War Council Transparency Act

One complaint I got while asking around was poor communication between the higher ups and the enlisted ranks. I believe this can be helped by releasing war council decisions once they're reached, with a public indication of who voted which way. This way, the general populace knows for a fact that things are happening and under serious discussion, and that a resolution has been reached on how to approach different problems. This can be as simple as just a brief summary along with the vote tally, i'm not asking for the entire discussion or anything.

either alternatively, or in addition to that, on an army level, mandatory army updates on at least a monthly basis to keep up those who don't participate in skype groups and raise forum activity and participation (ideally)

Didn't this use to be a thing in one of the sections of the Accords? I'm pretty sure I remember something like that but can't find it now.

In general we rely on HC members to pass on information to their officers and army. This can be via Skype groups, weekly meetings, disseminating information during practices, etc. However, this isn't really stated or declared, so obviously it's not fulfilling the objective. It's entirely possible that neither army has been trying to do this whatsoever, but I'm still using it as an excuse so I don't have to do it myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Legendary Nova

Didn't this use to be a thing in one of the sections of the Accords? I'm pretty sure I remember something like that but can't find it now.

---

Sort of. We quickly found that it was kind of pointless, so the formatting wasn't conducive to providing a full explanation of WTF was decided, and putting a short blurb describing it doesn't help anyone understand what the decision actually was. We removed it from the Accords after awhile.

Also, the vast majority of WC decisions, agreements, etc., don't go to formal votes. When we have discussions for things, a lot of the time it's obvious that most approve it or most are against it, and from that we just have the conclusion.

For the most part, things only go to formal votes when REDD and BLUE are staunchly opposing each other, which (believe it or not) is quite rare. Some people seem to think it's always REDD vs BLUE tied, but its usually not. The last time it happened was the week of Sidewinder where WC had two split decisions, and before that it was way back in August of last year.

Probably 90% of decisions have at least partial support from both armies, and a good chunk of them are even unanimous. The community just doesn't hear about these, and instead only hear when their HC members are complaining about the remaining 5-10% of split decisions or when things otherwise don't go in their favor.

I think some sort of explanation of what goes on is good, so enlisted can base votes for elections on the actions of their high command.

"The community just doesn't hear about these, and instead only hear when their HC members are complaining about the remaining 5-10% of split decisions or when things otherwise don't go in their favor."

This has been so true for the longest of times, maybe decision being transparent might assist with that. The only side enlisted will mostly hear, is their armies side. Because that 5-10% is what 100% of the army gets to hear right off the bat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L0rd Kanti

I think some sort of explanation of what goes on is good, so enlisted can base votes for elections on the actions of their high command.

"The community just doesn't hear about these, and instead only hear when their HC members are complaining about the remaining 5-10% of split decisions or when things otherwise don't go in their favor."

This has been so true for the longest of times, maybe decision being transparent might assist with that. The only side enlisted will mostly hear, is their armies side. Because that 5-10% is what 100% of the army gets to hear right off the bat.

---

Agreeing with kanti here, you're far more likely to hear your higher ups bitching about things that didn't go your way than the times you reached a mutual understanding, or even times you won. The idea is to help reduce animosity between the armies as well as to improve perceptions of the higher ups.

I would agree with this act to make all major decisions public with the reasoning. It just gets rid of ambiguity which isn't a bad thing normally. To be fair, however, personal details should be left out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silversleek

Agreeing with kanti here, you're far more likely to hear your higher ups bitching about things that didn't go your way than the times you reached a mutual understanding, or even times you won. The idea is to help reduce animosity between the armies as well as to improve perceptions of the higher ups.

---

Agreed. It would Help moral a ton if we heard about HC Agreeing or even in some Cases even just knowing they talked about A topic. Because sometimes it feels Like a suggestion is made And then it vanishes without a word And we have no idea if it was even discussed

Bottom of http://fcwars.net/forums/showthread.php?14146

I give no guarantee that it will be reliably up to date.