It was suggested that we bring this to a vote to properly gauge interest, so let's go.
Yes
No
It was suggested that we bring this to a vote to properly gauge interest, so let's go.
You mean where the FMs would be running mates yes?
"I should join bellator"~Anarchy
"Does this layout make my base look big?"~Legendary Nova
yes
Australia: Where 90% of animals are trying to kill you. The other 10% just do it by accident.
[8:10:37 AM] riphelix: Nova I need too borrow your accent tomorrow please, I got a date and I wanna impress her
[8:11:07 AM] Nervy: Sex guaranteed!!
It's not about convincing someone to believe in your motives, it's about convincing someone else to run for FM with you. The way this would run is if there's an odd number of people who want to run for FM there's always going to be that one person who doesn't even get a shot just because they were the odd one out.
Australia: Where 90% of animals are trying to kill you. The other 10% just do it by accident.
[8:10:37 AM] riphelix: Nova I need too borrow your accent tomorrow please, I got a date and I wanna impress her
[8:11:07 AM] Nervy: Sex guaranteed!!
Very very sceptical of this for the reasons Nova has raised, this honestly will stop people making the step up in leadership
You are not a godless fucking moron
You are still a moron but not a godless fucking one
- Silko, 2016
While I admit I don't know the intricacies of this idea or how it came about, I would have to agree that adding what would seem to be a numbers-limited criteria in order to run for leadership seems rather counterintuitive, and a step in the wrong direction. Why should the ambitions of a prospective leader be constrained because he or she can't find a partner? And where is the correlation that having a partner means you are more 'worthy' (I can't believe that word was even used in a post by another member personally) of being a Field Marshal? As far as I knew, the traditional method involved an individual member of an army writing a speech which would convince the masses in voting for them. Isn't that more powerful? Quality > Quantity.
EDIT:
I would also like to add that I think this 'pairing' system will only seem to encourage 'bandwagoning' of popular and mainstream ideologies. Which could potentially impact and serve as a detriment to creative ideas and talents that prospective leaders may have, because their proposals may go against the norm and would limit their ability to find a partner.
Last edited by Sir Nihlus; 04-16-2016 at 05:14 PM.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
ON THE WATCH
REMEMBER REACH
Someone pitched it in one of the skype chats, I forget who had the initial idea. see the other thread for about all the details that there are right now
That is the downside to it. The upside is meant to have war council actually able to agree on things in stead of getting into too many week long arguments that don't really get resolved.
well, nobody used the word "worthy" :P but the idea of the correlation is to show you have support for your plans amongst the officer base/highcoms. Ideally, this would be done during a time with much bigger numbers in FC to alleviate some of the downsides with not finding a partner.
You said it yourself, Quality > Quantity. This (ideally) ups the quality, and as a downside also might reduce some quantity. I don't see how some guy you never know writing up a generic speech about how he's going to make everything better fighting against the odds is better than a Team of two people writing up a speech about how they're going to make everything better, with the pretty much garunteed power to do so. Our leaders will have more power, less bureaucracy.
Perhaps, potential of everyone bandwagoning onto the same "track" is a legitimate concern.
Perhaps as an idea, We simply give an OPTION to run as pairs or as a single? There's nothing that says ideas can't be compromised.
+1 support.
At the end of the day, our ability to come together is a lot more important than us having a lot of debates. The community will vote for what it wants, and will then get it, rather than a political battle between the most voted idea and the 2nd most voted idea.
Leaders on the same page doesn't mean idea suppression or ignoring of what people may want, it means actual progress on a road the community voted for.
...And if you can't find one individual who wants to run with you, you'll probably have an even worse time getting 50%+ of the community to vote for you. I don't see this as a hindrance. Every good FM FC has ever had would have a line of people wanting to run with them.
Last edited by Anarchy; 04-16-2016 at 10:08 PM.
Virtus Tentamine Gaudet
FM For 6 wars spanning 3 generations
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
FC Media Links