Jump to content

Add Lord Yod as a Regular?  

52 members have voted

  1. 1. Add Lord Yod as a Regular?

    • Yes
      37
    • No
      15


Recommended Posts

 

And Macaco the reward you get for giving a better/faster brief in this case is that your team wins!  :smile:

While my initial vote was yes this has swayed me to an abstain for now. This comment is fundamentally at odds with our charter and what I want to see from other regulars. This is cutting corners for the purpose of winning and I can't condone such behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post

J.B. as I stated in the thread I did not mean to give the impression that I support/approve of 'go hear, shoot stuff' briefings. If you would like me to explain myself better I'd be happy to.

Share this post


Link to post

While you may not support or approve of it, you let it happen none the less.  This is obviously a bad choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Over the past month and a half, I have never seen Lord Yod act childish or support these type of plans.

As a matter of fact he told a CO that was briefing like this to change up their plans. This was  clearly a mistake of some sort. 

 

I kindly ask that you like past this as he hasn't fucked up like this in all the time I've seen him, and I am on the primary everyday for at least 4 hours. 

I have a lot of faith in Yods' abilities and you must trust that he won't do this again. 

Share this post


Link to post

While you may not support or approve of it, you let it happen none the less.  This is obviously a bad choice.

In fact I did not let it happen when I CO'd, and when I'm not CO there's not a whole lot I can do about it other than make suggestions.

 

In the particular mission being talked about in the other thread I was CO. I gave a brief with as many details as necessary to complete the objective. I detailed the situation, including terrain/friendly/enemy info, stated our mission objective, stated our scheme of maneuver both to the dismount marker and during the actual assault, and gave each element their tasking with regards to BOF element or assault element.

 

This is definitely not a 'go hear, shoot stuff' cutting-corners briefing that I have definitely seen from other CO's. I take tactical play seriously as much as possible when I play arma. I regret that some people seem to have gotten the impression that this is not the case, which is why I offered to explain myself in more detail. If you've spent time in the primary during the evenings over the last month the odds are good you will have heard me complain that TvT's often devolve into glorified call of duty-style deathmatches so I would hope that people would at least give me the chance to address their concerns rather than jumping to the conclusion that I am only interested in derpy corner-cutting non-tactical play.

 

I'm not interested in arma if it isn't going to be taken seriously, so I'm sorry if I gave the opposite impression.

Edited by Lord Yod

Share this post


Link to post

 

 
 

While my initial vote was yes this has swayed me to an abstain for now. This comment is fundamentally at odds with our charter and what I want to see from other regulars. This is cutting corners for the purpose of winning and I can't condone such behaviour.

 

I read that as a better and more efficient use of time during briefing. (There's a slash mark there for a reason.)

Share this post


Link to post

We need a serious regular on later evenings Pacific Time to reel in the derp. Please vote yes.

Share this post


Link to post

Since this seems to be a much more heated topic than I had expected when I first replied to the thread I thought I would explain myself a bit better. My intention was not to decrease the level of tactical play on the primary, nor was it to try and push for some radical change to the way that we handle briefings at UO. If you've played with me you've probably seen that I prefer coops to TvT's, and this is because I believe we have better leadership and tactical gameplay in our coops.

 

We have some coop missions that are designed for in-game briefings, and (because I enjoy them) what I was trying to think of with this was a way to adapt that concept to a TvT without creating a situation that encourages derping around and giving content-free briefings. I did not intend to give the impression that I think we should ignore briefings, ignore notes, and rush to kill the other team.

 

I take tactical play and organization very seriously, and if I have given the impression that I do not I am sorry for it. I accept that many people are opposed to the idea posted in this thread so I will drop it.

I'm not sure what else I can say to explain myself here. I did not intend to give the impression that I approve of 'win at all costs'/derpy/content-free briefings or gameplay, and I am sorry if that is what anyone here thinks of me.

 

For those of you who have voted no, is there any particular reason why? I hope I have persuaded you that I take UO's core beliefs from the charter very seriously. I have been attending UOTC courses and instructing FTP's in order to improve both my own gameplay and help improve the gameplay of others. When I take a leadership role in a mission I take organization and tasking very seriously, making sure that each member of my element knows what their place in the team is, who their immediate leader and battle buddy are, where their element is in the order of march, and so on. When I admin I try as much as possible to keep the server populated and playing missions that encourage gameplay of this type, while trying to head off any arguments (coop vs tvt, criticisms in AAR's, etc) at the same time.

 

If you still have concerns about whether I am regular material or not I would sincerely appreciate the opportunity to address them. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

He has very little interaction with policy discussions. Whist we haven't had much going on lately, unless he shows a desire to participate in the administration, it will be a nay from me. The member status provides everything for those solely interested in active server leadership.

Edited by Rein

Share this post


Link to post

He has very little interaction with policy discussions. Whist we haven't had much going on lately, unless he shows a desire to participate in the administration, it will be a nay from me. The member status provides everything for those solely interested in active server leadership.

I'm sure that Lord Yod would be active in these discussions but at present all a non Regular can do is post his/her opinions on what we are speaking of. He does care of the development of the community or he wouldn't have donated, someone who just comes around to play ArmA or whatever would not like to pay money they make to contribute to us. Lord Yod will be easy enough to vote out as he is to vote into this position, I suggest we give him a chance and allow him to participate with an actual voice. 

Share this post


Link to post

So, being a donating member is enough of an example of care for the development of the community?

And I couldn't disagree more with the vote out comment... Just consider how cumbersome (not to say utterly ineffective) the system is in order to get rid of any regular unless they are a complete fuck up.

With that said, considering that I haven't seen any involvement from him in any past or ongoing issues at all, I can't say I would support him to become a regular.

In my opinion, this is one of the most fundamental issues that contribute to a lot of the problems that we have: we take in people who are simply measured in a criteria that is DOES NOT entirely encompass the responsibilities and powers being granted. If one only has in-game involvement, his place is as a member, not a regular.

Edited by Rein

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sure that Lord Yod would be active in these discussions but at present all a non Regular can do is post his/her opinions on what we are speaking of. He does care of the development of the community or he wouldn't have donated, someone who just comes around to play ArmA or whatever would not like to pay money they make to contribute to us. Lord Yod will be easy enough to vote out as he is to vote into this position, I suggest we give him a chance and allow him to participate with an actual voice.

This is all a non-reg could do before also, but that didn't stop them from participating. After the whole "let's make briefing a game" deal, not sure if there's Regular material here just yet.

Edited by The BrentP

Share this post


Link to post

A++, Most soothing voice in all of Arma. Would fall asleep listening to. Can't vote, but if I could, I'd complain about not being able to give you two votes.

Edited by WarOfLiberty

Share this post


Link to post

He has very little interaction with policy discussions. Whist we haven't had much going on lately, unless he shows a desire to participate in the administration, it will be a nay from me. The member status provides everything for those solely interested in active server leadership.

I fully agree with this statement. You can't be just a good player to be a regular. Hell you don't even have to be really good at the game. You just have to follow orders, not be a retard, have active discussion on the forums, and care about the community. Lord Yod does not fulfill these requirements, therefore if I could vote it would be a no.

Share this post


Link to post

You just have to follow orders, not be a retard, have active discussion on the forums, and care about the community.

I'm not sure about your definitions on what qualifies for a "Regular" but Yod;

1. Follows orders and takes leadership positions for which he is well qualified.

2. Definitely is not a "retard", is in fact a mature player.

3. Don't know about forum participation, but I do know that he is heavily involved and interested in advancing in UOTC.

4. Know for a fact that he is passionate about improving tactical game play in the community and mentors many new players.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...