View Poll Results: Do you agree or disagree?

Voters
38. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yay!

    28 73.68%
  • Nay!

    10 26.32%
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 44 of 44

Thread: Company's join Regiments?

  1. #41

    CSA Captain

    Frederick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by michaelsmithern View Post
    i'm sure the rules will be discussed amongst the group within the regiment, i figured if your company didn't like them you could up and leave, but when it comes to a democratic style i still can't hop on board, it should be left to a select few to vote on regimental leadership.

    I think the captains of the regiments should get the vote.
    Cpl. Frederick Cox

    State of Georgia

    Confederate States of America


  2. #42

    CSA Captain

    Lance Rawlings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    841
    Quote Originally Posted by Frederick View Post
    The conversation isn't over. Especially not when a dissenting opinion is being expressed. There is a social pressure in joining established regiments for many reasons. For the same reason you don't have to join the NBA or follow its rules to play basketball, or the NFL to play football. Theoretically, the NBA and NFL are both voluntary organizations that you don't 'have' to join, but it is effectually obligatory, even if you can leave and go as you please. If you want to be a professional football player or basketball player, you have to play ball with those organizations. once there are established regiments, that's going to be the effect on the community. Play ball or go home.

    Subjecting you to these self-proclaimed 'generals' whose only claim to the title is that they started it first and convinced a couple captains to join with them. legitimized by their 'position' and official 'title' to which they do not deserve nor have earned. They have no more right to the role than any other captain.

    You disagree with mandatory democracy, because you don't want 'a democratic military'.

    That's just the thing, this isn't a military where you can command others what to do just because you started the regiment or founded the unit. This isn't the military. in a real life military, you have to obey the rules or you will be shot or punished.

    This isn't a real life military, it's a video game and the 'military' nature of the structure should represent that.

    you may respect and 'work together' with others, and that's fine, but such a trust system will break down when the small community nature of this game changes and it's released to the lower tiers and general public.

    The real question is; why do you oppose a 'democratic military'? Is it because you or whom you support for leadership positions isn't capable of garnering enough political support to maintain that position in lieu of permanent status?

    Is it because your decisions and actions or those of whom you support would not stand up to democratic scrutiny?

    It's hard being a leader when you're held accountable to those you lead, i agree. and certainly, in a real-life military situation, such 'democratic' institutionalisms questioning leadership would be negative. But this is an entirely different situation.

    Certainly, a 'military structure' would be beneficial if you wanted to assert some sort of established power over a larger organization without a legitimate claim besides the rank you've purportedly 'earned' and maintain with permanency without the consent of the governed.

    The only power an individual player has any claim to is that which the players below them have consented to. No 'general' can rightly claim such a title without the democratically expressed view of the players below them.

    There can be no reasoning behind not permitting or requiring a democratic process besides attempting to usurp the power of the player-base they are there to serve.
    Phew, quite a bit there.

    I believe that the NBA and NFL has too many variables to be considered viable evidence as to the existence of social pressure in joining a unit. I don't know about the rest of everyone, but I don't get paid more by being in a big unit. For the most part, that's all a bunch of fake drama. People can join or not join whoever they so desire.

    Secondly, I DO support people having rank higher than Captain. If you can gather enough men to your flag, go for it. Obviously You'll never need a General in the field, but they may be nice for administrative work if you ever got that many men. I support as high a rank as Colonel, given if a regiment can fill 7 or 8 companies. Of course I know it was historically 10, but 8 would do with the obvious downsizing.

    I never said I didn't support a democratic military, though I don't run that way because a unit quickly becomes a clique, with only the most popular, not the most eligible, being voted in for rank. I simply stated that we should not be forced to be a democratic military, just as we don't want to be forced to join a company or regiment. I support the right to choose how an organization is run. If you want to be democratic, fine. If you want to run it as a dictatorship, fine. But don't force anybody to do something they haven't worked for.

    On a side note, your use of quotations repeatedly mocks those who HAVE earned a rank. Of course their are 12 year olds running around with Brig Gen in front of their name, but several of us who actually care about what we're doing have put hundreds of hours making our units what they are today.

    Now to catch up on the other posts...
    To the Colors!

    Captain Lance Rawlings
    Company K, 38th North Carolina, Pender's Brigade, A.P. Hill's Division, Jackson's Corps, Army of Northern Virginia
    http://www.warofrightsforum.com/show...lina-Boys-quot


  3. #43

    CSA Captain

    Frederick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Rawlings View Post
    Phew, quite a bit there.

    I believe that the NBA and NFL has too many variables to be considered viable evidence as to the existence of social pressure in joining a unit. I don't know about the rest of everyone, but I don't get paid more by being in a big unit. For the most part, that's all a bunch of fake drama. People can join or not join whoever they so desire.
    Yeah, but it doesn't have to be official.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Rawlings View Post
    Secondly, I DO support people having rank higher than Captain. If you can gather enough men to your flag, go for it. Obviously You'll never need a General in the field, but they may be nice for administrative work if you ever got that many men. I support as high a rank as Colonel, given if a regiment can fill 7 or 8 companies. Of course I know it was historically 10, but 8 would do with the obvious downsizing.
    Pointless. A server will never hold that many folks.
    It's unnecessary.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Rawlings View Post
    I never said I didn't support a democratic military, though I don't run that way because a unit quickly becomes a clique, with only the most popular, not the most eligible, being voted in for rank. I simply stated that we should not be forced to be a democratic military, just as we don't want to be forced to join a company or regiment. I support the right to choose how an organization is run. If you want to be democratic, fine. If you want to run it as a dictatorship, fine. But don't force anybody to do something they haven't worked for.

    On a side note, your use of quotations repeatedly mocks those who HAVE earned a rank. Of course their are 12 year olds running around with Brig Gen in front of their name, but several of us who actually care about what we're doing have put hundreds of hours making our units what they are today.

    Now to catch up on the other posts...

    It becomes a clique when you've got an unelected leadership who are unanswerable to those below them. I think it should be mandatory voting in order to gain official regiment status.

    Just because you put x amount of hours into the game doesn't mean you're automatically a better leader than any other Captain who may have less hours but be a vastly more pleasant person and better leader.

    Popularity isn't always skill, but your popularity does matter. You're not going to be a popular person if you're a bad leader. Popular people tend to be more socially aware and therefore more effective as leaders.

    This is a video game, and while there are definitely great captains out there, any moron can make a unit and recruit some guys on board. I've got personal experience with officer training in the US military and I'll tell you that no one in this game has "earned" anything more than anyone else.

    I appreciate those who invest their time into their units, but don't go off thinking that entitles you to anything. Because there is a row of guys behind you just as capable of it.

    So if you have contributed as much as you say, then the guys below you will recognize that and vote for you.

    It's not about effectiveness, it's about enjoying the game. I think that's what you're missing here. People will vote for leaders that are fun to play with. Who is more "effective" is irrelevant in the context of this game.
    Last edited by Frederick; 07-01-2017 at 12:36 AM.
    Cpl. Frederick Cox

    State of Georgia

    Confederate States of America


  4. #44

    USA Captain

    Conway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Stephenville, Newfoundland
    Posts
    93
    I don't feel you'd see many regiments being formed due to outside pressure. Take the U.S.S.S Companies for example. There are like 8 of them and almost all from what I gather are led by a different person. There's a very slim chance of them joining together. I think it will mainly make administration easier for people who currently need to be in multiple companies as a captain in order to admin them all.
    41st Pennsylvania 1stLt C.O / 41st Ensign.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •