SOC Faction Leadership

[Ziggy 1,353]

Upper Echelon 1.4

“I’m gonna take another look at that SOC overhaul.” 

 

The community feedback to the SOC Overhaul thread was very poor and defensive. I was a supporter of the thread and I’m going to go into detail about how I think the situation needs to be approached. I will get into my own personal plan at the end of the argument addresses below.  

 

1: The biggest issue brought up at hand was, “We shouldn’t be punished because one faction fucked up.”

• That isn’t why it was made. That was one of many examples brought to light as to why it needed to happen. 

 

2: The next points brought up included something along the lines of, “It’ll just happen again, we can’t stop it. It’s happened before, etc.” 

• Read that over again and tell me if this is any different: “Well X gun on the server is broken, and there’s always a new broken gun so why fix it?” 

  • This is why we need to adjust our approach at how SOC factions need to be handled. Just because something is causing an issue and might do it again, is not an excuse to leave it fucked. That makes the situation even worse. 

 

3: The third and final point that was repeated was: “Only wipe the factions that are struggling.” 

• I hope you see the irony in this. There isn’t a SOC faction that isn’t struggling in some way or some form. The entire thread was just negative feedback from the very people that got handpicked into their faction. I’m very passionate about this point in particular for a few reasons. Here’s where we’re gonna start. 

  • One of my first days back, I was asked about my previous experience on the server. Upon telling said person this information, I was handed a SOC whitelist and an MOS. This is what it’s come to. I don’t want to see a bunch of -1s from people I know were handpicked into their faction, because you literally would have no room to talk.

 

This is exactly the type of attitude that our SOC factions take towards choosing their members. 

 

“Bishop! Some SOCs are doing well!” 

• Here’s what I gotta say to you niggas who think that. No. There is no skill difference between any of the SOC factions because everyone is brought into their faction by their friend. It’s just a friend group running around with titles, just like a DarkRP party. Some of you SOC niggas are worse than 2GA PVT StraightOuttatheRR. In an ideal situation, the SOC members should be held to a higher combative standard than enlisted. 

 

The Solution:

There’s a couple ways this can go about. 

 

Option A: 

Keep the current SOC Officers and wipe the enlisted. If the faction continues to remain as a  landfill of target practice, then you begin to remove the officers and eventually the leader. If handpicks and biased tryouts are ever caught, the leader is removed on the spot. There needs to be recorded documentation of players who pass tryouts. Still easy to get away with handpicking, you’re probably thinkin. Well I would say that staff members do routine checks on docs and make sure that tryouts and inductees are recorded. Forge inductees and hand out whitelists at your own risk, but face the possibility of instant removal if you’re caught. If you’re not a shitty leader, you have nothing to worry about. 

 

Option B: Wipe it all and have the higher staff choose the stable leaders. This is not what I would go with, or even want, but it’s still better than leaving this mess where it is. 

 

 

Original post for reference^

Edited December 3, 2019 by {GG} Bishopil

[Ziggy 1,353]

Please refer back to the original post for community feedback on this issue, some good points were made.

Edited December 3, 2019 by {GG} Bishopil

[Abu1 1]

+1 agreeing with all the points above.

[Koulit 204]

I feel that option b is a bit drastic and will probably kill the server. If the server does happen to come down to needing something like this I think option a would be the way to go. 

[Ziggy 1,353]

1 minute ago, Koulit said:

I feel that option b is a bit drastic and will probably kill the server. If the server does happen to come down to needing something like this I think option a would be the way to go. 

As I said on the original post, Option A is definitely preferred. Option B would be a last resort. 

Edited December 3, 2019 by {GG} Bishopil

[{GG}otham 812]

If this is a suggestion simply to reform the abuse of handpicking into soc factions, I'd +1. However, if it's a suggestion to allow "higher ups"(As that word has been thrown around, but no one has suggested a formal rank) to start micro-managing/puppetting faction leaders, it's a no from me. As you've said, Option B would be server suicide. Unless you're telling me that Gildarts or Garnet himself would handpick leaders for factions, that would just put factions in the hands of "vets with clout" who will leave in 2 months time. Argue all you want, this is tried and true. Latest example less than 2 weeks ago, GB. I won't continue on about that, because you yourself has said that Option B is stupid.

Here's why I personally think Option A is equally stupid. Keeping the same leaders and wiping the enlisted won't improve anything, it will only serve as an unnecessary disruptor. Telling faction leaders all of their faction members are gone will cause 1 of 2 things. 1, the faction leaders will leave. Or more likely 2, faction leaders will get the same people who were removed back into their faction regardless of the amount of time it takes. TL:DR It will do nothing but make it take about 2 weeks to get back to where you are in the current moment.

My recommendation is to not wipe anyone from any faction, and instead implement the rules as a "clean slate". No one gets removed, no one else gets handpicked. Shaming handpicking is cool and all, but it would be completely ignorant to say "anyone who was handpicked regardless of when doesn't deserve to be in their faction. Throughout my time as general I had some regrettable handpicks, but I'd say majority of them significantly helped out the faction throughout their stay, "earning" their spot so to speak. There's no need to dramatically hit the server with roster wipes when you can just implement systematic rules to promote gradual change on top of it. 

 

[PrisonNightmare 741]

Gotham pretty much nailed it on the head, and I don't know why people keep bringing up this ludicrous idea time after time. Wiping the SOC factions will do nothing but hinder the state of the factions even further. I'm not on the server much at a consistent rate so I don't know how much SOC are actually failing to actually perform or be unbiased, but to call for a complete wipe of every SOC faction is kind of redundant.

 

Like gotham said, if the factions are wiped all that's going to happen is veterans who haven't been on since 2017 are going to start coming back and are going to try and butter up Phantom/Gildarts/Garnet to give them the leadership positions, only to leave it in a worse state and resign after 2 months. We've seen it happen with different factions like SEALs or Delta Force (May they rest in peace) in the past and I'm sure we'll see it again at this rate. Hell it even happened with Army at a point in time with people like Gary Sanders/Shrugger coming back and fucking it up.

 

If it really is at a point where it's starting to hurt the performance of the server, I believe high management staff needs to come in and "supervise" these leaders instead of just straight-up removing them. There just isn't enough competent people on the server to replace all the current SOC leaders without it going to shit. Maybe this isn't the best idea, but I don't think just purging the factions and starting a-new is a good idea.

 

Sorry if this is pretty much a copy-paste of what Gotham said, I just wanted to voice my opinion on this. 

[Vibe 1,088]

+1 

 

I think faction leadership has been going through this cycle for a while now. Like I said multiple times I’m not a perfect leader but I have been an officer in multiple factions during different time periods. Back when I was LtGen of 055 I looked up to leaders like Tayler, Shrimps, Phantom. They all had unique ways of leading that all worked. They attracted different kinds of players. They did this by having unique tryouts, a shroud of secrecy like ISI, and not doing tryouts every day. SOC factions don’t need to be full to be useful. If a consistent 6 talented players are on a SOC faction then that’s all you should need. Tayler’s seals used this by being “elite” majority US looked up to them because they were so good and their tryouts were so hard they couldn’t believe that people actually passed them. Too many leaders try to copy what past leaders did. Leaders like Duel and Rauler didn’t copy what previous people did, they were unique. There is nothing stopping current leaders from doing this, they are just too scared and lazy to do it.

 

Edited December 3, 2019 by Vibe

[Ziggy 1,353]

5 hours ago, PrisonNightmare said:

coming back and are going to try and butter up Phantom/Gildarts/Garnet to give them the leadership positions, 

It’s crazy how out of the loop you are right now. The fact that Phantom’s name was included into this when he doesn’t even play anymore, much less not have a rank outside of teamspeak, goes to show me that you’re really not around to know. 

5 hours ago, PrisonNightmare said:

I'm not on the server much at a consistent rate so I don't know how much SOC are actually failing

 

5 hours ago, PrisonNightmare said:

I just wanted to voice my opinion on this. 

The issue with you and Gotham is you guys are just saying “it’s going to fail because this won’t work”, without actually telling me how. The only point I see is that veterans will come back and take over?? Who??? 

I know I’m not.

Fupert leads Green Beret and it’s already better than most every current SOC faction and it has two members. Point there is that he’s a veteran and his faction is decent. Not sure what this fear of returning veterans is, but I don’t see anyone here is “buttering up” anyone. Nigga you can’t just say “it won’t work because it’s redundant” and hope I take that as an acceptable piece of opinion. 

5 hours ago, PrisonNightmare said:

instead of just straight-up removing them.  

Hey, good thing Option A wouldn’t remove any of the actual SOC leaders unless provoked. It would really do us both a favor if you read it through and through before commenting. Option A is ideal here.

 

It seems like your only argument point against this thread is that 

>veterans will come back and take a faction then kill it.

Uh, again I’ll ask this: who? Listen dawg, nobody is coming here to take over, and if anything, a veteran would probably do much better in two months than any of the current leaders could do in a year. I know I could. It really seems like you’re just defending this, just to defend it. 

 

Edit:

Forgot to mention this:

 How would any veterans take over factions if Option A were to occur? Officers and leaders would still remain in power. 

Edited December 3, 2019 by {GG} Bishopil

[Kendal 450]

44 minutes ago, Bishopil said:

a veteran would probably do much better in two months than any of the current leaders could do in a year. I know I could. 

I'd like to preface what I am about to ask by saying that this is a genuine question and I don't intend for it to come off as sarcastic or condescending.

How would you do better? What steps would you take as a leader in a SOC faction to A.) Make it the way SOC factions should be. B.) Make sure that your steps are viable for the long term (after you resign) so it doesn't end up back in the shit spot.

 

Disregard whatever was here before~

Edited December 3, 2019 by Milton
make it look pretty

[Ziggy 1,353]

5 hours ago, {GG}otham said:

As you've said, Option B would be server suicide. 
 

Don’t believe I said this at all. How would that work?

We remove a few leaders and start to manage what factions can and can’t do, avoiding the mess to repeat itself. 

I think that server suicide is a stretch. Just because factions are changing leadership doesn’t mean everyone’s just gonna op out. Just like PrisonNightmare, you’re telling me it’s going to fail because it’s going to fail. No way on fucking earth would everyone just leave behind their whitelists, donators, and will to play all because the shitty leaders of the server got removed.

None of this even matter if you would just look at Option A. Keeps all the leaders there, gives them a second chance, and they move on. You’re so hellbent on NOT OPTION B, NOT OPTION B, that you’re neglecting the true goal of Option A and what it can accomplish.

5 hours ago, {GG}otham said:

"vets with clout" who will leave in 2 months time. Argue all you want, this is tried and true. Latest example less than 2 weeks ago, GB. I won't continue on about that, because you yourself has said that Option B is stupid.

Okay, first of all, Fupert leading GB has already proven great. His faction has a serious approach, a difficult tryout, and isn’t already 30 players strong.

Second of all, stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that Option B was stupid. I said that I wouldn’t prefer it over Option A. If push came to shove, then I would pick Option B before continuing to let what’s happening go on. 

5 hours ago, {GG}otham said:

Here's why I personally think Option A is equally stupid. Keeping the same leaders and wiping the enlisted won't improve anything, it will only serve as an unnecessary disruptor. Telling faction leaders all of their faction members are gone will cause 1 of 2 things. 1, the faction leaders will leave. Or more likely 2, faction leaders will get the same people who were removed back into their faction regardless of the amount of time it takes. 

The leaders will leave? Okay, great. There’s one unmotivated leader right outta the way. 

Faction leaders get the same people back? If they pass tryouts sure. From a staff standpoint, it’ll be pretty easy to tell who got right back into the faction with say— oh I don’t know, docs? Then they get punished for it. That doesn’t mean that players can’t return to their faction, it just means that if SOC Leader A were to go pass all his friends again in a “tryout”, then he would be removed. 

Edited December 3, 2019 by {GG} Bishopil

[Ziggy 1,353]

@Milton Can’t quote cause I’m on mobile and this is an edit, but to answer your questions: 

A. I would enforce that the only entry into a faction is by passing the tryout. That’s it.  Players inside will have to follow a set standard, my standard, or face demotion. They would be evaluated regularly by myself in terms of skill, maturity, forums and reputation, and what they’re attitude towards other players are. That’s a clear cut answer any leader could give you, but the difference between them and me, is that I would actually follow up. 

B. When passing a faction off to someone else, they need to be guided and mentored before you can just drop the thread and hand them it. You need to teach them how the faction should be running, what it should look like, and how to address problems they might face. 

C. If you run a T2, then you run a T2. If you run a T1, then you run a T1. I know where a faction’s tryouts should stand based on the faction. I’m not going to make an SSO tryout, for example, impossible because I want to make a super skilled faction. I’m going to make a moderately difficult tryout that challenges the target party: 2GA. I understand that they’re 2GA, so I’m not going to make a tryout only super skilled players can pass. I’m going to make something that will attract the attention of those base faction players who are reaching the point where they’ve realized that they want to move up. 

This isn’t my application for leadership positions, though. This doesn’t even really matter, but I’m glad you asked that question. It gave me the opportunity to truly prove to everyone here that I know what I’m talking about. 

 

2GA POS Milton would have passed my tryouts with the kind of initiative you say you have, because he would’ve been the exact target market for the faction. Players who want to move to SOC and branch off from base. 

Edited December 3, 2019 by {GG} Bishopil

[{GG}otham 812]

Not going to split hairs with you. Minus a few mistypes about you thinking option B is stupid, I've covered exactly why I personally believe both of your options are stupid. You've spread your arguments and have gotten way too defensive immediately to try to get anything accomplished. Personally I believe you're wrong, and I said why.

 

[Ziggy 1,353]

24 minutes ago, {GG}otham said:

Not going to split hairs with you. Minus a few mistypes about you thinking option B is stupid, I've covered exactly why I personally believe both of your options are stupid. You've spread your arguments and have gotten way too defensive immediately to try to get anything accomplished. Personally I believe you're wrong, and I said why.

I quoted each part of your response, both to Option A & B. I understand if you don’t want to argue me on this, and you’ve got all the cards when it comes to that. If you believe I’m getting too defensive, then just leave it where it’s at. This is a topic I’m passionate about because it’s something that I’ve seen for a long time. I actually want it to change for the better, and when someone comes and suggests to just leave it where it’s at, but trust the staff to monitor it all, it kinda ticks me. 

You have your own reasons to believe I’m wrong. Great, I support the feedback. 

Edit: I went back and edited some unnecessary comments out because you’re right, I did get too defensive. The 4 AM wake got me grumpy af dawg, I’m sorry.

Edited December 3, 2019 by {GG} Bishopil

[{GG}otham 812]

1 minute ago, Bishopil said:

I actually want it to change for the better, and when someone comes and suggests to just leave it where it’s at, but trust the staff to monitor it all, it kinda ticks me. 

If you go back and read my recommendation, it was to implement what you wanted, but without wiping anyone. My main reasoning being that people will just get back into their faction either way. That's not me saying just leave it where it's at. That's me saying gradual systematic change will bring more positive results then a dramatic 8-9 faction wipe