On the topic of Drama

[Capt Hart]

First let me start this off by saying I'm making this post not as a member of CS, not as a Team leader, not as Capt Hart. Just as someone who has been a member of the same community for 3 years, held the same position, and seen the same patterns and types of people come and go through that time.

 

Second: any discussion had in this thread must be kept professional and civil. Any deviations from that will inevitably result in this thread being locked and or deleted.

 

Third: This is for discussion and debate. You must be able to consider other individuals points of view and allow yourself to be open enough that you can be convinced to the other side. If you are going to be involved in this thread but are not willing to allow your own mind to be changed then please don't involve yourself. This is intended to be a constructive debate and discussion of thoughts and ideas. If you just want to use this as an excuse to start more drama, don't, and kindly screw off.

 

I've laid these out in points that talk about a single concept. If you are going to respond to this thread, please do me a favor and actually read all of it and consider what I've said.

 

 

 

Point 1: You are a grown up. Act like it.

Currently in this unit we have 76 active members. At previous times in our history, and in our other variants of the unit, we have had upwards of 150. This means there will be A LOT of conflicting view points and not everyone can always be right or get their way. That idea is something taught in elementary school but for some reason because it's the internet, and people loose touch with the reality of the very real people who are also on said internet, all maturity and adult behavior goes out the window. If you had a job where you disliked the boss or the decisions they were making, the VAST majority of the civilized population would either try to change the behavior through the appropriate and professional channels, or they would quit the job and go somewhere else. But this being an online Arma 3 unit, for some reason that ability and behavior goes out the window. The incidents with Brawler, Drumheller, Harrison, and so on, prove my point. 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.

 

Point 2: You are not always right

As previously stated, you WILL NOT get your way 100% of the time. Even in CS, though we present a united front after we have decided on a course of action, the amount of conflict and argument and opposing view points that are presented means that in about 40% of decisions we make at least half of CS has to come to some sort of compromise. On about another 40% just under half of CS (this is why we have a majority vote for things) doesn't get their way at all. There's only about 20% of the decisions we make where we all agree on what should happen. And that's just with 5 BLOODY PEOPLE. With 76? No wonder you didn't get your way and someone else did, or vice versa. That's why modern civilization has developed more appropriate means of expressing dislike and working for something better. Because throwing a hissy fit and causing drama and problems for the other 70 people in the unit only serves to make yourself feel better by putting everyone else down. 5 year old children do that on the playground. High-school bullies do that. You are all grown adults. Act like it and find ways of fixing the problems, or expressing your dislike for a situation, in a way that benefits the other 75 people in the unit rather than just your or your 5 friends.

 

Point 3: If you have a problem, do something constructive about it

As stated in point 2, if you just cause drama or bitch about stuff to make you feel like you have a bigger penis at the expense of everyone else, you are cancerous by definition and should stop or get out. We have a set CoC and structure so that complaints and suggestions can be sent up in a Mature and Adult manner and can be addressed as such. Being a dick in the meme thread or just bitching to those sympathetic with your bias helps no one but yourself and your similarly useless and parasitic cohorts. If you want change to actually happen or would like to see things appropriately addressed, send it up and follow up on it. Yes the CoC is imperfect. Yes things are neglected and forgotten about from time to time. Again we are only human. But it's never intentional. Its never to slight you or to make ourselves feel like our penises are bigger. And for anyone in any leadership capacity who does that intentionally or uses it as a penis enlargement pill, you should not be where you are and should resign. As for everyone else, if you find yourself guilty of pointlessly bitching or festering drama, please apply my earlier advice: Stop it, or get out. Send stuff up and be constructive about it. Try to help everyone and not just yourself.

 

Point 4: Command Staff isn't the enemy, or the problem.

The reason CS exists is because of my last sentence in the above paragraph. Due to people's natural inclination to be self serving and dictatorial, and that paired with the absurd level of dickish-ness that is rampant on the internet, having just one person in-charge of 76 people is likely going to result, eventually, in biased and self serving decisions. I have only to point at Drumheller to explain this. His reasoning for taking over the unit, for kicking 100 of us out of the unit, was because "It's my unit. I founded it and it was going in a direction I didn't like. So I decided to do something about it." He took control and made decisions that were self-serving and for his benefit. Not the majority of the unit. And solely because he was removed from power. The new leadership wasn't making dramatic changes to anything and the unit was functioning fine. The ONLY thing that changed was he was out of power. So he destroyed 75% of his unit because of the self-serving nature of mankind. CS has 5 voting members so we can check our own bias and stupidity. No one person is perfect enough to be unbiased when their precious ego is at stake and no one person is as community minded and non-self serving to make decisions that are always more beneficial to everyone else. There have been many times that I have been blinded by my own bias or self-serving nature and I could not see what was best for everyone else. And every. single. other. member of CS has had the same happen to them. We exist, as we are, so that we can try, and fail at times as we are only human, to make decisions that benefit the majority of the unit and uphold what we were founded to be, rather than just ourselves or a small group. We are not trying to make you hate us. We are not trying to hurt you or make your experience here a bad one. We are trying to make an enjoyable community of, and for, people who all want to play Arma the way we do, and the way it is defined officially by our definition of realism. It's easy to let CS bear the brunt of your hate and unhappiness towards everything in the unit. I did it plenty before I found myself in that position. But while its easy to do that, its better for us, you, and the rest of the unit, if you support CS and send up suggestions and complaints. Because as I said we are only human. We can and will make mistakes. Send up your thoughts and we will do our damned best to evaluate it as unbiased as possible and continue to make decisions that benefit the unit as a whole. Be constructive towards the entire unit, and don't make your dick bigger by putting down those in-charge of helping everyone.

 

Point 5: Structure

The idea of a structured MILLSIM unit is to provide a location where gameplay and scenarios are realistic and challenging. Those who join units like this, for that kind of experience, find fun in the successful execution of a difficult mission and in the professional mindset and semi-realistic methods we accomplish that in. If your idea of "Fun" in arma is just doing what you want, there are plenty of places out there that cater to that. This isn't one of them. In professional basketball, or soccer, or baseball or literally any other sport, the fun enjoyed there comes from winning. From being the best. From doing something incredibly difficult and coming out on top. Not just playing the game for the sake of playing it. If you want to just play basketball, just to play it, and don't find your fun in being the best or winning or anything, that's what games of pickup basketball are for. And if you want to win national or international tournaments and succeed against overwhelming odds, that's what professional basketball is for.

Fun ops, and other non-structured units or events are for those of you who just want to play the game and do what you want.

The pickup game of basketball. 

This unit, the 15th, the 506th and many more are for those who want to actually get good at what you are doing and be set in that mindset and practice it.

The professional basketball.

If you are someone who wants to just play some pickup basketball in arma, go join a unit that caters to that. No one should fault you for doing that. But if you are someone who legitimately does want to play some professional basketball, then suck it up and put in the work to get good.

 

And branching off somewhat from the above topic to touch on this FTX cycle: Part of our fun, as stated above, is to actually get good. Not have missions catered to us, but to actually be good at what we do. That takes effort and time and work and dedication. And it takes not just doing what you want or what you have been doing. Change is difficult, and for us to change there has to be some motivation or some pressure to make that happen. Sure the grades seem a little high-schooley. So what? People complain about FTX cycles anyway, and they always have, just because its an FTX. So if you're someone who just complains at FTX cycles, why not give this change, and something that hasn't been tried before, a shot before you hate it completely. If you are not, then look at this as a great opportunity. We get to play a friendly game of our figurative basketball against our team-mates to see who is the the best and to push ourselves to become better. Friendly competition goes a long way on driving people to get better, and since getting better is where we get our fun from, we should relish the opportunity to push ourselves and get better. Try it before you knock it folks. And do your best to make it a positive experience for everyone.

 

Point 6: Growing Pains

The 3rd has existed in its current form for only about a year an a half of that. Through that time, only about 3/4 of a year ago, we had a massive uprooting of our leadership and structure. CS was completely replaced, Battalion was replaced, company was replaced, bravo company was dissolved, and many of the long-standing members in their previous positions were called upon to fill the MASSIVE vacancies that drama-filled event caused. I.e. Maj Ray, Maj Makowski, MSgt Wolfe, LTC Brueske, and so on. Since then, company leadership has changed hands three times, battalion has been opened and closed twice and has changed leadership twice, the S-shops have been vacated and filled at least two times each, with the somewhat exception of S-1, and S-shop leadership has changed hands too many times to count. On top of all of that, the deployment and story-building department was moved from S-3 to S-2, and the leadership of S-2 has changed at least two times now. The battle captains and zeus operators have been cycled through a few times, and to boot the FTX cycles have now been handed back over to S-3/Company.

So to say that we have been through some change is a COLOSSAL understatement.

We have had two deployments, one of which was a monumental failure (Jungle Hunter) largely due to the leadership not having adapted to the special forces mindset yet, and the fact that insta-death was turned on. The latest one, actually went reasonably well since we weren't chasing after other captured MSOTs or the entire task force being KIA every mission. Say what you will about our last deployment and the faults it may have had, but at the end of the day it was a MASSIVE step up from the last one we had.

So my point is this: We have not existed long enough, and with stable leadership long enough, to have fleshed out or even come close to perfecting what we are doing and how we are doing it. So be patient. It's going to be painful as we will have to learn from our mistakes, but if everyone in the unit was constructive and helpful and willing to work hard, we would get through these growing pains and get ourselves figured out in the fraction of the time it would take if things stay where they are now. Where currently people just complain for the sake of complaining and force good people out of their positions due to burnout and others not being willing to lend a hand or be helpful. You don't have to be in CS or an S-Shop leader or even in a leadership position to make positive change for the unit. Lend a hand and help out wherever you can. Be patient and constructive and help your friends and subordinates to do the same.

 

Point 7: This is an escape for us. Don't screw it up.

All 76 of us have real lives outside of this, with real problems and real shit that we have to go through. I remember last year when the 15th held a memorial service for one of their members who committed suicide. I remember when King died, a good friend of many of the older members of the unit. I remember when a close friend of mine in the unit went through an incredibly depressed and suicidal phase. And even now if you look at the LOAs thread and see Parker who had a close friend commit suicide. My girlfriend who nearly has done so on multiple occasions, Kardnal and whatever it is he is dealing with. And that's just those who feel comfortable, IN THE LAST MONTH, publicly posting about the shit they are having to go through. That doesn't even come close to the number of people IN THIS UNIT who go through hell every day and come here for an escape from the hell they live in. People come here to enjoy their time in a structured community and to escape whatever horrendous thing it is that life has put on their plate. If you come into communities like this and make our time here, our breaks from reality, our ability to escape the shitstorm of life that we normally have to deal with, into time that is more stressful more dramatic and more painful than our every-day lives, you can go to hell. Go fuck yourself, that's not what anyone here has bargained for.

 

 

There's my novel/rant. Rather than sitting on all this and letting it fester, I felt it was better to put this out where you all can see it. Feel free to comment and debate and respond to all this, as I stated above. But if there is one thing I wish everyone could take out of this; its Point 7. All this is where the idea of "I just want to play arma with my friends" comes from. Please don't put those people down and make their lives harder than they already are. Thanks for reading.

 

- Hart

[GySgt Cole]

I have to disagree on a few points, Captain. I'm retired, so I don't really have a dog in the race other than to say I got completely burned out trying my damndest to keep things fun for my guys and stop the unit from going down a slope I fear it's slipped down quite a bit - and that's a bad thing.

I can't speak for the wider unit, but if you polled Viking when I retired I'm sure most if not all of us would have likened the unit more to a pickup league than a professional one. We're in milsim units to have fun, not "work on a skill". Sure, successful missions and getting more cohesive feels great, but if that's not happening naturally and in a fun environment, you have bad leaders, not bad teams.

Besides a few hiccups and a few poorly designed missions, Viking always had fun. Part of that, though, came from protecting the guys under from the absolute nonsense above me. The times I corrected an issue through friendly conversation in lieu of a recommended counseling or NJP takes two hands, and the times I said "fuck that, ignore higher and do it this way" I've lost count. Despite that, I'm pretty confident Viking was the most successful team in field and in retention. I didn't need a rubric to tell me what to improve on, and I didn't always make the soundest decisions, but I did what made for the best cross section of fun and sensible tactics.

One time, I had a 20-30 minute classroom section before a team training. Three smart, highly proficient members almost left. And they had every right to! I can hear the nagging voice of command "Well if you can't sit through 30 minutes of discussion, you didn't know what you signed up for in a realism unit hurhurhur" - no. Basically everyone in this unit understands the tactics, the cohesion is just not there. You're not going to get cohesion in a classroom environment, and you're not going to get cohesion by comparing team to team. You're going to get cohesion by empowering junior leadership, and introducing the team to varied, fun scenarios that can be achieved. 

Leadership burnout is not a good way to get new blood in the ranks and open up room for people to step up. It's a good way to get entire chains of command to burnout at once. The fact there are people in command roles in this unit hold the former opinion does not bode well for the health of leadership. Tactical leaders make the game fun, they are the most important building block in the tower. Nobody wants to join of fill in on an element where the element leader is meandering and cracks under pressure, they want to be in an element where the leader stays cool headed and is able to do their job at all times. The same goes for Team HQs. 

Another issue is posts like this one, and the attitude that comes with them. While some discussion is better than no discussion, doing it after the fact seems like a paradoxical angry groveling. Team HQs should have been notified of the format of the FTX, and when they (probably) disagreed with the notion, they FTX should have been modified to be better. Saying "this is the decision leadership made and if you don't like it, be an adult and hop in your time machine and constructively criticize the decision made without your knowledge or input by the people you can't blame" comes off as childish. People leaving - sure, they may be acting childishly too. But if people are perturbed enough to throw that tantrum, yelling "don't screw this up for us!" back perhaps missing the point people are trying make.

 

 

 

[GySgt Van Dyke]

I think both of the above points are very valid, and as always, there's a middle ground which has to be sought. I do, at the end of the day, come here to blow off steam, to relax, and to kill some shit. But I also enjoy the slick, professional way of doing that. I took up a leadership role because I believe in what this unit is, and has the potential to be. I've been in a lot of Milsim units, and I've had 3 of them fold beneath me. I was here for the transition from the 13th to the 3d, though I left before most of the drama which led to this current incarnation. This unit is special. While there are problems, of course there are problems, the level of clarity from CS is frankly unheard of in any other unit I've ever been in. The people here are good people. We have our disagreements, our fights and our conflicts, of course we do, we're human. But I believe in this unit. I think that as long as we keep sending up issues, keep working together, keep being decent human beings, we're miles ahead of the competition. Arma is a game sure, but for a lot of the people here, myself included, its become a part of our routines, an institution in our lives. Lets not let some personality conflicts and differences in opinion screw that up. We've come so damn far, be proud of what we've achieved. We have a ways to go, yes, but it won't get better if we don't make it better. That's my 5 cents.

 

Semper Fi E-Marines.

Edited July 13, 2018 by Sgt Van Dyke

[Sgt Waller]

I agree on most of what you've said Captain Hart. Although I find the comparison with professional sports a bit lacking. I'm not getting paid millions to play Arma. This remains a hobby, where I'm trying to primarily have fun and not necessarily be the best. Also a hobby most of us have been doing for over 4 years, so a certain level of competence (and civility) should be expected. Sadly sometimes people get overwhelmed by their emotions and do stupid things. Like leaving the unit, before awaiting the results of what they've sent up the CoC and asking for their accounts to be deleted for a community they've been a part of for years. The grading thing is in my opinion not going to work. I understand the rationale behind it, but it will backfire. It's something that is even acknowledged in the announcement itself. It's going to lead to elitism, which leads to a further deepening of the "clique" mentality (Axios!) and ultimately the demise of this unit. It's a pattern I and others have seen repeated over the years, which is why I believe some people reacted so emotionally... because in the end they do care a lot about this community (or maybe I'm just projecting). Those are the fears some people have in a nutshell, there's obviously more to it, but that has been sent up the chain in pms. Unfortunately the trust in the institution that is CS has been shaken by all the incidents, that previous CS members have caused and it's easy to forget that new people are in charge. Although some of the decisions, that have come along, like implementing a classroom section and grading, don't necessarily help in that regard either. If I've wanted realism, I'd have joined the army (well I kinda did, but there's mandatory service in switzerland anyway).

 

As you've stated yourself we use this as an escape for our shitty lives. Military life sucks even more than civilian. So milsim sure, but at the proper dosage. We can't lose track of fun. Also I want to make clear I'm not trying to halt progress or belittle the efforts, that have been made. Even though it doesn't show, due to real life constraints: I deeply care about this community and it's well-being. I know for a fact, that this hobby and this community has saved my life on at least two occasions. You've hit on depression in your post, so I thought I'd mention it. That is also all I'm willing to share publicly. Everyone has their demons. Even those you disagree with. Now I "know" you not as much as I'd like (again real life constraints), but enough to know, that you want what's best for the unit aswell. You've always been an excellent leader, good friend and even a role model.

 

Not sure where to end this post, as I didn't expect to share so much. I guess thanks to all the people, who make this community possible? I see and appriciate you working. Even, if you think we don't. Time to go to bed now. Also I wish to echo what Cole and Van Dyke have shared.

Edited July 13, 2018 by CW2 Waller

[Specter]

I think the grades should be private, not public.

[SSgt (Ret) Braathen]

I Agree and also disagree with Captain Hart and I agree with Cole both of you have great and valid points.

I have done milsim since 2013, i do it cus i like it and it brings back some good memories.

Now the big reason for why i do milsim is beacuse its fun to play under some structural and tactics either if its under SF or regular combined arms, also i use milsim and gaming as my escape from IRL. So spending couples of hours or a day doing milsim to escape from what ever your profession is or what you do in life to have some fun under structur and tactics. I also understand that CS, Company, Team HQ's cant and will never be perfect, the main thing we are here is to have fun right??

Now to the latest topic here the FTX cycle.
So by adding classroom ftx, being judge and graded on a game is pushing it towards doing realism more over fun.

as some one That is a chef and that get judge on everything you do and make is really stressful, and the coming home to play something i think is fun and my escape from being judge 12/5 every week and then comes home and see that you are now being put in a class and graded in a game  is rubbing me the wrong way.

Yes this i my opinion on it.

 

Im not leaving only because of this FTX/announcment.

SInce i came back their have been issues here and there, some have been handled great and some i disagree with.

I the reason im leaving is mostly burnt out  of milsim and most likly have to find something else fun.

 

I still believe this unit is great and will continue to be great the future, but it might not be for me any more.

There will allways be disagreements, conflict, drama and thats how it is.

 

 Im Putting my retirement on hold because i 100% agree with @CW2 Waller  and wait until i get a response for what i have sent up COC.

 

T. Braathen

 

 

[MSgt (Ret) Carter]

2 minutes ago, SSgt Braathen said:

Now to the latest topic here the FTX cycle.
So by adding classroom ftx, being judge and graded on a game is pushing it towards doing realism more over fun.

as some one That is a chef and that get judge on everything you do and make is really stressful, and the coming home to play something i think is fun and my escape from being judge 12/5 every week and then comes home and see that you are now being put in a class and graded in a game  is rubbing me the wrong way.

I never thought about it that way. I actually never took a moment to consider other people's day-to-day lives and why this FTX cycle rubs some the wrong way. Thanks for expressing this.

[Osbourne]

3 minutes ago, SSgt Braathen said:

Now to the latest topic here the FTX cycle.
So by adding classroom ftx, being judge and graded on a game is pushing it towards doing realism more over fun.

as some one That is a chef and that get judge on everything you do and make is really stressful, and the coming home to play something i think is fun and my escape from being judge 12/5 every week and then comes home and see that you are now being put in a class and graded in a game  is rubbing me the wrong way.

Yes this i my opinion on it.

 

 

 

[Capt (Ret) Jones]

I have a plethora of issues that exist beyond the scope of background logistical work, and at this point I don't even think it's worth my time to explain my viewpoints because it'll take a collective change for anything to be to 'my liking'. At that point, I don't find it productive to send up anything. I suck it up, and I move on. That isn't to say I haven't expressed my issues before, and while I have done my best to stay reserved about it, others struggle, and that's fine. I think pointing out the immaturity adds to the flame and is counter productive to the message.

 

I had previously written up a lengthy essay on what my expectations were out of milsim, but I realize now that it was a waste of time. I want to be good at what I do, yes, but I want to have fun while doing it; what we've been doing has not been satisfying to me, nor has it been particularly fun. Part of the fun, for me, is the roleplaying and immersive gameplay that I can get out of playing. Frankly, I care more about people acting the part than "being good" in a game where the biggest portion of "being good" is not getting shot by perfect aim AI. If the core of your gameplay rests with just being good, that's perfectly fine, but that's not where mine is, and that wasn't the tone and direction I interpreted when I initially joined. I'm not here to play competitively, and I'm not here to be 'coached' like in a competitive video game. If that's the direction the majority want to take, that's great, I would love to know that.

 

[Capt Hart]

To cole: Thanks for the feedback and the opposing viewpoint. After all, opposition is the only way real truth is found. I'll respond to the various sections of your message seperatly:

 

First

51 minutes ago, 1stLt (Ret) Cole said:

I can't speak for the wider unit, but if you polled Viking when I retired I'm sure most if not all of us would have likened the unit more to a pickup league than a professional one. We're in milsim units to have fun, not "work on a skill". Sure, successful missions and getting more cohesive feels great, but if that's not happening naturally and in a fun environment, you have bad leaders, not bad teams.

 

While that may have been your perspective of the unit that is not, from an official standpoint, what the unit is or has set out to be. In our application form it says:

"The 3d MRB Realism Unit is a volunteer unit. By applying, you are accepting a realistic environment as the way you want to play ArmA 3. To explain, here we "role-play" being members of the military. When you're involved in Official Unit activities, you will be expected to play your role accordingly, regardless your rank, or billet. The reason why you are here, is because Realism is the type of experience you are looking for in this game. These expectations must be read and understood, as these are the core foundation of what this gaming community wants to achieve."

 

If the reason why you are here is because you want to experience the realism of it, then that means the pickup basketball is decidedly not what you signed up for. So since your view is/was contradictory to what the official statement is it leaves two possible courses of action. The first is the unit as a whole should re-define our definition of what we want to be. Or the second is that you were going along in a unit and situation with a mindset contradictory to what the unit was. Given the (ret) by your name and your place in a new unit I believe the latter theory to hold more ground. Following that logic then, your statement that

57 minutes ago, 1stLt (Ret) Cole said:

I got completely burned out trying my damndest to keep things fun for my guys and stop the unit from going down a slope I fear it's slipped down quite a bit - and that's a bad thing.

 

makes a whole lot of sense. You got burnt out working for a structure and a unit type contradictory to what this unit was pushing for and/or was founded on. So the only acceptable recourse for you is to either create or go to a new unit that has what you are looking for. And I give you credit for doing that and doing it in a professional manner and not causing problems with your departure. And more power to you for that. And I would encourage anyone who feels the same way to follow suite. I'm not power hungry, I don't need to stoke my ego by running a bigger unit. I simply want to play the game with like-minded people. If here is not the place for you then I encourage you to find a place that works for you. This community and this mindset is not for everyone. And we don't pretend it to be so. The arma playerbase is responsible for finding and joining units that have the mindset they want. Not the other way around. So if this isn't for you then find something that is.

 

 

Second

1 hour ago, 1stLt (Ret) Cole said:

Part of that, though, came from protecting the guys under from the absolute nonsense above me.

And that is an important part of trust with leadership and in building morale and keeping members around. I agree with that point.

 

That said, the method that is approached in is critically important and often neglected. Outright rejecting the chain of command and structure and discipline, even if sometime unjust, only serves to disrupt the order and structure of the unit as a whole, to cause drama and make problems for more people, even if you are saving one person from a seemingly unjust action. Having been on the receiving end of your incorrectly channeled wrath against your CoC more than once, I can say all that with a reasonable level of certainty.

 

 

Third

1 hour ago, 1stLt (Ret) Cole said:

Basically everyone in this unit understands the tactics, the cohesion is just not there. You're not going to get cohesion in a classroom environment, and you're not going to get cohesion by comparing team to team.

I agree to some degree with that. You are absolutely correct about the cohesion thing. Cohesion is built through action, consequence and so on. Can't be taught, must be learned.

 

However, the assumption that everyone understand tactics is fundamentally incorrect. While you may be somewhat correct in that the leadership should mostly understand it, the general member will have discrepancies in terms of who knows what and how much. Classrooms, when effectively used, not overdone, and not done for too long, can help to standardize tactical knowledge and proficiency. Even leadership with the knowledge already learned can absolutely benefit from short, focused, refreshers on combat tactics. It's a perishable skill so for the above reasons I think its wise to use classrooms. Used sparingly and usefully I might add. If overused or done wrong few things can kill morale more than 2 weeks of 2 hour classroom sessions.

 

That said, they are often done horribly wrong, thus wasting their usefulness and making people hate them. (Myself included for long periods of time) I cannot say if they will be done correctly during this cycle or not, time will tell, but if they are done wrong then I will gladly bring it up and adress it with company following the conclusion of the cycle.

 

 

Fourth

1 hour ago, 1stLt (Ret) Cole said:

Team HQs should have been notified of the format of the FTX, and when they (probably) disagreed with the notion, they FTX should have been modified to be better.

Sure. I can concede to that. But if I asked Maj Makowski I would be willing to bet money company has not received a single official complaint about that. I bet he has heard general bitching and moaning from leadership and the meme thread and retired members who are sympathetic to current members bias, but not a single bit of constructive, non-derogatory feedback about it through official channels.

 

 

Fifth

1 hour ago, 1stLt (Ret) Cole said:

But if people are perturbed enough to throw that tantrum, yelling "don't screw this up for us!" back perhaps missing the point people are trying make.

 

No their point is made quite clear. My point, and this isn't specifically about people leaving this is a long-standing issue and thought that has been bothering me for a while, is that there are much better and more constructive ways of handling that. Making everyone else's life more difficult because you dislike a decision is the worst thing you could possibly do. Point 1 in a nutshell. Bring it up like an adult and don't make this harder for everyone else. "Don't screw this up for us" is not directed at the FTX at the people leaving or any of that. THAT comment is because we have a schedual for drama and that everyone is worse off for that fact. And it needs to stop. Period.

 

 

The tldr of my post is to bring up and fix problems in a constructive and non-detrimental manner. Because there will be problems. That much is unavoidable. But how we go about handling those problems is what we have control over. And it's what can make the difference between everyone enjoying what they are doing, and everyone just kinda stomaching what they are doing.

[Capt Hart]

31 minutes ago, SSgt Jones said:

Frankly, I care more about people acting the part than "being good" in a game where the biggest portion of "being good" is not getting shot by perfect aim AI. If the core of your gameplay rests with just being good, that's perfectly fine, but that's not where mine is, and that wasn't the tone and direction I interpreted when I initially joined. I'm not here to play competitively, and I'm not here to be 'coached' like in a competitive video game. If that's the direction the majority want to take, that's great, I would love to know that.

 

As far as I interperate our definition of realism I would think what you have laid out goes hand in had with what I've been saying. The role-playing side of it has always been a large component of my millsim career and I see no reason why the two ideologies cannot work alongside eachother.

Edited July 13, 2018 by Capt Hart

[Capt Hart]

To Waller: 

 

Thanks for sharing. And I'm sorry to hear about your personal demons. 

 

To address 

1 hour ago, CW2 Waller said:

The grading thing is in my opinion not going to work. I understand the rationale behind it, but it will backfire.

 

I absolutely understand the reservations and rationale behind disliking the idea. And I want to point out as well that I was not involved in planning that or working towards that in any way. I found out with the rest of you guys so I feel it's fair to say I'm not really biased towards it. In any capacity.

 

My thought is that lets give it a try. If people are mature about it and are aware or the potential drawbacks then I see good things being able to come out of it. If people are blind and stupid and immature and it creates the elitism and cliques then we will be fully aware that was a bad idea and to not do it again.

 

But my point is: we don't know. We can draw conclusions based on past experiences, good and bad, but with this group of people and in this mindset and community it has never been tried. So while I admit I laughed out loud when I read we were getting grades, I believe it's worth giving a more than fair shot. Simply because we don't know.

 

 

1 hour ago, GySgt Specter said:

I think the grades should be private, not public.

I can definitly see the benefits of that method, so I'm open to being convinced. But I don't make the decision so, to you and everyone else who has a suggestion or complaint or thought or whatever, do what I said in my first post and send a constructive suggestion up the CoC.

 

Also, I'm on my phone so appoligies for any odd spelling or whatever. Also also RIP triple post.

Edited July 13, 2018 by Capt Hart

[SSgt (Ret) Braathen]

@Capt Harti mostly disagree.  yes we agreed to role play but i have never agreed to that someone is going to tell how to play the game and grade me on it, for me sounds really dumb

 

[Capt (Ret) Jones]

47 minutes ago, Capt Hart said:

 

As far as I interperate our definition of realism I would think what you have laid out goes hand in had with what I've been saying. The role-playing side of it has always been a large component of my millsim career and I see no reason why the two ideologies cannot work alongside eachother.

When I'm constantly scrutinized on the performance of myself and of my team I find it hard to find the time to roleplay to the level I know I can. I worry more about whether I meet expectations rather than my own fun. 

 

It will never be fun for me to roleplay and be coached at the same time. Sure, there are mistakes to correct and things to improve upon, but all of that is a detractor to the overall gameplay.

[Capt Koch]

I'd just like to add: I think it's unfair to argue that anyone who doesn't like how things are run are in 'violation' (it's early, excuse the somewhat harsh word) of the realism definition of the Unit. There is nothing saying that playing in a realism environment in ArmA, with realistic Unit policies, equates to killing fun by grading everyone; or coaching everyone on a constant basis. Leadership, and general enlisted member burnout is very real because of decisions made at Command level.

 

All I'm saying is that at some point the Command needs to make a decision on whether they want to prioritise fun in a realistic environment like I tried to preach a few times, or whether they want to slowly strangle the unit with misguided decisions. I'm not saying the FTX should be cancelled or modified as is, but some reconsideration should be made in regards to how you view the Unit. This is a hobby, this is the internet, this is a game -- it's about time it's treated as such here, too, in my opinion.

 

Note: I'm not going to add much more, everyone so far has made valid points, I'm not here to belittle the work of anyone; just stating that someone should have thought twice before they started wanting to grade a gaming unit for performance -- even if it's a realism unit.

[Capt Koch]

I can't edit, but with the above said, I hope everyone has fun here or elsewhere. If what happens at this Unit is what you like; even better for you, you've found a place you enjoy.

[GySgt Cole]

1 hour ago, Capt Hart said:

-snip-

Boiling down my final thoughts on the matter:
1. Word shouldn't need to come through official channels for Command to pay attention. If people are moaning in the meme thread or in their private discussions, there's an issue.

2. Building on that, I think you missed my point that if people aren't having fun, they're going to leave. If Command is making the conscious decision to make this a paperwork laden, rubric graded unit that's more professional, they should broadcast that more clearly so people can leave without drama and without the pain of burnout. If Command has bumbled into this (which I suspect is much more likely), Command has to play make up, not the members. Like you said - I already made that choice - and I'm not coming back. I do still have friends in this unit however who feel it's going the wrong way, and since they feel the CoC has both failed them and will likely fail them again, I'm throwing out my thoughts in the public thread provided.

[Capt Hart]

2 hours ago, SSgt Braathen said:

@Capt Harti mostly disagree.  yes we agreed to role play but i have never agreed to that someone is going to tell how to play the game and grade me on it, for me sounds really dumb

 

 

Fair. And that suggestion should, and maybe was, be sent up the CoC to be appropriately handled and resolved.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, SSgt Jones said:

When I'm constantly scrutinized on the performance of myself and of my team I find it hard to find the time to roleplay to the level I know I can. I worry more about whether I meet expectations rather than my own fun. 

 

It will never be fun for me to roleplay and be coached at the same time. Sure, there are mistakes to correct and things to improve upon, but all of that is a detractor to the overall gameplay.

Gotcha. I never viewed those as conflicting but I'm glad you addressed it as its good to take note of. In my experience, and I cannot say how true to reason that stands, the role-playing falls in line easily after the professionalism and performance have been sorted out. I at least find it easier to role play as an MSOT Team Leader when things are going according to plan and my team is kicking ass, not when we are getting our asses handed to us because we didn't train something stupid like how to properly clear a house.

 

Regardless, thanks for the feedback.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Capt (Ret) Koch said:

There is nothing saying that playing in a realism environment in ArmA, with realistic Unit policies, equates to killing fun by grading everyone; or coaching everyone on a constant basis.

Very true. However, there is nothing saying that grading everyone or consistent coaching kills the fun. It is very much a matter of opinion. That also said, I want to point back to that this has never been tried before. Assumptions are being made without trial, evidence, or experience. You may be 1000% correct in that opinion and I, along with everyone else, will find out in a month and a half if you were right or wrong. But progress is made by making mistakes and learning from them. Imagine for a moment that this worked and that it was discovered to be the funnest thing the unit had ever done and had people enjoying their time the most. (Granted that likely won't happen to that degree but I'm using it to make a point) We would never know if we never tried it.

I'm not saying this is perfect. I'm not even saying its the best idea or the correct course of action. I'm saying its something innovative and different and we should at least see where that takes us.

As part of the growing pains is failure, if we try this and two months later we are worse off from it, we have a plethora of knew knowledge to draw upon to make better decisions going forward.

 

 

1 hour ago, Capt (Ret) Koch said:

Leadership, and general enlisted member burnout is very real because of decisions made at Command level.

First please site me the sources and evidence. That's quite a claim and, while I'm willing to accept that, I won't do so lacking clear evidence pointing at that.

Second: If there are problems people need to send them up. In my entire time in CS I can recall receiving only one complaint from the unit about the performance of CS and how we were running things. Sent up by Cole in a very irreverent manner, but I have to give him major credit that he actually bloody sent something up. He complained that we weren't being transparent enough and that the public thread was not being utilized appropriately. He was right. And from that we made changes. We limited discussions in OPSEC to disciplinary and awards based things, as they were supposed to be, and created the public portion of CS meetings as a result of that PM.

So while its all well and good to accuse command level decisions of being the cause of burnout, if nothing is ever sent up and nothing ever gets on our desks, you have no-one to blame but yourselves. We cannot read minds; We are only mortals.

 

 

1 hour ago, Capt (Ret) Koch said:

This is a hobby, this is the internet, this is a game -- it's about time it's treated as such here, too, in my opinion.

And in your opinion you believed you could do it better. So you've gone and given it your shot at it, as you should. But for us, we're still figuring it out as we are still all relatively new to this whole running a unit thing. So as I have said and re-iterated more times than I can count, if there are problems send them up. We have to know about them to do anything about it. Growing Pains.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, 1stLt (Ret) Cole said:

1. Word shouldn't need to come through official channels for Command to pay attention. If people are moaning in the meme thread or in their private discussions, there's an issue.

Yes there is clearly an issue if that is happening. And we can pay attention, and we can pay that attention in the wrong ways if that happens. The reason words should come through official channels is because it then enables all persons involved to use their higher brain power and come to logical sensible conclusions rather than resulting to their base instincts of wanting to hurt other people and feel important. Command is just as susceptible to being drawn into that base, degrading, fighting and confrontational attitude as everyone else. Look at Dale and Harrison. If members went out of their way to be professional and send things up properly, you would find it would elicit better reactions from those in command simply because we can look at it objectively and not hate you for causing drama.

TLDR; It doesn't need to go through those channels for us to notice, and we do notice, but if it does it's a lot less dramatic and a lot nicer for everyone involved. Why would go beat up your brother over him taking your book rather than just go ask for it back? It's why society has evolved (mostly) to where lawyers and courts are used to settle disputes over going over and shooting your neighbor because he took some of your corn.

 

 

1 hour ago, 1stLt (Ret) Cole said:

2. Building on that, I think you missed my point that if people aren't having fun, they're going to leave. If Command is making the conscious decision to make this a paperwork laden, rubric graded unit that's more professional, they should broadcast that more clearly so people can leave without drama and without the pain of burnout. If Command has bumbled into this (which I suspect is much more likely), Command has to play make up, not the members. Like you said - I already made that choice - and I'm not coming back. I do still have friends in this unit however who feel it's going the wrong way, and since they feel the CoC has both failed them and will likely fail them again, I'm throwing out my thoughts in the public thread provided.

Fair. I think our official definition of realism needs to be seriously looked at, considered, and updated to reflect fully what this unit is striving to be. Thank's for the advice.

 

[Specter]

3 hours ago, SSgt Braathen said:

@Capt Harti mostly disagree.  yes we agreed to role play but i have never agreed to that someone is going to tell how to play the game and grade me on it, for me sounds really dumb

 

This is a serious question I have, but isn't that milsim? Having someone tell you what to do? Maybe not the grading, but being told what to do and how to do it is literally the emulation of the military.

[Sgt Waller]

6 hours ago, Capt Hart said:

 

Fair. And that suggestion should, and maybe was, be sent up the CoC to be appropriately handled and resolved.

[...]

Second: If there are problems people need to send them up. In my entire time in CS I can recall receiving only one complaint from the unit about the performance of CS and how we were running things. [...] if nothing is ever sent up and nothing ever gets on our desks, you have no-one to blame but yourselves. We cannot read minds; We are only mortals.

[...]

So as I have said and re-iterated more times than I can count, if there are problems send them up. We have to know about them to do anything about it. Growing Pains.

I know for a fact concerns about this were sent up the CoC before this thread was created - not only by me but others too. Unfortunately not everyone decided to wait for a response. I rarely send something up the CoC, because mostly I'm happy (or to inactive) with how things are going. But when I don't, Brueske hears from me.

Although it doesn't bode well, that apparently most people do not use the CoC. In previous iterations of the unit sending stuff up the CoC was pointless most of the time. Your opinion was either dismissed or you were forgotten, due to all the other stuff leadership had to deal with. Maybe the current situation is a remnant of those times?

[Maj Whelan]

Just a tid bit, I don't really like joining these discussions but I can back Hart up on saying that nothing regarding complaints has reached CS unless it was directly messaged to us (love ya Cole). It's not that we're dismissive or we're forgetting things, it's that there's nothing there. We can't do anything unless we know about it, and if it's a fault with the CoC then we might look at seeing where the fault is.

[K. Cooper]

Capt Hart,

 

I mean to be completely sincere in the text following this, and do not mean any disrespect at all.

 

19 hours ago, Capt Hart said:

Point 4: Command Staff isn't the enemy, or the problem.

 

It had been brought to my attention recently by a member of Command Staff that they hold authority to not follow rules and articles that govern this 3d Marine Raider Battalion Realism Unit; of which rules and articles Command Staff had appointed. This essentially means that Command Staff is allowed to disregard policy on a case by case basis, which is easily synonymous with corruption and communism. 

 

Is there any way that I am perceiving this source wrong? 

 

If that is true, which I would not be surprised, would it be reasonable to question why all these rules and articles exist if Command Staff reserves every right to disregard them? Considering that those guidelines are made mostly to regulate Command Staff? So a near dictorial decision as Drumheller's does not occur again?

 

Very Respectfully,

LCpl Cooper

[LtCol (Ret) Makowski]

1 hour ago, LCpl Cooper said:

It had been brought to my attention recently by a member of Command Staff that they hold authority to not follow rules and articles that govern this 3d Marine Raider Battalion Realism Unit; of which rules and articles Command Staff had appointed. This essentially means that Command Staff is allowed to disregard policy on a case by case basis, which is easily synonymous with corruption and communism. 

No it was not, do not take me out of context.

 

I told you that Command staffs votes in office hours are final per policy however command staff can also vote and over rule their own rulings.

 

I did NOT claim CS didn't have to follow rules, only that it could vote to over rule its own policies.

 

 

[K. Cooper]

1 minute ago, Maj Makowski said:

No it was not, do not take me out of context.

 

I told you that Command staffs votes in office hours are final per policy however command staff can also vote and over rule their own rulings.

 

I did NOT claim CS didn't have to follow rules, only that it could vote to over rule its own policies.

 

May I respectfully quote you publicly Major, and provide some context?

 

[LtCol (Ret) Makowski]

17 minutes ago, LCpl Cooper said:

May I respectfully quote you publicly Major, and provide some context?

 

Quote

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..

This is what I said, piss poor grammar and all.