Jump to content
Impulse 9

JakCurse for UOTC

Add JakCurse as a UOTC Officer?  

45 members have voted

  1. 1. Add JakCurse as a UOTC Officer?

    • Yes
      25
    • No
      20


Recommended Posts

Hey all. I'm Jak. Over the past month or so I've been in talks with azzwort regarding the state of play with UOTC as it stands. As it stands, UOTC is essentially only running famil courses, partly due to disparity between the forums and the wiki, partly due to lack of interest, and partly because individual documents are held by users who created training courses, not disseminated among UOTC instructors or made available somewhere that all can access.

 

To that end, I'm not proposing a reconstruction of UOTC so much as a collation of information, side by side with azzwort. The documentation and framework for the running of UOTC already exists and is perfectly fine as it is, however the introduction of further in depth guides on the wiki with video/visual elements and a practical to confirm competency is something I'd like to look into. Currently, instructors are working on fireteam courses and an updated familiarization course, and the UOAF wiki provides a great example upon which to build the Arma equivalent, which is currently under heavy construction. A pressing concern is that, where possible, we need to centralize the documentation that exists outside of freely accessible locations, and revitalize said documents where necessary. Further, new courses need to be created, to fill some gaps in our current set. I feel that as a former soldier, former instructor, I hold a pretty unique skillset that would allow me to fulfil these criteria, and curate courses to provide effective training.

 

You may know me as antagonistic or aggressive, but please be aware that these traits are only really present within the game environment, which I take particularly seriously.

 

In summary;

  • Prioritize formatting and curating the wiki to provide guides
  • Instill a progression of fireteam courses (in progress with instructors currently) up to SL/PL
  • Centralize documentation on the wiki
  • Collate guides and documentation currently held by individual course creators.
This poll requires a simple majority lasting two weeks, ending on 2017-11-26.

This poll was put up at Regular Request.

Share this post


Link to post

yes

Abstaining due to recent events unfolding.

Voting yes based on azzworts testimony on how he needs another UOTC officer. From the sounds of it the UOTC office is in dire needs of more leadership and jak is willing to step up to the plate. I'm voting yes on the premise that your actions from now on will be on a more mature level, seeing that its been addressed in this thread.

Its just as easy to remove an officer as it is to add one, so don't go flying off the handle...

Edited by Haggerty

Share this post


Link to post

He has already spoken to me. I would appreciate his help. I think his ideas are good. Don't let that get to your head.

 

Voting yes.

Share this post


Link to post

Awesome proposal. Having another officer can help lighten the work load. Azzwort has had my support because he upheld training that is based on a standard and is modular without unnecessary redundancy.

 

Jak's description of his traits seems pretty accurate from my perspective.

 

I wholeheartedly support his willingness to step up.

 

Thanks Jak

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, Azzwort has agreed to this and I believe all offices should have multiple officers. Working as a team you guys can expand the wiki and coordinate your new fire-team courses. Should this vote go through, I believe the quality of the primary server will increase.

Share this post


Link to post

Ye 

 

Abstaining, based upon the posts made by other regulars about conduct.

I would be voting yes if officer-ship only included responsibility of the UOTC office, as I think you'd do fine with that regard, but there are other powers/responsibilities you gain and I am on the fence about how you'd handle them.

 

 

Azzwort persuaded me to vote yes again, hopefully Jak learns from this however, and will conduct himself in a better manner in the future.

If any major incident occurs with Jak acting aggressive, I will advocate his removal.

Edited by James27

Share this post


Link to post

Yep - good to see some incremental improvements in the office/building on others previous work, rather than trying to start from scratch.

Share this post


Link to post

Voting No , In my opinion I'd like to see Jak more active in UOTC instead of this being a one night surge of motivation and activity he was literally added on the UOTC just last night in discord. I understand he has done thing in the past for UOTC in ARMA 2 ? ..... I feel this has been rush

 

After him being in UOTC for a while and he has established himself, and shows he's perhaps "Hot Temper" is only on the game server and will not happen with the current instructors he will have to work with. 

 

I'd be MORE THAN HAPPY TO VOTE FOR THE BEST SLAV IN TOWN.  *inside joke*

Edited by Bluef16

Share this post


Link to post

Those of you concerned with his training experience should be reminded that I applied to UOTC with precisely zero training experience.

 

Those of you concerned with his activity being a "flash in the pan", I should point out that such concerns are a risk for all officers. So if you like his ideas but don't feel he'll have the interest to keep it up, that's a really minor concern. He's been talking to me about this for weeks so I can vouch for his willingness to keep up progress on his tasks and I'd like to work with him in the office.

Edited by azzwort

Share this post


Link to post

Voting No.

 

Everything your stating you want to do you could already be doing as a Regular, but it sounds as if you have not been.  In fact it sounds as if you only joined UOTC as of vote.

 

As for you being aggressive and antagonistic only in game I have a hard time believing this is true.  I have only found you to be that in my dealings with you, to the point I had to block PM's from you.

Edited by kalohepirate

Share this post


Link to post

Voting No, as I don't see why you can't do the above as a Regular.

Convince me otherwise and I will change my vote.

Share this post


Link to post

.. You may know me as antagonistic or aggressive, but please be aware that these traits are only really present within the game environment, which I take particularly seriously. ..

This concerns me, as I do not find taking something seriously as a suitable excuse for antagonistic and/or aggressive behaviour anywhere at UO, let alone in game. And I certainly would not expect an UO Officer behave in such a manner.

 

Voting no currently.

Share this post


Link to post

I do not see the point of promoting another officer when all of these things can be done in your current position.

 

I also agree with Kail, the kind of behaviour that you described is not good in anyone at UO, especially in an officer.

 

Voting no.

Edited by SgtDeadly12

Share this post


Link to post

After a discussion with other regulars, Some of the major questions that has popped their head is as follows:

  • What is you total and latest interactions with UOTC? You being an instructor in Arma 2 helps but (as far as I know) you have not DONE anything recently to show your vested interests. You are certainly talking the talk, but I would like to see proof you you walking.
  • You have a history of being argumentative against other users and sometimes coming off as a dick. How will you try to be more objective to other people's opinion and not go with your first instinct? How will you handle your delegates?
  • I see your short term and mid term goals, but I do not see any long term goals that we can see what your line of thinking is. The conjugation of the wiki should not take too long; and creating your fireteam training stuff is a good mid term goal given your experience. What about when that is done? Is it something that will continually adjust for what needs to happen?

My main issue is point 1, but points 2 and 3 are things that other regulars are concerned about.

 

Changing my vote to abstaining until this is answered.

Edited by Nathan

Share this post


Link to post

Yes. Always promoting doctrine based gameplay and, given military experience and training, I'm excited to see what you contribute to the office and how you evolve it over time.

Share this post


Link to post
  • What is you total and latest interactions with UOTC? You being an instructor in Arma 2 helps but (as far as I know) you have not DONE anything recently to show your vested interests. You are certainly talking the talk, but I would like to see proof you you walking.
  • You have a history of being argumentative against other users and sometimes coming off as a dick. How will you try to be more objective to other people's opinion and not go with your first instinct? How will you handle your delegates?
  • I see your short term and mid term goals, but I do not see any long term goals that we can see what your line of thinking is. The conjugation of the wiki should not take too long; and creating your fireteam training stuff is a good mid term goal given your experience. What about when that is done? Is it something that will continually adjust for what needs to happen?

 

 

Your first point:

 

Total interaction with UOTC; As stated, part of UOTC A2. Created the Op Vanguard Mechanized Infantry course, which was well recieved by those who attended, requesting followups and expansion. I regularly teach individuals core aspects that they are unsure of, both in and out of game, and have been approached on multiple occasions by individual users requesting teaching. As mentioned by both myself and azzwort, he's asked me to join the office and outlined the current state of affairs. More on that in point three. That being said, currently UOTC is down to just running familiarization courses. You'll forgive me for not having a plethora of famil courses taught in recent months, as it is more than adequately handled by current instructors and delegates.

 

Your second point:

 

 I am not, nor have I ever, shied away from the fact that I am a coarse individual, and am fully aware that this rubs people the wrong way. It is the kind of person I am, but it does not diminish my capability to be behave competently and professionally. Take the time to have an actual, frank conversation with me sometime, and perhaps you'll learn that it isn't a permanent state of "coming off as a dick" so much as an unwillingness to sugar coat. As stated, I'm fully aware (and have always been) that to some this instills a negative opinion. We're all (bar few exceptions) adults, and to insinuate that I am impulsive or rash is a conflation of the main point you're presenting. "Going with my first instinct" is not an aspect of my personality that I believe exists. To quote TinfoilHate, "A greater point seems to be the general standing opinion that if you play here you're not going to get called for doing stupid shit, and if you do it'll be hand holding and rainbows. It's never been like that and I don't think it will ever be like that. People are coarse, and will likely continue to be so." 

 

To that end, a question of how I would handle my delegates seems moot, I am who I am, and I'm confident that nobody currently in UOTC is under any illusions regarding that. Abrasiveness does not preclude professionalism and responsibility.

 

Your third point:

 

 The UOTC wiki is not by any means a small task. Currently the task is to fill out the UOTC codex to bring it more in line with the BMS codex created in a highly organized manner by UOAF. Simply laying down the building blocks and formatting the codex so as to provide a central basis from which to build articles. From there, the intent is to pour in all relevant information, with images and videos to compliment the information, with the goal of providing a full documented basis for all relevant systems and processes available to the playerbase within Arma 3, and to allow for every member of the community to look up how a particular weapons system, squad tactic etc works at their leisure. This ranges from how a spotting scope is to be employed, to how to provide CAS based upon a 9 line in a high intensity environment.

 

I cannot give this an estimated timeframe as it is, at present, a rather large scale if low intensity endeavor. Factor into this contacting current/former UOTC members to obtain their course documentation, parsing that for information, and then assimilating that into current/future courses, and you have a complex task that relatively speaking changes quite little, but is in my view a necessary task that will enrich the center. Further to this, more information needs to be provided in the wider scope with regards to mission making, concepts, so on so forth. To diminish this into something that "should not take too long" frankly astounds me.

Edited by JakCurse

Share this post


Link to post

Yes.

And I can say this from one example alone.

I asked Jak to develop some rehearsal material for Operation Vanguard Forward 2. He made an in-game sand-table of common mechanized infantry drills. It blew me away. He did this in about a week. His attention to detail and willingness to put in time was evident within the first 10 seconds of reviewing his material.

He also has real world military experience. This means he has a strong understanding of how to conduct effective training. And his sand-tables were evidence enough of this.

I think Jak and I both suffer from the tendency to lose our cool sometimes while playing the game. My recommendation, Jak, is to try and make better amends when this happens. You may think you are but from some comments here, I don’t think you succeed as much as you would like.

Share this post


Link to post

Voting No, as I don't see why you can't do the above as a Regular.

 

Convince me otherwise and I will change my vote.

 

I agree with Perfk here.  What will this new ranking do for you?

Personally, I feel you can do the same old same old with your current position within the UO community.

 

This concerns me, as I do not find taking something seriously as a suitable excuse for antagonistic and/or aggressive behaviour anywhere at UO, let alone in game. And I certainly would not expect an UO Officer behave in such a manner.

 

Voting no currently.

 

I have briefly, in the past, spoken to you on and off of the game servers.  I have found you nothing but antagonistic and aggressive.  I would expect, if you do become an officer, you sort your shit out and try to cool the jets a bit.  I feel if you were the first person I encountered within UO, I would be out.

I would like to see you step up to this mark and calm yourself down a bit.

 

Sorry but it would add up to a no from me at current, if I could vote, with the chance of changing me to a yes in the future with a proof of putting in your all and buckling down, cooling those jets.

Share this post


Link to post

I constantly wait for every event where you tend to attack people or become antagonistic in your interactions with others, voting no at this point.

Share this post


Link to post

I think Jak would be a big help to UOTC as an officer.  Please try to separate your opinion of his demeanor from his ability to contribute to training.  Having another officer in UOTC could be very constructive.  As I see it the officers are not here to win popularity contests and be congenial.  Officers should be managers and help coordinate the team.

 

I have been the focus of Jak's inability to communicate in game and was somewhat dazed by the impact of his particular style.  Although he is difficult to understand and sounds very rude I think his intentions are okay.  Seems that his strong personality may come from a passion for the game.  Even though Jak sounds confused and angry in game he has been coherent and levelheaded with me outside of the game. 

 

I'm not suggesting he makes an acceptable leader in ARMA for everyone, in fact some players may prefer to be in a squad other than his.   But this vote is not about his capacity to play ARMA or lead a fireteam, squad or platoon.  

 

This vote is about giving him a chance to help.  He wants to step up and lead.  Let him.  We need the help.  If Azzwort thinks he can get the job done I still vote YES.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with Perfk here.  What will this new ranking do for you?

Personally, I feel you can do the same old same old with your current position within the UO community.

 

 

I have briefly, in the past, spoken to you on and off of the game servers.  I have found you nothing but antagonistic and aggressive.  I would expect, if you do become an officer, you sort your shit out and try to cool the jets a bit.  I feel if you were the first person I encountered within UO, I would be out.

I would like to see you step up to this mark and calm yourself down a bit.

 

Sorry but it would add up to a no from me at current, if I could vote, with the chance of changing me to a yes in the future with a proof of putting in your all and buckling down, cooling those jets.

 

This summarizes my opinion as well. As much as you are of great knowledge contributing to the gameplay on the server, that much is your own behaviour detrimental to the server. I haven't played Arma much lately, but what I've experienced this weekend was unfortunately highlighted by you.

There have been regulars, officers, instructors, etc in the past that behaved like that, but they're no longer here. Either realized themselves and left, or were removed. If it weren't for your demeaning behaviour towards others, I don't see why you wouldn't fit in UOTC.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...