Guys Vote Required

[DF]Lenny

Guys

We need to vote in positions in the clan :

Commander

4 x Deputy Commander

2 x recruiter

1 x Diplomat

Field Commanders x 6

I propose nominate a person then do a poll on nominee's , we have to make slots for Immoratls also , can one of the mods move this to normal page maybe as few seem to come into the clan pages?

Ponster

moved

Dublin_Gunner

As this concerns internal clan decision, should this have not remained in the clan section?

mercenary2

a vote is a good idea as some of our hard working members kinda got sh... on over this merger but should this vote not be held after the trial period for other clan is up and wait to see what they decide but overall the vote needs to be fair and remember who done and what was done 4 b-ie

Nody

Do people really give a toss what title they have in the clan? Personally I'll happily give up the commander title and still lead as the commander if someone wants the title. I only care about the access a position gives to place chips and accept/send out clan invitations; if someone else is willing to pick those tasks up then make me a recruit tomorrow!

The title in game is of no interest imo; what matters is the ability to influence and lets be honest here the discussion will be at three locations:

1. B-IE clan forum (everyone with access sees everything)
2. 1-2-1 discussions in game (private chat)
3. On TS (I've been known to ask people to join a sub forum for this reason)

None of those require a WoT title to particpate in however.

Dublin_Gunner

Nody wrote: »

Do people really give a toss what title they have in the clan? Personally I'll happily give up the commander title and still lead as the commander if someone wants the title. I only care about the access a position gives to place chips and accept/send out clan invitations; if someone else is willing to pick those tasks up then make me a recruit tomorrow!

The title in game is of no interest imo; what matters is the ability to influence and lets be honest here the discussion will be at three locations:

1. B-IE clan forum (everyone with access sees everything)
2. 1-2-1 discussions in game (private chat)
3. On TS (I've been known to ask people to join a sub forum for this reason)

None of those require a WoT title to particpate in however.

Unfortunately within the current WoT setup those 2 go hand in hand.

That's not to say we couldn't have our own internal structure, with duties assigned as per the WoT clan setup (wherein we would really ignore the WoT ranks).

But saying that, a person in a position of 'power' so to speak would have to be assigned a WoT title, so therefore it makes as much sense to stick to the current format.

So in essence, yes, the title one has, does matter :P

Either way, this thread needs to go back into the Clan forum. Can you sort that Dan?

Ponster

2 x recruiter

1 x Diplomat

Field Commanders x 6


Can someone remind me what 'power' these people have ?

As far as I see as long as we have a few people to accept new members and make sure that the CW battles are scheduled then we're good. I don't know if the rest matter as such.

Dublin_Gunner

Ponster wrote: »

2 x recruiter

1 x Diplomat

Field Commanders x 6


Can someone remind me what 'power' these people have ?

As far as I see as long as we have a few people to accept new members and make sure that the CW battles are scheduled then we're good. I don't know if the rest matter as such.

Diplomat is kinda pointless really. Not sure what it really allows past 'recruit' other than being the main point of contact with another clan. Some features that they can perform aren't enabled as yet.

Field commanders don't really have all that much power, but have full access to view all clan related stuff on the map. They would be best used to put people in the positions where we had people before - i.e Heavy field commander, arty field commander etc who would take control of, and direct the others driving those vehicle types in clan matches. I would also suggest that they regularly train with the members under their command on tactics on a more macro scale to full team training. (i.e main tactic would suggest where they go, Field Commander would direct the tanks at that are of the map, down to which rock each person gets behind, ordering which tanks attack which enemy etc).

Recruiters, well, they can send and accept applications for clan membership.

Nody

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Unfortunately within the current WoT setup those 2 go hand in hand.

That's not to say we couldn't have our own internal structure, with duties assigned as per the WoT clan setup (wherein we would really ignore the WoT ranks).

But saying that, a person in a position of 'power' so to speak would have to be assigned a WoT title, so therefore it makes as much sense to stick to the current format.

So in essence, yes, the title one has, does matter :P

Either way, this thread needs to go back into the Clan forum. Can you sort that Dan?

Moved back to the forum.

But my point is, the WoT title only matters for access purposes and honestly we could get away with a commander and 2 sub commanders and call it done (and 2 sub commanders only for access rights to chips etc. to not put all on who ever holds the commander title). I'd happily give up the access as long as other people are willing to step up every day to do the routine administration around it

Ponster

I appear to be "Treasurer"


So where all this gold I'm supposed to be managing

Dublin_Gunner

Nody wrote: »

Moved back to the forum.

But my point is, the WoT title only matters for access purposes and honestly we could get away with a commander and 2 sub commanders and call it done (and 2 sub commanders only for access rights to chips etc. to not put all on who ever holds the commander title). I'd happily give up the access as long as other people are willing to step up every day to do the routine administration around it

I totally understand that. And in fairness I think that 2 DC's should be enough. However, in the inevitable run of things, there may be nights where only 1, or even none of the 3 are about, so from that perspective, 4 DC's may make sense. (2 from B-IE, 2 from II).

Its could be arranged that 2 of the DC's are in control of chip placement, and the other 2 DC's are required to do it only when neither of the first 2 DC's are available.

Commander *** B-IE
DC ** B-IE
DC ** II
DC* B-IE
DC* II

Stars given in order of priority for who places chips (Commander may / may not pass this duty entirely to DC level). Obviously, if more than one of these people is on when chip placement is taking place, discussion should be held with whomever of these Command positions is about, as to where chips get placed.

We don't want a case where 1 person takes it upon themselves to pick all the maps they like, at crap times :P

Dublin_Gunner

Ponster wrote: »

I appear to be "Treasurer"


So where all this gold I'm supposed to be managing

I took it when I left :P

ZZR1100

best to hold off on this until we know if the immortals are staying and then let the people interested in the various positions nominate themselves, followed by a clan poll.
end of story

mercenary2

i think paddy is right with the vote and i think it should be atleast every 6 months ,im not saying it matters who is what but for them that work hard it is nice to see a tittle by their name to show they have done so ,we cant just have one person hand over command title as we know this has lead to trouble in the past ,so yes a vote would be good ,after all you dont need accept this vote but pass it to the person with the next amount of votes and so on,this way everyone may get a chance if they accept it.

Nody

Before any vote (and I'd do it on TS) we need to define:

1) What role(s) do we need to fill
2) What's the task of said role (this includes but is not limited to diplomacy, leading battles, chip placement, accepting new recruits etc.)

Because I think most roles relating to WoT are administrative and only one (field commander) is really relevant beyond that and even that's a role I'm not sure we would like to advertise (i.e. if people know who our BCs are they can easier disrupt them/kill them etc.). Most other roles are simply sensitive in nature (i.e. access to clan vault / chips / access to invite) rather then needed to be filled.

The commander role (at least to me) is more someone to keep things ticking along and pour oil on waves and is the final word only in a tied decision (most decisions can be done by discussion on TS with out commander's input).

Dublin_Gunner

mercenary2 wrote: »

i think paddy is right with the vote and i think it should be atleast every 6 months, im not saying it matters who is what but for them that work hard it is nice to see a tittle by their name to show they have done so ,we cant just have one person hand over command title as we know this has lead to trouble in the past ,so yes a vote would be good ,after all you dont need accept this vote but pass it to the person with the next amount of votes and so on,this way everyone may get a chance if they accept it.

Every 6 months is probably best. Any more, and it doesn't really give all that much time for the guys to get used to their positions (IMO).

Maybe a list of nominee's should be drawn up, rather than have everyone mention who they think would be good for what, otherwise we might end up with too many candidates which could skew any voting process by having a number of candidates potentially on the same number of votes.

IMO if that happened, it should be decided with a duel. 10 paces.

mercenary2

I totally understand that. And in fairness I think that 2 DC's should be enough. However, in the inevitable run of things, there may be nights where only 1, or even none of the 3 are about, so from that perspective, 4 DC's may make sense. (2 from B-IE, 2 from II).

Its could be arranged that 2 of the DC's are in control of chip placement, and the other 2 DC's are required to do it only when neither of the first 2 DC's are available.

Commander *** B-IE
DC ** B-IE
DC ** II
DC* B-IE
DC* II
this is why as pointed out by dublin more than one is needed and having a title by your name dont mean u will be targeted first in battle ,as a bd can still give command after he/she is dead. we dont go looking at other clans to see who has their titles before battle

Dublin_Gunner

mercenary2 wrote: »

I totally understand that. And in fairness I think that 2 DC's should be enough. However, in the inevitable run of things, there may be nights where only 1, or even none of the 3 are about, so from that perspective, 4 DC's may make sense. (2 from B-IE, 2 from II).

Its could be arranged that 2 of the DC's are in control of chip placement, and the other 2 DC's are required to do it only when neither of the first 2 DC's are available.

Commander *** B-IE
DC ** B-IE
DC ** II
DC* B-IE
DC* II
this is why as pointed out by dublin more than one is needed and having a title by your name dont mean u will be targeted first in battle ,as a bd can still give command after he/she is dead. we dont go looking at other clans to see who has their titles before battle

And besides, the games mechanic means you can't exactly run around the map trying to hunt a particular player down.

ZZR1100

mercenary2 wrote: »

I totally understand that. And in fairness I think that 2 DC's should be enough. However, in the inevitable run of things, there may be nights where only 1, or even none of the 3 are about, so from that perspective, 4 DC's may make sense. (2 from B-IE, 2 from II).

Its could be arranged that 2 of the DC's are in control of chip placement, and the other 2 DC's are required to do it only when neither of the first 2 DC's are available.

Commander *** B-IE
DC ** B-IE
DC ** II
DC* B-IE
DC* II
this is why as pointed out by dublin more than one is needed and having a title by your name dont mean u will be targeted first in battle ,as a bd can still give command after he/she is dead. we dont go looking at other clans to see who has their titles before battle

this makes the most sense, but again i think the people interested should put their names forward. its pointless everone nominating players to D.C or other positions if the nominated players have no interest in the role.
as far as targeting the commanders by their title in a battle, i think thats the last thing anyone would do as it lets them concentrate more on the battle if they are dead.
dangrim leading the charge as an example

mercenary2

why didnt my quote of what dub said get a fancy blue box ....lol

Dublin_Gunner

mercenary2 wrote: »

why didnt my quote of what dub said get a fancy blue box ....lol

Because you copied and pasted, rather than pressing the quote button!

And you wanted to make it seem like it was your great idea - ya big plagiariser!

[DF]Lenny

Really i was meaning more with the new Imortals guys , people can get their nose put out if they were Dc or whatever in their old clan ,

As to power part of it , thats not the point but it does need to be clarified especially on a TS chanel where 40 odd people can speak at same time, Battle commanders in particular

when all things are fine , structure is unimportant , when things go wrong , well thats when its needed IMO

I'm going to nominate myself for treasurer to get my hand on all that gold , buy myself 2000 gold shells then leave ,thats my plan

Dublin_Gunner

[DF]Lenny wrote: »

Really i was meaning more with the new Imortals guys , people can get their nose put out if they were Dc or whatever in their old clan ,

As to power part of it , thats not the point but it does need to be clarified especially on a TS chanel where 40 odd people can speak at same time, Battle commanders in particular

when all things are fine , structure is unimportant , when things go wrong , well thats when its needed IMO

I'm going to nominate myself for treasurer to get my hand on all that gold , buy myself 2000 gold shells then leave ,thats my plan

Bloody hell, I think you're looking at the wrong clans treasury! ha! And Ptegan will get his nose out of joint, I think he's quite happy with the treasurer role (i.e doesn't have much to do lol)

Fionn Mc Coule

;):D:p:):rolleyes::eek::cool::P:confused: is as far as i can see, but i dont mind i thonk everyones idea is good.

Dublin_Gunner

Fionn Mc Coule wrote: »

;):D:p:):rolleyes::eek::cool::P:confused: is as far as i can see, but i dont mind i thonk everyones idea is good.

What a lovely bunch of smileys!!! he he!

Dublin_Gunner

Any update on this lads??

Considering the CW break over the Xmas season it might be the perfect time for the re-structure / command & squad organisation to be put in place.

There is no CW to concentrate on, and a lot of people seem to be on regularly.

BIE.Ryaner

I'm not too well up, who's in what position currently, who's "running" for positions?

Dublin_Gunner

BIE.Ryaner wrote: »

I'm not too well up, who's in what position currently, who's "running" for positions?

Here is the clan and current positions.

Personally, I don't see much that really needs changing, but this all came about with the integration of the II clan with us.

Maybe this topic is redundant? Not many people seem to post much here anyway.

BIE.Ryaner

yeah it's a bit quiet bar me spamming

Dublin_Gunner

BIE.Ryaner wrote: »

yeah it's a bit quiet bar me spamming

And me spam-replying :P

BIE.Ryaner

should be let out of my cage here in the next half hour. clock watching to beat the band. C'MON!!!!