FC Mission Statement?

[JamiDJ]

Originally Posted by Houdini
This type of solution is most definitely a choice of vision for the community. Do we want a community that is more closely aligned with absolute competition? I honestly don't know, but I do think we need a unified vision for what the community represents and should be. Right now, I feel like FC is being led by a multitude of ideas and all of those ideas cannot exist in harmony, thus the conflict.

Based off of the above post, I felt that even though FC has a simple statement we give: "Fun and Respect". What is it we hope to achieve as a community? What message do we reflect to those of us visiting us for the first time?

Thoughts and suggestions?

[JamiDJ]

Originally posted by Jam Cliche
It's the opening of the Accords xD

Even though the accords are a great opening to our rules and other guidelines, Accords here (http://fcwars.net/forums/showthread.php?14144-FC-Accords-Article-I-Principles-Conduct-and-Punishments) it does not depict an actual mission statement. Like what was previously stated, what are we centered around? Is it a competitive community that reks each other every Sunday? Or are we a casual community that gets toghether for sunday night battles. Do we have a plan on how we move forward? Or is this it - what you see is what you get. Most viable companies and other entities have a mission statement they present to new employees and investors. Even though we're not one of those, we should have the same thought process on how we move the community forward.

[Barry Soap]

Hmm... It's hard to encapsulate FC into one or a few sentences. We try to offer something for everyone, so it'd be good if we could explain that efficiently.

[JamiDJ]

Hmm... It's hard to encapsulate FC into one or a few sentences. We try to offer something for everyone, so it'd be good if we could explain that efficiently.

Mission statement never has to be confined to one or two sentences. A mission statement can be as long or short as needed, but in turn provides a brief statement of what we are about.

[Jam Cliché]

Hmm... It's hard to encapsulate FC into one or a few sentences. We try to offer something for everyone, so it'd be good if we could explain that efficiently.

Trying to offer something for everyone could be what got us into this mess. It's like what Myth said in the update thread. We have to decide what it means to be a warsim. If FC isn't the first or only community in Halo to define itself as a warsim, it certainly is the longest running and only remaining community in Halo that sticks to the format we started with.

With that in mind, I think we should start there. What was FC when it began? How did it change from one war to the next? Which wars and which leadership periods had the most participation?

Basically, we dig up the past to figure out FC's "identity crisis," and that mission statement will follow.

I've tried this before but it devolved into an argument about how to objectively offset factors that contributed to numbers. I don't wanna get that specific, though, I only take away some core tenants and a brief analysis of structure from war to war.

[JamiDJ]

Trying to offer something for everyone could be what got us into this mess. It's like what Myth said in the update thread. We have to decide what it means to be a warsim. If FC isn't the first or only community in Halo to define itself as a warsim, it certainly is the longest running and only remaining community in Halo that sticks to the format we started with.

With that in mind, I think we should start there. What was FC when it began? How did it change from one war to the next? Which wars and which leadership periods had the most participation?

Basically, we dig up the past to figure out FC's "identity crisis," and that mission statement will follow.

I've tried this before but it devolved into an argument about how to objectively offset factors that contributed to numbers. I don't wanna get that specific, though, I only take away some core tenants and a brief analysis of structure from war to war.

No arguments. If we think about this rationally and take our time, it should not be too difficult to create a mission statement. However, I do agree with you and Myth that trying to appease everyone is what originally got us into this.

I think we need to figure out our "identity" and proceed from there. Good starting point would be - what would FC's mission statement be when it first started? What about say during H3? How does that change to where we are as a community now?

I just realized i kind of repeated a lot of what you said Jam, Sorry... LOL

[Houdini]

Trying to offer something for everyone could be what got us into this mess. It's like what Myth said in the update thread. We have to decide what it means to be a warsim. If FC isn't the first or only community in Halo to define itself as a warsim, it certainly is the longest running and only remaining community in Halo that sticks to the format we started with.

With that in mind, I think we should start there. What was FC when it began? How did it change from one war to the next? Which wars and which leadership periods had the most participation?

Basically, we dig up the past to figure out FC's "identity crisis," and that mission statement will follow.

I've tried this before but it devolved into an argument about how to objectively offset factors that contributed to numbers. I don't wanna get that specific, though, I only take away some core tenants and a brief analysis of structure from war to war.

I think part of the issue is that not everybody in the community wants to stick to those core of what the community did 10 years ago. A lot has changed since then and while the idea of a warsim is something that the community still holds strongly to, the actual execution of that idea is probably not the same and in my opinion probably shouldn't be the same as what it was back then.

Numbers of changed. People have changed. The culture has changed.

[Jam Cliché]

I think we need to figure out our "identity" and proceed from there. Good starting point would be - what would FC's mission statement be when it first started? What about say during H3? How does that change to where we are as a community now?

That's what I was getting at. Figure out FC's identity in the beginning, watch how that identity changed from war to war, and trim off the stuff that soured that identity. By the time we get to current, we'll have something that evolved from the roots of the community to redirect the FC of today.

[JamiDJ]

I think part of the issue is that not everybody in the community wants to stick to those core of what the community did 10 years ago. A lot has changed since then and while the idea of a warsim is something that the community still holds strongly to, the actual execution of that idea is probably not the same and in my opinion probably shouldn't be the same as what it was back then.

Numbers of changed. People have changed. The culture has changed.

Agreed. Well said.

[Jam Cliché]

I think part of the issue is that not everybody in the community wants to stick to those core of what the community did 10 years ago.

I'm not talking about what FC did then. I'm talking about how it saw itself.

[Houdini]

This is going to be a little bit more than just a "Fun and Respect" mission statement. I've tried to elaborate on a couple of actual "visions" for what the community could look like. I would expect there would be at least a few people who hate and who would like each individual vision. There probably are infinite variations or completely distinct visions, but these are ones I stole from other people or came up with that I think would fit the FC context.

1. Pure War Sim (i.e. ultra competitive)
Lore-ish: In a true war, squads are aligned based on talents. Not everyone can be a SEAL. The leaders of the armies are allowed to make strategic decisions to win at all costs.
For Us: No restrictions on squad stacking. No support for lower skilled squads. The winner is the winner and that is the army that should be victorious. If one army just has all of the good people, that army should be stomping on the other army.

2. Friendly Role Playing (i.e. non-competitive)
Lore-ish: Think about the people who go out an re-enact Civil war battles and what not. That culture doesn't have to deal with skill balance of conflict. Everybody is equal and both sides are more or less balanced.
For Us: The winner and the loser are not significant. People don't have strong affiliations with an army, but instead have affiliations for the war-sim as a whole. Everybody on battle night is divided equally to make the numbers/skill matchup for a neutral playing field balance.

3. Matchmaking War Training (i.e. matchmaking war simulation)
Lore-ish: Halo 4 did the Spartan 4 thing where there is a context for the matches that everybody is in some sort of training program. There are restrictions on what type of behaviors and balances are permitted to keep the simulation fair.
For Us: Matches are designed to be competitive in the scope that people are playing to win, but the context in which they play to win is inherently balanced by rules and guidelines. Matchmaking sometimes takes a long time and not everybody plays the same amount of games because not everybody matches well with other parties. People can still play with their friends and choose who they play with, but they are subject to the system to determine who they actually play against to ensure some minimal standard of fairness.

4. Singles Instance Wars (i.e. re-drafting/re-allignment during peacetime)
Lore-ish: Each individual war is considered a distinct scenario. There is no carry over between wars. Think about how you could be simulating a war in Europe and then the American Civil war. The factions are inherently different.
For Us: The beginning of each war there is "balancing" (probably a player draft) where players are assigned to a faction for the duration of the war. They build an army and train in that faction in a competitive structure with minimal restrictions on how the players can be aligned within a specific army. No matter how balanced or imbalanced the previous war was, when everything is done a new re-balancing is conducted before the next war.

5. Competitive Balance (i.e. maximize the balance at all costs)
Lore-ish: Individuals going into matchmaking without a party. (This actually doesn't really exist well in real life)
For Us: The beginning of each war there is a "balancing." In addition, there are strict guidelines imposed about how the squads and teams can be formed throughout the war. New recruits or returning non-drafted members have strict guidelines about where they can join the system. The goal is that every match will be as equally started as possible.

- - - Updated - - -


I'm not talking about what FC did then. I'm talking about how it saw itself.

We're probably not going to get a good picture of that. Memories about what FC stood for are most certainly corrupted by Nostalgia and the general lack of people who are still around and active from all that time ago.

But your point makes more sense with that clarification.

[Jam Cliché]

Oh, Houdini, that's some juicy stuff. I am betting that every "iteration" of FC could be defined from an assortment of cherrypicked characteristics from one or more of those 5 categories. And we could do the same thing as a goal-setting exercise.

EDIT: Apparently this didn't come across as friendly. I don't mean any offense here, I was hashing out an actual suggestion. See posts below.

[NervyDestroyer]

Oh, Houdini, that's some juicy stuff. I am betting that every "iteration" of FC could be defined from an assortment of cherrypicked characteristics from one or more of those 5 categories. And we could do the same thing as a goal-setting exercise.

If you're going make sarcastic jabs because someone has differing views, you add nothing worthwhile to the discussion

Get angry if you want, I'm just saying

It only pisses people off and gets everyone all worked up needlessly

[VerbotenDonkey]

If you're going make sarcastic jabs because someone has differing views, you add nothing worthwhile to the discussion

Get angry if you want, I'm just saying

It only pisses people off and gets everyone all worked up needlessly

Nervy I think you need to take a breather from the forums man. Jam was complimenting Houdini and not being sarcastic at all...

[Jam Cliché]

I was being serious. Every one of those variations has one or two aspects that FC has tried to use in the past in different combinations. Seems like a step in the right direction for building this "mission statement." We want it to be something detailed but short enough to summarize FC to the masses, yeah?

Nervy, multiple times today, across multiple topics, you've been accusing me of saying things or displaying attitudes that I haven't been. I can accept one misunderstanding, even two, but this makes at least five. I'm trying to let it go, because we've worked together before, but this kind of pattern is beginning to suggest some sort of ulterior motive. We both want the same thing here, even if we disagree on the details, and I don't want you or anyone else to believe that I am just ignoring or walking over anyone who disagrees with me. It's not like that. I simply have no intention of being soft about my views.

For instance, when I tried to present my thoughts to you in the Renegade chat earlier today, I opted to be gentler than I have been here on the forums. I was outright ignored. I don't want that, I want to be involved. I intend for my opinion to be heard, and to give my feedback on all the ideas that come across this community during this time of transition. That means I'm going to be direct and concise, but that isn't the same thing as aggressive or flippant. You might call it ridicule, especially when I'm blunt, but I just call it debate. Alright?

[NervyDestroyer]

I was being serious. Every one of those variations has one or two aspects that FC has tried to use in the past in different combinations. Seems like a step in the right direction for building this "mission statement." We want it to be something detailed but short enough to summarize FC to the masses, yeah?

Nervy, multiple times today, across multiple topics, you've been accusing me of saying things or displaying attitudes that I haven't been. I can accept one misunderstanding, even two, but this makes at least five. I'm trying to let it go, because we've worked together before, but this kind of pattern is beginning to suggest some sort of ulterior motive. We both want the same thing here, even if we disagree on the details, and I don't want you or anyone else to believe that I am just ignoring or walking over anyone who disagrees with me. It's not like that. I simply have no intention of being soft about my views.

For instance, when I tried to present my thoughts to you in the Renegade chat earlier today, I opted to be gentler than I have been here on the forums. I was outright ignored. I don't want that, I want to be involved. I intend for my opinion to be heard, and to give my feedback on all the ideas that come across this community during this time of transition. That means I'm going to be direct and concise, but that isn't the same thing as aggressive or flippant. You might call it ridicule, especially when I'm blunt, but I just call it debate. Alright?

Honestly, that looked like a sarcastic jab. Like it really did. Even reading it over again after reading what you wrote, it still looks like one. I honestly think it was the quotations, or the "Oh" at the beginning. Still looks like one.

Doesn't matter, I'll take your word for it, but the wording could be a lot better to not have it look like that. I don't know if it's just me, but that's what it looks like :/

As for ulterior motives, uh no, I don't really have a hidden agenda. That'd be pretty damn dickish, like I'd have to change my gamertag to XOTRUMPXO.

Again I re-read it like 5 times and it still looks like sarcasm which naturally upset me since Houdini took the time to write out that nice comment above. The wording is just not good to put it bluntly from my perspective. I'll still take your word for it, but like whoa.

I would always suggest a gentler approach personally, I feel it goes over better. When you posted your opinion it was at the latter end of a 2 hour... whatever the hell that was in which at the end I was frustrated. I'd rather not flip so I dropped out of the convo. You're free to PM whatever view you have in fact that's what I prefer. Easier to see points when I don't have like 6 different people talking at once


Nervy I think you need to take a breather from the forums man. Jam was complimenting Houdini and not being sarcastic at all...

Lol you're probably right. I can't read it as a compliment. Like I really just can't. Maybe I've gotten so used to people being sarcastic I actually expect it

#SkypeEffect

[Jam Cliché]

So, I'm gonna dish out some shorthand terms pulled from Houdini's write-up to describe how I think we could start. This is about defining ourselves as a warsim. Each row in the table represents a characteristic and four levels of intensity. Let me know if I should clarify any entries.

The idea is to decide what level of intensity we fit into in each characteristic. Also, if anyone has a category that I have missed, suggest it.



Competitiveness:
Totally Casual
Formal but Casual
Relaxed but Competitive
Totally Competitive


Balance:
Voluntary Transfers
Squad Trades
Small Group Drafts
Mandatory Player Drafts


Roleplay:
Totally RP
RP and Battles Coincide
Battles Precede RP
Battles Determine Lore


Unit Freedom:
No Rules
Squad Leader Rules
Army Guidelines
Strict Army Rules


Army Leadership:
Elections Every War
Leader Retires then Election
Leader Chooses Successor
War Council Picks Leaders

[Houdini]

Oh, Houdini, that's some juicy stuff. I am betting that every "iteration" of FC could be defined from an assortment of cherrypicked characteristics from one or more of those 5 categories. And we could do the same thing as a goal-setting exercise.

EDIT: Apparently this didn't come across as friendly. I don't mean any offense here, I was hashing out an actual suggestion. See posts below.

I didn't take offense to this. So no worries there. I understood what you were getting at.

- - - Updated - - -


So, I'm gonna dish out some shorthand terms pulled from Houdini's write-up to describe how I think we could start. This is about defining ourselves as a warsim. Each row in the table represents a characteristic and four levels of intensity. Let me know if I should clarify any entries.

The idea is to decide what level of intensity we fit into in each characteristic. Also, if anyone has a category that I have missed, suggest it.



Competitiveness:
Totally Casual
Formal but Casual
Relaxed but Competitive
Totally Competitive


Balance:
Voluntary Transfers
Squad Trades
Small Group Drafts
Mandatory Player Drafts


Roleplay:
Totally RP
RP and Battles Coincide
Battles Precede RP
Battles Determine Lore


Unit Freedom:
No Rules
Squad Leader Rules
Army Guidelines
Strict Army Rules


Army Leadership:
Elections Every War
Leader Retires then Election
Leader Chooses Successor
War Council Picks Leaders




I kinda confused. Are you saying that a totally competitive community would have War Council Picking leaders? I don't really see those being inherently related.

Also, I think we're going to need more than just a chart to build a vision. A lot of the stuff we do is more nuanced that 4 distinct categories, but this is a good start.

[Jam Cliché]

I didn't take offense to this. So no worries there. I understood what you were getting at.

- - - Updated - - -



I kinda confused. Are you saying that a totally competitive community would have War Council Picking leaders? I don't really see those being inherently related.

Also, I think we're going to need more than just a chart to build a vision. A lot of the stuff we do is more nuanced that 4 distinct categories, but this is a good start.
Each row is a different, independent characteristic with four degrees of intensity. And we could use it to observe what combination FC fits into right now as well as decide what FC should change.

[NervyDestroyer]

So, I'm gonna dish out some shorthand terms pulled from Houdini's write-up to describe how I think we could start. This is about defining ourselves as a warsim. Each row in the table represents a characteristic and four levels of intensity. Let me know if I should clarify any entries.

The idea is to decide what level of intensity we fit into in each characteristic. Also, if anyone has a category that I have missed, suggest it.



Competitiveness:
Totally Casual
Formal but Casual
Relaxed but Competitive
Totally Competitive


Balance:
Voluntary Transfers
Squad Trades
Small Group Drafts
Mandatory Player Drafts


Roleplay:
Totally RP
RP and Battles Coincide
Battles Precede RP
Battles Determine Lore


Unit Freedom:
No Rules
Squad Leader Rules
Army Guidelines
Strict Army Rules


Army Leadership:
Elections Every War
Leader Retires then Election
Leader Chooses Successor
War Council Picks Leaders



This is actually pretty damn good. Perhaps a combination of some of that. For one, I like the idea of War Council selecting leaders, as long as it doesn't turn into a popularity contest that it. I like role-play and battles coinciding, that's pretty cool since they kind of go hand-in-hand which would add to the lore pretty damn remarkably.

I don't know if picking one category is good, maybe mixing and matching a little bit?

[Nicholas Sapien]

This is actually pretty damn good. Perhaps a combination of some of that. For one, I like the idea of War Council selecting leaders, as long as it doesn't turn into a popularity contest that it. I like role-play and battles coinciding, that's pretty cool since they kind of go hand-in-hand which would add to the lore pretty damn remarkably.

I don't know if picking one category is good, maybe mixing and matching a little bit?

We would probably have to figure out how to do the lore part and see how it fits in

[Jam Cliché]

I don't know if picking one category is good, maybe mixing and matching a little bit?

That's what I intended. The first column is a checklist, and the four items next to each category are checkboxes. For instance, I would say FC currently fits this combination.

Competitiveness: Formal but Casual
Balance: Voluntary Transfers
Roleplay: Battles Precede RP
Unit Freedom: Squad Leader Rules
Leadership: Elections Every War

[Nicholas Sapien]

Competitiveness: Relaxed but Competitive
Balance: Mandatory Player Drafts
Roleplay: Battles Precede RP(RP and Battles Coincide would only work if we can find a good system for it)
Unit Freedom: Strict Army Guidelines
Army Leadership: War Council Picks Leaders

I'd prefer something like this

[Jam Cliché]

I can almost agree, Nick. Mine would be


Competitiveness: Relaxed but Competitive (Enough that results matter, but not enough to draw out tensions)
Balance: Small Group Drafts (3 is a magic number here)
Roleplay: Events Determine Lore (This is because I feel that RP elements can be built into the Rules of Engagement, Battles, Boot Camps, etc.)
Unit Freedom: Strict Army Rules (Make the rules identical across armies, so that drafts are smooth every war)
Leadership: Elections Every War (I still believe in elections, and I like public voting)

In summary, I think that we should be competitive enough that results matter, but not enough to draw out tensions by having stacked teams, powerhouse Squads, or any business where an FM would swap out Squads during events to intentionally sacrifice underperforming players and cherrypick matches for a team on a hotstreak. I believe one of the best ways to avoid that slippery slope is drafts, but I think we can afford to draft in small groups rather than individual players. I picked groups of 3 because you can't make a full team out of three people or six people. It means that finalizing a team roster after a draft won't be as simple as putting two groups from the same old Squad back together, and everyone would have to accept more diversity in their event rosters. For Roleplay, I do not feel that it should be separate from events, but I believe you were aiming for the same reasoning, Nick, so I may have to reword the options in that category. For Unit Freedom, I think it's important to establish a system. The rules and ranks in armies change all the time as upstarts like myself try to make overhauls, but if we could stick to one system that is standard across both armies, transfers and drafts would be a little less frustratingly logistically. Finally, for leaders, I feel that elections are great, especially neutral ones. In the future, if the importance of rank is re-establish, we may need to move back to voting for REDD and BLUE FMs rather than just "Pick two," but both elections could still be public.

Those are my thoughts and choices. Overall, NIck, I think we might only really disagree when it comes to FMs.

[NervyDestroyer]

I can almost agree, Nick. Mine would be


Competitiveness: Relaxed but Competitive (Enough that results matter, but not enough to draw out tensions)
Balance: Small Group Drafts (3 is a magic number here)
Roleplay: Events Determine Lore (This is because I feel that RP elements can be built into the Rules of Engagement, Battles, Boot Camps, etc.)
Unit Freedom: Strict Army Rules (Make the rules identical across armies, so that drafts are smooth every war)
Leadership: Elections Every War (I still believe in elections, and I like public voting)

In summary, I think that we should be competitive enough that results matter, but not enough to draw out tensions by having stacked teams, powerhouse Squads, or any business where an FM would swap out Squads during events to intentionally sacrifice underperforming players and cherrypick matches for a team on a hotstreak. I believe one of the best ways to avoid that slippery slope is drafts, but I think we can afford to draft in small groups rather than individual players. I picked groups of 3 because you can't make a full team out of three people or six people. It means that finalizing a team roster after a draft won't be as simple as putting two groups from the same old Squad back together, and everyone would have to accept more diversity in their event rosters. For Roleplay, I do not feel that it should be separate from events, but I believe you were aiming for the same reasoning, Nick, so I may have to reword the options in that category. For Unit Freedom, I think it's important to establish a system. The rules and ranks in armies change all the time as upstarts like myself try to make overhauls, but if we could stick to one system that is standard across both armies, transfers and drafts would be a little less frustratingly logistically. Finally, for leaders, I feel that elections are great, especially neutral ones. In the future, if the importance of rank is re-establish, we may need to move back to voting for REDD and BLUE FMs rather than just "Pick two," but both elections could still be public.

Those are my thoughts and choices. Overall, NIck, I think we might only really disagree when it comes to FMs.

Only problem with small group drafts is that how does one determine which small group is better than the other. You can't measure that empirically because there are too many factors. Good K/D doesn't equal good team player and vice versa. That's the only issue with that which is why I think it should be squad drafts because that can be measured by how many wins a particular squad has for Battlenight. Easily and accurately measured that way. If that makes sense?

I'm against public voting because leadership isn't a popularity contest. Leadership also should have absolutely no lobbying whatsoever which almost inevitably happens with direct public elections. Should be a system of succession for that IMO.

Other than that, I do wish to see the roleplay come back meaningfully and would like a separate event for it. This would establish ranks better IMO than Battlenight ever could though it can still play a factor. Pretty good idea

[Jam Cliché]

Only problem with small group drafts is that how does one determine which small group is better than the other.

You don't. I don't support rank-based drafts. If it were me, I'd tell every enlisted member to get into a group of three, get assigned a number, and have FMs take turns rolling dice.

[NervyDestroyer]

You don't. I don't support rank-based drafts. If it were me, I'd tell every enlisted member to get into a group of three, get assigned a number, and have FMs take turns rolling dice.

Hmm that's pretty interesting actually, but what if someone doesn't find a group of 3? Like for example a new recruit that doesn't know anyone yet can't find a group because they don't really know anyone? There'd be some polarization there. Unless of course it's randomized...

You could take people voluntarily that can't find groups or want to meet other people for a randomized sort of thing, or you could make the system entirely randomized.

[Jam Cliché]

Hmm that's pretty interesting actually, but what if someone doesn't find a group of 3? Like for example a new recruit that doesn't know anyone yet can't find a group because they don't really know anyone? There'd be some polarization there. Unless of course it's randomized...

You could take people voluntarily that can't find groups or want to meet other people for a randomized sort of thing, or you could make the system entirely randomized.

The picky details aren't as important right now. It's not up to me anyway. I just want our leaders to know what the community thinks a "Warsim" is.

[NervyDestroyer]

The picky details aren't as important right now. It's not up to me anyway. I just want our leaders to know what the community thinks a "Warsim" is.

fair enough

[Houdini]

Balance: Small Group Drafts (3 is a magic number here)


I really can't imagine a system like this ever working. You mentioned that groups of 3 or 6 wouldn't be sufficient to form a team, so you wouldn't be able to simply combined teams of 3. That means that some of the groups of 3 would be split and others would not. That seems like you'll be playing some sort of favoritism deciding who should be split from their draft group.

I also don't really understand that advantage of drafting in a group of 3. Are you trying to let people stick with old friends?

A group of 3 seems like we are losing a lot of the advantages of a player draft (namely fine grain adjustments) without actually creating any value. The only way I can really see this working is if everybody in FC has a circle of 3 friends. Anytime somebody has a 4th person in that circle, somebody is going to be left out and that will most definitely create drama.

- - - Updated - - -


'm against public voting because leadership isn't a popularity contest. Leadership also should have absolutely no lobbying whatsoever which almost inevitably happens with direct public elections. Should be a system of succession for that IMO.

I don't think this is strictly true. Popularity is an important part of leadership. What leader is any good if everybody hates him? He is going to have a lot of fun getting a whole lot of nothing done.

There are leadership characteristics that are very important outside of popularity, but since everybody has a different idea or what characteristics they want in a a leader it is very hard to have some sort of arbitrary group of people select a leader that represents what the people of the army want.

[Jam Cliché]

I really can't imagine a system like this ever working. You mentioned that groups of 3 or 6 wouldn't be sufficient to form a team, so you wouldn't be able to simply combined teams of 3. That means that some of the groups of 3 would be split and others would not. That seems like you'll be playing some sort of favoritism deciding who should be split from their draft group.

I also don't really understand that advantage of drafting in a group of 3. Are you trying to let people stick with old friends?

A group of 3 seems like we are losing a lot of the advantages of a player draft (namely fine grain adjustments) without actually creating any value. The only way I can really see this working is if everybody in FC has a circle of 3 friends. Anytime somebody has a 4th person in that circle, somebody is going to be left out and that will most definitely create drama.

I wouldn't be splitting up any groups of three - not everyone will be in one of those groups. Recruits, loners, returning inactives, etc. would fill in the 4th slot. It's a way of adding diversity while still allowing some groups to remain constant. However, FC is a warsim, and playing with all of your friends on events should not be guaranteed. If there's a group larger than three friends, tough cookies. Chances are, that fourth friend actually has a fifth friend, and that fifth friend has a sixth friend, etc. Cyberdyne was full of all my friends back in the day, but 18 of us couldn't play on the same team in battles.



I don't think this is strictly true. Popularity is an important part of leadership. What leader is any good if everybody hates him? He is going to have a lot of fun getting a whole lot of nothing done.

There are leadership characteristics that are very important outside of popularity, but since everybody has a different idea or what characteristics they want in a a leader it is very hard to have some sort of arbitrary group of people select a leader that represents what the people of the army want.

I agree. If WC picks leadership, it's functionally a popularity contest with far fewer voters.

[Anarchy]

I'm against public voting because leadership isn't a popularity contest. Leadership also should have absolutely no lobbying whatsoever which almost inevitably happens with direct public elections. Should be a system of succession for that IMO.



Lobbying is changing the decisions of those already in power. I believe what you're thinking of is campaigning. Which is normal, even in healthy democracies.

People are popular with others usually for good reason. I've honestly yet to see an FM being elected simply because they're everyone's friend and not because they deserve the job, even when it's someone I don't personally support. And in a community that is, again, a community, a little bit of that isn't awful. We should be supporting those who commit themselves to being friends with everyone, not just whoever makes the best bureaucrat.

Frankly elections are the only thing that keep kept FC from having political dynasties against member approval.

In a community where people will vote for whoever puts FC on the path they like, people will vote against people putting us on a path they don't like. And it's the people who should determine where we go, not whoever happens to be in WC at the time of hypothetically removing elections.

tl;dr - There's always a moral hazard & adverse selection problem with leadership. Elections prevent leadership from having the power to keep themselves in power though.

[Houdini]

I wouldn't be splitting up any groups of three - not everyone will be in one of those groups. Recruits, loners, returning inactives, etc. would fill in the 4th slot. It's a way of adding diversity while still allowing some groups to remain constant. However, FC is a warsim, and playing with all of your friends on events should not be guaranteed. If there's a group larger than three friends, tough cookies. Chances are, that fourth friend actually has a fifth friend, and that fifth friend has a sixth friend, etc. Cyberdyne was full of all my friends back in the day, but 18 of us couldn't play on the same team in battles..

I'm still not convinced that groups of 3 is the right way to do a draft.

[NervyDestroyer]

Lobbying is changing the decisions of those already in power. I believe what you're thinking of is campaigning. Which is normal, even in healthy democracies.

People are popular with others usually for good reason. I've honestly yet to see an FM being elected simply because they're everyone's friend and not because they deserve the job, even when it's someone I don't personally support. And in a community that is, again, a community, a little bit of that isn't awful. We should be supporting those who commit themselves to being friends with everyone, not just whoever makes the best bureaucrat.

Frankly elections are the only thing that keep kept FC from having political dynasties against member approval.

In a community where people will vote for whoever puts FC on the path they like, people will vote against people putting us on a path they don't like. And it's the people who should determine where we go, not whoever happens to be in WC at the time of hypothetically removing elections.

tl;dr - There's always a moral hazard & adverse selection problem with leadership. Elections prevent leadership from having the power to keep themselves in power though.

Democracy is certainly pretty and I won't go into detail about why it's pretty.

It's functionality is literally just to be pretty. As a form of leadership it basically ensures that no change will ever happen whatsoever because people are naturally resistant to any form of change. Familiarity = Comfort.

Explains why no change has happened in the last 2 and a half years despite the stagnation slowly killing us.

People don't know what they want till they get it so elections are effectively useless because it's whoever looks the prettiest. A shiny rapier is more pretty than a dirty swiss army knife. Too bad the rapier doesn't have much usage when compared to the swiss army knife.


It doesn't matter and I don't really care if it doesn't change. It does the job okay enough from an FC standpoint.

[Jam Cliché]

I'm still not convinced that groups of 3 is the right way to do a draft.
I don't think there is a right way. My way has as many drawbacks as any other.

[Anarchy]

Explains why no change has happened in the last 2 and a half years despite the stagnation slowly killing us.

No one has hardly wanted to run in 2 years. I doubt it would be any different if, say, Mythonian chose the FMs instead. (Just as an example)

That being said, thinking that allowing WC to effectively choose themselves as leaders over and over is a lesser risk than people simply voting for people who don't get things done when no one really runs is counter-intuitive. If the right candidates want to run, I trust people to pick the right person. And if they don't, is telling them they're wrong and letting a few elite choose someone else really a good idea? Even if WC chooses to select someone who is a better FM, if the majority of the community/army wanted someone else, you wont see anyone standing on desks shouting "Oh captain my captain" for an FM they're forced to follow.


People don't know what they want till they get it

I'm sorry but that... That is just... A bit insulting to people's intelligence. I cannot agree with anything that takes choice and power out of the majority's hands and puts it in the hands of a select few who can then essentially re-elect themselves. Nor can I fathom how anyone would. Elections aren't perfect but they're a lot better than leadership choosing leadership. FMs select the WDs, then the WDs select the FMs. What could possibly go wrong?

[NervyDestroyer]

No one has hardly wanted to run in 2 years. I doubt it would be any different if, say, Mythonian chose the FMs instead. (Just as an example)

That being said, thinking that allowing WC to effectively choose themselves as leaders over and over is a lesser risk than people simply voting for people who don't get things done when no one really runs is counter-intuitive. If the right candidates want to run, I trust people to pick the right person. And if they don't, is telling them they're wrong and letting a few elite choose someone else really a good idea? Even if WC chooses to select someone who is a better FM, if the majority of the community/army wanted someone else, you wont see anyone standing on desks shouting "Oh captain my captain" for an FM they're forced to follow.



I'm sorry but that... That is just... A bit insulting to people's intelligence. I cannot agree with anything that takes choice and power out of the majority's hands and puts it in the hands of a select few who can then essentially re-elect themselves. Nor can I fathom how anyone would. Elections aren't perfect but they're a lot better than leadership choosing leadership. FMs select the WDs, then the WDs select the FMs. What could possibly go wrong?

If you disagree with me it's fine. Merely critiquing the system as a whole. I have no intention of making a big deal out of it

[Legendary Nova]

http://goo.gl/forms/pBEaEa5VrV

There you go. This would be interesting to see the responses on. (Everyone can see the responses here (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/15ABubNuzCLmUoRx-gBd7zcLJ9ytfZJnGiT1EhkUWz mY/viewanalytics) (I think), but they're anonymous.)

(Please don't be an ass and do it multiple times. :) )

[Houdini]

http://goo.gl/forms/pBEaEa5VrV

There you go. This would be interesting to see the responses on. (Everyone can see the responses here (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/15ABubNuzCLmUoRx-gBd7zcLJ9ytfZJnGiT1EhkUWz mY/viewanalytics) (I think), but they're anonymous.)

(Please don't be an ass and do it multiple times. :) )

The problem with a poll like this is that people may select the same category and mean different things or select different categories and mean the same thing. You need more than just a 3 word bullet to fully understand what each point means.

[Jam Cliché]

The problem with a poll like this is that people may select the same category and mean different things or select different categories and mean the same thing. You need more than just a 3 word bullet to fully understand what each point means.

I agree. I made the example as concise as I could with enough detail to get the idea across, but it's still widely open to interpretation and devoid of probably a dozen other good categories that we could evaluate the community on.

[Sir Nihlus]

The best mission statements, I would argue, are the simple; short ones. It leaves little room for interpretation, usually packs a resonating punch, and gets the message across. Realistically, when one is browsing through a selection of communities to join, a potential applicant will only read the first few lines. It's like writing a good book. If the reader isn't hooked by the first few sentences, you lose the catch. And before I start hearing retorts like "Oh, he/she couldn't be bothered to read it so they are unfit to be part of FC." This is really the basic rules of advertising, and by extension, marketing speaking. FC is like a product to the internet, and we need to try and sell it without over-encumbering the potential applicant with a wall of text, that they might not even reach the end of before deciding whether to join or not. Just offering some two cents that hopefully more or less encourages some self-critiquing so that you can perfect this idea. I like where it's going.

[Houdini]

The best mission statements, I would argue, are the simple; short ones. It leaves little room for interpretation, usually packs a resonating punch, and gets the message across. Realistically, when one is browsing through a selection of communities to join, a potential applicant will only read the first few lines. It's like writing a good book. If the reader isn't hooked by the first few sentences, you lose the catch. And before I start hearing retorts like "Oh, he/she couldn't be bothered to read it so they are unfit to be part of FC." This is really the basic rules of advertising, and by extension, marketing speaking. FC is like a product to the internet, and we need to try and sell it without over-encumbering the potential applicant with a wall of text, that they might not even reach the end of before deciding whether to join or not. Just offering some two cents that hopefully more or less encourages some self-critiquing so that you can perfect this idea. I like where it's going.

I think we already have our short pitch "join for fun and respect."

The real problem I see is that we don't have a clear vision of what this community is suppose to be. There are many people all advocating different variations of the same war-sim community. It would be much better to have a well thought out even verbose sort of guidelines that explain how we are suppose to implement the "fun and respect."

[Barry Soap]

I think we already have our short pitch "join for fun and respect."

The real problem I see is that we don't have a clear vision of what this community is suppose to be. There are many people all advocating different variations of the same war-sim community. It would be much better to have a well thought out even verbose sort of guidelines that explain how we are suppose to implement the "fun and respect."

People might use different words when recruiting, but we're all conveying the same message. Also, I think "join for fun and respect" is too short.

[Sir Nihlus]

Apologies for the late reply, but Barry actually beat me to the punch. Although you said, quite rightly, that the current short pitch is "fun and respect", the basis of what I'm getting at, is we just need a slightly larger version of that (although perhaps changed if that no longer falls under the current vision of FC). Not necessarily a long and encumbered wall of text detailing every "P and Q". My reasoning is already explained in the previous post, of course.

[Houdini]

Apologies for the late reply, but Barry actually beat me to the punch. Although you said, quite rightly, that the current short pitch is "fun and respect", the basis of what I'm getting at, is we just need a slightly larger version of that (although perhaps changed if that no longer falls under the current vision of FC). Not necessarily a long and encumbered wall of text detailing every "P and Q". My reasoning is already explained in the previous post, of course.

I think we actually agree then. In my opinion, the long wall of text is the accords (which has exactly the same limitations of nobody reading it as you mentioned already).

I think we need more than a one sentence tag line, but nothing longer than a paragraph.

Maybe a sentence for each of these categories/questions:
What is the most important goal in the community?
What type of competitive atmosphere do we create?
How do we ensure balance in the community?
What is the role of lore/RP in the community?
How is leadership structured in the community?


I'm thinking something along the lines of these (http://fcwars.net/forums/showthread.php?15612-FC-Mission-Statement&p=174866&viewfull=1#post174866) examples, but probably a little more descriptive.

[Solus Exsequor]

We need to sell the community as we are, don't sell it as something we aren't.

We aren't a casual gaming community. We need to ensure recruits know what they're coming into