GregRocks

I don't understand how you think the issue is the re-application process? People aren't leaving BCMD because they don't want to go through a re-application process, they're leaving because they don't want to do another term. This also doesn't apply to the countless BCMDs recently who have left half way through their term. These things have nothing to do with the application process, it has to due with burnout or disinterest in Synergy. Again, they're not leaving because of the application process. Countless BCMDs have left before they even hit one term, this literally will not help that one bit. Honestly the way you phrase it makes it sound like you're trying to take away a BCMDs opportunity to peacefully and safely leave. Instead of just deciding not to re-run, which leaves at MINIMUM a week for the players to prepare, you're forcing the Commanders to actively step down. As it is now, BCMDs have the choice not to run for a second term. This not only takes away their choice of re-running unless they specifically step down before their re-evaluation period, but dissasembles the idea of "terms" entirely. If you want BCMDs to stop resigning, give them reason to want to stay.

+1 GO LYN!!!!! You've done great things for Galactic Marines, and you have more than proven yourself!! GOOD LUCK!!!!

Did you entirely forget Finn? Also for this context, we include Directors in High Command. They have votes in their matters, and as much if not more than the rest of the high command. Our problem with the idea as a trust issue with High Command. You guys say you're different, that you listen. You say that your current members weren't involved, which as stated by Conrad isn't true. You say this like you're apologetic for the whole situation, but none of you defended the members of 21st as they were either forced to leave the battalion they love, or get mass demoted. This is why we don't have trust in you, or in High Command at all. It's why we don't trust you with a system like this. You're taking away one way for the community to have input on their BCMDs, the exact opposite of listening to what we have to say.

Again, there are more reasons to not want a person for a second term that aren't something that should be reported. You could say that you don't like how they made the battalion a goofy joke battalion after years of it being serious, or vice-versa, but those things are within the rights of the BCMD to do. I could disagree with the actions of the United States President, and not want him for a second term, (hence I'd vote against his re-election in the primaries), but that doesn't mean he deserves to be impeached. Removing the re-applications is like removing the primary and presidential elections, instead replacing them with an "evaluation". That's my problem. This will remove any clear term limits or time frames for holding this position. This is a step closer to people holding BCMD+ positions indefinitely, because their success is being evaluated by people that picked them for that position, instead of an application and interview to choose the best fit for the position moving forward. Having a position be challengable, and having votes for every term, ensures the community actually has power over who's in charge of them on the server. The re-application system isn't perfect, but this isn't better. It's a slippery slope towards toxic, permanent high command. Maybe not now, maybe not soon, but it's the first step towards that inevitable ending.

Thank you for clarification. First thing, Commander reports have been and always should be a last resort. Someone can suck at running a battalion, or have questionable behavior, but still not be worthy of a Commander report. Saying Commander reports will be the place for opinions is almost a cop-out. Commander reports should be a last resort, and only if there's a genuine immediate problem with the person in the position. Disagreeing with leadership decisions is a valid reason to not want someone back in command, but not worthy of a Commander report. Honestly it's very "We removed the employee review form, but we always have a complaints department!" I'm glad battalions will be involved, but there's more than just the inside perspective that matters. Having a person HAVE to go to High Command to run against someone could easily lead to gatekeeping of a position. Also, you sort of dodge the problem I bring up where if this gets implemented, what happens when it inevitably gets applied to High Command positions? I don't want a high command of hand picked people doing an evaluation of their leader without any community input being available, via a tool like Commander re-applications. At that point, what good would a Commander report even do?

I don't think this is a good idea. I think it will move us in the wrong direction. Right now, I think there's two major benefits to the way things are now. One, it gives BCMDs a time frame and a good opportunity to step down with minimal damage. Going to a re-evaluation would bring us closer to a Synergy where BCMDs aren't on terms anymore, and eventually just become a time-les position, giving no stability. With terms that have set ends and finishes, it gives everybody the opportunity to prepare for the time period without a BCMD, whereas if the BCMD decides to step down after their 7 month term and no one is expecting it, there would be chaos. Another benefit of re-applications is it keeps you on your feet. Not only do you have to have done well to keep the position, your position is now also open to direct challenge. Having re-evals will close off any opposition for these positions at the end of a term, meaning even if the BCMD has passed, we may now have the best fit for the position anymore. It also entirely removes the opportunity for the community to give their opinions on the person. Honestly, this feels like just the begining. Sure, it starts with BCMDs, but how long until it starts applying to RCMDs? Yoda? Palpatine? Marshall Commander? Next thing we know, we have a Marshall Commander who everybody hates and is driving Synergy into the ground, but the "High Command" who does his evaluations is hand-picked by him, and he has no way for there's no way for the community to voice their opinions on why they shouldn't get another term. There's also no one else who can take the position, because as long as the high command agrees, he's guaranteed the position without challenge? Having terms prevents this. It provides hard limits, and large opportunity for the community to actually have a say in who's in power. Re-evaluation is just taking one more way for the community to have power over who's in charge. This really feels like a big step in the wrong direction.

Works for me. If you think you can do it, then I suppose you should at least get the interview. +1 Good luck!

+1 You're active, competent, and I've really enjoyed roleplaying with you. 501st will thrive in your capable hands. Good luck!

Very well. Then +1 good luck!

Maybe I'm off by a half a month to a month, but I literally remember the day he joined Galactic Marines. (The day he came back), and it's definitely been less than a month since he left GM as an NCO to join Delta.

-1 I gotta say, I've personally never seen you in game. You've mentioned your plans, and how you're going to talk to HC of the battalions about them, but why haven't you done that already? I don't see anywhere where you reached out to the relevant BCMDs to ask for their support. This all seems very jump-the-gun.

-1 Ganar, I love you man, but you just came back a month ago. I remember helping you get your Elder title back because you weren't on the Jedi roster anymore. Past that, before I left you were only a Sergeant in Galactic Marines. You got Commander astoundingly quickly in Omega, so good on you for that I suppose, but I don't think you have the recent experience. I'd really like to see more from you before I support you for a position like this. Maybe get some BCMD experience in the mean time.

Alright, riddle me this. Do you think a player is going to *stay* on a server with 10 people but they're all active? Or a server with 20+ people, but they're all AFK? You must have missed what I'm saying, we don't HAVE half of our players active most of the time. Unless Xaze or a battalion leader is mass pinging activity, we don't have it because everyone is AFK. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather play on a server with 10 active people roleplaying than a server where the entire population is doing an 8 hour AFK quests for 30 credits. When people get on Synergy, they see the entire server is AFK, and either leave or go AFK themselves after trying to wake anyone up. Besides, why should they be active when there's incentive and rewards to not be?

One huge thing for me is the intense AFK population. I think how you encourage being AFK is an incredible mistake. I understand the idea. The more players that show up on the server list, the more people want to join because we look big. Xaze brought up the point (to me in DMs) that this is how Superior is so active. Half of their players are AFK. This won't work for us though, because we aren't nearly as big as them. Superior's overall population is over 100 on average. The thing is, if half of them are AFK, that still leaves 50 active players online. The server still feels alive. 50 active players is considered REALLY good for Synergy. When you get on Superior, there is still a plenty active community to keep you stimulated. Why this idea WON'T work for Synergy is because we are much smaller. When people see 20+ people on, but they join and only 2 or 3 are active because the other 20 are doing AFK quests, they aren't stimulated. They leave. The idea behind encouraging AFK is good in theory, but flawed in practice. No one wants to play on a server where everyone is AFK, and that scares away any potential new players. When a recurring player gets on, seeing 20+ people, and they get excited to come to a semi-active server, it's a major turn off when you see that 41st CPL SnackBoy is the only active player. It's even driven me to get off the server after an hour of trying to get something to happen. AFK quests aren't doing the server, or any player any good. You're not only just allowing AFK, but you're rewarding it. I think it's probably one of the most foolish things Synergy has done.

You're the leader of like, 6 people. +1 GOOD LUCK JAYARR!!!

Shameless self-plug +1 Devil Dogs

Average twitch streamer +1

+1 Good luck!

Name: Lovestruck RP Rank: Sergeant, Jedi Knight Suggestion: Remove Rancor Implementation: Remove Rancor Reason: Honestly, their activity is limited and does not generate a positive response in the community. The majority of the time other people inside the community in various factions have to conduct the business they are supposed to. While I understand that Rancor generates brilliant roleplay, the could be replaced with event jobs for when they are needed in the situational moments. It would provide a better asset for the Gamemaster Team to use instead of being a dedicated branch. Even Senate are vastly more popular and useful than them. We could potentially remove this faction and either keep it removed or replace it with something more appealing to VIPs providing Sever Leadership with a new opportunity for a new project to excite the community. We could potentially move those duties to the Coruscant Guard with those duties which could assist them in further developing their roleplay and enhancing their role as security and base operations. In the wise words of Barry Bee Benson - ""Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my grandmother was a simple woman." Rancor is not a simple woman, sometimes simple is wise.

+1 EVEN BETTER THAN THE NAVAL SUGGESTION

5/5/5 TAKE OFF YOUR HELMET

+1 Best idea after removing Doom's Unit

4/3/5 Shoot gun, many bang

It's a new feeling, but I'm actually hopeful for the future of Synergy. The roleplay and activity has improved leaps and bounds since I came back (after a month of being gone). I genuinely enjoy getting on. It's not running around the base looking for a deployment, now there is ALWAYS roleplay. It's not always super serious, but that's part of the charm. EVERYONE is roleplaying. Keep this up! This momentum is good! We can make Synergy awesome.

4/5/5 Solid event, great roleplay opportunity, loving it! I want to see more events like this. Very creative.