Jump to content

Addition of 4.10 to the charter: Barrier of Entry  

90 members have voted

  1. 1. Addition of 4.10 to the charter: Barrier of Entry

    • Yes
      65
    • No
      25


Recommended Posts

n2, that is completely off topic and a poor attempt at humor.

I suggest you read the forum SOPs so you are not left wondering why your post is hopefully moderated.

 

What I meant to say was that there has been ample time and discussion on this concept, but more often than not a new idea or addition is pitched during the actual poll. It is impossible to foresee this and therefore the proposition isn't incomplete per say.

Edited by J.B.

Share this post


Link to post

I said it isn't included in the current poll as it should have been if this is/was the idea.

The current proposal doesn't actually state exactly HOW people will confirm they understand the KSAs though, just that they should "manually affirm" it. They could manually affirm it via a quick questionnaire :)

Share this post


Link to post

The current proposal doesn't actually state exactly HOW people will confirm they understand the KSAs though, just that they should "manually affirm" it. They could manually affirm it via a quick questionnaire :smile:

Someone did say about the cheat sheet problem, but it's better than nothing, yeah, and if they'd take the time to find the cheat sheet, well...I'm sure they'd just look through the KSAs...

Share this post


Link to post

If someone makes a cheat sheet for 40 questions of which only 5 can come up they're welcome to it.

 

Personally I doubt anyone will make such an effort, as it'd be easier to just read the guide. Highly doubt anyone will be so bothered to "cheat" the system when we already give them the answers.

Share this post


Link to post

If someone makes a cheat sheet for 40 questions of which only 5 can come up they're welcome to it.

 

Personally I doubt anyone will make such an effort, as it'd be easier to just read the guide. Highly doubt anyone will be so bothered to "cheat" the system when we already give them the answers.

As I said. :) Got my support.

Share this post


Link to post

A questionnaire or other specific qualifying affirmation can be implemented once this poll passes. The poll does not stipulate how they must affirm, only that they must. It allows the simplest possible mechanism, or something more complex. Specific requirements such as that are not integral to the implementation of this poll. This is also not a discussion thread, discussion has concluded. It is now time to vote. Again, you need to READ what is being voted in, stop reading eachother's posts and read the first post. If what you have in mind is IMPOSSIBLE given the passing of the first post, then there is a problem. If it is possible, then there is no problem. The charter is not an implementation document, its a GUIDING document that defines basic laws, intent and restrictions. SOPs are matters of implementation, and have their dependency on the charter.

 

The charter is intentionally written in this way to allow offices the operational latitude to accomplish their work. It's like this everywhere in the charter. (hint for new regulars: i wrote the charter).

 

It really is a shame that I have to explain the basic theory of UO for such an important poll.

Edited by krause

Share this post


Link to post

I support this fully, even though it is not my ideal solution.

 

I agree with the premise that play on the server is often disappointing.

 

It is step towards improving play on the server, which may or may not be succesful. We have no way of knowing until we try.

 

If it does not work, it does not work. We are left in no worse position than we are already and its not like we can't repeal it if it is an unmitigated disaster. We can also find tune things afterwards, after we have an idea of what is an isn't working.

 

We are never going to come up with a proposal that is both conceptual flawless and to the liking of everyone's idosyncracies. I wish people took this on board before voting on polls.

Edited by IAJT

Share this post


Link to post

After reading the initial post, I have to say that this is the most insane thing I've seen being polled in UO.   For one thing its extremely vague and subject to tremendous abuse to oust players that certain klicks of regulars don't like.  Secondly I joined TG and then UO in order to have fun doing some basic tactical gaming.   I didn't join to try and relive every aspect of my past military experience (because much of it was tedious and boring in real life).  If people are into the uber-tactical stuff, then more power to them.  But when the game becomes a chore where you have to constantly do classes and pass tests, then it no longer is fun and is not what TG was originally intended to be.  So definitely one giant NO vote.  

Share this post


Link to post

Big yes.

 

Yes, the system is without an actual qualification process quite vague, since it will revolve around removing unsuitables from the server as they are discovered. It is a very subjective method of qualification, but it does work. People are not required to be military gurus or anything. They are just liable to know the basics of how to function as a soldier, and how to perform the most basic drills so that a squad actually can be operated with some kind of expectation and reliance on individual skill and understanding of one's role.

 

 

As per now, and possibly ever, there are no "tests" for this other than when one's gone too far as to be prevented from server play. It's as simple as if you fuck up on stuff that you should know how to do, you'll be told to learn it before you play again. If you fuck up repeatedly you may be prevented from playing on the server for a while. This is not anything draconic, and it is not anything full of tests and extremes. It's just to ask of people to give a shit.

Edited by Inkompetent

Share this post


Link to post

After reading the initial post, I have to say that this is the most insane thing I've seen being polled in UO.   For one thing its extremely vague and subject to tremendous abuse to oust players that certain klicks of regulars don't like.  Secondly I joined TG and then UO in order to have fun doing some basic tactical gaming.   I didn't join to try and relive every aspect of my past military experience (because much of it was tedious and boring in real life).  If people are into the uber-tactical stuff, then more power to them.  But when the game becomes a chore where you have to constantly do classes and pass tests, then it no longer is fun and is not what TG was originally intended to be.  So definitely one giant NO vote.  

Agreed.. Just thinking of how much scapegoating and shifting of blame occurs right now, I think anything that gives those kind of players further arguments/means to nitpick and backseat moderate/lead people whose gameplay doesn't adjust to their vision of what it should mean to play at UO is wrong in my head and completely dettaches the original experience (playing the game) from the proposed one (court-martial simulator).

 

I don't think creating some sort of institutionalized 'everyone self-policies the server' is going to fix the problem with gameplay (which, mind you, I think people hold a plethora of different interpretations over the concept of 'poor gameplay'. Some will argue that people are not 'tactical' enough, while others might simply sigh and eyeroll at the sight of someone being just plain awful at playing TVT's, no matter how tactical said player is). Neither super-long UOTC courses will, in my opinion. In my mind, only a mix of basic, straight-forward courses and some sort of 'privatization' of UO (by making whitelist/registration mandatory with a trial time) is going to fix the problem, but that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post

After reading the initial post, I have to say that this is the most insane thing I've seen being polled in UO.   For one thing its extremely vague and subject to tremendous abuse to oust players that certain klicks of regulars don't like.  Secondly I joined TG and then UO in order to have fun doing some basic tactical gaming.   I didn't join to try and relive every aspect of my past military experience (because much of it was tedious and boring in real life).  If people are into the uber-tactical stuff, then more power to them.  But when the game becomes a chore where you have to constantly do classes and pass tests, then it no longer is fun and is not what TG was originally intended to be.  So definitely one giant NO vote.  

Another poster who has not read the proposed textual changes to the charter.

 

Where does it say that "every aspect" of ... "military experience" would be required of you? Where does it say that "uber-tactical stuff" would be required of players? Where does it say you must "do classes" and "pass tests"?

 

Answer: it does not.

 

What it does say is "Players on the ARMA series servers must affirm that they possess certain tactical knowledge, skills and abilities essential to the soldier." Are essential soldiering skills unreasonable to know? Is it unreasonable to know how to form into a file or wedge? Or not shoot an m203 at friendlies or crowd around a casualty?

 

What it does say is that you can posses the requirement by 3 means: UOTC training, self-study or previous knowledge. Nowhere does it require attendance to any class or test.

 

UO was not founded to be an "Everything goes" community, it was founded to be a tactical play community. The evidence of this is in the premable of the charter. End of story.

Edited by krause

Share this post


Link to post

Big yes.

 

Yes, the system is without an actual qualification process quite vague, since it will revolve around removing unsuitables from the server as they are discovered. It is a very subjective method of qualification, but it does work. People are not required to be military gurus or anything. They are just liable to know the basics of how to function as a soldier, and how to perform the most basic drills so that a squad actually can be operated with some kind of expectation and reliance on individual skill and understanding of one's role.

 

 

As per now, and possibly ever, there are no "tests" for this other than when one's gone too far as to be prevented from server play. It's as simple as if you fuck up on stuff that you should know how to do, you'll be told to learn it before you play again. If you fuck up repeatedly you may be prevented from playing on the server for a while. This is not anything draconic, and it is not anything full of tests and extremes. It's just to ask of people to give a shit.

 

 

And who judges whether someone is competent or not at a certain job?  I love leading fireteams for example.  If I tell my guys to peel right and they don't all do it properly, I'm supposed to ban them or put them on a warning list for banning next time they screw up?   That's ridiculous.   Likewise if I need to maneuver my fireateam and don't have time to consult with the squad leader (such as during an enemy artillery strike), can I be banned by the squad leader because he accuses me of being incompetent by leaving the formation even if I saved my team?    The level of flame wars and drama will explode if we go down this route and will almost certainly cause the community to split.  

If a split occurs, then the faction ho gets the short end of the stick depends on who those who actually RUN the UO servers sides with.   In the worse case scenario, those individuals may decide to pull the plug entirely until people quit these idiotic petty powerplays on what is JUST A GAME.  If people want to make things like 7th Cav, then go join them or START A NEW SERVER for all you guys who want uber-tactical play.   UO was never originally meant to become like how Krause wants to see things. 

Share this post


Link to post

Agreed.. Just thinking of how much scapegoating and shifting of blame occurs right now, I think anything that gives those kind of players further arguments/means to nitpick and backseat moderate/lead people whose gameplay doesn't adjust to their vision of what it should mean to play at UO is wrong in my head and completely dettaches the original experience (playing the game) from the proposed one (court-martial simulator).

Ok - where does it say that individual's "vision" would be acceptable criterion of policing the server in the charter amendment? It says that the criteria will be defined by a Tactical Guide. Thus, if the criteria is not in the Tactical Guide, they do not exist.

Edited by krause

Share this post


Link to post

And who judges whether someone is competent or not at a certain job?  I love leading fireteams for example.  If I tell my guys to peel right and they don't all do it properly, I'm supposed to ban them or put them on a warning list for banning next time they screw up?   That's ridiculous.   Likewise if I need to maneuver my fireateam and don't have time to consult with the squad leader (such as during an enemy artillery strike), can I be banned by the squad leader because he accuses me of being incompetent by leaving the formation even if I saved my team?    The level of flame wars and drama will explode if we go down this route and will almost certainly cause the community to split. 

 

 

 

 

Actually, as with any justice action, the reason for him being kicked/warned will have to documented. Always ,as I explained - and as is our policy at UO, all enforcement is at the discretion of the administration. Borderline cases are never prosecuted - and clear failures result in administrative action.

 

Edited by krause

Share this post


Link to post

Ok - where does it say that individual's "vision" would be acceptable criterion of policing the server in the charter amendment? It says that the criteria will be defined by a Tactical Guide. Thus, if the criteria is not in the Tactical Guide, they do not exist.

You do realize those Tactical Guides do not exist previous to individual human interaction, i.e. they don't just come out of the blue? We'll have to abide by the level of realism and discipline that whoever creates the Tactical Guide requires, which might result in a greater degree of restriction upon individual initiative when playing, out of fear of getting banned for doing something wrong/retroactively against your leader's wishes.

 

As Miles says, the amount of pointing fingers and backseat admin that this might cause could be quite bad. Leaders holding grudge over members and/or not in the mood for taking responsability for their actions could shift the blame upon their subordinates, as far as I can understand, under the excuse of not upholding to following the Chain of Command or some petty loosely legal precept. Justice-questions aside, the amount of bureucracy this might create could be just crazy and overly unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post

Another poster who has not read the proposed textual changes to the charter.

 

Where does it say that "every aspect" of ... "military experience" would be required of you? Where does it say that "uber-tactical stuff" would be required of players? Where does it say you must "do classes" and "pass tests"?

 

Answer: it does not.

 

What it does say is "Players on the ARMA series servers must affirm that they possess certain tactical knowledge, skills and abilities essential to the soldier." Are essential soldiering skills unreasonable to know? Is it unreasonable to know how to form into a file or wedge? Or not shoot an m203 at friendlies or crowd around a casualty?

 

What it does say is that you can posses the requirement by 3 means: UOTC training, self-study or previous knowledge. Nowhere does it require attendance to any class or test.

 

UO was not founded to be an "Everything goes" community, it was founded to be a tactical play community. The evidence of this is in the premable of the charter. End of story.

 

Read your quote Krause, Who and how does one judge who has or does NOT have these basic soldier skills?  How do you do this without UOTC testing with a Go/No Go evaluation?  Otherwise its completely arbitrary.   I know you would ban me in a heart beat the first time I got out of formation or made the slightest mistake. Likewise if I saw you do something that I believed was fundamentally flawed tactically I could have you banned as well and I could base it on actual military experience.  Who is to say who is wrong and who is right?  It would turn into this crazy clash of UO klicks which is just plain stupid.    

Also you are making a straw man argument by stating something I did not say..  I NEVER said that UO was anything goes.  UO is meant to be a tactical game-play community but also it is meant for players to have fun as well and develop a sense of comradeship.   Currently when people herp-derp too much they get kicked or banned.  We have a system and it's been working just fine lately.    So while yes it would be nice to get more people to do the UOTC courses, forcing them to do so is not the way to do it.  It will just divide the community.  The best way is to lead by example the new players and to coach less skilled regulars when they are screwing up.  Also a global poke for UOTC classes would probably increase the numbers who went to the class.  Aquafresh has been doing a good job going around getting more people to attend his class for example.   That's the way to do it.  So lets please end this pointless drama as if this passes it will only end very badly for the community.  

Share this post


Link to post

You do realize those Tactical Guides do not exist previous to individual human interaction, i.e. they don't just come out of the blue? We'll have to abide by the level of realism and discipline that whoever creates the Tactical Guide requires, which might result in a greater degree of restriction upon individual initiative when playing, out of fear of getting banned for doing something wrong/retroactively against your leader's wishes.

 

As Miles says, the amount of pointing fingers and backseat admin that this might cause could be quite bad. Leaders holding grudge over members and/or not in the mood for taking responsability for their actions could shift the blame upon their subordinates, as far as I can understand, under the excuse of not upholding to following the Chain of Command or some petty loosely legal precept. Justice-questions aside, the amount of bureucracy this might create could be just crazy and overly unnecessary.

"Backseat admin" is not something that actually exists at UO. The currently logged in officer, GM, regular or member (in that order) has authority over the server, and enforcement is at their discretion.

 

People said the same thing when the GM system was being created. The UO police state didn't happen then, and it's not going to happen now. It will just add the most basic level of accountability to players' ability, knowledge and skill.

Share this post


Link to post

Krrause, as for your last reply regarding who judges, again it is arbitrary in that if one klick is running the leadership spots, it's their words against the accused.  Either way it ends up being one group vs another group. 

Share this post


Link to post

I should also mention that even some of our BEST CO's have made horrific tactical mistakes on missions where we all died horribly.  Should they be banned for that until they retake some courses or appease certain officers?   

Share this post


Link to post

Read your quote Krause, Who and how does one judge who has or does NOT have these basic soldier skills?  How do you do this without UOTC testing with a Go/No Go evaluation?  Otherwise its completely arbitrary.   I know you would ban me in a heart beat the first time I got out of formation or made the slightest mistake. Likewise if I saw you do something that I believed was fundamentally flawed tactically I could have you banned as well and I could base it on actual military experience.  Who is to say who is wrong and who is right?  It would turn into this crazy clash of UO klicks which is just plain stupid.    

Also you are making a straw man argument by stating something I did not say..  I NEVER said that UO was anything goes.  UO is meant to be a tactical game-play community but also it is meant for players to have fun as well and develop a sense of comradeship.   Currently when people herp-derp too much they get kicked or banned.  We have a system and it's been working just fine lately.    So while yes it would be nice to get more people to do the UOTC courses, forcing them to do so is not the way to do it.  It will just divide the community.  The best way is to lead by example the new players and to coach less skilled regulars when they are screwing up.  Also a global poke for UOTC classes would probably increase the numbers who went to the class.  Aquafresh has been doing a good job going around getting more people to attend his class for example.   That's the way to do it.  So lets please end this pointless drama as if this passes it will only end very badly for the community.  

 

Well, if you read the poll  you would actually know. The tactical guide is the judging document. The tactical guide is either furnished (that is: CREATED) or endorsed (that is: VALIDATED) by UOTC. Opinions of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable is irrelevant: if the requirement does not exist in the guide, it cannot be acted upon. IF the tactical guide says you should be able to form into a file and keep tactical spacing, and you are told to keep said spacing and tell your squad leader to fuck off, that would be an example of a violation. In other words, there is currently nothing in UO that requires such orders be fulfilled other than following a chain of command, the accountability is on the leadership, not the players. And the accountability and standard is currently arbitrary and varies from situation to situation. The idea is to raise the overall knowledge of those playing in the same way ShacktTac's mandatory reading of the TTP does.

 

Attendance to a class, even increased attendance, is irrelevant if what is learned in said theoretical class is not mandatory. This amendment makes such things mandatory, but does not make attendance mandatory. The way in which the member knows is not stipulated, only that they know.

Share this post


Link to post

I should also mention that even some of our BEST CO's have made horrific tactical mistakes on missions where we all died horribly.  Should they be banned for that until they retake some courses or appease certain officers?   

Actually, if you refer to the text of the amendment you will see that "essential" soldiering skills are required, not commanding skills.

Share this post


Link to post

"Backseat admin" is not something that actually exists at UO. The currently logged in officer, GM, regular or member (in that order) has authority over the server, and enforcement is at their discretion.

 

People said the same thing when the GM system was being created. The UO police state didn't happen then, and it's not going to happen now. It will just add the most basic level of accountability to players' ability, knowledge and skill.

My experience disagrees, I've seen plenty of people trying to pull backseat moderating/admin, but that isn't what I meant by backseat admin. Neither this Charter modification can, in my opinion, be compared to the GM system. From what I can gather, under this modification, players can report eachother for pulling whatever mistake or action that disagrees with his views, and thus be processed for a ban if enough warnings are compiled. How easy to abuse this system might be given the current Regularship-Membership power relationship is pretty obvious, to me at least.

 

As I said, besides all of that, it creates a greater workload/burden upon whoever gets to finally process everything this-mess-related, be it UOTC instructors, GM's or Regularship. You also fail to address the fact that, no matter how objective you're trying to be, this eventually will boil down to Tactical Guide creators imposing their views upon everyone else, which isn't objective at all, no matter how much due process is present in every violation review.

Edited by AntonioHandsome

Share this post


Link to post

I feel there is alot of confusion about this poll and it's intent so I guess I should give my impression/view on this in some regard for how I would be processing this as it applies to the offices that I am currently in.

 

4.10 - Players on the ARMA series servers must affirm that they possess certain tactical knowledge, skills and abilities essential to the soldier as furnished or endorsed by the United Operations Training Center in a Tactical Guide before being granted access to server connection details. Players must perform on the servers in accordance to the aforementioned. Those unable to perform will be removed from the server, advised to revisit the Tactical Guide, reaffirm their knowledge, skills and abilities and are permitted back on the server. Repeat offenders will be banned until they meet qualification criteria under the discretion of the United Operations Training Center.

What this means to players

1 - You must have a general understanding of teamwork and tactical play. If you are unsure, read one of the sponsored guides.

2 - You must be able to perform in game in a reasonable manner with the concepts presented in one of the aforementioned guides.

3 - If you are unable to perform and understand the basics of gameplay and some terminology as presented in the guides, we ask you to read them again.

4 - If you still continue to fail to understand these topics we redirect you to the guides again, and ask that UOTC determines the best course for review (course/guide/interview/something else up to their decision).

 

What this means to UOTC

1 - They are expected to present a list of acceptable training materials that would establish what we expect from players, be it ShackTac's TTP2, or Hellhound's Guide... or anything else up to their whim, they can even create this themselves.

2 - They are expected to determine if a player that is unable to grasp these concepts in a detrimental manner, needs further assistance, be it in any manner they see fit before that player may return to the server.

 

Personal Note

I think there has been a large amount of confusion in this poll and things said that are largely inaccurate. We want the players to succeed in gameplay, and bring that level of gameplay up. I do not think that many people would be opposed to that. That being considered, we are simply putting forward an "expectation" of understanding/ability with this poll. Nothing more nothing less.

 

 

2. Orders to Offices

 

In addition to the charter amendment this poll issues several standing orders:

If UOTC is unable to furnish a tactical guide by the completion date, Hellhound's Guide will be used as a substitute until UOTC can furnish it's own materials

If the Basic Soldering Course is not prepared by the completion date, UOTC must be prepared to qualify banned individuals in an alternative fashion of their own discretion.

The web server officers must modify the welcome guide and server rules page to require all players to manually affirm that they possess the KSAs as defined in the tactical guide, including a link to said guide.

GM SOPs and best practices must reflect the new KSA requirement by the completion of this poll

On the second half we have the expectations to the community/officers.

1 - UOTC is requested to cite an example of what expectations by way of guide/materials that players should be understanding. Be it existing, or to be created at a later time.

2 - UOTC is requested to determine the placement of players whom have repeatedly and detrimentally failed to be able to perform with reasonable results according to concepts presented in said guide/materials.

3 - Web Server Officers are expected to ensure that server passwords are not provided, until the players have "read/understood" the basic Server SOP's and expectations.

4 - GM SOPs declare an expectation of minimal competency to aspects of the guide. Assist where able, and review as needed with the players. If they are disruptive in their inability, refer them to UOTC as appropriate.

 

This poll should affect none of the members nor regulars we have, that came to this community for the intent of a tactical gaming experience. We are not asking for players to know full details about the how or why things are done in xyz military, nor have any intention of that level of expectation. We just ask that players understand the core concepts and some of the terms that we will use, and act accordingly when they hear these requests in game.

 

If you can space out/watch areas, move when called. Understand basic concepts of how to move, and react to contact in a safe manner for your team or fellow players. You will have very little chance of this poll affecting you in any way.

 

This is not to punish the players, but to deliver a more clear expectation of what we expect in gameplay in the community. If this entire process is something that individually you can not cope with or feel that it is targeting you, I am sorry. The primary intent is to help the community and bring everyone up to an slightly higher level of play.

 

If we can not deliver on this minimal level of expectation to the community we have very little reason to continue to exist.

Share this post


Link to post

My experience disagrees, I've seen plenty of people trying to pull backseat moderating/admin, but that isn't what I meant by backseat admin. Neither this Charter modification can, in my opinion, be compared to the GM system. From what I can gather, under this modification, players can report eachother for pulling whatever mistake or action that disagrees with his views, and thus be processed for a ban if enough warnings are compiled. How easy to abuse this system might be given the current Regularship-Membership power relationship is pretty obvious, to me at least.

 

As I said, besides all of that, it creates a greater workload/burden upon whoever gets to finally process everything this-mess-related, be it UOTC instructors, GM's or Regularship.

You can be reported right now for any offense you make - it's still at the discretion of the administration to go forward, and AGAIN, borderline cases rarely result in action. Only blatant violations are pressed.

 

Any additional work is miniscule and worthwhile. The burden is on you, the dissenter, to demonstrate otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...