Results 21 to 25 of 25
24-10-2013, 05:47 PM #21
It was decided that BL is an indication of in game leadership only.
Thus, the ongoing issue of outfit leadership / admin we'll revist next meeting.
Not a great deal is gonna change with the rank, what we agreed (again...) that should be changing is the attitude and approach from all of us with regards to leadership. More support for leaders. Don't let it only be PLs who nag people to do what they've been asked; if you see squad mates trailing, hussle them along. Repeat orders, don't debate them. That kind of thing.
Everyone's who's BL will be demoted. Everyone. They'll have to pass through the Girofficer basics as per the girofficer promotions (this largely means Mumble keybinds, which even many of us oldies haven't got right) and then get BL with the usual nomination / seconding system.
Re: Leading or not. Anyone can lead a platoon regardless of rank.
This has always been my problem with a more formal hierarchy that people have wanted. It really, really discourages people who have not got a particular rank to step up and take the reins. We have always had a problem with finding people to be platoon leaders, I don't want to see the BL changes make this work.
The chat didn't solve much, I don't think. I wanted to avoid the "leadership lacks authority" moan/talk we always have, as this just goes around in circles and last for hours. We agree to change our behaviour, but the moaning doesn't stop. Instead I wanted to focus on one very specific thing, something people have asked for and something that would quickly produce clear decisions and clear actions: A formlaisation of hierarchy through an overhaul of the BL rank.
I am not convinced, however, that the formalisation of BL, the instigation of a hierarchy is actually gonna solve any of these problems.
What we need is a concerted culture shift. A hierarchy won't provide that; you will provide that.
If you want tighter leadership, step up and provide it. If you want better responsiveness from players, then you start nagging them whether you are PL or not. If you want greater tactical play then you step in as SL, suport your PL, and provide that tactical play.
We've been in agreement for a long, long time that what the PL says goes and that whatever kind of tyle of play the PL wants should happen. We've agreed that we should play more closely and more cohesively. We've agreed that people not really playing with the platoon should be allowed to do their own thing and we do not have to accommodate them. We agreed much of this a fucking long time ago so just fucking do it.
A formalisation of hierarchy won't be a fucking magic pill. You all need to take the responsibility to drive this outfit into the kind of outfit you want to play with. If that's a tighter, more cohesive group of players then you make it be such by doing the little things that help support in-game authority.
What should be changing is that all outfit members should be putting in the effort to support greater in-game authority from the PL and greater player cohesiveness. We've agreed to do this before. We've talked about this before. This time, god fucking help me, I'm gonna have one last hope that everyone will fucking do it and actually be the changes they want to see.
Last edited by Cooper; 24-10-2013 at 06:02 PM.Originally Posted by CROCONOUGHTKEY
24-10-2013, 06:32 PM #22
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
Heh, i haven't done one of these posts in a long time, but it kinda fits with culture change. We still have a problem with not supporting our PLs. Some things that should have been ingrained by now:
a) don't ever give orders unless you are PL.
b) seriously. don't do it. if you have a really bright idea, let the PL know in the form of a suggestion that actually sounds like a suggestion.
c) sometimes it might be ok to encourage acting on the situation if it's in accordance with current orders. e.g., "all squads need to converge on point now, almost no one is here" might be ok if current orders are to take the point anyway.
d) don't interrupt the pl and stop speaking when you notice that the pl is trying to say something. this excludes normal conversation and bleed-over from other channels.
Sometimes, mumble is really chatty and i often find that no one is speaking up, even after the pl has attempted to give out new orders thrice, only to be interrupted by someone every single time. at that point, people need to step and and ask everyone to shut up. In other words, enforcing above rules should not be up to the PL, but they should be understood as outfit policy that everyone that's online should both abide by and enforce.
P.S.: This is btw the most jarring change when being on comms with other outfits. People don't question orders, talk over pls, or are chatty when orders are being given.
Last edited by qaz; 24-10-2013 at 06:38 PM.
24-10-2013, 07:00 PM #23
We need to always stand 100% behind anyone who steps forward to be a platoon leader. Okay, one may not always agree with the orders the PL gives, but one's job is to follow orders, not question them.
I do know that it's one reason I am not keen on being PL for RPS myself. Random squads and platoons are more fun to lead because they follow orders without ego, which is great because it's pretty much stress-free.
24-10-2013, 08:12 PM #24
I fully agree that you should not have to have a rank to PL. It is of course a dumb idea. This is never what I have proposed.
The formalised hierarchy is simply to offload responsibility in decision making and changing us from a loose and indecisive organisation with one single leader which is needed to make formal decisions - yeah I know you say fucking do it Cooper but as you say this doesn't happen - to something a bit more dynamic. The BLs, regardless if they lead or not, is the ones that should say "listen to PL, dont give orders" if someone is That Guy that circumvents orders.
When everyone has the same rank and responsibility another person can come in and say "why?" with equal authority, leading to pointless arguments that we have had in the past. The same thing goes for tactical play.
I do believe we could just go along and have people saying "follow orders" without any hierarchy, though, at this point. It did not work at all when we were 100-200 active, it should work just fine when we are 20-40 as we are now.
edit: Also, when I moaned as you say and you were quite frustrated, it was because the focus had been on very specific admin work and beurocratic procedures for about 20 minutes, which felt was a waste of time. Before the discussion went in to this detail I do believe we got some work done as responsibility and culture actually was discussed.
For the next meeting, as you said, we should focus on practical stuff, but in my view of things the practical implications and how it actually works is much more important to solve more rapidly then an entirely secure and scam free Balloon Leader-nomination procedure.
Anyway, sorry that I moaned and I will shut up next time if I don't have anything very constructive to say.
Last edited by RIDEBIRD; 24-10-2013 at 08:17 PM.Find me on the Steams
24-10-2013, 10:49 PM #25
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
Coop and qaz talk a lot of sense. Perhaps because I didn't realise it was such an issue, but I can think of at least one time recently when I should have spoken out and told some people to stfu and use comms properly, in the end Laldy did just that and it was fine. In the future I will make an effort to straighten that stuff out myself.