Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 


United Operations - A Tactical Gaming Community

ArmA 3 Mission List

ArmA 2 Mission List




Posts posted by Hawkeye

  1. Preparatory to starting a UO store we would like to start a discussion about the UO logo. Now is the time to make sure the community is either satisfied with our graphics or wants to explore the possibility for new graphics. The first question addresses your satisfaction with the current graphics. Feel free to post ideas for new graphics in this thread.


    When we start the store we want to keep it simple with one logo. On the condition we keep the current graphics (Question 1) which logo should we use on items like ball caps, shirts and mugs (disregard size or resolution)? In the future I will put up a poll as to which items we should start the store with.


    Logo 1:





    Logo 2:



  2. Great post Thawk!


    Now I understand our differences. I see Forum activity as a community’s operational necessity. Maybe 10% of what being a Regular means.


    It is like the US Army and the Pentagon. You need the Pentagon to handle logistics and stuff but when I think of the US Army I think of soldiers, equipment and training. The last thing I think of is the Pentagon!


    When I think of UO I think of a comradery of players, tactics and fun. The last thing I think of is logistics.

  3. Thawk don’t you think “regularly“ participating on the Server and on TeamSpeak could also be a legitimate interpretation of what being a Regular means? Certainly the UO Mission Statement’s “fostering teamwork, simulation and cooperation in gaming” favors the Server/TS aspect over operational Forum usage.


    I guess the part I really do not get Thawk is where is the gain? I can see plenty of negatives and struggle to see a single positive. It seems to me to follow the idiom “cutting off your nose to spite your face”.

  4. It seems to me WEAPON X epitomizes the Charter’s Mission Statement.


    “United Operations is hereby established to serve as a community for fostering teamwork, simulation and cooperation in gaming. We are a mature community bound by a set of common principles:”


    I do not find it hard to at all to understand why someone as mature as Weapon would avoid the drama of the Forums. Of course the Forums are an important tool for our community but his contributions to UO in TS and on the virtual battlefield by his leadership, tactical understanding and his willingness to share his knowledge not only as a UOTC Trainer but by his in game example in my opinion far exceed the simple act of voting for mods. Weapon does voice his opinion in TS on matters we active voting Regulars are considering. His influence does contribute to the “direction and administration of the community” more than his single vote ever could. Why must we all walk in lockstep and be mere clones of each other? Can there be no variety in what it means to be a Regular? Does the act of logging into the Forums really matter that much? Or does his fostering teamwork, leadership, comradery and excellent game play matter more? I wish we had 100 WEAPON Xs as Regulars.


    I do not completely understand the logic. It does make sense we do not want ill informed Regulars voting on community matters and possibly making a sham of our democracy. But if they do not login that would also mean they do not vote.


    What did Weapon lose when his Regular status was taken from him? Well obviously he still can go on the Server and he will not miss the Forums he did not log into. TeamSpeak will cause problems. We would often exchange files with the File Browser when collaborating on creating a new missions. I am not sure if there are any TS privileges he would need as a UOTC Trainer.


    What does UO lose if Weapon decides to walk away from UO? If you do not know Weapon, or witness his training, or experienced his effect in Arma you have no idea. If you do know Weapon you also know the answer to that question is immeasurable.

  5. Mea culpa.


    Well it looks like I made a huge mistake.


    Originally the rule change to remove the 72 hour grace period for Regulars looked like a sure thing but the poll failed (67%-33%). I put this poll up so that Officers did not have the privilege of a 72 hour grace period not afford to Regulars. Well currently Officers are about to lose the grace period (75%-25%) while Regulars have kept theirs. Sorry Officers :(


    If you voted to yes to remove the grace period from Officers (this poll) based on it being removed from Regulars please reconsider your yes vote.


    Again, sorry Officers!

  6. Blockhead I could see where it is possible to come to that conclusion about Sickly and maybe you are privy to additional information. But if any Regular/Officer abuses the Charter grace period don’t you think that would be grounds for removal and garner a sufficient number of votes? Just combine the number Regulars in this poll alone who voted yes to get rid of the grace period PLUS a majority who voted no.


    Personally I do not think we need to remove the grace period for one oblivious reason. From now on if a Regular/Officer ever rescinds their resignation unless they write hell of a post this community will put up a poll for removal anyway and vote him/her out. It is extremely clear our community does not want to be taken advantage of.

  7. Yeah, I agree with that Hawkeye. Just wasn't sure how to word it to not sound .. wierd?

    It is absolutely weird for me beta to put up a poll I hope fails. I guess the only thing I know for sure is I hope they both pass or fail together.


    I personally feel that if you are resigning from an officer position you should be required to give notice, like most jobs. Though to keep the "fairness" I believe this would be a good move if the other change goes through.


    Maybe instead of 72 drop it down to 12 or 24. Since officer positions are more like jobs. in my opinion of course.

    There an issue we must deal with if this poll fails. But we have to wait for the outcome first.


    I voted yes on removing the 72 hour period for regulars, but im voting no for this one. Its not really a matter of fairness or equality as they are different positions with different roles. Difference is that the cool down period has been abused by regular(s) and has never been abused by an officer, and I do not expect anyone with officer status to be as immature to do so in the future either.

    Blockhead do you believe having a grace period is a privilege? When do you feel a Regular who resigned acted immature? I know I thought what you are thinking until I read the threads.

  • Create New...