Firstly, we could care less who hates us. We aren't going to control that because we can't
Funny joke. "Take a moment to consider why: People don't dislike the 63e without reason, and many have said exactly why they dislike the 63e on this thread. It seems to me that the 63e aren't taking these grievances very seriously, and have just taken a "Hate us cuz they aint us" attitude towards the community, which is honestly pretty disappointing to me."
How is option 2 impossible? If 63e Siege's success is accomplished through the concentrated effort from our NCOs and members, why can't Community Siege prosper with members of the community putting in the same amount of work?
Its alot easier to tell your ~100 attendance to go to your siege server after an event, especially when a large number of your cadets were recruited there, than it is to contact 5-10 regiments that bring 10-20 to EVENTS to get their people on siege and populate it constantly. If the amount of "work" it took for a server to compete with 63e siege was equal to the amount of "work" it takes to maintain 63e siege, then this would be a non-issue, but I think you are failing to see that.
Why put in the work when we can just convince a private owner to open his server for us, and we just leech of the work they put in? You have to listen to your proposal. It involves the private owners who have put in the work to create it to what it is now, to just let anyone sit on the back of that work. No, go out yourself and work for it yourself.
You are basically asking others to do exactly what you think is unreasonable for the 63e to do: Get a privately owned server and make it widely accessible to the community.
Not really, the 63e Siege is aimed for the 63e. When you suggest a community siege, it's more aimed for the community so you can't compare a privately owned server to a server aimed to adhering to the community. Also, isn't this where the criticism of the siege is coming from, right? Not from a few individuals who over time have disliked the 63e, but actual regiment leaders? Otherwise there's nothing to talk about here if no actual regiments that participate in the open community don't speak up about it. So far the only current regiment leader to bring anything up is cheesypants, and his regiment has 60-100 active members. So where are the regiment leaders you speak of that say their regiments have failed do to the server. At this point it's a claim made by non-regiment leaders and more so people who have been in the community/browse the forums.
Almost this entire paragraph is a Straw Man Fallacy.
Listen, servers are often privately owned. You know NA_Groupfighting? Privately Owned. Its owned by Label, you may know him, visits the NA_GFing thread alot, is pretty bad at melee tbh, and he lets anybody recruit on his server. But, that still doesnt make it less privately owned. If we were to get a "Community Siege", it would be privately owned by some individual, most likely a regimental leader. However, you are asking them to open up their recruitment to everybody and put in all the effort to contact alot of regimental leaders and populate it CONSTANTLY. Yet, it is unfair to ask the 63e to put in minimal effort and just relax recruitment restrictions.
I also dont care who the criticism is coming from to be honest with you. If they are part of the community, and if it is valid criticism, then it shouldn't matter if they are the leader of the 71st or a 63e cadet. What I see now is a large portion of the community bringing up valid grievances against the 63e, and the 63e is just shrugging it off as "lol haters, dont hate cuz u aint". If this keeps up, I would be more than willing to get alot of the "leaders" around here and see exactly what they think.