Author Topic: Debate thread  (Read 1914 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Michael Fish

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 848
  • Ubique
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 1stRHA_Col_Fish
  • Side: Confederacy
Debate thread
« on: December 27, 2014, 12:51:21 am »
    So, i was sifting through the forums earlier and I've never actually seen a thread for debating regimental policies and controversial topics before, by that i mean things like multi-clanning, donations, trolling and many others. Once a week i'll update this thread, and post in it with a new statement/question, and then debate can ensue.
    I'll also keep a list of all previous questions/statements as well as some quotes for and against
    If you have suggestions for a topic, feel free to PM me!

    A few rules:
    • No flaming, i'd like this thread to stay up, not be locked because people are using it as a place to abuse each other and talk crap
    • Secondly, respect peoples point of view; normally i wouldn't feel the need to mention it, but just in case ;)
    • Third, if you have nothing to say that doesn't contribute to the discussion, don't post it...
This week:
What is your opinion on Multi-clanning/regimenting?

I'll throw in my two cents a little later [/list]

Offline Siwi

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 2055
  • Where is BCoF
    • View Profile
  • Nick: -|- Where is BCoF -|-
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: Debate thread
« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2014, 12:58:12 am »
From a regiment leaders perspective, it's annoying because your members aren't 100% dedicated to your regiment, they are spread over a few.

From a regiment member perspective, it's nice to be able to play with different people/play styles or roles like cav/Skirms/line/arty.
Quote from: George W. Bush on 9/11
Battle Cry of Freedom was an inside job
NW Leaderboards
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
NA_Groupfighting
 
Check out the site
 
_________________

Offline Ser Thomas

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 1910
    • View Profile
  • Side: Union
Re: Debate thread
« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2014, 04:59:40 am »
Some people can handle double regimenting well and others can't(from a player prospective mostly.)

Those who can handle it
- Balance both regiments
- Don't hide the fact their double regimenting and make sure both leaders know

Those who cant
- Use is as an excuse to find ways to leave regiments and join others(ex: Joining a different one and eventually becoming so inactive in the original one that the old leader removes you so you can go around saying "he kicked me out! I can now join your full time." and stuff like that)
- Try to hide it and let no one else know their in more then 1 regiment.
- overall be really weird and sneaky about it.

Offline Carson

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 2491
  • Charlie Don't Surf
    • View Profile
  • Nick: USMC Captain
  • Side: Union
Re: Debate thread
« Reply #3 on: December 27, 2014, 05:46:39 am »
I agree with Thomas, some people handle it better than others.

Former:
15e Chef de Bataillon
USMC Captain |30th Captain | 3eVolt Soldat de Première | 1te Garde Lieutenant | 15thYork Serjeant | 21e Soldat | 24th Private

Offline MnB_ExpS_g0ldenroman

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • "You aren't good, until you are an Expert"
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Debate thread
« Reply #4 on: December 27, 2014, 12:11:09 pm »
I have no idea what a multiple whatever regiment is. But i would consider the MnB_ExpS-System:
random meetings in deathmatches and groups without leaders.
Minimum amount of Teamkills.

*Robsengame*
1) "Mount 'n' Blade EXPERTSSSS" Leader (since 2017)
2) Winner "One man line Award" 2013 (beating a line alone)
3) 51 times champion of the Tropical Paradise (no cav)
4) Member of the glorious MnB_ExpS

Offline Gluk the Walrus

  • Che Guevara's American Cousin
  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 4779
  • Ex-NANWL Moderator | #RemoveAussies
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Gluk The Walrus
  • Side: Union
Re: Debate thread
« Reply #5 on: December 27, 2014, 01:41:49 pm »
The original idea behind the "no double regging" rule was that it would conflict with their regiments event times. So people might decide not to come to a 2nd event (random name) because they want to go to a 3rd event instead (again random name). In my opinion i see no problem with people in EU joining both an EU and NA regiment and vice versa because it doesnt conflict with times, although i would never make said person an NCO of the regiment. As for someone who is NA and joined 2 NA regiments, there is major problems with that. Most rankers don't understand this but attendance is a HUGE deal for regiment leaders and when they find out that someone didnt go to an event because theyd rather go to another regiment's event, it doesnt go over too well. There is also the matter of loyalty to your regiment, i find myself fairly loyal to the 1er Grenadiers, its name, the history, and its people. Those who double-reg typically dont have that loyalty unless they strongly perfer one regiment over the other. As for those who double-reg and become reg hoppers, i find that these people only do this because they want to make a name for themselves, they join for the rank but leave because the regiment is bad. What they dont understand is that you have to put hard work into a reg for a long time in order to get the rank you want and make a name for yourself. Regiments who give out ranks to people just to join are usually the worst kind in my opinion and encourage this reg hopping behavior.

Offline Super

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1475
  • Captain of the 3rd Regiment of Foot
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 3rd_Capt_Alexander_Cameron
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Debate thread
« Reply #6 on: December 27, 2014, 04:39:55 pm »
I have no problems with people who wish to be in one EU regiment and one NA regiment, as Glukhovsky said, it doesn't tend to affect either regiment in a negative way, and that member then has the opportunity to play more events. In general I think double or multi-regging is just a matter of maturity. A mature player can hold down one regiment, become friendly with those community members and will work towards promotion or appointment, rather than get pissed off and leave when it's not handed to them on a silver plater. Immature players are the opposite and need to multi-reg so they can go through that enjoyable phase of being welcomed as a new player repeatedly, just like those people who need to hop regiments monthly. I imagine it comes as a result of not being liked in real life and therefore seeking attention.

Also whilst on a rant;
Spoiler
I have no idea what a multiple whatever regiment is. But i would consider the MnB_ExpS-System:
random meetings in deathmatches and groups without leaders.
Minimum amount of Teamkills.

*Robsengame*

  • Third, if you have nothing to say that doesn't contribute to the discussion, don't post it...
[close]

Offline MnB_ExpS_g0ldenroman

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • "You aren't good, until you are an Expert"
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Debate thread
« Reply #7 on: December 28, 2014, 12:59:07 am »
4. If you don't like what you see, quote it.
The
Quote
mature player
's way i guess
1) "Mount 'n' Blade EXPERTSSSS" Leader (since 2017)
2) Winner "One man line Award" 2013 (beating a line alone)
3) 51 times champion of the Tropical Paradise (no cav)
4) Member of the glorious MnB_ExpS

Offline Gluk the Walrus

  • Che Guevara's American Cousin
  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 4779
  • Ex-NANWL Moderator | #RemoveAussies
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Gluk The Walrus
  • Side: Union
Re: Debate thread
« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2015, 08:43:01 pm »
Update please :)

Offline Michael Fish

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 848
  • Ubique
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 1stRHA_Col_Fish
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: Debate thread
« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2015, 12:54:56 am »
Update please :)
Will have the update tomorrow, been a busy weekend for me! Could use a few ideas for topics though people, feel free to PM

Offline Ser Thomas

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 1910
    • View Profile
  • Side: Union
Re: Debate thread
« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2015, 11:07:58 am »
Update please :)
Will have the update tomorrow, been a busy weekend for me! Could use a few ideas for topics though people, feel free to PM
Debate on Merges mabey?

Offline Michael Fish

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 848
  • Ubique
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 1stRHA_Col_Fish
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: Debate thread
« Reply #11 on: January 05, 2015, 06:57:42 pm »
Update please :)
Will have the update tomorrow, been a busy weekend for me! Could use a few ideas for topics though people, feel free to PM
Debate on Merges mabey?
Not a bad idea, this week's topic is merges!
The BC's had it's fair share of merges, it was actually formed from a merge, personally i feel that when merges go well, they're great, but of course there are those few (I say few, i mean quite a lot) that use merges to destroy regiments. We've seen both sides of this, the BC's Parent regiments are the 6th Holyrood Guards and 1st Royal Horse Artillery, and we merged together and have all formed a strong and competent regiment, but we've had a few people come in and form other battalions after we've been established and it hasn't worked out very well (apart from our rifles, forming from the 123rd and have made a great addition) and also tend to have a negative impact. All in all i'm of the opinion that to make a merge work, you have to actually make friends with the regiment, and have good bonds before hand, that's how it was with the 1st and 6th, and the 123rd and BC, speaking to a random leader who says he's got 10+ guys and is activly growing never tends to work out

Offline Ser Thomas

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 1910
    • View Profile
  • Side: Union
Re: Debate thread
« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2015, 10:17:19 pm »
I find that usually merges are a bad idea, they sometimes work out but its very hit or miss.

Lawbringer

  • Guest
Re: Debate thread
« Reply #13 on: January 09, 2015, 02:21:58 am »
imo for merges, both regiments would have to know each other fairly well and get along together whilst separate from each other first. Not only the leaders, but the members too.

Offline Gluk the Walrus

  • Che Guevara's American Cousin
  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 4779
  • Ex-NANWL Moderator | #RemoveAussies
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Gluk The Walrus
  • Side: Union
Re: Debate thread
« Reply #14 on: January 09, 2015, 11:24:48 pm »
I can see them being good and bad. I would say the majority of mergers that happen in this community are bad. This happens typically from regiment leaders rushing into it or not getting the full consent of the regiment members.

Here is a checklist to determine if a merger is right for you:
Do your regiment leaders(NCOs included) want it?
Do their regiment leaders(NCOs included) want it?
Do the majority of your regiment members want it?
Do the majority of their regiment members want it?
Can both your regiments work together well?
If 4/5 of the answers are yes, then a merger might be good. If 5/5 of the answers are yes then go right ahead.