I originally posted this in the discussion log thread, but I feel like it won't reach as many eyes at the bottom of that page. Not to W**** out new topics or anything, I just think this is an important issue and I want to open up a discussion on the matter.

[The meeting log is] a lengthy, but important read to say the least.

If I may, I'd like to extend some points discussed, mainly being with leadership appointment and pragmatism.

Not to boast, but I've had my fair share of leadership experience and training, be it in schools, camps, or conferences (as much as the length of my short life can amount to at least). Therefore, to speak slightly from experience, I believe that it would be for the greater good to put more consideration into leadership appointment and role availabilities in the future. Frankly, I think we have way too many official leadership roles (on the 360 side at least); that is, our current active member base (in my opinion) shouldn't necessitate two U.S. based 360 squads for example. With multiple FTLs per squad, leaders and assistants, training and drill instructors, I wonder if these appointed leaders have a pragmatic role in the game, or if they hold an official title to fulfill our current paradigm of leadership.

I've been appointed as a fire team leader, but I've yet to see this take effect in game. Why have I been given this position in the first place? Is it because I'm an ace shooter and a level-headed leader that has shown in-game? Or is it simply because I've been around for four months and am very active in-game?

On the same point, do we name someone a drill/training instructor simply because they have a lot of seat time in a certain vehicle, or score high consistently? Or do we appoint someone to this important role because they have shown that they can aptly lead on the battlefield and lead by showing, rather than telling?

As wisely said in the meeting, "Awesomeness can manifest itself as arrogance when viewed from a position of lesser skill." I don't want to see this spreading as a theme. I want to see members in leadership positions that I look up to, that I learn from, and that I enjoy playing with, ultimately.

I understand that we are looking into a bright future, with hopes of an increase in recruitment, which will call for more leaders. However, I urge the command staff to reevaluate our current leadership hierarchy, and the necessity for it. Before appointing someone as a trainer, or a squad leader, I urge you to speak directly and privately to their peers, those people that play the most with them. Although this may raise flags in the view of the traditional hierarchy of command structure, I hold that it will build a stronger clan, from the ground up.

As stated previously, I'd like to open this up for discussion, as I know there are many views on the matter.

I love getting quoted it solidifies my opinion that I am the greatest . . . . LOLOLOLOLOL

Joking aside whenever I think about leadership I think about effective leaders I have seen in the past. One of the stand out champions is Major Parsons of the New Zealand Army. He summarises his philosophy below and his summary makes up my answer to your post Spammin, an excellent post and a good way of thinking which is contained within his first tenet:

a. The unrelenting pursuit of excellence. Demand high standards and higher standards of self—look for excellence in the small things and keep to the moral high ground. Doing a good job is the minimum standard, every member should strive to improve the unit and this starts with me.

b. Maintaining the highest standards of discipline. ‘A high standard of self-discipline in each soldier is the only effective foundation of regimental discipline. Commitment to the SAS pursuit of excellence becomes a sham if any single one of the disciplinary standards is allowed to slip.’

c. Brook no sense of class. ‘All ranks of the SAS are of one company in which a sense of class is both alien and ludicrous.’

d. Humour and humility. ‘Both these virtues are indispensable in the everyday life of officers and men—particularly so in the case of the SAS which is often regarded as an elite regiment. Without frequent recourse to humour and humility, our special status could cause resentment in other units ... and an unbecoming conceit and big- headedness in our own soldiers.’9

e. Self-sacrifice before self-indulgence. The ethos of service is fundamental to a fully effective defence force, but especially to a unit like the SAS. The SAS is more than just a unit. It is an ideal, a way of thinking, an audacious approach to warfare and all who serve must place this at the heart of their actions. In a unit that often operates as small independent teams, each member must look first to the mission, then the team, then themselves. Notwithstanding, mission focus obligates each member to look after themselves in order to be mission capable. This starts with me: may it never be said that my standards slipped or I profited at the expense of the unit.

f. Manage the present and proof the future. Command carries the responsibility for stewarding the resources allocated and setting the unit on a wise course that will serve future commanders well. This is the KNOW and DO of Army leadership.
(1) Management of the present is founded on sound administration and training. Administration underpins combat power, it should focus on efficiency, effectiveness and simplicity. Training should be hard, relevant, and equip the participants for future responsibility and operations. There is no excuse for substandard training.
(2) The future of the unit is founded on its people, its reputation and innovation. The unit is only as good as its selection standard which must remain immutable. The unit reputation equates to the level of confidence politicians and generals have in it. It must be jealously guarded. Innovation links back to the relentless pursuit of excellence. Every member must restlessly seek new and smarter methods of operating. Commanders must anticipate future developments and train to meet them, by doing this the unit will always be ready.

g. Do not be ambiguous or indecisive—(order then counter order = disorder). Delegate tasks and empower subordinates to carry them out. Set the boundaries early. Pay attention to the details during brief-backs and then get out of the road.

h. Do not take short cuts. Whilst an exacting boss is often not immediately appreciated, a slack taskmaster is never respected in retrospect.

i. Be friendly, firm, fair and seen. Soldiers and officers should be comfortable in asking for advice and critiquing aspects of the unit. However as standard bearer, along with the RSM, I must not compromise on principle. Discipline and reward must be administered with equality. If in doubt soldiers should be favoured over officers. Finally, history teaches that effective commanders communicate their vision and a sense of purpose by knowing their troops and commanding by walking around.

j. Win. Reinforce success and take risks when going forward. Audacity and speed brings its own security. Winning generally comes from out-thinking the opposition and being better prepared. Therefore think conceptually, plan in detail and execute with flexibility. Remember a plan is not a plan unless it has contingencies. Rehearse, rehearse, and rehearse!

This man is truly wise.

Sambi,

The FTL positions were created to allow a broader base of individuals to lead a fire team in the event that no leaders were present or if they were and did not want to lead. This allows for a quasi-rotation of leadership that way no one gets burned out leading all of the time. This essitially gives us a pool of 11 members that have the ability to lead a fireteam, however that is not to say they will always lead. Please bear in mind that the fire teams are not set in stone but, as was the previous misconception regarding the Apache's setup.

The TI role was to be reviewed to allow the best players at various roles have the opportunity to collaberate and redefine the curriculum for the classes. After all if they are the best at what they do, then it should be them that determines the material that we should use to become better at the individual items.

Also bear in mind, these items that were discussed will be implemented over time and are subject to change, however I wanted to present them to the masses.

Regarding your style of gameplay you posted about in your response to the meeting notes. I am not about to govern anyones gameplay, however I would like to hold the 13th to a higher standard. That is to say when we play as a group, please respect the guidelines that we have set out. If you are playing by yourself or with friends, play how you want.

Thanks for the response Dtiger, I just wanted to make some general points and ask some rhetorical questions.