Jump to content

J.B. For UOTC Officer  

32 members have voted

  1. 1. J.B. For UOTC Officer.

    • Yes
      29
    • No
      3


Recommended Posts

 


Hello.

I think a small introduction would be in order. I am 24 years old and I live in Denmark. I serve in the Danish Army as a private (OR-2), but filling out a sergeant (OR-5) position as an armoured infantry section leader and have done so for the last year. I have one deployment to Afghanistan as a MECHINF section 2IC under my belt.

Before joining UO I was an instructor at TG and eventually became TGU deputy dean. Shortly after joining UO I became involved with UOTC in assisting courses and after my regularship passed I became an instructor. I remained with UOTC for the better part of a year to one-and-a-half when RL priorities shifted and I resigned. After I resigned I have had connections with UOTC and continued limited work on personal courses (A3 2IC lecture) and other community projects (UO Infantry Basic Videos).

I am putting up this poll alongside Godhand. Simply put we know each other well, share a direction for UOTC to head in and have common grounds in our professional background both being infantrymen in the Danish army.

I know UOTC officer polls have a battered reputation of promising change and improvement without much to show at the end of a term. This is symptomatic of Godhand’s and my own approach to the future of UOTC and what we seek to achieve. We have agreed on three fundamentals we would address as our initial goals of our polls passing. In prioritized order they are:

 

  1. Re-evaluate the UOTC roster.
    - Who wants to teach and who doesn't?.
    - Personnel evaluation and replacing.

It’s an important oversight to attain at the beginning since the roster is large, but the amount of instructors who are teaching is low. Based on talks with the instructors we will identify their strong and weak points and what they are interested in teaching. We will resign and replace if possible those who do not currently contribute or wishes to do so again. This way we will have our human resources squared away and can begin work.

 

     2. Identify limitations and possibilities in A3.
            - Adapt basic courses and resume teaching.

            - Dig up old lesson plans and base content on those.

 

This is solely for the purpose of finding out what course can we currently teach. With those limitations and possibilities clear we will as soon as possible resume teaching courses that are within those boundaries and/or can be adapted. There is an abundance of course material already available in the UOTC private forums with lesson plans going back as far as Jake Perill and Zedic’s terms as a UOTC officers. We do not see the need to shut down or scale down the frequency of courses for the purpose of rewriting the entire UOTC curriculum. Standardization and continuation can be done alongside the most important task of UOTC: To teach.

 

     3. A focus on making teaching entertaining for instructors.

           - Practical teaching, not unnecessary RL fluff.

           - Preferably more courses of lower quality than few one’s a year with high quality.

 

UOTC and courses taught stands and falls with the involvement of the instructors. Therefore it is important that each instructor can fulfil his own ambitions. If we were to limit ourselves in the range of courses taught it’s obvious we would lose out on important teaching in courses that do not require a specific set of skills attained in basic courses. We do not want to suspend courses like JTAC, Rotary and fixed wing courses because FTP, FTOPS, FTL and others aren’t implemented 100%. There are prerequisites of the each course and the instructor’s right to fail and ask participants to leave if they don’t have the necessary knowledge that can handle participants falling through.

Limiting ourselves would push away instructors that have specific interest areas. People like Deathstrike (I know he’s not an instructor, , but it’s a good example) isn't interested in infantry courses nearly as much as courses involving aircraft and by limiting ourselves to basic courses and working our way up to specialized classes we are missing out on teaching and Deathstrike could understandably become uninterested in teaching.
We will not force or set hard lines for what courses an instructor should work on creating and teaching, but we will still conduct control and evaluation of how active an instructor is and see to delegating under-taught courses.

 

I have shown the above to Thawk and he agrees with the points Godhand and myself have come up with.

   

dkx7ptdg.jpg

    
 
 
 
 

This poll requires a simple majority vote and 2 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post

Both J.B. and GodHand have the ambition and knowledge to take on this roll. I would certainly like to see UOTC get into full-swing with ArmA 3 and I believe instating more officers who can work together is the way to do it.

Share this post


Link to post

J.B. and Godhand I think are more than qualified and have some good basic plans. I'm voting yes for both of you, however the tactics of your Super PAC call to question the ethics of corporate and individual contributions to campaign financing and lobbying. I think it would be beneficial to the community, as well as ethical, to disclose any campaign contributions.

 

On a more serious note, is there any thought to allow non-regulars to teach official courses? A delegate position is something that I think a lot of regulars and members believe could help distribute the workload.

Share this post


Link to post

All I can say is that we are in no way directly coordinating with ZumorcPAC. I'll leave it at that.

 

Enex as a non-regular is already an instructor, so that system is in place.

Share this post


Link to post

It'll be good to have you guys in running things. Best of  luck, and I'm looking forward to the courses.

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:

 

I'm glad you intend to use existing coursework, this is something I brought up in Godhand's poll. The fact is I don't feel that from a purely game play perspective there is very little that needs to change from A2 to A3 as far as course content. Practical training is the most important and teaching courses that are demonstrated to already work is a positive thing. However:

 

 


UOTC and courses taught stands and falls with the involvement of the instructors. Therefore it is important that each instructor can fulfil his own ambitions. If we were to limit ourselves in the range of courses taught it’s obvious we would lose out on important teaching in courses that do not require a specific set of skills attained in basic courses. We do not want to suspend courses like JTAC, Rotary and fixed wing courses because FTP, FTOPS, FTL and others aren’t implemented 100%. There are prerequisites of the each course and the instructor’s right to fail and ask participants to leave if they don’t have the necessary knowledge that can handle participants falling through.

 

I have stated this in the past, courses that appeal to small groups and "pet courses" should never take precedence over "core" courses. What NEEDS to happen is instructors need to be selected based on willingness to teach, and ability to maintain consistency within their courses with other courses. Instructors "fulfilling [their] own ambitions" only leads to a situation where all the courses are run in an inconsistent manor and there is little if any accountability. How can anyone see that you're making progress if there is no accountability? We had consistant courses running on a regular basis a few months ago, there is no excuse why that cannot happen again. If your course material is well made, all that needs to happen is recruitment of people who are willing to teach anything to anyone, and giving them the means to do so. If "pet projects" are to be held, they need to be limited in scope.

 

If the roster is large, the evaluation should be "when can you teach?" not "what are you good at teaching?", the instructors are not teaching because there is no one telling them to teach, not because they're not interested, if they weren't interested in teaching they would have quit.  If you have the coursework, you need to use it and get your instructors trained and vetted, and set up a consistent schedule that gives trainers and students times when they're able to teach and schedule them around their timezones. The end-goal of any of this should be to give any outside person the ability to go to anyone in the community and inquire about courses and they'll be able to find out when and where the courses will be held, and this cannot happen if the courses are not run at a regular basis.

 

I hope I have made my concerns clear. Thank you for your time.

Share this post


Link to post

I will refer to the answers given by Godhand in his thread. 
I am simply to tired after a long day of work to write any lengthy and worthy reply.

Share this post


Link to post

Looking forward to this. Thank you guys! I'm interested in getting back to fireteam and squad training.

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 (as mentioned on the other poll as well).

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...