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

  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.

Unfortunately, those training sessions are the only times we get the opportunity to 'play' tactically. I'm kinda tired of playing on the primary, where most people don't even know how to call out contacts or repeat orders.

Share this post


Link to post

 From what I can gather, under this modification, players can report eachother for pulling whatever mistake or action that disagrees with his views

No.

 

Actions that disagree with the Tactical Guide, which will be created or endorsed by UOTC - a collection of people. Not just anyone.

Share this post


Link to post

What maybe some people fail to grasp is that this is a passive system, the goal of which is to improve play on the server. Players who are able to do the things that are in hellhound's guide (press ACE interact, form a wedge, not kill people with backblast, etc.), IE everyone who currently plays most likely,  will not be effected by this system. This will not require everyone to be amazing at ArmA or good with every weapon, it will only require you read a very short document that can be done in the time that you download your modpack with time to spare. If the UOTC chooses not to create an internal UO tactical guide, there already exists a guide that can be used as a stand-in.

 

What will this require out of the UOTC: they'll need to run famil and training courses as they already do, and they'll need maintain documents of who has taken said famil courses in order to hold players who continue to be problems even after training accountable for their actions, which they should already be doing. In other words, this will not give the UOTC more work.

 

If this requires no work from the UOTC beyond things they already do, than the argument of "this will be too much work for UOTC" is pretty much moot.

 

Voting yes.

Edited by azzwort

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

 

Again you are creating a problem that doesn't exist.  Currently if someone tells a squad leader to fuck off, that's an instant ban and nobody will disagree with such a ban. 

So you are developing what you think is a solution for what is already being dealt with.  The tactical guide is also just that....a guide.  Not the law. It is also subject to interpretation like any legal document.  Are we going to need to have UO lawyers represent the accused and a panel of judges to pass judgement?  Do we need to start creating court-martial trials? Hey you want to be uber-realistic so why not?   

You then say that classes would be mandatory but attendance would not be mandatory?  That makes little sense.  Plus even if they took classes, what if they forgot some of the information or just didn't agree with it?  I've corrected many "book-learned commanders" many times and even have disagreed with Zedic and Weapon X (both solid combat veterans) over tactics that may work in real life, but that do not work well in ArmA2.  Can I now be banned for this?  Or banned if I don't follow to the letter someone's tactical guidelines in UO?  That is ridiculous as you said yourself that it varies from situation to situation.   It also does not address the basic fact of WHO JUDGES VIOLATIONS OF "TACTICALNESS".

Share this post


Link to post

Again you are creating a problem that doesn't exist.  Currently if someone tells a squad leader to fuck off, that's an instant ban and nobody will disagree with such a ban. 

So you are developing what you think is a solution for what is already being dealt with.  The tactical guide is also just that....a guide.  Not the law. It is also subject to interpretation like any legal document.  Are we going to need to have UO lawyers represent the accused and a panel of judges to pass judgement?  Do we need to start creating court-martial trials? Hey you want to be uber-realistic so why not?   

You then say that classes would be mandatory but attendance would not be mandatory?  That makes little sense.  Plus even if they took classes, what if they forgot some of the information or just didn't agree with it?  I've corrected many "book-learned commanders" many times and even have disagreed with Zedic and Weapon X (both solid combat veterans) over tactics that may work in real life, but that do not work well in ArmA2.  Can I now be banned for this?  Or banned if I don't follow to the letter someone's tactical guidelines in UO?  That is ridiculous as you said yourself that it varies from situation to situation.   It also does not address the basic fact of WHO JUDGES VIOLATIONS OF "TACTICALNESS".

1. Yes, they will be banned for telling the SL to fuck off based on behavior, not because of failure to adapt to tactical environment.

2. The  guide WILL be law once this poll passes, it will define KSAs required to play on the server.

3. I did not say any class is mandatory - I said that if you were have a class, aquafresh for instance, and it was NOT mandatory knowledge, it would not be useful (the entire history of UO). What I said is, knowledge that could be contained within a course, can now be mandatory, but attending said course is not mandatory, only knowing it.

4. The judge is the administration, just as it is for any other violations at UO.

Share this post


Link to post

No.

 

Actions that disagree with the Tactical Guide, which will be created or endorsed by UOTC - a collection of people. Not just anyone.

You must be unfamiliar with the little tricks of every legal system and abuse of process as a concept. As long as my complaint holds any plausible relation with what's estipulated in the Tactical Guide, I can report someone for that fault even if it's blown out of proportion or did not happen (as, in my opinion, Regularship-Membership power relations can be easily abused when taking one's word for granted).

 

Again, the Tactical Guide is going to make reporting and warning of members easier by the group that benefits the most from the underlying gameplay that goes in that Tactical Guide - which, obviously, will benefit uber-tactical-oriented members more than 'gamey' players. What currently is a rather abstract and 'more relaxed' concept of 'tactical community' would turn into something specific and definite, which I can only see people who want their formations perfect as they walk towards the next MG nest benefiting from, and harming the more casual-yet-skilled players who are not that much into such level of tactical realism.

 

Besides which, breaking the Chain of Command and getting banned for breaking rules such as respecting others and whatnot look rather axiomatic when compared in my mind to breaking an aspect of the Tactical Guide.

Edited by AntonioHandsome

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately, those training sessions are the only times we get the opportunity to 'play' tactically. I'm kinda tired of playing on the primary, where most people don't even know how to call out contacts or repeat orders.

Recondo that is false.  Come and play on Tactical Tuesday for more hardcore tactical playing.  

Share this post


Link to post

The main point out of all of this is that the level of play on tuesday should be the norm, not the exception.

Honest question: do you think bureucracy (because this modification boils down to more bureucracy, not less) will fix this issue (which, again, people have various interpretations over)? I'm legit interested.

Edited by AntonioHandsome

Share this post


Link to post

Plus even if they took classes, what if they forgot some of the information or just didn't agree with it?  I've corrected many "book-learned commanders" many times and even have disagreed with Zedic and Weapon X (both solid combat veterans) over tactics that may work in real life, but that do not work well in ArmA2.  Can I now be banned for this?  Or banned if I don't follow to the letter someone's tactical guidelines in UO?

Tactical guidelines are just that: guidelines. We have many different TOEs that we use here, and indeed a lot of things can and should be done differently in-game. If you already have such conciousness about what you do and why, then you can easily motivate your action, and you have nothing to fear as long as you don't violate the Charter doing so.

 

As for forgetting information, it happens, but there's also an easy way to get around that: Read up on things again or take courses again (I've for example taken FTOPs, Toad's FT Drills, and GodHand's SL course twice). And there's also those cool things called post-its. I for example have one for the ACE hand signals over my screen, and I probably will put up ones for proper SITREPs, METT-TC, and OCOKA just to not forget some component of them when needed.

 

No one learns anything and remembers it forever by reading/doing it once. Not in its entirety. And it's not much to ask of people to read up on details they have forgotten.

Share this post


Link to post

Recondo that is false.  Come and play on Tactical Tuesday for more hardcore tactical playing.  

I was under the assumption that 1.4 of the UO charter applied to more than just 1 day of the week. Even still, there is no 'tactical tuesday' when I have time to play (usually late at night)

Edited by Recondo

Share this post


Link to post

1. Yes, they will be banned for telling the SL to fuck off based on behavior, not because of failure to adapt to tactical environment.

2. The  guide WILL be law once this poll passes, it will define KSAs required to play on the server.

3. I did not say any class is mandatory - I said that if you were have a class, aquafresh for instance, and it was NOT mandatory knowledge, it would not be useful (the entire history of UO). What I said is, knowledge that could be contained within a course, can now be mandatory, but attending said course is not mandatory, only knowing it.

4. The judge is the administration, just as it is for any other violations at UO.

Right...and now you are creating a whole TON of new potential violations subject to interpretation by a small group of people, some of whom barely even play on the server.   You are setting up a system to ban those who you wish out of UO.   Impulse explained things a bit more clearly but it still leaves the question of who judges the accused and who can accuse players wide open. Things have been settling down and getting much better lately....and now you do this.  (sigh)   We need to keep things simple and NOT turn UO into this crazy system of rules and regulations and being forced to abide by one person's tactical guide (which I'm sure you or Falcon will write) .    All you are doing is ruining a good thing we have going in order to morph the community into your vision of what it should be (which to me sounds more like 7th Cav).   I would have gone to 7th Cav if I wanted uber-realism in every detail of tactical conduct.   

 

   

Share this post


Link to post

The main point out of all of this is that the level of play on tuesday should be the norm, not the exception.

And the only reason it's not is due to leadership/organization and not a bunch of new rules and regulations.  

Share this post


Link to post

Right...and now you are creating a whole TON of new potential violations subject to interpretation by a small group of people, some of whom barely even play on the server.

This system could even mean that "members" file complaints about Regs. It's nothing to put power in anyone's hands, but rather to give everyone a standard by which to measure all who play on the server. Newcomer, oldtimer, Regular, or Officer.

 

The only "small group" that gets any power is UOTC because they get to decide what standard to follow. That's it.

Share this post


Link to post

Resorting to an ad hominem attack on krause is a poor way to argue your point miles.  I see a simple majority in this poll supports and believes the concept (not enough to pass it yet regrettably)

Share this post


Link to post

Honest question: do you think bureucracy (because this modification boils down to more bureucracy, not less) will fix this issue (which, again, people have various interpretations over)? I'm legit interested.

A poll will not fix an issue.

A SOP will not fix an issue.

 

Expectations built on said Polls and SOPs by way of their acceptance, or presence can help, regardless if they are passed or not as it becomes an active issue within the community. This can be a beneficial at times or negative depending on how it is drawn out.

 

Most if not all of the existing SOP/Charter is ignored until it is needed, but the bulk of the charter establishes what the community is built around and should be expected. It sets the message and focus of the community.

Adding "more" Bureaucracy to the community in many regards refocuses the community's direction or message. I do not view it as bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. I would argue that most of the charter is not actively used in the day to day operations, or even plays a major factor in how people interact with each other. I do not look for Charter violations, nor SOP violations daily, nor do I enjoy it. Could I, yes, but I have better things to do with my time.

 

I hope that gives some sort of answer to your question.

Share this post


Link to post

Tactical guidelines are just that: guidelines. We have many different TOEs that we use here, and indeed a lot of things can and should be done differently in-game. If you already have such conciousness about what you do and why, then you can easily motivate your action, and you have nothing to fear as long as you don't violate the Charter doing so.

 

As for forgetting information, it happens, but there's also an easy way to get around that: Read up on things again or take courses again (I've for example taken FTOPs, Toad's FT Drills, and GodHand's SL course twice). And there's also those cool things called post-its. I for example have one for the ACE hand signals over my screen, and I probably will put up ones for proper SITREPs, METT-TC, and OCOKA just to not forget some component of them when needed.

 

No one learns anything and remembers it forever by reading/doing it once. Not in its entirety. And it's not much to ask of people to read up on details they have forgotten.

Sorry dude....if it comes to the point where we have to learn all the ace hand signals or get banned,  then no.. That is bullshit.  Likewise trying to remember the correct format of a SITREP.  Sorry...I did that shit in real life and promptly forgot all that when I left.  You are turning this game into actual work where it no longer is fun for many.  When it's to the point where not even a basic rifleman can play without memorizing someone's tactical guidelines, you totally ruin the game for many people.  

Share this post


Link to post

Right...and now you are creating a whole TON of new potential violations subject to interpretation by a small group of people, some of whom barely even play on the server.   You are setting up a system to ban those who you wish out of UO.   Impulse explained things a bit more clearly but it still leaves the question of who judges the accused and who can accuse players wide open. Things have been settling down and getting much better lately....and now you do this.  (sigh)   We need to keep things simple and NOT turn UO into this crazy system of rules and regulations and being forced to abide by one person's tactical guide (which I'm sure you or Falcon will write) .    All you are doing is ruining a good thing we have going in order to morph the community into your vision of what it should be (which to me sounds more like 7th Cav).   I would have gone to 7th Cav if I wanted uber-realism in every detail of tactical conduct.   

 

   

Actually, I'd again behoove you to actually read the amendment. You'd see that an interim Tactical Guide is already created and I had nothing to do with it and that it will be used in lieu of an alternative. Any future developments would have to be approved  by UOTC. Further, the amendment does not grant I, or any individual special powers. The charter specifically has protections against that.

 

The wording of the amendment is such that those who cannot perform essential KSAs will be advised to police themselves, and if they refuse, will be banned until they meet criteria under the discretion of UOTC.

 

Again, your belief that "uber-realism" is a requirement of this amendment is not reflective of the wording, nor is it reflective of the currently proposed Tactical Guide, which instructs the barest of essentials in basic behavior.

 

You had well over 2 weeks to voice these objections in my discussion thread and over 6 months in thawk's discussion thread.

Edited by krause

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry dude....if it comes to the point where we have to learn all the ace hand signals or get banned,  then no.. That is bullshit.

Have you actually read Hellhound's Guide?

Share this post


Link to post

A poll will not fix an issue.

A SOP will not fix an issue.

 

Expectations built on said Polls and SOPs by way of their acceptance, or presence can help, regardless if they are passed or not as it becomes an active issue within the community. This can be a beneficial at times or negative depending on how it is drawn out.

 

Most if not all of the existing SOP/Charter is ignored until it is needed, but the bulk of the charter establishes what the community is built around and should be expected.

Adding "more" Bureaucracy to the community in many regards refocuses the community's direction or message. I do not view it as bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. I would argue that most of the charter is not actively used in the day to day operations, or even plays a major factor in how people interact with each other. I do not look for Charter violations, nor SOP violations daily, nor do I enjoy it. Could I, yes, but I have better things to do with my time.

 

I hope that gives some sort of answer to your question.

The problem Impulse is that I know that you are a fairly neutral and fair guy and that you don't go out of your way to penalize people for tiny infractions unless they become a problem.  However with this new addition to the charter, you are giving power to almost any regular to do exactly what you don't do and to ban players and regulars for the smallest infractions.  This is going to create a MASSIVE amount of work for you and Marvin (and other officers) that will only result in tremendous drama and further and more bitter divisions in the community (and most likely many old regulars leaving it or just not playing on the primary).  

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry dude....if it comes to the point where we have to learn all the ace hand signals or get banned,  then no.. That is bullshit.  Likewise trying to remember the correct format of a SITREP.  Sorry...I did that shit in real life and promptly forgot all that when I left.  You are turning this game into actual work where it no longer is fun for many.  When it's to the point where not even a basic rifleman can play without memorizing someone's tactical guidelines, you totally ruin the game for many people.

I never said those specific things need to be remembered, nor that they will be. I'm giving them as examples of things that I know I'm bad at, and I help myself in those cases by post-its. If a person feels that part of for example Hellhound's guide (to take the suggested base guide in the OP) is hard to remember it is advisable to take some course of action that suits oneself to help remember that, so that one can get around the issue of forgetting said thing.

 

The system isn't intended to require everyone to be able to recite METT-TC or how to read the sights on a RPG-7 or how to measure distances with MIL-dots. It's very basic things. What are the basic formations? What is action on man down? How do I call out a contact? How do I do bounding overwatch? Stuff like that. Essentially the guide will make what is taught in Famil and FTOps expected knowledge.

Edited by Inkompetent

Share this post


Link to post

Have you actually read Hellhound's Guide?

It's not a material issue (i.e. what does the guide say), but rather a formal issue (i.e. how is the guide and its interpretation, enforcing and policing going to affect gameplay).

 

I don't mean to speak on behalf of Miles, but I think his point is that this opens up new ways to abuse the system to impose their views on gameplay, is all.

Share this post


Link to post

And the only reason it's not is due to leadership/organization and not a bunch of new rules and regulations.

Having a baseline level of competency/expectation would do little harm to help this.

This is not about having new "rules/regulations". It is about being able to group with anyone at any time and have them all understanding the same concepts, regardless of whom else is on the server at whatever time.

 

I sure as hell do not want to do "work" when I am on the server, nor do I want to relive my former profession when in service. But I do expect basic concept to be able to be communicated and understood. If someone is trying, and putting effort forward, regardless of their skill level I am happy. I do not need spergwarriors telling me doctrine based intricacies to make the game enjoyable, and that frankly gets in the way of people being efficient in this application/game/sim/whatnot.

 

edit -

I fail to see how this is more work, as we already process bans on these grounds at present. They are typically cited as "intentional disruption" and or "failure to adapt".

Intentional Disruption bans are for players whom choose to ignore the existing SOP/Rules that we have, with little regard for the community or playerbase.

Failure to Adapt bans, are at present only processed when someone is exceeding the 3 month period for bans.

 

If anything it can be argued by redirecting the users to UOTC in some regard is an attempt to help them if they have any serious interest in participating in the community.

How it will work out remains to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post

It's not a material issue (i.e. what does the guide say), but rather a formal issue (i.e. how is the guide and its interpretation, enforcing and policing going to affect gameplay).

 

I don't mean to speak on behalf of Miles, but I think his point is that this opens up new ways to abuse the system to impose their views on gameplay, is all.

And as in all other administration of the server abusing the new system is not right either. If a person consistently cracks down on people for small things trying to "purge" the server of people not knowing their stuff perfectly, then that in itself is an offense and must be confronted.

Share this post


Link to post

And as in all other administration of the server abusing the new system is not right either. If a person consistently cracks down on people for small things trying to "purge" the server of people not knowing their stuff perfectly, then that in itself is an offense and must be confronted.

Agreed, but since it's hard to argue and make a case that a SL is intentionally trying to purge the server of people not knowing their stuff t by being perfectionist and super tactical-oriented, I have personally decided not to join squads led by people I know are like that (and there are plenty), or I rather not play repetetitive, purely tactical-oriented COOP's (mostly because I value my continued stay in the server and don't want to create any drama by trying to argue with my SL over what is and what isn't efficient ingame), instead of actively reporting such people (because, again, it's hard to make a case for it).

 

In my mind, this modification will make it easier, not harder, for such SL's to push a penalty forward for a member that is not following his/her petty directives/views when it comes to 'realistic' gameplay, is all - on top of more bureucracy as a result of UOTC Instructors having to run more courses due to people failing to be competent.

Edited by AntonioHandsome

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...