed.
2) Leaders then make decisions as part of these discussions. With voice chat it's very easy to wrap-up a discussion by stating what decisions can be made in terms of what is to be done.
In previous outfit chats I've often summarised what I have taken to be the main points of contention and suggested a solution, put that solution forward for discussion and then, if there are no problems with it, or after some tweaking with other suggestions, state it to be the action point decided upon. Other people need to be able to do that. They also need to be able to do that in discussions that are not part of outfit chats.
Basically, we have a lack of (recognised) affirmitive decision-makers. Or arbitrators. Or consensus-builders. Whatever you want to call them. I'm hoping we can build a group of arbitrators /consensus-builders who take on this role by having the responsibility offered to them by the outfit. Basically a badge of trust to say "we're happy for you to draw decisions out of discussions and push to make things happen".
I'm happy for the 'how' decisions are made to be left up to the personal style of the leader rather than some kind of convoluted political system that attempts to systematise consensus from discussion. We are too small and not fractured enough to need that.
3) Things getting done.
Which we are variously good and bad at. I wonder how much hesitancy there is from people to just go ahea and do it because of a percieved lack of authority to do so.
Again, we need a group of people who will push things. We already have people doing this, and I am expcetionally grateful to them. Simple recognition of this hard work would be nice, but I would also hope that such recogntion means that any hesitancy to just go ahead do something is mitigated by clear declarations of trust from the community.
In general what I want is to build a group of people who are trusted by the community, and have taken on the responsibility, to push the outfit to get things done. I want to do this without creating a clique. The best way we do this is by keeping discussions open, decisions clear but making resulting decisions weighty because they have been made by someone with a given status / responsibility / rank.
For example, if an "outfit leader" or whatever they get called (current terminology in-game is "Sexiest Giraffes". This is subject to change) decides that something like a "War Council" is a good idea, they should be able to feel like they can just go ahead and announce "War Council at this date, this time, to discuss these things" and push it forward. We need to break out of the inertia of suggesting things, discussing them, but not always actually doing them.
(I realise my extending the discussion with this post is indicative of the problem at hand. To which end I will try and get round tomorrow to drafting up this charter and getting things rolling soon.)
Does that make sense?Originally Posted by CROCONOUGHTKEY
02-05-2013, 05:24 AM #30
it does make sense, but the reason for a single leader that gets the final say in things isnt because were all so contrary (though I remind you of the discussion involving splitting comms and how long that took) but to make every discussion also have a constructive ending. not a means of segregating the "worthy" players from the grunts.
so if a council, we need a chairman. even if that chairman rotates once in a while.
and most importantly: he should be allowed to make mistakes. this is after all a game.
03-05-2013, 04:33 AM #31
Some of you seemed to be missing the point of my two people system.
This wasnt meant as a system for leadership in any way, but purely as a way of dealing with smaller projects. Things similar to the logo stuff could be handled this way, which means that projects arent just limited to being lead by these leaders, but so that any community member can propose and lead a project, but with some oversight.
The idea was to eliminate any need for having all powerful leaders, and keeping projects in everybodies hands. It would also hopefully eliminate the sense of "why is your decision the final one", which we seem to have had in the past. Having the project in the hands of two people rather than just one means that the risk of bad decisions being made is minimised.
There is always the possibility for somebody leading a project to want to make a decision based on preferences that they might have, but the second person would be there to say "wait, thats not the best choice for this time round".
Regardless, we definitely need people who are recognised as decision makers, but what we dont need are people who will make a decision but then not listen to the reasons why that decision might be bad. Hence the 2 man idea (more if necessary).
You essentially create a small "giraffe council" or whatever you want to call it, that will be responsible for making sure a project doesnt go in the wrong direction, or that it isnt being influenced by one persons potentially narrow minded view.
Again, this isnt so much to do with how we select leaders or what else they do.. Just a system for how future projects could be handled.
10-05-2013, 01:50 AM #32
I'd like to resurrect this discussion.
It should be a priority for our outfit chat on Saturday.
What I'd like to be able to do after Saturday is
a) Complete a "How we make decisiosns" section in the outfit guide. Somethign clear, simple and with enough stretcthiness that it doesn't seem regimented, but with enough clarity that it doesn;t seem (and isn;t the case) that outfit decisions get made by a culturally literate clique
b) Finalise what roles & responsibilities a new leader position would have (from the basic "access to in-game outfit functions" and "access to all social media and website bits" to the more leader-y stuff like how they make decisiosn)
c) Decide how we nominate & promote people to a leadership position
Thoughts?Originally Posted by CROCONOUGHTKEY
10-05-2013, 01:52 AM #33Originally Posted by CROCONOUGHTKEY
24-05-2013, 04:38 PM #34
- Join Date
- Apr 2013
Tooting my own horn a little here, wouldn't mind being a balloon leader. Lead quite a few platoons now, including P2 in the CTA, noone seems to hate my PLing enough to hunt me down and stop me
24-05-2013, 04:54 PM #35
24-05-2013, 05:16 PM #36
24-05-2013, 05:18 PM #37
- Join Date
- Apr 2013
Thanks both - I would agree that a different thread might be needed MrEclectic, and maybe one should be created - but for this just following Coopers instructions in the OP:
To nominate someone for Ballon leader (ANYONE can do this INCLUDING you putting yourself forward)
1) POST HERE IN THIS THREAD: If you had a good time playing with us, then say so. Tell us who was leading that group and that you had fun because of that leadership, then nominate for promotion here on the forums.
24-05-2013, 05:27 PM #38
24-05-2013, 06:00 PM #39
- Join Date
- Apr 2013
No worries mate
25-05-2013, 01:34 PM #40