Jump to content
Impulse 9

GodHand for UOTC

Godhand for UOTC Officer  

34 members have voted

  1. 1. Godhand for UOTC Officer.

    • Yes
    • No

Recommended Posts



As many of you know there has recently been a lack of leadership in UOTC. Within UOTC we have been discussing what needs to be done in the department, and concluded that we needed an officer to implement most of it.

In the discussion Several instructors volunteered for the slot of UOTC officer, and this has resulted in JB and myself agreeing that we would be able to run UOTC jointly, we are also both friends and we are also friends with Thawk so we know there will be little to no communication issues.

For those that do not know me i joined the Community in early 2011, i have been a member of the danish armed forces since 2007 and did a Tour in Afghanistan as part of a mechinf company in 2009. When i joined the community it was obviously a slightly different place with UOTC being run by Zedic and Jake Peril. I was relatively quickly voted in as a regular and started working on earning my instructors tag. Once i earned this i stated doing a lot of courses, learning my way around teaching in a virtual environment, which is much harder than doing it face to face.


At this point both Jake and Zedic started spending less time with UOTC for various reasons. And i put myself up for UOTC officer with their approval. I ran UOTC for a long time until i got a new slot in the Danish artillery regiment and resigned due to much of my time being tied up there.

At present i feel that i will be able to help run the department again because of a injury i sustained on work last year putting me on medical leave. So until i am fit to work again i will have a lot of free time on my hands to help administrate UOTC as well as teach courses when my family relations allow for that.

Now for Policy, I'm sure many of you wanna know what i intend to achieve.

JB and i have been talking about a set of goals for the near future that will hopefully get more people teaching.

We will revise the UOTC Cadre, meaning that we will update the rooster based on the instructors wishes, we will also be talking to the individual instructors to identify their strong and weak points and try to utilize these. And finally we will asses the potential to add more instructors, as well as asses if there is a need to get rid of any instructors.

We will start working towards identifying the teaching limitations and opportunities in Arma 3, This will mean that we will start teaching some basic courses that might not be perfect, but will be part of the process of identifying any limitations to the game. In order to as quickly as possible get training started again. A lot of the initial lesson plans will be based in some of the older lesson plans in order to minimize the time spent identifying lessons.

Finally in the longer term we will be working on making teaching more fun for the instructors to avoid burnouts, This will involve giving the instructors more freedom to structure their courses. This will be freedom under responsibility for the instructors.

The focus of most courses will be attaining practical skills, in order to get more skilled players on the server.

All this will of course not happen overnight, but we will be working on it and because we both believe in practical solutions we will get things happening relatively quickly, and i will personally go by the mantra that its better to have a 70% solution now than a 100% solution too late. This also means that a lot of the stuff you will see from us might not be perfect when it gets finished but know that we will keep working on it until we get exactly what is needed.

This poll requires a simple majority lasting 2 weeks.

Share this post

Link to post

Which one of you is the cute little girl in the pink skirt?


Voting yes!

Share this post

Link to post

I've gone on record several times on my feelings in regards to the UOTC, and I've run the office in a temporary capacity in the past. Here's my feelings:


You've got a good amount of coursework made and prepped, the FTPs are all high quality training and are already written and ready to go. They should be run on a regular basis if any effect is expected to be had on the primary server. You have a good cadre of trainers...or at least you did a few months ago when I was running the group. If you do not plan to use the FTPs, do you have courses planned that will replace them? What are they? Do you have something we can see? A UOTC officer proposing change means pretty much nothing to me at this point, even coming from you.



Finally in the longer term we will be working on making teaching more fun for the instructors to avoid burnouts, This will involve giving the instructors more freedom to structure their courses. This will be freedom under responsibility for the instructors.


This bothers the hell out of me. Courses need to be consistent because without consistency there is literally nothing that will be achieved.


Do you plan on making the courses visible on the forums, working with...say, my office, to get front page posts like the ones that were done several months ago? No matter your feelings on this there is literally no practical reason to not to do that.


Do you have some kind time table or at least some idea when this plan will be implemented?


Lastly, do you plan to run your courses at regular times on a regular basis? More than any other thing. The UOTC course system needs to be structured so that anyone can go up to any member of the community and inquire about when a course is, and they will be able to give a reasonably accurate answer.


I say this every time a poll for the UOTC office goes up. But your courses need to be regular and consistent. If things are not regular and consistent I have no need for you.


A note: I have said nothing about what content I feel you should and shouldn't teach, any disagreements we've had in regards to that are not what I am inquiring about here. It's your office if you get voted in, and you should teach how you want it. I am only inquiring about your intent to be consistent with what you teach.


Thank you for your time.

Edited by azzwort

Share this post

Link to post

First: This is not in defense of Godhand. He is more than capable of defending himself.

Clarification onFTPs:
the FTPs are not courses they are practice sessions. They were created from UOTC courses and were intended to teach basic communication only (on direct speak - NO radios). The idea was to present sessions where players could practice repeatedly until basic communication became automatic. That way UO would have a common language.

The FTPs can not create competent players but they will create great participants who are ready to learn from basic courses such as FTOps, FTL and SL.
The FTPs do not teach basic soldier skills or the use of ARMA keys, but we proved that almost all players can easily learn keybindings and individual soldier skills by reviewing references and watching videos. Example: we don't need to teach players about formations during the training session, they all were more than capable of learning that information before the session started.

My experience has been that it is pointless to schedule regular courses if there are too few participants.

The FTPs will not work in isolation, they are the foundation for direct communication only. We need courses like Fireteam Operations, Fireteam Leaders and Squad leaders to prepare players for the primary.

EDIT: By the way Godhand adopted and announced* our standard for basic infantry. All of his courses adhere to it. As do the FTPs. HANDBOOK

*This was no small feat. For years many had argued and debated about a standard. Godhand made it happen.

Edited by Jimbo

Share this post

Link to post

Well thank you for your questions azzwort. But i am sorry to say that you are getting ahead of yourself on a lot of counts.


As i said our second order of business is finding out what will work in arma 3 and what will not. Before we start making finished lessonplans. Second due to the way arma 3 keeps updating and the way that there is continues mod work you will not be able to get complete standardization because in 3-4 months we might have to change something because of a new game changing mod. And the last ting i want is game play stagnating because we stop implementing new mods. An example could be if someone made a little add-on for a map tool. If such a thing was made and implemented we would have to change our Nav course and would loose consistency.


I would also like a more detailed explanation of what you consider consistency in a course? Is is the topics in the courses are the same? The order of teaching is the same? the TTP's in the courses are the same?
Before you answer that i would say that if you want instructors to teach a lot then you will have to balance it with the level of consistency. Because of a course is too consistent then it will basically be the same every time, at which point the instructors get bored and stop teaching the course, because they feel that they could just give a link to a video file. The way we dealt with this in the past and what i want to return to, is that we want to provide freedom for the instructor to come up with ideas and slight changes to courses, as well as entirely new ones. The UOTC officers will then act as a safety net, meaning that the instructor will have to present his materials to the officers first to get it approved and on his first course featuring the idea a UOTC officer will be present to confirm if the change is working as intended or need to stop.

We feel this will make for more invested and motivated instructors, instead of an instructor airing an idea he has been working on, only to get told to write up a complete lesson plan on it to be read for approval and then tested.


Personally i would like to start shearing our work again like we used to by having current lesson plans visible on the forum, as well as statements of goals and the like, i am not a big fan of half our office being a hidden forum.

I would also very much like to coordinate to any level you are interested in, especially if you are interested in advertising our courses, or even using them for recruitment, if you intend anything else please let me know too.


We do not have a time table set out yet, this is two fold. The main reason is that we cannot say much about the future. We cant know when some game update will kill our training missions, halting our work temporarily. We cannot know when new add-ons needing teaching will be added.

The next thing is again what level you see this implemented at. Because we could announce courses for next week in principal, for instance a nav course or a fireteam drills course, But i cannot say when we will be done updating our lessonplans. But it is our intention to start running courses in an experimental fashion this month to develop experiences to add to the lessonplans.


Your last point has been debated already. My personal opinion is that if we do that and say we want a famil course every 2 weeks and a FTP every week etc then we will quickly run into the issue that the instructors do not meet their quota, and the only thing we can do is negative motivation in the form of taking their tags, and suddenly we end up filtering instructors by who has more free time rather then who are qualified. This does not mean that we do not plan on running as many courses as we can over the course of a year, but the amount of courses and their type will be set in council with the instructors.

The instructors go through a quite thourough vetting process and we wish to utilize these people and their insight as much as possible. So if we get instructors telling us that there is something wrong with a lesson plan or a course is needed we will look into it with them in order to optimize the situation.


So just to finish addressing your final concern. I plan to be consistent in the way that matters, the topics on the lesson plan, The basic infantry courses will involve what we have always thought this should involve. Nav courses will involve what is appropriate, same for RTO, SL etc. But the exact manner in which they get taught will get changed every once in a while in order to come up with the most effective, but also fun way of teaching the course. To reassure you i will give you an example.


A long time ago the attendance to Famil courses was heavy. As a result we often had 5 instructors slotted. In the formation phase of the course it was noted that it seemed like the students could not really understand the use of the formations. So a change was proposed involving taking a walk with the students and then on the go instruct the students in the usefulness of the various formations. and showing them in the terrain how useful the formation became. after the first attempt we had to accept that this took too long compared to all the other stuff we had to go though. But this is the kind of thinking i want to allow among the instructors, and i do not want to limit this didactic way of thinking.

Share this post

Link to post

Voting yes, for they are both diligent and capable. 


My only concern is Thawk retaining Officer status while being "away" or not involved for over a year.

Share this post

Link to post

Vote yes. We need an active UOTC office.


Hoping you guys will be making a basic training video or two for new members. Or even a few guides. Much less time consuming for players while still getting the basics across.

Share this post

Link to post

I hope we can build some momentum with training so that Arma3 really gets rolling. Looking forward to participating/instructing.

Share this post

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

  • Create New...