Re-Evaulation?! - OFHC 9/12/22

[Xaze]

From the Office of High Command

9/12/2022

From the Office of the Marshal Commander - Xaze

General Updates

Hi, Quick General Update. I'm moving a motion to change the application process. This is very important, and I will need community feedback. I'm looking to change the re-application process to an evaluation period. Battalion Commanders will be Re-Evaluated every three months are a set of standards on battalion health and BCMD effectiveness. One of the said standards would be public support for said person. I want to get some feedback as our current process puts our Applicants on a time limit and chopping block for their battalions. BCMDs rush to prepare for future leadership, and I would love to give them more time to raise the future talent of Synergy.   

 

Question for the Community

Please look to the general update.

Clone Updates

RISE AND GRIND GAMERS. I'VE HEARD THE CIS ARE PLOTTING SOMETHING. BE ON THE LOOKOUT, IT SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING MIGHT BE STIRRING UP.

Navy Updates

No Updates this week.....

Jedi Updates

The Master rank has a new meaning! Master is no longer an evaluation position, but more of a leadership and roleplay position. We want a master team that has more ability to promote roleplay, so we've seperated the Council from the normal Master rank.

Guild Updates

N/A

Senate

Senate is still in a favorable state, with a Jedi Diplomat on the way and all Senator positions filled. As a reminder, Senate Guard or Senator is available to anyone with VIP as an additional life. We are prioritizing activity and engagement in the coming weeks

Notes

As always, I am more than happy to talk in TS or discord at any time about anything. Just send me a message!

Edited September 13, 2022 by Xaze

[Marvel]

Yeah I think Sith would be cool

[Ly2]

yes

 

[Tec]

Yeah I'm down for Sith as well

[BadDog]

Yes i agree.

[Cox]

So what would happen if someone applies after a BCMD finishes his 3 months and the BCMD also does the reevaluation 

[Xaze]

1 minute ago, Cox said:

So what would happen if someone applies after a BCMD finishes his 3 months and the BCMD also does the reevaluation 

There wouldn't be a reapplication peroid. The only way applications would re-open would be if the BCMD failed his reeval. 

[A-a-ron]

so no one can apply after the 3 month period is over if the BCMD passes eval??

[Brooklyn]

Just now, A-a-ron said:

so no one can apply after the 3 month period is over if the BCMD passes eval??

no term limits with extra steps

 

[A-a-ron]

1 minute ago, Brooklyn said:

no term limits with extra steps

 

Seems like an extremely easy way to allow favoritism and keep someone in power even if the community doesnt want to, because the way you get to see if someone has "public support" is through the Reapp as theyre public and everyone can see if some fucked shit happened, like when Dennis got Bacara even though he had more -1s then +1s

[Polik]

Think its kinda a bad idea. I think it would disrupt the flow of people getting into HC. As in, if you have a excellent BCMD(not a bad thing) and they are in the position for say 6+ months, his XO/CMD's are likely never going to have the opportunity to obtain that BCMD position and prove themselves worthy of a HC position(Sector Commander, etc.). I think its going to make these people(XO/CMD) think to themselves "This guy has been BCMD for 6 months, there is no way he is going to stop anytime soon, and I do not see an opportunity for advancement, so I will just take myself to another battalion where that opportunity for advancement is available".

[Xaze]

Just now, Polik said:

prove themselves worthy of a HC position(Sector Commander, etc.)

Great BCMDs are bad RCMDs. Two completely different positions. The requirement for RCMD isn't BCMD. @meowthemeower& @Finnboth haven't been a bcmd. : ) 

[Brooklyn]

Just now, Xaze said:

Great BCMDs are bad RCMDs.

I'm actually offended by this.

[Polik]

1 minute ago, Xaze said:

Great BCMDs are bad RCMDs. Two completely different positions. The requirement for RCMD isn't BCMD. @meowthemeower& @Finnboth haven't been a bcmd. : ) 

Doesnt adress the second part of my comment, and other previous RCMD's have previously been BCMD's.

Edited September 13, 2022 by Polik
updated wording a lil

[Mystic]

IF you add a way for someone to compete after the reapplication process has started i could see this working. But there has been CLEAR favoritism on this server for AGES. Much like Aaron said, this is an awful way to promote future talent, and you risk someone who could be a future asset to the server not running due to the inability to do so.

8 minutes ago, Xaze said:

Great BCMDs are bad RCMDs. Two completely different positions. The requirement for RCMD isn't BCMD. @meowthemeower& @Finnboth haven't been a bcmd. : ) 

Finn was basically the shadow bcmd of 212th for how long?

Edited September 13, 2022 by Mystic

[Xaze]

11 minutes ago, Polik said:

I think its going to make these people(XO/CMD) think to themselves "This guy has been BCMD for 6 months, there is no way he is going to stop anytime soon, and I do not see an opportunity for advancement, so I will just take myself to another battalion where that opportunity for advancement is available".

@PolikI mean I didn't respond to this because it's your opinion. I can't control what people think. Although, I can disagree. 

[Brooklyn]

Just now, Xaze said:

@PolikI mean I didn't respond to this because it's your opinion. I can't control what people think. Although, I can disagree. 

But like, what are your thoughts on it.

[Mavelle]

11 minutes ago, Brooklyn said:

But like, what are your thoughts on it.

Chiming in here, this might sound like a weird take at first, but if there's a BCMD who is doing a really, really, really strong job, I genuinely think that the wellbeing of that battalion in question is more important than that one hypothetical individual's sense of progression- 

 

Yes- we definitely have losses like that in members of battalions sometimes- but I think that it might just be a continuing inevitability. In that situation, the worst case scenario is that a BCMD is doing a crazy good job, and a commander moves to a different battalion to become another effective BCMD.

[Marvel]

So obviously this isn't entirely fleshed out. There will be more to it other than just every 3 months High Command reevaluates the BCMD to see if they can continue their tenure as BCMD. This is just to see if we should pursue a system like this or if the community is overwhelmingly against it we won't waste our time or force anything on you fellas.

Other options could be a poll sent out to the battalion where the battalion can vote on the BCMD continuing. This can either result in A) The BCMD not being allowed to stay in their position or B) Applications are opened and they must reapply and anyone that wants to compete for the position can run against them.

Another system is a candidate for the position around the time of reevaluations can speak with High Command on their want to run for the position. High Command will speak with them on the state of the battalion and depending on what they can bring up (Because HC doesn't see everything of course) and this can constitute applications being reopened and the current BCMD needing to reapply and anyone interested in running for BCMD has the chance to run for it.

Just because this poll is in favor of removing terms this does not mean we will be removing them by tomorrow with barely any discussions or systems made. This will be fleshed out more properly to allow the system to be as efficient as possible.

Gonna @ a few people that had concerns here: @Aaron @Polik @Mystic @Brooklyn @Cox 

[A-a-ron]

4 minutes ago, Marvel said:

So obviously this isn't entirely fleshed out. There will be more to it other than just every 3 months High Command reevaluates the BCMD to see if they can continue their tenure as BCMD. This is just to see if we should pursue a system like this or if the community is overwhelmingly against it we won't waste our time or force anything on you fellas.

Other options could be a poll sent out to the battalion where the battalion can vote on the BCMD continuing. This can either result in A) The BCMD not being allowed to stay in their position or B) Applications are opened and they must reapply and anyone that wants to compete for the position can run against them.

Another system is a candidate for the position around the time of reevaluations can speak with High Command on their want to run for the position. High Command will speak with them on the state of the battalion and depending on what they can bring up (Because HC doesn't see everything of course) and this can constitute applications being reopened and the current BCMD needing to reapply and anyone interested in running for BCMD has the chance to run for it.

Just because this poll is in favor of removing terms this does not mean we will be removing them by tomorrow with barely any discussions or systems made. This will be fleshed out more properly to allow the system to be as efficient as possible.

Gonna @ a few people that had concerns here: @Aaron @Polik @Mystic @Brooklyn @Cox 

thats my idea!

[Maverick]

Just bring back sith already. So many people would play it more consistently than CIS. Just need to iron out the civilian bullshit and have them hide in plain sight or in a cave or something. What exactly is the harm in bringing back sith for another go around? It would also bring attention to jedi matters and make them more useful in the shortterm and long term. AND AND AND i might add it could help the bounty hunters in making secret alliances/contracts and so on. Hello??? Swtor?  Although it was more mandalorians, they were still bounty hunters too or some at least anyways.

[KillJoy]

1 hour ago, Marvel said:

Yeah I think Sith would be cool

I got old docs, and TS tag already my guy

[Mystic]

21 minutes ago, Maverick said:

Just bring back sith already. So many people would play it more consistently than CIS. Just need to iron out the civilian bullshit and have them hide in plain sight or in a cave or something. What exactly is the harm in bringing back sith for another go around? It would also bring attention to jedi matters and make them more useful in the shortterm and long term. AND AND AND i might add it could help the bounty hunters in making secret alliances/contracts and so on. Hello??? Swtor?  Although it was more mandalorians, they were still bounty hunters too or some at least anyways.

It would give Jedi something to do thats unique as well

[Aegis]

As long as we can maintain a flow for those who are capable. Being barred from seeing a term as BCMD just because someone is on a hot streak would kinda suck, and I'm sure some people would like the opportunity in a reasonable time frame.

[Comics]

Seems like a really strange process to avoid reapps. Looking at the history of high command evaluating public opinion I'm not sold on the idea they'll actually listen to us. At least public applications allow us to tell when HC is blatantly avoiding our votes *ahem* Dennis *ahem*

They're also still on a 3 month period before evaluation so doesn't that kinda defeat the point. They need to get things done before they go through a slimmed down process. 

All seems too prone to favour and hc making more choices for us that we disagree with. If someone genuinely cares about a battalion they'll willingly reapply. The 3 month terms could just do with lower expectations to complete things or maybe extension to 4 months, why give up on a proven process. Especially one that can deny promising people a shot at BCMD and offers no threat to complacent BCMDs.

 

[Brooklyn]

 

8 minutes ago, Comics said:

Looking at the history of high command evaluating public opinion I'm not sold on the idea they'll actually listen to us. At least public applications allow us to tell when HC is blatantly avoiding our votes *ahem* Dennis *ahem*

I get the Dennis getting Bacara meme is funny. But it’s been nearly 2 years since then. We have a completely new leadership team. Both in Staff and Command. You honestly think they don’t listen to public opinion?

[Gadget]

Pretty sure this is essentially what is in place now, excluding the identical interview a re-app gets. But if someone re-applying doesn't have supports [+1s] and the HC have concerns they raise in the interview, they generally don't get it. 

 

This is also subject to opinion as each battalion runs ina  different way and sometimes BCMDs get dealt a bad hand or even a good hand when they did either a lot and got nothing back or did nothing and it just happened to work out for them. 

 

I'll use the example of the 21st/GM wipes, the battalions didn't bounce back because of X being put in place, they bounced back due to 21st being HCs punching bag for about 3 years and the fact that we all cared for the battalion enough to stay in it. You can ask most 21st/GM about the wipe and they generally have mixed opinions on the people put in charge at the beginning.

[GregRocks]

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.

Edited September 13, 2022 by Lovestruck

[Stockings]

5 hours ago, Brooklyn said:

 

I get the Dennis getting Bacara meme is funny. But it’s been nearly 2 years since then. We have a completely new leadership team. Both in Staff and Command. You honestly think they don’t listen to public opinion?

Sometimes, Yes.

[Conrad]

-1

You plan on leaving after your term is up. A change like this will need some fine tuning and I don't want it to be left to whoever follows you, if that is anyone. 3 weeks doesn't feel like enough time because we might not even have someone go through this new system before you go, and as it seems like you're the one champion this system I would expect you to see it through.

[Xaze]

8 minutes ago, Conrad said:

3 weeks doesn't feel like enough time because we might not even have someone go through this new system before you go, and as it seems like you're the one champion this system I would expect you to see it through.

Any change I implement I would stay long enough to see it implemented and fine tuned. If that means running for a second term, then I would of course follow through. I would never leave unfinished worked and put high command in a bad position. :) 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Xaze

[Conrad]

3 minutes ago, Xaze said:

Any change I implement I would stay long enough to see it implemented and fine tuned. If that means running for a second term, then I would of course follow through. I would never leave unfinished worked and put high command in a bad position. :) 

Xaze is running for a second term confirmed. Caught in 4k.

[Marvel]

4 hours ago, Lovestruck said:

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.

So I’d first off like to say that this system would not remove the community’s ability to voice their opinions on people in applicable positions. Commander Reporting has always been a thing and will continue to be a thing whether it’s public on the forums or private with HC. Honestly something I hate is how people have qualms with a BCMD but don’t voice their opinions (at least not anywhere where it can be dealt with) until they reapply or hopefully just don’t run again.

Like I also stated above this system isn’t currently entirely fleshed out. Battalions will receive a lot of say on whether or not someone stays in their BCMD position when reevaluations come up and if someone who could potentially run against someone in a BCMD position around when reapps would normally open and when we would now do reevaluations they can request an audience with High Command to request that apps be opened forcing the current BCMD to have to put up a reapp and giving the runner up the opportunity to run against them. These are ideas of how we can flesh out the system to be more efficient and how we can still include the community and keep it fair.

This post was mainly to garner community feedback on whether or not we should pursue really looking into fully fleshing this out and implementing it in the near future. This would not happen overnight nor will it be implemented half baked, I can guarantee that much. We do appreciate the feedback and I hope anything I’ve stated alleviates any of your concerns. Keep the feedback coming!

[Finn]

11 hours ago, Mystic said:

Finn was basically the shadow bcmd of 212th for how long?

Didn't think I needed to clarify, but the Shadow BCMD was a joke. I had a lot more autonomy as XO than other XOs at the time, but all 3 Cody's I served under were capable of making their own decisions, and frequently made calls I didn't think we're right. It's a little annoying people legitimately believe I was doing more than just giving my opinion, and takes away from the good the BCMDs brought to the battalion, so please don't try and use it in an actual discussion.

[Conrad]

15 minutes ago, Finn said:

Didn't think I needed to clarify, but the Shadow BCMD was a joke.

[GregRocks]

50 minutes ago, Marvel said:

So I’d first off like to say that this system would not remove the community’s ability to voice their opinions on people in applicable positions. Commander Reporting has always been a thing and will continue to be a thing whether it’s public on the forums or private with HC. Honestly something I hate is how people have qualms with a BCMD but don’t voice their opinions (at least not anywhere where it can be dealt with) until they reapply or hopefully just don’t run again.

Like I also stated above this system isn’t currently entirely fleshed out. Battalions will receive a lot of say on whether or not someone stays in their BCMD position when reevaluations come up and if someone who could potentially run against someone in a BCMD position around when reapps would normally open and when we would now do reevaluations they can request an audience with High Command to request that apps be opened forcing the current BCMD to have to put up a reapp and giving the runner up the opportunity to run against them. These are ideas of how we can flesh out the system to be more efficient and how we can still include the community and keep it fair.

This post was mainly to garner community feedback on whether or not we should pursue really looking into fully fleshing this out and implementing it in the near future. This would not happen overnight nor will it be implemented half baked, I can guarantee that much. We do appreciate the feedback and I hope anything I’ve stated alleviates any of your concerns. Keep the feedback coming!

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?

[A-a-ron]

13 minutes ago, Lovestruck said:

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?

Marvel is omega bad at writing exactly what he means, he didn’t mean purely a report on the forums you can make an anonymous report to the RCMD or Marshall without having to bring it to the forums

[Marvel]

26 minutes ago, Lovestruck said:

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?

To reiterate Commander Reports are not strictly a section on the forums. You can easily speak with a member of HC and issue a Commander Report  privately. I dislike how people bottle up their negative viewpoints of their BCMDs and either hope they don’t reapply or plan to bomb their reapp with a lengthy -1. If someone has valid criticisms of a BCMDs they should voice them sooner rather than later! This goes for all things really… Synergy folks are good at keeping their mouths shut until it’s on the Forums tbh. The sooner HC knows of a problem the sooner these problems can be solved.

Also everything I stated would apply to all applicable positions not just BCMDs. If we were to implement this system for RCMD+ and faction leads it wouldn’t be any different. They would still be evaluated by positions above them and there could even be polls for the regiments or factions to garner opinions etc. I’m not sure how you see it would be any different if this was implemented for every applicable position.

12 minutes ago, A-a-ron said:

Marvel is omega bad at writing exactly what he means, he didn’t mean purely a report on the forums you can make an anonymous report to the RCMD or Marshall without having to bring it to the forums

Dawg I did say that but alas I’ll repeat myself again eventually 

1 hour ago, Marvel said:

Commander Reporting has always been a thing and will continue to be a thing whether it’s public on the forums or private with HC.

 

[Hanz]

I really don't there a solution has been presented that works. At first I thought the battalion poll would be a good idea, but how many times have we seen a battalion give their full support to someone who is not at all capable of a position just because they like them or enable their bad behavior. I won't call anyone out but if asked for examples in DMs I will happily give a great one. 

While our Re-app system isn't perfect and the concerns about it are valid, I think it is still the best solution we have.

[GregRocks]

1 hour ago, Marvel said:

To reiterate Commander Reports are not strictly a section on the forums. You can easily speak with a member of HC and issue a Commander Report  privately. I dislike how people bottle up their negative viewpoints of their BCMDs and either hope they don’t reapply or plan to bomb their reapp with a lengthy -1. If someone has valid criticisms of a BCMDs they should voice them sooner rather than later! This goes for all things really… Synergy folks are good at keeping their mouths shut until it’s on the Forums tbh. The sooner HC knows of a problem the sooner these problems can be solved.

 

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".

1 hour ago, Marvel said:

Also everything I stated would apply to all applicable positions not just BCMDs. If we were to implement this system for RCMD+ and faction leads it wouldn’t be any different. They would still be evaluated by positions above them and there could even be polls for the regiments or factions to garner opinions etc. I’m not sure how you see it would be any different if this was implemented for every applicable position.

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.

Edited September 13, 2022 by Lovestruck

[BigZach]

I think the re-eval period is a fair and pretty great way to remove term limits for BCMDs aslong as it's applied properly.

[MasonA]

On 9/13/2022 at 3:42 AM, Xaze said:

Great BCMDs are bad RCMDs. Two completely different positions. The requirement for RCMD isn't BCMD. @meowthemeower& @Finnboth haven't been a bcmd. : ) 

So basically finn could’ve been a GREAT BCMD 

 

love you finn

Edited September 14, 2022 by MasonA
Joking!!

[Comics]

11 hours ago, Brooklyn said:

 

I get the Dennis getting Bacara meme is funny. But it’s been nearly 2 years since then. We have a completely new leadership team. Both in Staff and Command. You honestly think they don’t listen to public opinion?

The 21st to GM wipe happened less then a year ago. So yes, they absolutely still do.

Edited September 13, 2022 by Comics

[Marvel]

49 minutes ago, Comics said:

The 21st to GM wipe happened less then a year ago. So yes, they absolutely still do.

I don’t think anyone currently in HC was involved with that… situation. We do not plan on wiping any battalions!

except Jedi (joke)

[Conrad]

5 minutes ago, Marvel said:

I don’t think anyone currently in HC was involved with that… situation. We do not plan on wiping any battalions!

except Jedi (joke)

You really just forgot the whole fucking mastermind of the situation. @Finn was there, he pushed for it, he caused it, he's still here. You really think we can believe you after you lie to our face like this.

[Mystic]

3 hours ago, Finn said:

Didn't think I needed to clarify, but the Shadow BCMD was a joke. I had a lot more autonomy as XO than other XOs at the time, but all 3 Cody's I served under were capable of making their own decisions, and frequently made calls I didn't think we're right. It's a little annoying people legitimately believe I was doing more than just giving my opinion, and takes away from the good the BCMDs brought to the battalion, so please don't try and use it in an actual discussion.

I seperated it as a joke, i wasn't really serious in that comment, Sorry if it came off that way.

[Xaze]

I'm making this public. It was not the choice of any High Command Members to wipe GM. Do not blame that situation on High Command. Thank you :)

[GregRocks]

14 minutes ago, Xaze said:

I'm making this public. It was not the choice of any High Command Members to wipe GM. Do not blame that situation on High Command. Thank you :)

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.

1 hour ago, Marvel said:

I don’t think anyone currently in HC was involved with that… situation. We do not plan on wiping any battalions!

except Jedi (joke)

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.

 

[Xaze]

1 minute ago, Lovestruck said:

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.

1 hour ago, Marvel said:

High Command vote does not matter for a wipe:) 


Also let's not forget, our positions are still voted in. You're the one putting us in High Command positions. Why put us in, if you can't trust us? 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Xaze

[Jad]

[Mystic]

26 minutes ago, Lovestruck said:

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.

 

If im not mistaken, From what little bits i could grab from Jad, this is a server HC thing. Not RP HC. This was the choice of the people running the server and not the community. At what rank in staff it mattered? im not sure, but i assume this was very much a founder involved thing. HC and Directors were the messengers. 

[Brooklyn]

I can say that 21st was not wiped when it was turned into GM. Officers were set to 2ndLT and every NCO kept their rank. Leads were removed, yes. And High Command was involved in it. We did not have the final say nor vote but we were involved. At least for myself, had to talk with Directors about NOT wiping it but having an alternative which was the Bacta outcome and the Officer demotion. 

[Mystic]

6 minutes ago, Brooklyn said:

I can say that 21st was not wiped when it was turned into GM. Officers were set to 2ndLT and every NCO kept their rank. Leads were removed, yes. And High Command was involved in it. We did not have the final say nor vote but we were involved. At least for myself, had to talk with Directors about NOT wiping it but having an alternative which was the Bacta outcome and the Officer demotion. 

Correct 21st was not wiped, SO and KU were. I think people mean to specify this in the word wipe, as 21st turning to GM was a great thing with the gain of jobs and models coming back.

Edited September 13, 2022 by Mystic

[Marvel]

37 minutes ago, Lovestruck said:

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.

 

Dawg… To start off I did call out the whole situation revolving 21st to GM stupid. I called it out multiple times and still do to this day. It was goofy ass decision and we all know it. Also at the time when it happened I was just coming back from a lengthy break after my Rex term. I don’t even think I was staff at the time and if I was I wasn’t even a VA yet. To quote what I said btw:

2 hours ago, Marvel said:

I don’t think anyone currently in HC was involved with that… situation. We do not plan on wiping any battalions!

I don’t THINK. Context is important here this ain’t fuckin Twitter dude so don’t get all flustered about something as little as that like I just lied to your faces blatantly and that I can’t be trusted because oh no I was wrong that ONE High Command member was around during a shitty situation that to begin with wasn’t even in his control. Actually wild that you’ve come to that conclusion.

I’d like to think we were having a pretty productive discussion up until you just absolutely losing it. I didn’t mean to upset you if I did but you are absolutely off your rocker right now. 

[Finn]

40 minutes ago, Lovestruck said:

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.

 

Gonna say this for the 15th time now, I was almost completely not involved with the GM situation, and neither was most of HC. I was involved in 1 meeting where I was told "this is happening", and then we discussed how to implement it.  We did push back and say that there were better ways of handling it, but once a decision is made, there's no use arguing against it. As for defending 21st, defend them from what? No one was forced to leave the battalion, no one was target or treated any differently, and it was as above the board as it could have possibly been as soon as HC was made aware of the change. 

I'm sorry the battalion got wiped, but honestly, they should have done better. If they hadn't been so consistently bad for as long as they did, they wouldn't have been in a position to be changed in the first place. And I'm also sorry you no longer trust High Command, but ultimately, we're going to do what we think is best in securing stable and successful battalions, and GM was not stable or successful. We don't always make the choices that are popular, we make the choices that we think will do the most good. 

[Jad]

25 minutes ago, Mystic said:

If im not mistaken, From what little bits i could grab from Jad, this is a server HC thing. Not RP HC. This was the choice of the people running the server and not the community. At what rank in staff it mattered? im not sure, but i assume this was very much a founder involved thing. HC and Directors were the messengers. 

Bingo. A wipe/removal was on the table and I didn't think it was necessary. Since people were up in arms trying to get the battalion removed I figured there was probably an issue with the command structure of the battalion. During a meeting we went through the various problems that created the community discontent with the 21st. The easiest and cleanest solution was to do a temporary trial period on the officers while the internals were re-arranged and cleaned up so the battalion could be brought back up to speed with the others. This trial period was to help show us the officers that cared and were helping the battalion from the ones watching or helping it burn. The officers helping would be quickly reinstated back into their positions, the ones causing issues would be demoted to SNCO to be retrained.

During this period I also was preforming a battalion overhaul to make sure they could get all the jobs/weapons that they've been missing for years now. Cutting SO was a necessity to continue moving forward with models to keep things uniform and moving smoothly. Obviously this has been stated about a hundred times now, people are more than welcome to assume what they believe actually happened.

Directors, Management, High Command, and Head Admins were all made aware of the changes and each given a role to help further nurture the battalion. From which was discussed in a team environment and ordered by myself.

Hopefully this helps with any confusion!


Edit: This is also a very weird thread to be having this discussion on ngl

[Mystic]

4 minutes ago, Jad said:

Bingo. A wipe/removal was on the table and I didn't think it was necessary. Since people were up in arms trying to get the battalion removed I figured there was probably an issue with the command structure of the battalion. During a meeting we went through the various problems that created the community discontent with the 21st. The easiest and cleanest solution was to do a temporary trial period on the officers while the internals were re-arranged and cleaned up so the battalion could be brought back up to speed with the others. This trial period was to help show us the officers that cared and were helping the battalion from the ones watching or helping it burn. The officers helping would be quickly reinstated back into their positions, the ones causing issues would be demoted to SNCO to be retrained.

During this period I also was preforming a battalion overhaul to make sure they could get all the jobs/weapons that they've been missing for years now. Cutting SO was a necessity to continue moving forward with models to keep things uniform and moving smoothly. Obviously this has been stated about a hundred times now, people are more than welcome to assume what they believe actually happened.

Directors, Management, High Command, and Head Admins were all made aware of the changes and each given a role to help further nurture the battalion. From which was discussed in a team environment and ordered by myself.

Hopefully this helps with any confusion!

Jad spoke his piece, the only person we need to believe as he was heavily involved in it. Can we just return this post to what it was? A place for feedback. The 21st change happened, its over. If you want to talk about it i vote we go necro Maddoxx's update post!!

(joke just let the topic die like the last GM wipe)

Edited September 13, 2022 by Mystic

[A-a-ron]

has anyone but me actually gone to xaze and Finn and talked about this instead of yelling into the void that is the forums

[Mystic]

3 minutes ago, A-a-ron said:

has anyone but me actually gone to xaze and Finn and talked about this instead of yelling into the void that is the forums

Depends on which topic you mean, the reform or the reevals for bcmd?

[A-a-ron]

1 minute ago, Mystic said:

Depends on which topic you mean, the reform or the reevals for bcmd?

The re-evals I thought it was a shit ass idea but then I actually talked to em and it made more sense, and the idea of polling the battalion to see if reapps should be opened came up, if people would actually talk to them more ideas would come to light and benefit the community as a whole

[Mystic]

Just now, A-a-ron said:

The re-evals I thought it was a shit ass idea but then I actually talked to em and it made more sense, and the idea of polling the battalion to see if reapps should be opened came up, if people would actually talk to them more ideas would come to light and benefit the community as a whole

I really like this idea, i just know that at some point it will cause issues. If we can find a way to improve the system quite abit more instead of crying about it we could very well make this work.

[A-a-ron]

1 minute ago, Mystic said:

I really like this idea, i just know that at some point it will cause issues. If we can find a way to improve the system quite abit more instead of crying about it we could very well make this work.

Another thing me, xaze and Finn talked about was that the re-evals most likely won’t be a permanent thing once/if the server population starts booming again

[Comics]

2 hours ago, Marvel said:

I don’t think anyone currently in HC was involved with that… situation. We do not plan on wiping any battalions!

except Jedi (joke)

Yes but it proves HC has consistently over time done things against community will

[Mystic]

1 minute ago, A-a-ron said:

Another thing me, xaze and Finn talked about was that the re-evals most likely won’t be a permanent thing once/if the server population starts booming again

Oh if its with this current HC im fairly certain there would be little to no bias. If it's just until server booms again then i think this is a fairly well thought out idea.

[Maddoxx]

24 minutes ago, Mystic said:

If you want to talk about it i vote we go necro Maddoxx's update post!!

[Mystic]

1 minute ago, Maddoxx said:

Dw it seems like your forums rep recovered!

[Brooklyn]

14 minutes ago, A-a-ron said:

Another thing me, xaze and Finn talked about was that the re-evals most likely won’t be a permanent thing once/if the server population starts booming again

wha. Then whats the point

[A-a-ron]

1 minute ago, Brooklyn said:

wha. Then whats the point

Idk I’m just a forum goblin go ask them

[Mystic]

Just now, Brooklyn said:

wha. Then whats the point

I suppose it would allow for more consistancy in leadership that way you wouldn't have to swap between BCMDs and change things that wouldn't need changed, and if a BCMD is doing a great job and needs more time it seems like this course of action would allow for a full plan to be completed rather than risking them not getting BCMD a 2nd term and leaving the battalion half in shambles.

[Brooklyn]

44 minutes ago, Mystic said:

I suppose it would allow for more consistancy in leadership that way you wouldn't have to swap between BCMDs and change things that wouldn't need changed, and if a BCMD is doing a great job and needs more time it seems like this course of action would allow for a full plan to be completed rather than risking them not getting BCMD a 2nd term and leaving the battalion half in shambles.

No what aaron said. Thats what i meant. Why only have it for that amount of time.

 

[Mystic]

3 minutes ago, Brooklyn said:

No what aaron said. Thats what i meant. Why only have it for that amount of time.

 

Oh! i suppose just to keep plans in place long enough to bring new people who might be interested in the position i guess. We've really only had 1 person per battalion put up BCMD apps when they open?. I am not quite sure here. Maybe if you talk to Xaze he can give insight.

[GregRocks]

3 minutes ago, Xaze said:

The issue is the system isn't working. This post is to garner community feedback and gather information to improve the system. We're dropping BCMDs like flies with the current system. We haven't had a filled Command team since before my term as Marshal. Nothing is stable now, and the goal is stabilization, so we have a base to work off of. This system will allow me to raise the level of stabilization server-wide while raising the standard of what a BCMD should be. I can't do that when we lose a BCMD every month.

 

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.
 

 

7 minutes ago, Xaze said:

This application process only works when we have a population. Look at our numbers. They're exceptionally down. I can't have people continually leaving on me. That's what this system currently promotes.

 

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.

[Void]

I must admit this is baffling to see, I did not expect a post for change to turn into a pack of animals grasping for throats and throwing the odd toxic comment here and there. 

While this is amusing, almost pathetic to see, to say this is a "community". If I wanted to see this form of behaviour, I'd go to London and I would feel that the gang culture there would be more civil compared to this. Barry Benson, would be crying in his coffin right now. Can't wait to hear about all the name calling behind closed doors and people crying to each other about the "He said, she said" mentality.

On the suggestion itself, I personally like the idea, as-long as High Command will be more firm with those who obtain these positions and if they continue past the re-evaluation. I would argue with a system like this, the flaw of "Friend Bias" will potentially flourish so mixed voices in the High Command is of course necessary when it comes to these decisions. 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Void

[Conrad]

31 minutes ago, Void said:

I must admit this is baffling to see, I did not expect a post for change to turn into a pack of animals grasping for throats and throwing the odd toxic comment here and there. 

While this is amusing, almost pathetic to see, to say this is a "community". If I wanted to see this form of behaviour, I'd go to London and I would feel that the gang culture there would be more civil compared to this. Barry Benson, would be crying in his coffin right now. Can't wait to hear about all the name calling behind closed doors and people crying to each other about the "He said, she said" mentality.

It seems like at the end of the day we all just get along.

[Marvel]

7 minutes ago, Conrad said:

It seems like at the end of the day we all just get along.

[GregRocks]

50 minutes ago, Conrad said:

It seems like at the end of the day we all just get along.

You pulled me into the channel for forum rep and you didn't even get it

[Egert]

+1 This would bring more light on Commander Reports on forums and even if a BCMD is doing bad a person from the battalion can bring it to the RCMD or HC. If a person wants to resign they can resign. If people are talking about favouritism for the re-evaluations, favouritism will always be a thing, may it be in the 3 terms application process or in the re-evaluation process. And if another person would like to apply for the position they can talk to HC or apply during the evaluation process? that i don't know

[Guac]

I like the idea of forcing people to actually make known criticism to another holding an applicable position. I can't stand mfs who are absent an entire term, then start barking on the re-app. Hopefully if passed, this brings in better communication from the bottom up. 

Love the HC pulling strings / illuminati arc though. Its quite entertaining!