|
This speech is not in any way, shape or form endorsed by the Federalist Party of America, nor the Democratic-Republican Party of America.
Look at our regiment groups, with shouts dating back to November and trainings hardly in sight. What could we blame this inactivity on? Why, when we divide our men, do such things happen?
I invite you to think about this with me. During the General Troop trainings of days long past, we kept a single training population, that at most hours had enough online troops to adequately host a training. But now we have divided our men into five parts, with our active population was put into the regiments, and our inactive/new majority was kept in General Troop trainings. However, 'active members' is hardly a permanent thing, and so the regiments fall into inactivity while the new generation of active members is mired in the General Troops.
How can we solve this crisis, where the regiments are falling out of activity? It is as simple as reuniting the training population into one mass. How can we train troops with regiments if they are all in one group? That, my friends, is where Rotational Regiments comes in.
Rotational regiments is the idea that for a period of time, one particular regiment is granted a monopoly on the rights to host a training, and all active troops participate in these trainings (like they did in General Troop Trainings). After that regiment's monopoly time has ended, another regiment would be granted monopoly. This would go on in a 'rotation' of regiments, repeating after all four regiments had been taught.
Regimental trainings will be organized by specialist officers who are tied to a particular regiment. It is my intention that all officers below Lt. Colonel become a specialist. Minimum trainings per monopoly period could also be put up.
Of course nothing is prohibiting the regiments from setting up two simultaneous training during an official training (one for beginner level learning, and another for advanced learning). "Advanced Only" trainings will not count towards the required amount of trainings per monopoly period.
Members of The Continental Army, feel free to review this idea and critique it. I am looking for ways to refine this idea enough to present to our Congressional body. |
|
IcycicleJoin Date: 2012-09-24
Post Count: 1172 |
I believe that this is vital for the survival of the Corps. You have my support, and I will be attempting to persuade others to make the reform alongside you. |
|
EltorkJoin Date: 2009-03-11
Post Count: 13129 |
"What could we blame this inactivity on?"
The Colonels-in-Command and Regimental Commanders
"Why, when we divide our men, do such things happen?"
To provide an equal opportunity to succeed in a specialty that they may bring to the army.
"But now we have divided our men into five parts, with our active population was put into the regiments, and our inactive/new majority was kept in General Troop trainings."
Didn't 2 seconds ago you just argued that the regiments are inactive? Plus, the main army is 10x more active than current regiments. Going off on what YOU said.
"However, 'active members' is hardly a permanent thing, and so the regiments fall into inactivity while the new generation of active members is mired in the General Troops."
Active soldiers are followed up by active officers.
"How can we solve this crisis, where the regiments are falling out of activity?"
By having active officers.
"How can we train troops with regiments if they are all in one group?"
That makes no sense.
"Rotational regiments is the idea that for a period of time, one particular regiment is granted a monopoly on the rights to host a training, and all active troops participate in these trainings (like they did in General Troop Trainings). After that regiment's monopoly time has ended, another regiment would be granted monopoly."
TCA is never going to get that organized to have timed trainings. There will always be something to hold it back.
"It is my intention that all officers below Lt. Colonel become a specialist."
Oh, so everyone can be forced to do something they don't want to do? That just takes the purpose of regiments.
"Minimum trainings per monopoly period could also be put up."
Minimum? What minimum?
"Of course nothing is prohibiting the regiments from setting up two simultaneous training during an official training (one for beginner level learning, and another for advanced learning)."
YAY! More chaos! /endsarcasm
"Members of The Continental Army, feel free to review this idea and critique it. I am looking for ways to refine this idea enough to present to our Congressional body."
Already did, and it's bad. Kudos for trying.
I'm already working on a new system for the regiments and they will be done shortly, hopefully in the beginning of winter break. No please be patient and don't get parties involved in military affairs.
|
|
|
OdysseusIJoin Date: 2014-03-16
Post Count: 23 |
Its soo long so I cant read. |
|
|
"The Colonels-in-Command and Regimental Commanders"
What a convenient scapegoat, but what promotes the inactivity of regimental officers? An ingrained feeling of pointlessness as they train the same three men who show up to their training something they already know by heart. Larger trainings are far more rewarding for the officers AND the soldiers involved.
"To provide an equal opportunity to succeed in a specialty that they may bring to the army."
You fail to address what you quoted, which in context means "Why are we inactive when we split up the men?". It was actually a rhetorical question I answered in the next sentence.
"Didn't 2 seconds ago you just argued that the regiments are inactive? Plus, the main army is 10x more active than current regiments. Going off on what YOU said."
Yes. But the regiments removed people who WERE active, and became inactive because of the unrewarding environment that is our regiment system. Simply put, it is taking the cream of our crop and putting it in the sun to whither.
"Active soldiers are followed up by active officers."
And vice versa, Travis. Our system prospers when BOTH sections are harmonious, but if either the soldiers or the officers fail in the regiment system we have up now, it collapses. This is called a "Negative Feedback Loop". It is also called the grounds for reform.
"By having active officers."
What is rewarding our officers? These small trainings are not an environment for learning, and it isn't doing us any favors.
"That makes no sense."
Once again, this is a rhetorical question. You don't need to know the answer, I answer it for you in the next sentence.
"TCA is never going to get that organized to have timed trainings. There will always be something to hold it back."
It is something as simple as scribbling in a week on your calender, and calling it 'Artillery'. Standard monopoly times can help with scheduling, if it is so bewildering.
"Oh, so everyone can be forced to do something they don't want to do? That just takes the purpose of regiments."
That is the point of rotational regiments, to bring our soldier to every method of combat available to TCA. So they know everything there is to know of what we do before they could be an officer.
"Minimum? What minimum?"
I don't know. Perhaps one training a day, that too hard?
"YAY! More chaos! /endsarcasm"
That was just a point that could brush aside concerns that this would only suit a 'unskilled majority'. If officers are upset with that prospect, that is the kind of apparatus they could use if they wish.
"Already did, and it's bad. Kudos for trying."
Your use of the past tense while publishing that made me cringe. Kudos for trying.
"I'm already working on a new system for the regiments and they will be done shortly, hopefully in the beginning of winter break. No please be patient and don't get parties involved in military affairs."
No, you are working on replacing the cogs to an inefficient machine, and you are addressing the symptom, not the disease. I will not be patient, and I most certainly will bring the parties to what is important in the affairs of The Continental Army! |
|
IcycicleJoin Date: 2012-09-24
Post Count: 1172 |
Wow, nice counter, ElEpic. Very nice. |
|
|
Really need to have regiment changes, 110% approval. |
|
|
Travis.. You were countered. Word for Word. |
|
Arnox45Join Date: 2008-11-20
Post Count: 7 |
That was one of the most beautiful masterclasses in schooling I've ever seen in my life. You sir, speak copious amounts of sense ElEpic. |
|
EltorkJoin Date: 2009-03-11
Post Count: 13129 |
"What a convenient scapegoat, but what promotes the inactivity of regimental officers? An ingrained feeling of pointlessness as they train the same three men who show up to their training something they already know by heart. Larger trainings are far more rewarding for the officers AND the soldiers involved."
Well first of all, that's not a scapegoat, that's the truth. If the inactivity isn't producing well in the regiment than they need to be replaced. Any idiot knows that. That's why we need to make regiments limited. Plus, the Colonels need to find the right time where most of everybody can show up. That time set is up to the Colonel and the soldiers. Also, saying larger trainings promoting rewards is a great example on how you're looking at greed. Trainings are not meant for rewards, there meant for you to improve your skill.
"You fail to address what you quoted, which in context means "Why are we inactive when we split up the men?". It was actually a rhetorical question I answered in the next sentence."
1. Equal opportunity for everyone to succeed in a regiment. This division is well enough to have people in certain groups that they feel more comfortable in. Comfortable=Happy Happy=Better fighting.
2. You can't answer rhetorical questions.
"And vice versa, Travis. Our system prospers when BOTH sections are harmonious, but if either the soldiers or the officers fail in the regiment system we have up now, it collapses. This is called a "Negative Feedback Loop". It is also called the grounds for reform."
No, not vice-versa. I've been in several inactive groups under reform to know that it is the high ranks who increase activity, not the soldiers encouraging the high ranks (it can be done, I admit, but that is VERY rare). If both parts of the system collapse, which it shouldn't since the HC is to keep in check, then reforms will go underway in replacing/filling in new officers in the system. Congratulations on explaining the current situation. I do see your point that you and many others fear this may happen again, but with the constant schedule changes and people generally losing interest (after all this is a game) then there is nothing we can do about that other than to try again. Nothing is ever perfect.
"What is rewarding our officers? These small trainings are not an environment for learning, and it isn't doing us any favors."
Rewarding our officers? The opportunity to serve your country is rewarding enough! If you complain to be at the same rank for a long period of time, then it's obvious you're not doing your job right. Keep in mind this isn't directed to you. Also, if the small trainings aren't an environment for learning then maybe you ought to change it? It's like going into a classroom and not learning anything because the teacher is giving you the same worksheet to work on. Maybe changing the worksheet would improve the education learning experience? Duh.
"Once again, this is a rhetorical question. You don't need to know the answer, I answer it for you in the next sentence."
No, really, you didn't make ANY sense. And to make sure I'm not going insane (which I already think I'm half way there) I asked Imperial.
[1:35:17 AM] Travis: Does it make sense?
[1:36:19 AM] ImperialBlood: Not really
"It is something as simple as scribbling in a week on your calender, and calling it 'Artillery'. Standard monopoly times can help with scheduling, if it is so bewildering."
Mkay so what if the Colonel of Artillery can't make the training? Oh, what happens in a social issue and they are late? What will we ever do during finals week? Like I said, let the Colonels in charge discuss the proper times for there own regiment's training.
"That is the point of rotational regiments, to bring our soldier to every method of combat available to TCA. So they know everything there is to know of what we do before they could be an officer."
Hate to break the news to you, lad, but with the intelligence running around among the low ranks, not everyone is going to get past Corporal. A soldier can exceed through the ranks and stay among that regiment specialty like real life military. Just because you don't know how to shoot a cannon doesn't mean you don't know how to win a battle.
"I don't know. Perhaps one training a day, that too hard?"
That's WAY to small and WAY to boring. I'd personally be mad as a low rank if all I see is officers sitting on the fort wall in Boston and shooting a couple civilians every minute or so. Maybe find a more creative way to train soldiers then people would get more interested to have more trainings. The world is your oyster.
"That was just a point that could brush aside concerns that this would only suit a 'unskilled majority'. If officers are upset with that prospect, that is the kind of apparatus they could use if they wish."
Like I said, "Yay more chaos". If there is an unskilled majority than perhaps the educated officers we so have could teach them a thing or to. Plus, you didn't really make your counter on this one, you just gave a warning.
"Your use of the past tense while publishing that made me cringe. Kudos for trying."
That's your problem. And repeating the "Kudos for trying" after me didn't really work out. Kudos for trying.
"No, you are working on replacing the cogs to an inefficient machine, and you are addressing the symptom, not the disease. I will not be patient, and I most certainly will bring the parties to what is important in the affairs of The Continental Army!"
I've seen the regiments work before and they did show great improvement. The system is insufficient and people are already scared by another reform since Bakers reformed the regiment 5 times before I returned. If people actually put faith in there command rather than just doubting them, maybe change would work for the better of all of us. And you have no choice of being anything but patient since there is so much one man can do that instead of criticizing him you can do something to, oh I don't know, HELP him and not going about trying to create a whole new system that 1) doesn't make sense 2) is already insufficient 3) would destroy the whole purpose of 7 months of work. And bringing parties into TCA is already causing separation and you doing that is already encouraging others to be divided, not just politically, but militarily as well. The reason I introduced the party system into America was not for TCA, but for American government. The people who are responsible for TCA reform is the TCA commanders. TCA is a authoritarian hierarchy, not a democracy.
I'm all open to ideas and feel free to share them with me (my PMs are always open) but I just don't find your idea efficient to replace with the new regiment system, which is underway. |
|
|
[1:35:17 AM] Travis: Does it make sense?
[1:36:19 AM] ImperialBlood: Not really
You asked me after you claimed you wrote it. So you basically lied
to get an answer out of me. So your point is invalid for that.
[09:35:48] Travis: "How can we train troops with regiments if they are all in one group?"
[09:35:54] Travis: Does that make sense?
[09:36:06] Travis: I wrote it and I kinda don't feel right about that...
[09:36:23] ImperialBlood: Not really
[09:36:31] Travis: Okay good because Epic wrote that
[09:36:33] Travis: LOL thanks
[09:36:55] Travis: im going to quote you either way
[09:36:57] Travis: thanks buddy |
|
EltorkJoin Date: 2009-03-11
Post Count: 13129 |
^
Because I knew you were going to give me a bias answer if you guessed I wrote that.
We already established it didn't make sense either way so no point in lying to him. |
|
|
"Well first of all, that's not a scapegoat, that's the truth. If the inactivity isn't producing well in the regiment than they need to be replaced. Any idiot knows that. That's why we need to make regiments limited. Plus, the Colonels need to find the right time where most of everybody can show up. That time set is up to the Colonel and the soldiers. Also, saying larger trainings promoting rewards is a great example on how you're looking at greed. Trainings are not meant for rewards, there meant for you to improve your skill."
The limitation of our regiments does nothing for our activity. It sequesters the best of our men, and puts them in an environment of inactivity for them to ultimately fail in. Your concept that Colonels need to find the right time to train is only weakening your own argument. With LARGER pools of men available to the regiments at once, the amount of soldiers needed to host a training will be online in total a lot more often than if we were stuck in the regiment system, where five soldiers might be online only once per day, at the absolute HEIGHT of activity.
I apologize for my confusing language when I say "rewards". You must have interpreted that as promotions or verbal praise. What I meant was a lack of a sense of utter pointlessness. When someone feels like their job is worthwhile, accomplishes something and all that, they are far more happy to do their job than if it felt like it was completely pointless. This pointlessness is put up by the low soldier turnout for trainings, and the soldiers become inactive because their officers are. You replacing the officers is only treating the symptom of a disease that has ravaged our regiment system.
"1. Equal opportunity for everyone to succeed in a regiment. This division is well enough to have people in certain groups that they feel more comfortable in. Comfortable=Happy Happy=Better fighting.
2. You can't answer rhetorical questions."
Soldiers have no experience with the regiments before being asked to join one. You can hardly say that soldiers are comfortable with a system of fighting. With rotational regiments, each soldier can sample all the regiments, they can be fully exposed to the options available to them. Don't claim that your system is one of comfort, it is one of guesses and entrapment inside inactive sects of soldiers.
"No, not vice-versa. I've been in several inactive groups under reform to know that it is the high ranks who increase activity, not the soldiers encouraging the high ranks (it can be done, I admit, but that is VERY rare). If both parts of the system collapse, which it shouldn't since the HC is to keep in check, then reforms will go underway in replacing/filling in new officers in the system. Congratulations on explaining the current situation. I do see your point that you and many others fear this may happen again, but with the constant schedule changes and people generally losing interest (after all this is a game) then there is nothing we can do about that other than to try again. Nothing is ever perfect."
I challenge you to host trainings every day for the next month, with the same three to five people arriving every time. That is the situation our regimental officers face. The complete dismay of not accomplishing anything no matter how active they are. If more soldiers were available, the quality of trainings would be at least partially insured, and officers would return to their posts.
"Rewarding our officers? The opportunity to serve your country is rewarding enough! If you complain to be at the same rank for a long period of time, then it's obvious you're not doing your job right. Keep in mind this isn't directed to you. Also, if the small trainings aren't an environment for learning then maybe you ought to change it? It's like going into a classroom and not learning anything because the teacher is giving you the same worksheet to work on. Maybe changing the worksheet would improve the education learning experience? Duh."
Once again, rewarding as in making training feel accomplishing. And that is exactly what rotational regiments can help with, variety in the class.
"No, really, you didn't make ANY sense. And to make sure I'm not going insane (which I already think I'm half way there) I asked Imperial.
[1:35:17 AM] Travis: Does it make sense?
[1:36:19 AM] ImperialBlood: Not really"
Imperial has something to say to you about that.
"Mkay so what if the Colonel of Artillery can't make the training? Oh, what happens in a social issue and they are late? What will we ever do during finals week? Like I said, let the Colonels in charge discuss the proper times for there own regiment's training."
Then an officer of Artillery will take over.
Holy hell I need to go to school, I will finish this when I get back home in nine hours. |
|
|
Travis was countered again. |
|
|
"Hate to break the news to you, lad, but with the intelligence running around among the low ranks, not everyone is going to get past Corporal. A soldier can exceed through the ranks and stay among that regiment specialty like real life military. Just because you don't know how to shoot a cannon doesn't mean you don't know how to win a battle."
I understand that not all of TCA is destined for greatness, but is it too much to ask that we don't write off the remainder of their education to a broken class with limited material. We have tried specialization, and it failed. It is, in fact, still failed. Perhaps with the addition of new officers, two or three trainings will happen, but then they will fail again because you have not addressed the issues of the regiment system.
"That's WAY to small and WAY to boring. I'd personally be mad as a low rank if all I see is officers sitting on the fort wall in Boston and shooting a couple civilians every minute or so. Maybe find a more creative way to train soldiers then people would get more interested to have more trainings. The world is your oyster."
Well, I would also like you to look at the regiment shouts, and compare them to what I am asking for out of my reform. We have shouts dating back to NOVEMBER among the regiments. Trust me, a training a day is above and beyond what our men expect out of officers these days, now. Moreover- interesting trainings? You mean trainings that cover material you didn't cover the day before (and the day before that and the day before that) ? That sounds like an argument for Regimental Rotation.
"Like I said, "Yay more chaos". If there is an unskilled majority than perhaps the educated officers we so have could teach them a thing or to. Plus, you didn't really make your counter on this one, you just gave a warning."
I agree, let's teach our men. But why limit their training to one particular thing?
"That's your problem. And repeating the "Kudos for trying" after me didn't really work out. Kudos for trying."
No, that is your ability to communicate's problem. And trying to come up with a witty comeback while worming in your forced humor of "Kudos for trying" didn't really work out. Kudos for trying.
"I've seen the regiments work before and they did show great improvement. The system is insufficient and people are already scared by another reform since Bakers reformed the regiment 5 times before I returned. If people actually put faith in there command rather than just doubting them, maybe change would work for the better of all of us. And you have no choice of being anything but patient since there is so much one man can do that instead of criticizing him you can do something to, oh I don't know, HELP him and not going about trying to create a whole new system that 1) doesn't make sense 2) is already insufficient 3) would destroy the whole purpose of 7 months of work. And bringing parties into TCA is already causing separation and you doing that is already encouraging others to be divided, not just politically, but militarily as well. The reason I introduced the party system into America was not for TCA, but for American government. The people who are responsible for TCA reform is the TCA commanders. TCA is a authoritarian hierarchy, not a democracy."
You are right, the system is insufficient. It is a broken program that harms far more than it helps anything, giving us mediocre, inactive, small amounts of men able to accomplish regimental tasks. But the thing about faith in command is that before any can be given, that command needs to prove it is worth believing in, and when all there is to believe in is inactivity and disorganized training, don't be surprised when soldiers have little faith in command.
Now of course, I can be patient and watch your officer replacements go through. I would much rather skip the two or three days of false hope we get from the officers not immediately giving up on the broken system, without the support of the soldiers. Instead, I ask for changes, meaningful reform so that we can prevent history from repeating once again.
"I'm all open to ideas and feel free to share them with me (my PMs are always open) but I just don't find your idea efficient to replace with the new regiment system, which is underway."
My PM's likewise, are open for those who have input on my proposed system (and any other idea they wish to share), but I find your criticisms messy and unfounded. |
|
|
Lovely counter! Well done. |
|
|
I would like to take this moment to put up that the banter found between me and Travis/Eltork is only that of familiar debaters, and should not be mistaken for how I address him as a professional. |
|