Squad Council

[Houdini]

This is the second part to my squad system suggestion. While these ideas are disjoint, they were conceived together. A Squad Council requires someway to hold squad leaders accountable for activity and attendance to keep the power in the hands of the people who deserve it (hence Squad System Part 1)

---

Currently the War Council is made up of both armies high commands, a handful of war directors, an collection of other veterans and neutral parties. The War Council is responsible for leading the community, maintaining the integrity of the community, and optimizing the experience in the community.

I would like to see the formation of a Squad Council made up of the leaders of the "active" squads. This council will be responsible for the community experience specifically all issues pertaining to the battle night experience. The War Council would continue to motivate changes that impact the community in its entirety and will most definitely influence the squad council, but all decisions made regarding what the players will experience on battle nights should rest with the people closest to those players, the squad leaders.

I define an active squad as a squad capable of fielding a full team on battle nights. If a "squad" cannot field a full team on battle nights, especially since the largest team size we have is 6 people, I don't think that "squad" deserves to have the same rights as the squads that consistently field teams. In addition, squads that field more than a full team on battle night should not have undue power to monopolize the experience. Those squad leaders are representing more people, but they are representing the same interest group. Each squad should have one equal vote.

---

Examples of Responsibilities:
Issues pertaining to infractions -> War Council
Infractions do not impact the experience players have on battle nights except for the specific player(s) involved. These issues belong in the power of the people who are keepers of the community.

Issues pertaining to gametypes during the war -> Squad Council
Gametypes are clearly related to the battle night experience.

Issues pertaining to community standards -> War Council
The community standards should be the responsibility to the veterans in the community.

Issues pertaining to game/map selection -> Squad Council
Clearly the games and maps the players play are related to the battle night experience.

Issues pertaining to player/squad transfers -> Squad Council
Player and squad transfers are done for the expressed purpose of making battle nights more balanced. Battle Night balance directly impacts the players so these decisions should belong to the Squad Council.

Issues pertaining to game transitions -> Squad Council
Switching to a new game directly impacts the players experience, the squad leaders should be responsible for these decisions.

Issues pertaining to community conflict (drama) -> War Council
When the community is involved, the War Council should be the responsible party.

Issues of squad vs. squad conflict -> War Council
Squads are frequently unable to mediate between themselves, especially during the heat of battle nights. The non-participates (i.e. War Council) should be the mediators between squads and resolve disagreements that arise between squads. This has the added benefit of keeping relations between squads cordial, instead of creating tensions between squads the animosity caused by contentious decisions can be directed at the War Council.

Issues pertaining to boot camps -> War Council (Army Leadership)
Boot camps have a minimal effect of battle night experience and thus belong to the War Council or Army Leadership.

Issues pertaining to the accords -> War Council
The accords are the law and the power to rule on them should belong with the War Council.

Issues pertaining to battle night rotations (e.g. forfeits, tie breakers) -> War Council (Army Leadership)
Squads should not be making decisions about who should be playing who. An impartial party (the War Council) should make these decisions in order to prevent conflict between squads.

Issues pertaining to community prestige/reputation -> War Council
Squad leaders should be no more responsible for the reputation of the community than any other member. The guiding forces for the communities reputation should be the ones that hold the power to change it.

All jurisdictions not specifically granted to the Squad Council should default to the War Council.

---

Why?
FMs are not allowed to play and War Directors frequently do not play. The remaining neutral parties are mostly inactive for battle nights. That leaves 2 of the 5 voting bodies in War Council as possible active participants in the war and frequently the Generals also are too busy to participate in Battle Nights. That leaves the remainder of the non-voting high command members as the closest thing to active players in the community. That is the cost of responsibility when it comes to leading the community, you do more leading than you do playing.

The power to control the players experience should rest with the closest thing to the players, the squad leaders. They experience the problems on battle nights first hand, not via proxy. They are the ones the members complain to when they aren't having a good experience. They are the ones who should be given the authority to make the changes necessary to create the optimal experience for the players.

---

Final Notes:
I neglect to discuss issues related to dual memberships in the Squad Council and War Council because I think there are very few people who are capable of leading an active squad while also distancing themselves from their squads personal interests to make impartial decisions for their army.

---

Disclaimer: I've stepped down from leadership within Vague Memories and am a non-voting member of the War Council.

[Legendary Nova]

This is actually quite a good idea. Separately from the other idea, I think this would work pretty well in keeping some of the little stuff out of the WC, reducing clutter. Howeverr, paired with part 1 of your squad idea, I have to say that I don't like it. What I can see is a lot of "I'm a new recruit and I've got three friends, now I get to have quite a bit of power in the community straight away", since essentially the Squad Council would be rather powerful with what you have suggested.

[Maxdoggy]

Good idea.

For this, I would like clarification:

Issues pertaining to game/map selection -> Squad Council
Clearly the games and maps the players play are related to the battle night experience.

I think the Squad Council should select the pool of available maps/games but the War Council (read: FMs and Gens) should still be able to put the maps on the WarMap in the way that they choose.

[Nicholas Sapien]

Issues pertaining to infractions -> War Council
Infractions do not impact the experience players have on battle nights except for the specific player(s) involved. These issues belong in the power of the people who are keepers of the community

It wasn't always like that, Squad leaders had a say when people got infracted. Are they still allowed in the court room?

Issues pertaining to gametypes during the war -> Squad Council
Gametypes are clearly related to the battle night experience.

I don't mind this, but WC should have the final approval over what proposals they come up with

Issues pertaining to community standards -> War Council
The community standards should be the responsibility to the veterans in the community.

Everyone should uphold community standards >.>

Issues pertaining to game/map selection -> Squad Council
Clearly the games and maps the players play are related to the battle night experience.

wasn't the forge department in charge of this?

Issues pertaining to player/squad transfers -> Squad Council
Player and squad transfers are done for the expressed purpose of making battle nights more balanced. Battle Night balance directly impacts the players so these decisions should belong to the Squad Council.

I think this power should still remain with Army Leadership

Issues pertaining to game transitions -> Squad Council
Switching to a new game directly impacts the players experience, the squad leaders should be responsible for these decisions.

wrong it impacts everybody, everyone should have a say where we head



I liked the general idea, but after reading this I realize that it isn't much needed. You say War council don't play as much and aren't fighting on battlenights, Guzzie and purple fight, they are generals. Solace is working a way around so he can fight as well.
Don't people vote for their leadership, so they can be represented in WC?

Forge department, where are thou?

[Houdini]

This is actually quite a good idea. Separately from the other idea, I think this would work pretty well in keeping some of the little stuff out of the WC, reducing clutter. Howeverr, paired with part 1 of your squad idea, I have to say that I don't like it. What I can see is a lot of "I'm a new recruit and I've got three friends, now I get to have quite a bit of power in the community straight away", since essentially the Squad Council would be rather powerful with what you have suggested.

It doesn't have to come together (in fact that is why I separated it into two parts).

- - - Updated - - -

I think the Squad Council should select the pool of available maps/games but the War Council (read: FMs and Gens) should still be able to put the maps on the WarMap in the way that they choose.

That makes sense. The layout of the maps doesn't seem to have much of an impact on the battle night experience so it doesn't make sense for the squads to be responsible for it.

[Houdini]

It wasn't always like that, Squad leaders had a say when people got infracted. Are they still allowed in the court room?

Squad leaders are completely removed from infractions. (That is why I addressed that as being a War Council Jurisdiction)

I don't mind this, but WC should have the final approval over what proposals they come up with

The whole point of splitting the responsibilities is so that WC can concentrate and making improvements to the community at large and leave the battle night experience to the squad leaders who would be more knowledgeable of the players desires.

Everyone should uphold community standards >.>

Of course, but somebody has to be in charge.

wasn't the forge department in charge of this?

Where have you been? The forge department has been essentially dead for several wars now. We don't even do map testing during the week to make sure maps are setup for all of the possible gametypes.

I think this power should still remain with Army Leadership

I think that is reasonable on the grounds that the players are associated with the armies. That said balance issues are most definitely the concern of the players and the experience. Would it make more sense for these issues to be the responsibility of both councils?

wrong it impacts everybody, everyone should have a say where we head

Which is why I put this as a squad council responsibility. The squad leaders are the closest voices to the people themselves. I don't recall there being a community vote when we made the transition to MCC, so I figured this must have been a War Council decision that should probably be moved down to the squad level (albeit these decisions seem obvious currently).

I liked the general idea, but after reading this I realize that it isn't much needed. You say War council don't play as much and aren't fighting on battlenights, Guzzie and purple fight, they are generals. Solace is working a way around so he can fight as well.
Don't people vote for their leadership, so they can be represented in WC?

People vote for the FM, War Directors and Generals are not voted for. Like I said, the generals are the only voting members in War Council who fight. The squad leaders unanimously fight on nearly every battle night because that is there responsibility. It makes sense for them to be determine how the battle night "feels" while leaving the more large scale community decisions to a dedicated body responsible for them.

[Guzzie]

Your descriptions listed under a "squad council" responsibilities are quite vague. If you could clarify, specifically, what you mean by those, it would give a better understanding as to what you are thinking.

For example:

Issues pertaining to game/map selection -> Squad Council

Clearly the games and maps the players play are related to the battle night experience.

Are you implying that members of a squad council would select maps to be placed in the warmap pre-war? or are you implying that they should have a say on what maps are being attacked the following week? Don't squad leaders already do that? Don't squad leaders select game types according to what their squads wants to play? or did you mean something entirely different?

A lot of the "jurisdiction" you are assigning to a Squad Council is already in place, just not in written/paper form like you seem to be doing here. Capable squad leaders already do everything you have mentioned. They mettle in all aspects of squad management and partake in a lot of the decisions made pre-attack plans. Essentially, it seems like you are just giving a fancy title to the squad leader collective.

Additionally, The "rule" of a Field Marshall not partaking in battles is an obsolete idea. This was viable when FMs were the only ones making/setting up rotations and setting up games. We have taken a lot of steps to take a lot of the stress away from the Field Marshall when battle nights come about (in an effort to make battle nights run smoother and eliminate long wait times). By giving squad leaders the ability to invite their opponents and set up their own lobbies, keep track of the stat book and update their scores, communicate in the battlenight logistics skype chat, we have made that clause pretty much non existent. As for Generals and the rest of High Com..... well, they always participate in battle nights and in fact are some of the most active come Sunday nights.

War Directors are technically regular army members. Their responsibilities lie with website work really (atttack plans, battle results, etc, and of course the neutral vote should the need arise). Nothing to neglect them from participating on Sundays. You may be misguided by the fact that for the last war or so, we only had one very active WD in Kaz (representing Redd army) and no Blue army WD presence. Spartan BH is a different story altogether; his role within the community is different from a regular WD, thus giving the impression of no activity within the WDs. Altogether, your reasoning behind this suggestion seems to contain a bit misinformation to strengthen your argument.

[Houdini]

Your descriptions listed under a "squad council" responsibilities are quite vague. If you could clarify, specifically, what you mean by those, it would give a better understanding as to what you are thinking.

For example:
Are you implying that members of a squad council would select maps to be placed in the warmap pre-war? or are you implying that they should have a say on what maps are being attacked the following week? Don't squad leaders already do that? Don't squad leaders select game types according to what their squads wants to play? or did you mean something entirely different?

The "descriptions" where not intended to be descriptions. That was my reasoning for why I put each specific example in whatever category. For the example you pointed out I was thinking this would be related to what is the map pool (i.e. what the forge department use to do, but no longer does) and the game type pool (do we include Regicide? Or Ricochet? Or Dominion?). Like I responded to Max, the layout of the maps isn't really pertinent to the players so the War Council should maintain that authority.

A lot of the "jurisdiction" you are assigning to a Squad Council is already in place, just not in written/paper form like you seem to be doing here. Capable squad leaders already do everything you have mentioned. They mettle in all aspects of squad management and partake in a lot of the decisions made pre-attack plans. Essentially, it seems like you are just giving a fancy title to the squad leader collective.

That is exactly what I'm doing. Writing it in paper and giving it a name. Right now a lot of things can get brushed under the rug since the community is so small. I think we should prepare for scale in the future. This is a war to try things and get them right BEFORE Halo 5 launches. If we wait until Halo 5 to try new things and layout a solid foundation it won't matter how many new recruits join we'll still be struggling. It makes sense to codify things and divide responsibility now even though many people are serving multiple roles. Then when people no longer need to serve multiple roles we'll know we have a system in place that can scale.

There are a lot of people in the community right now who haven't experienced large numbers of people on battle nights or remember when RedWatch would field 6 teams from a single company. I fear we have lost experience from dealing with large scale activity and we will not be prepared if Halo 5 brings in huge numbers.

Additionally, The "rule" of a Field Marshall not partaking in battles is an obsolete idea. This was viable when FMs were the only ones making/setting up rotations and setting up games. We have taken a lot of steps to take a lot of the stress away from the Field Marshall when battle nights come about (in an effort to make battle nights run smoother and eliminate long wait times). By giving squad leaders the ability to invite their opponents and set up their own lobbies, keep track of the stat book and update their scores, communicate in the battlenight logistics skype chat, we have made that clause pretty much non existent. As for Generals and the rest of High Com..... well, they always participate in battle nights and in fact are some of the most active come Sunday nights.

I may have already addressed this, but my perspective is on the future not what we have had in the past. I think you are focusing on a single factor (why the High Com is active in battle nights) instead of the bigger picture why squad leaders should hold more responsibility for their experience. If squad leaders and High Command overlap like they currently do the lines are blurred. Squad leaders have one job on battle nights, keep their players happy. They can best do this by being more responsible for what goes down on battle nights.

War Directors are technically regular army members. Their responsibilities lie with website work really (atttack plans, battle results, etc, and of course the neutral vote should the need arise). Nothing to neglect them from participating on Sundays. You may be misguided by the fact that for the last war or so, we only had one very active WD in Kaz (representing Redd army) and no Blue army WD presence. Spartan BH is a different story altogether; his role within the community is different from a regular WD, thus giving the impression of no activity within the WDs. Altogether, your reasoning behind this suggestion seems to contain a bit misinformation to strengthen your argument.

I'm not guess I'm not understanding what you are saying here. I see your statements as defense that the War Directors are mostly distanced from the players (e.g. no blue presence, Spartan BH severing a special role). They do have important responsibilities for the well being of the community and that is where their focus should lie. If there is an alternative to splitting their attention, it makes sense to me to pursue that alternative.

[NervyDestroyer]

It appears you are against squad leaders being in HC. Bias and whatnot. There's a very fine line between protecting someone because they are in your squad and protecting someone because of morals. HC is stressful sure. However, HC and WC in general is a fucking flower field compared to being a squad leader and that's just a fact. In WC, there can't be any kind of bias. With that said, I don't think removing squad leaders from WC is a good solution. As long as they do their job and help FC prosper, does it really matter that they lead a squad? However, you should not partake in discussions involving an infraction for a member of your squad. That's just the nature of things. Regarding your idea here, I'll defer you toward Nova's comment. "I gots 4 friends now gimme my power PL0x" There needs to be a counterweight to that. Might I suggest army leadership must approve a new squad first

[Houdini]

It appears you are against squad leaders being in HC. Bias and whatnot. There's a very fine line between protecting someone because they are in your squad and protecting someone because of morals. HC is stressful sure. However, HC and WC in general is a fucking flower field compared to being a squad leader and that's just a fact. In WC, there can't be any kind of bias. With that said, I don't think removing squad leaders from WC is a good solution. As long as they do their job and help FC prosper, does it really matter that they lead a squad? However, you should not partake in discussions involving an infraction for a member of your squad. That's just the nature of things. Regarding your idea here, I'll defer you toward Nova's comment. "I gots 4 friends now gimme my power PL0x" There needs to be a counterweight to that. Might I suggest army leadership must approve a new squad first

Personally I do think Squad Leaders and Army Leaders should be disjoint, but I choose not deal with that issue here by not excluding members from holding dual appointments. If you want to be a squad leader in the squad council and an army leader (or some other neutral) in the War Council fine.

Regarding the second part of your response, what is particularly wrong about giving people power for recruiting 4 friends? Provided those 4 friends are active on battle nights they make up a significant percentage of the community (at least in it's current state). I don't see anything wrong with giving them a vote. Also, what would make the army leadership choose to not approve a squad? Even if we had ultra-high numbers why would we not want to have more people forming squads and recruiting?

As an aside, this doesn't have to be implemented in conjunction to my first idea (or vise versa). If you support having a squad council, but don't support any changes to making squads that can be your stance.