On the topic of Drama

[K. Cooper]

1 minute ago, Maj Makowski said:

Regardless, Command staff has the authority to make a ruling however and when ever it votes, they can modify policy as needed and as they wish or even over rule current policies as desired and if passed by a majority or unanimously.. So "you can't prove my guilt" isnt a strong position, this isnt America, this is a gaming community whoms laws and judges are handled by command staff. Im sorry if you dont like that but im just being honest with you. They looked ag the information and made a decision..

 

"Command staff has the authority to make a ruling however and when ever it votes, they can modify policy as needed and as they wish or even over rule current policies as desired and if passed by a majority or unanimously." 

 

Background :

This message was one of the many messages between Major Makowski and I about the result of my Office Hours. To hone in on one particular point of many, I outline in my 12 page defense document that Command Staff disregarded Disciplinary Policy 1-5g : 

*Note that this document had been sent up the Chain of Command weeks ago, but still hasn't found its way to Command Staff for whatever reason.*

3d Marine Raider Battalion Realism Unit’s Disciplinary Policy 1-5g

“When Office hours is requested Command Staff will conduct a formal investigation, by their own hand or by their Officer designee. All persons and circumstances involved in the accused infraction shall be interviewed and evidence collected. Command Staff will be advised of the investigations outcome and shall deliberate appropriate relief of accusation or punishment of the guilty.”

As required by the above Disciplinary Policy, Command Staff must interview all persons and circumstances involved, and evidence must be collected against the accused. 

Quote : "All persons and circumstances involved in the accused infraction shall be interviewed and evidence collected."

To conclude, no evidence was accrued against me, nor was I interviewed. Again, both are required to result in an Office Hours.

 

When asked why neither occured, Major Makowski stated :

"Regardless, Command staff has the authority to make a ruling however and when ever it votes, they can modify policy as needed and as they wish or even over rule current policies as desired and if passed by a majority or unanimously.. So "you can't prove my guilt" isnt a strong position, this isnt America, this is a gaming community whoms laws and judges are handled by command staff. Im sorry if you dont like that but im just being honest with you. They looked ag the information and made a decision.."

 

According to this quote, Command Staff has complete authority to make whatever decision it wants whenever it wants, and however it wants.

Some may argue that Command staff can only overrule policy as needed with vote. But does that vote even matter if Command Staff inherently controls who climbs the unit's hierarchy? By selecting their source of income, they easily control the vote. Relatable to modern politics. 

Please notice that I am not claiming that Command Staff is corrupt at all. What I am expressing is my thoughts on the subject pertaining to the corruption that can occur with the actions Command Staff is easily able to take. 

Perhaps checks and balances should be created to ensure that Command Staff doesn't obtain complete control.

Perhaps Command Staff should follow their self created guidelines to assist in their own governance. 

 

Only my thoughts.

V/R

LCpl Cooper.

 

[Maj (Ret) Ray]

This is a thread about Capt Hart's opinion of the state of the unit, and resulting and related discussions. I don't see how debating interpretations of unit policy is related to that topic.

 

If you really want to discuss unit policy and publicly air grievances, please start another thread. Let's keep this one on topic.

Thank you.

[Capt (Ret) Hito]

I  not a fan of this type of threads this only increase the drama level in the unit. This unit won´t be perfect, none has or will be, everyone needs to understand that, the rules in the communities are written so the members can enjoy a good environment, as in IRL not everybody will support all of these but they will try to moderate their activities so  you will not get into troubles if you brake them, so is the same principle here. The good thing is that you can choose if you agree with that or not, you can stay or leave.

 

I don´t like all the things here but I choose to contribute to improving the things with my day to day work, not ranting and complaining all the time, lead by example,  that means to be on time to your activities, respect all your fellows, respect the order and contribute to that, propose and not just  destroy and complaint. I have used my CoC in the past, I have sent multiple PM and documents expressing respectfully why I disagree with their view and how I think things can be improved.

 

People will always come and go, and this doesn´t mean that I don´t care, multiples friends are not here anymore, they decided to continue their search for happiness elsewhere. So instead of complaining about the things that are not right use your time on how you can contribute to make things better and put your time and effort on that.

 

 

Edited July 13, 2018 by GySgt Hito

[Capt Hart]

10 minutes ago, LCpl Cooper said:

 

"Command staff has the authority to make a ruling however and when ever it votes, they can modify policy as needed and as they wish or even over rule current policies as desired and if passed by a majority or unanimously." 

 

Background :

This message was one of the many messages between Major Makowski and I about the result of my Office Hours. To hone in on one particular point of many, I outline in my 12 page defense document that Command Staff disregarded Disciplinary Policy 1-5g : 

*Note that this document had been sent up the Chain of Command weeks ago, but still hasn't found its way to Command Staff for whatever reason.*

3d Marine Raider Battalion Realism Unit’s Disciplinary Policy 1-5g

“When Office hours is requested Command Staff will conduct a formal investigation, by their own hand or by their Officer designee. All persons and circumstances involved in the accused infraction shall be interviewed and evidence collected. Command Staff will be advised of the investigations outcome and shall deliberate appropriate relief of accusation or punishment of the guilty.”

As required by the above Disciplinary Policy, Command Staff must interview all persons and circumstances involved, and evidence must be collected against the accused. 

Quote : "All persons and circumstances involved in the accused infraction shall be interviewed and evidence collected."

To conclude, no evidence was accrued against me, nor was I interviewed. Again, both are required to result in an Office Hours.

 

When asked why neither occured, Major Makowski stated :

"Regardless, Command staff has the authority to make a ruling however and when ever it votes, they can modify policy as needed and as they wish or even over rule current policies as desired and if passed by a majority or unanimously.. So "you can't prove my guilt" isnt a strong position, this isnt America, this is a gaming community whoms laws and judges are handled by command staff. Im sorry if you dont like that but im just being honest with you. They looked ag the information and made a decision.."

 

According to this quote, Command Staff has complete authority to make whatever decision it wants whenever it wants, and however it wants.

Some may argue that Command staff can only overrule policy as needed with vote. But does that vote even matter if Command Staff inherently controls who climbs the unit's hierarchy? By selecting their source of income, they easily control the vote. Relatable to modern politics. 

Please notice that I am not claiming that Command Staff is corrupt at all. What I am expressing is my thoughts on the subject pertaining to the corruption that can occur with the actions Command Staff is easily able to take. 

Perhaps checks and balances should be created to ensure that Command Staff doesn't obtain complete control.

Perhaps Command Staff should follow their self created guidelines to assist in their own governance. 

 

Only my thoughts.

V/R

LCpl Cooper.

 

 

With context of Maj Makowski's comments I would say this:

What he is saying in that first line is a very rough paraphrase of this policy, found in Unit Duties and Responsibilities.

"

h. All Command Staff decisions and directives are reversible by future Command Staff vote.

i. Command Staff is the final authority in the 3d MRB Realism Unit and holds directive and reversible authority over all elements, units, commands and individuals in the 3d MRB."

 

What he is not saying is that we do not have to follow our own rules. We are bound by the policies we make just like everyone else. If we determine a policy or action to be incorrect we do have the ability to vote and reverse a previously held policy or decision by a proper vote. 

 

Second: This forum is not a place to express the specifics of your personal issues, problems or grievances. It is a place to debate, on a very general level, the concepts and principals I laid out in my first post. Please leave it at this so that this topic may return to its intended purpose.

But to address your accusation before this goes any further down the rabbit hole.

 

Your claim that it is unjust derives from the policy about interviews. We did not modify policy or change it or do whatever we wanted whenever we wanted. As we have on several office hours votes in the past, the interviews we conducted were though the format of forum PM. Policy has not ever stated in what format, TS, Forum, or whatever else the interview must be conducted in; Only that it must be equal and sufficient to gather the appropriate evidence. In your case, a PM was submitted from the opposition and was taken into consideration by CS. You submitted a PM defending yourself and submitting that necessary opposing evidence and "Interview" to CS. That evidence was collected from both parties, and that both were equally interviewed via forum PM, as has been done in other instances, CS made a ruling on the office hours. If you feel that our actions were incorrect, despite the wording of the policy, please send up a request to modify that policy and its wording.

 

To conclude. Please keep this about the overarching principals and and not about personal drama or specifics. That just creates more problems and if this derails too far I will lock the topic.

[K. Cooper]

2 minutes ago, Capt Hart said:

 

With context of Maj Makowski's comments I would say this:

What he is saying in that first line is a very rough paraphrase of this policy, found in Unit Duties and Responsibilities.

"

 

h. All Command Staff decisions and directives are reversible by future Command Staff vote.

i. Command Staff is the final authority in the 3d MRB Realism Unit and holds directive and reversible authority over all elements, units, commands and individuals in the 3d MRB."

 

What he is not saying is that we do not have to follow our own rules. We are bound by the policies we make just like everyone else. If we determine a policy or action to be incorrect we do have the ability to vote and reverse a previously held policy or decision by a proper vote. 

 

Second: This forum is not a place to express the specifics of your personal issues, problems or grievances. It is a place to debate, on a very general level, the concepts and principals I laid out in my first post. Please leave it at this so that this topic may return to its intended purpose.

But to address your accusation before this goes any further down the rabbit hole.

 

Your claim that it is unjust derives from the policy about interviews. We did not modify policy or change it or do whatever we wanted whenever we wanted. As we have on several office hours votes in the past, the interviews we conducted were though the format of forum PM. Policy has not ever stated in what format, TS, Forum, or whatever else the interview must be conducted in; Only that it must be equal and sufficient to gather the appropriate evidence. In your case, a PM was submitted from the opposition and was taken into consideration by CS. You submitted a PM defending yourself and submitting that necessary opposing evidence and "Interview" to CS. That evidence was collected from both parties, and that both were equally interviewed via forum PM, as has been done in other instances, CS made a ruling on the office hours. If you feel that our actions were incorrect, despite the wording of the policy, please send up a request to modify that policy and its wording.

 

To conclude. Please keep this about the overarching principals and and not about personal drama or specifics. That just creates more problems and if this derails too far I will lock the topic.

Captain Hart,

 

I recognize your views but still evidently stand by my own.

 

LCpl Cooper.

[Capt Hart]

My overarching principal through all of my big long post is the following:

 

We are not perfect. The unit is not perfect. Everyone in the unit is a real person and has real problems and faults. So don't make it more difficult for anyone by starting drama or overreacting. Send things up and be a grown up about it. You won't always get your way even when you send stuff up, and you have to accept that. If there was a TLDR for my first post, that is it.

 

Debate that principal if you desire. If not, leave the topic be.

[SSgt (Ret) Bohannon]

My personal belief in the Public Grading system is a positive thing. I was raised by a strict family, and went through boarding school for several years into my later youth. Then joined the Navy briefly until unforeseen issues got me medically dropped. I have come to known a few things. Being graded among your peers in a healthy environment is a positive situation not only for the people being reviewed but for those who are available to see the score and , excuse my language, the Fuck-Ups. For the people being graded, It is a red flag or a pat on the back. They either put in the needed amount of effort to uphold the few Requirements that are enforced. Or they don't and their scores will reflect that. It will also reflect the individuals accountability and the leadership's accountability of their team's level or preparedness. For those who enjoy the counter argument of "I want to relax when I get home, not sit in classes and be graded." is a fair one, But not a realistic one. Do to the nature of the Operations it is imperative that each individual meets a minimum and the only way to test that is through FTXs. If someone doesn't meet a minimum, and gets reprimanded in private, the only person who is knowledgeable and can hold them accountable is the person who was informed and the person who informed them. By making it a Public Grading Rubric, not only will people know which MSOT is Squared Away, but it also allows personnel from other MSOTs to offer assistance or opinions to other MSOTs who may be lacking. It was also stated that Classes will NOT exceed 30 Minutes, and will be no less than 10 Minutes. Half an Hour of waiting is relatively nothing overall. But to my main tracking point here is, In the end of the day, It is for a Healthy Competition - And for CS to Accurately Hone in the Preparedness of each MSOT. It's kind of the sense of, Have fun through working and playing hard. And in the Long run, If your MSOT is Squared Away, it will make future operations not Only Smoother, but More enjoyable and spend more time in Quality Engagements or "Story" than setting up, or being downed and awaiting medical attention because that person is faulty on the CQC or their Cohesive ability. I respect everyone's opinion and they are 100% valid. But this is my slice of the pie. And I like my slice, <3 .

Edited July 13, 2018 by Cpl Bohannon

[LtCol (Ret) Makowski]

Gentlemen and Ladies,

I have read your comments, I have seen your memes, I have replied to your PMs. I have not yet replied to this so if you will indulge my point of view as I have yours for just a moment I would be thankful.
 

First I'd like to reference the following Aesop Fable, The Man, the Boy, and the Donkey.

 

Quote

A MAN and his son were once going with their Donkey to market. As they were walking along by its side a countryman passed them and said: “You fools, what is a Donkey for but to ride upon?”	1
So the Man put the Boy on the Donkey and they went on their way. But soon they passed a group of men, one of whom said: “See that lazy youngster, he lets his father walk while he rides.”	2
So the Man ordered his Boy to get off, and got on himself. But they hadn’t gone far when they passed two women, one of whom said to the other: “Shame on that lazy lout to let his poor little son trudge along.”	3
Well, the Man didn’t know what to do, but at last he took his Boy up before him on the Donkey. By this time they had come to the town, and the passers-by began to jeer and point at them. The Man stopped and asked what they were scoffing at. The men said: “Aren’t you ashamed of yourself for overloading that poor Donkey of yours—you and your hulking son?”	4
The Man and Boy got off and tried to think what to do. They thought and they thought, till at last they cut down a pole, tied the Donkey’s feet to it, and raised the pole and the Donkey to their shoulders. They went along amid the laughter of all who met them till they came to Market Bridge, when the Donkey, getting one of his feet loose, kicked out and caused the Boy to drop his end of the pole. In the struggle the Donkey fell over the bridge, and his fore-feet being tied together he was drowned.	5
“That will teach you,” said an old man who had followed them:

 

The morale I took from this story was that if those whom knew the big picture, being the Man and Boy, did not spend their time appealing to those who were not informed then they would have accomplished the goal they set out.

What I have seen in the last few days is exactly that. Company has set out with a BIG picture goal, to test game play, to test out a different theme not just in FTX's but in how the unit treats its self. In the days that have followed I have heard members who are not informed speak as if they made the decisions themselves. I heard rumors of hate directed at Company on founding goals and Ideals for this FTX that are not accurate and not once has anyone actually asked why.

What people have done however is call our decision "Fucking retarded", leave and request their entire profile be deleted without even giving a chance for alterations and change. I have seen members whom have left to join a unit with their own ideals come here and ridicule the abilities of a leadership they are no longer part of with the ideals that they believe they should have without considering that no one was going to Company to offer suggestions on how to alter and correct it or for even a wholly different theme.

In point, before, I the decision maker; Ignoring Major Ray who spent days working with S-4 and S-2. Ignoring S-3 whom laid a foundation of the FTX. Ignoring the template makers and other company person's whom spent hours with me working on rubrics guides and documentation to explain and be, fair, impartial and virtuous. with our plan so that we could include an FTX that has not just MSOTs active but gives a non-stop task based mission to aviation, air/fires, Immersion specialists and Zeus of which as never been done... I, the decision maker and poster, could not even have a chance to explain myself or compromise; I have been targeted for hate and disgust. Each of the above mentioned now must also endure this hate. Now many of them may not care, but if you think that I do not read, do not hold each member who resigns (regardless of reason) as a personal failure then you have NOT spent time with me.

What I am, is disappointed, I understand that each of us is damaged by the failures of leadership of the past. I understand that I am working against failures of others.. But my decision was not even permitted to be explained, I was not given the right to defend myself. Instead what we have had is an airing of grievances where the only thing to come up the CoC isn't really described as a "Complaint" but best described as a gun to my head, where if I don't challenge Command staff to re-write what milsim means, if I don't listen and make changes I will lose more members.

This is what disappoints me so in most of you, that while you are all sitting here airing your dislikes, that not one of these has come with a recommendation up the CoC.. But instead I (also a person with real problems and real struggles) must endure all of these comments and make changes based on what others who do not see the big picture believe is best but none know the full scope so how can you claim to know whats best when you are not considering it all.

So lets look at a side of the picture shall we?

Here is a section of the rubric from a later cycle.

Note that this is an excerpt of some criteria we are looking at. This is not a math exam.. Did you show that you have full ability to insert your MSOT? Meaning for example you Convoyed.. Did your MSOT maintain proper spacing, proper directions, did they herring bone if needed? Not "1 point for holding speed, 1 point for using radio nets..". The goal is to see the abilities of the teams. To see the abilities of Aviation.. To give people a chance to experience a focus that isn't just another "Fun mission" FTX where you are told at the end to watch spacing and maintain buddy teams.

 

Lets look at a different view.. Not everyone is opposed to having grades shown, some prefer it.. So what am I supposed to do? Do I appease those whom want it public or appease those who don't. 

Should I have a different style FTX for each MSOT/Section? 
....

I believe its unfair for Major Ray, Company, those whom help each day (regardless of position) to help move the unit forward and myself to sit here and read and take abuse from those not willing to be constructive. 

Now, as your MSOT HQ's know, Lt Wauben under my approval has set up a meeting for the MSOTs to come and speak with Company and voice what they feel. After that I will make a decision on how to handle this FTX Cycle for at the moment I see the following options.

 

1) Cancel the FTX cycle all together and hold fun missions for teams until S-2 is prepared to hold the next operation.

2) Hold our current FTX without Grades.

3) Do as originally planned.

4) Have someone willing to step up and offer constructive assistance.

 

However, if you're willing to have an open mind and come prepared with a plan to be constructive then lets talk.

Until then... 
Respectfully the man with a gun to his head.

-Mako

[Capt (Ret) Bazarnicki]

4 hours ago, Maj Makowski said:

the only thing to come up the CoC isn't really described as a "Complaint" but best described as a gun to my head, where if I don't challenge Command staff to re-write what milsim means, if I don't listen and make changes I will lose more members.

 

4 hours ago, Maj Makowski said:

Respectfully the man with a gun to his head.

As the leader in question who apparently is the only one who send something up through the proper channel of the CoC to voice my options and those of my Marines, I was not planning to participate in this thread, until you decided you wanted to drag me through the dirt with this.

I never intended my send up to be a "gun to your head" and never tried to imply it as such. Your job, as company, is specifically to hear what your team HQs say and pass them along as needed to solve problems. I never told you to challenge command staff, I explicitly wrote that I myself wanted to challenge command staff. And it wasn't to define milsim, it was what other people in this thread have mentioned: the unit definition of realism is too broad and causes issues like these. You can easily argue the definition of realism outlines both in game tactics, roleplay, etc, but also out of game bureaucracy, fuckfuck games, sweeping motor pools for hours, etc. - And I still challenge them to answer and redefine this. Now publicly. If what I sent to you and Company, you hesitate to send up to CS as fear of "challenging" them, that's on you Major. I issued it as a direct challenge from me to them - not you.

I never threatened or implied that more people would quit if you don't cave to our specific opinion - however, as a result of decisions you could make, I cannot say people will or won't leave. This is exactly what Capt Hart was talking about when stating:
 

Quote

Rather than starting a coup or shutting down servers or causing a mass exodus, try to fix the problem maturely or quietly leave and go to another place you would rather be at.

If anything the send up I gave company is exactly this, yet you come here to a public post and state that I'm somehow holding a gun to your head. Never was the case.

I still stand by my opinion that a public competition and now apparently a judgement in a court of public opinion is a bad idea. We had rifts in groups in the unit before this, and I still maintain that public dick waving is an easier way to make matters worse than not. I've seen cliques form on less solid ground than public grades.

It was mentioned to me that doing a lot of the grading is to make sure everyone is solid on basics - I'm supportive of making sure people are solid on basics. However if people are constantly fucked up on basics, maybe we need to relook at how we do ITC and initial training, and for existing members, hold their leaders in charge of official fuck ups. One of the arguments was along the lines of that since we are MARSOC, we are held to a higher standard than standard boot Marines - yes. In the real world. In the real world a Marine would be in service for a bit before even applying to MARSOC. But in the realm of internet gaming, anyone with ArmA can apply to join this unit. I made this argument against MARSOC literally from the beginning - if I could pull up the 13th archive to show my wording i would. The jist is that if we want to emulate MARSOC as much as we can, the initial training needs to be more rigorous than maybe it currently is.

Kind of side tracked by the public grading there - it is something that I am against (enough that I sent something up the CoC as expected) but it is a symptom of the main problem:
The definition of realism to the 3d Marine Raider Battalion Unit is too broad.
And because it is not specific enough, people come in and find their niche inside its broad reach. And then they debate and debate and argue policy over how they want to unit to be ran. That is not necessarily a bad thing, however that means people need to be open about their expectations being challenged - at all levels. And then they have to be able to debate as to what may make the unit better.

If we can't take any of these criticisms fairly, whether in public or respectfully in a unit wide thread, then maybe the solution is redefine policy to be way more precise. The more precise it is, the less room for assumption, and the less you will be challenged when you make changes.

As for my definition of realism, it is realism in game, tactics, strategy, and role. I want to be on the ground, in a game I love like Arma. I want to feel like a Marine clearing a building in some shit hole town, as a rifleman, or a team leader, or whatever that role is. I love that in spite of the bureaucracy set around it, not because of. I don't mind doing some reports, maintaining a simple roster, the smaller things. But the more we add shit around, outside the game of Arma - it reaches a point it becomes less fun, instead of more. Even if that shit added is real military shit.

I feel like 90% of all drama and bullshit that happens in every milsim unit is directly because of out of game actions, not in game actions. And as I have seen that be the case in my experience, I will always push back on added out of game shenanigans. While grading may happen in game, all I can see is the effect it will have on the majority of the time we are out of game. "Oh they are the shit team, I don't want to fill in with them." This shit already has happened, even in the lifetime of this unit in the past, and that was before you wanted to blast grades publicly. The fact you had to specifically point this out in the post you announced the FTX means you are entirely aware of this issue, yet you still push it forward.

I'll admit it may be entirely possible that everyone comes together and sings kumbaya when the report cards come out. The elitist mentality many never show up, and even if it does, it will be behind closed doors - which it is entirely possible is already happening. However public grades brings this to a forefront that I feel we don't need. The potential cons outweigh the pros, what little i see over past FTX structure where we could be evaluated by a member of company, and then given feedback during debrief. Then you file that feedback in a report. It's not a grade, but it tracks performance too.

Either way, to say that nothing proper was sent up about this is entirely misleading.

Respectfully, apparently the man holding a gun to Mako's head over a proper CoC send up,
1stLt Bazarnicki

[GySgt Cole]

Baz brings up a good point. ITC is currently less comprehensive than the ITB class I took when I joined the 13th in August of 2016. If you want to start making things more realistic and professional, that's the place to start. It's honestly a bit of a shit show (and that's coming from an experienced ITC instructor). Also, assessment and selection should probably become that. If someone's a dumbass or new to the game, clearly they don't belong to a professional unit 

 

Edited July 14, 2018 by 1stLt (Ret) Cole

[Capt (Ret) Pepperman]

At the end of the day, I'd rather chimp occasionally and have some fun than just get a foot in the ass and 'graded' over how I perform. If I wanted to get a score on how I fly my aircraft, I'd just go join the real airforce. I'm here to have fun and drop warheads on foreheads. I can't be asked to read the /whole/ thread, but I read most of OP. And with me in and out of the hospital the last two months(please just take my kidney out already ), I haven't been here to witness all this cheese first hand, but seeing it from the sidelines is practically tantrums and big-dicking eachother in the unit.

 

This goes to everyone; we're here to have fun, so have fun.

[Capt Hart]

Re-evaluating the definition of realism and ITC structure I think are all good things and we should look into.

 

That all said, while I very briefly mentioned the FTX cycle in my original post as it tied in directly with the other things I was saying in a more present term, I believe this discussion, if left to continue, will become solely about that singular paragraph as opposed to the massive wall of text that basically says the same thing: Please don't cause drama and try your best to be the most helpful, caring, and supportive person you can in this unit. As all of the criticism about the FTX cycle I have seen is frequently described as "Fucking" something or stupid or idiotic or shit or whatever else, that is not being helpful, supportive, or benefiting you or the unit at all. Describing it that way, and combating it as dramatically as it has been combated, is doing one thing. Causing Drama. Which is exactly the opposite of what this essay was about. STOP DOING THAT. Request and suggestion up the CoC? Good. Suggestion containing a beratement of those creating the idea and the idea itself? Not good. Defending your point? Good. Defending your point by attacking others and their ideas? Very Bad. If you fail to see how those things are problems I would encourage you to remove yourself from the bias of this situation and think a little about human nature. And for those still intent on doing what I have just warned against again, I will again quote my previous statement: "Stop it or get out." As the last two sections of discussion have become based on personal grievances rather than the idea I stated above, I will be locking this topic. At this point I fear this has caused more drama than it has solved, which was the exact opposite of my intention. So for those of you that got succored into that, I am sorry. For those of you who genuinely participated positively in the discussion I thank you.

 

 

 

To re-itterate my main point for the 10000th time. And if you have not cared to have read anything I have said over the last day or so, read this:

 

We are All imperfect, flawed, gullible, idiotic, degrading, and dysfunctional people, simply by nature of being human. It is our job individually, to combat our natural tenancies towards angering other people, wanting to feel superior and degrading those around us, and fight to make everyone else's life a little easier. You can do this by recognizing you won't always get your way and sending up a respectful suggestion when you feel it unjust. And if at the end of the day you are turned down then you can be mature about it and put on your happy face and go along with it, again trying to make everyone else's life easier. If it is in contradiction with your values and beliefs too much, then quietly leave and go somewhere that suits you better. So that you, the unit you left, and the unit you go to, can have their lives made easier and better by your decision and actions. This essay was not about the unit's right or wrong or about our faults or merits. It is about being respectful, helpful, and making the day to day lives of everyone involved in this community more enjoyable and happy. Make those around you feel as though their day has been improved by their interaction with you. If everyone did that, we would be in a dramatically different place.

At the end of the day this all boils down to a rule we should all have been taught as toddlers: Be nice to those around you and treat them like you want to be treated.

 

To everyone in this unit: please apply the paragraph above this sentence to every single interaction you have in this unit from now until you leave. You will find it a better place if you do.

 

-Hart

Edited July 14, 2018 by Capt Hart