Spec Ops Writeup 2/8/13

While recording, something crapped out on my end on Dxtory and it gave me great footage, but without sound...

The highlight of the night (before the heavy drinking began) was probably this defense at J908

One more thing I forgot to mention is that Nomad and myself have been working on a stronger outline for Spec Ops that is VERY organized and will help us be more effective with Solid strategy. I warn though, it is a little bit of a read but will help make us way more stronger of a unit.

Wow. Not sure whether to be glad or sad that I missed the ops.

I totally agree about sundies. Our tactics need to include them.

However, there is something that I've disagreed with the officers on, for quite awhile, and now seems as good a time as any to bring it up: I completely disagree with the ruling against map information from inside the squad. I've founded and lead PvP-centric clans in multiple games, often coordinating numbers comparable to and exceeding platoon size, in games with no such management tools. We do have great tools for inter-outfit communication. We do have excellent and attentive leadership. I am grateful for them, and they do excellent work. However, I'm not convinced that we have the correct communication schema.

Let's get right down to brass tacks, because we're (hopefully) all friends here and obfuscating gets no one anywhere. The number one and number two reasons I hear for keeping map and movement info to ourselves are "command knows," and "I'm on too many channels and can't hear this or that." Both of those reasons are at least partially bullshit and, in my mind, unacceptable. I've done organization on a large scale and I've done it in this game, as well. Command does not always know. Command may know; command can often know. Those are not the same thing.

Command may be annoyed with multiple tells. That's fine. Command is human, just like the rest of us, and annoyance is a common factor in human engagement. However, simply by dint of taking up the command mantle, command is required to take more of it before lashing out. Most of our officers do an excellent job of that almost all the time. I applaud you all. That said, if you, as an officer, are shutting down valid lines of communication because you are minorly annoyed at getting the same info, more than once, then we need to have a very serious talk about the nature of command and the value of intel. In my opinion and experience, putting up with hearing something I already know 99 times is absolutely worth the one time something key slips past me. Which happens. To everyone. I've been thanked by squad and platoon leaders, in this outfit, for providing intel that had slipped past them, or never even been iterated, in the first place.

Info gets lost. We are paying attention to other things. We zone out for a second. We accidentally prioritize the wrong thing, or the right thing, but data slips past. Intelligence flow to leadership is never a negative. Not in business, not in real militaries, and certainly not in a group of friends striving to embarrass a horde of unwashed rebel scum and techno-fuckers in a computer game. That flow should be modulated. Perhaps putting windows on appropriate timing for intel is a discussion we should be having. "State once, ask for confirmation, do not repeat for 3 minutes," is not a bad type of system to begin thinking about. Because, communication can be very complicated. However, intel is never bad. In real military application, the man on the ground is always the first provider of intelligence. The same is true here. Things get complicated because we are all men on the ground. We can streamline that, but stifling that man's voice and knowledge is not wise.

This segues me into my second point concerning intel communication. "I am in x many channels and am a bit overwhelmed," is a valid statement. Most of the time, it's very, very true. It shouldn't be. If you, as a leader, are in so many channels that your efficacy is suffering, then you need to prioritize and trim those channels. The PL doesn't need to be in channels with other outfit leaders. That's what we have our liason officers for. PL should speak and the ambassador should intercede. PL should not be carrying on outfit or business conversations in an officer channel, while leading. Command needs to be in command.

In real military application, intelligence channels exist so that command can do precisely that. Command should not be carrying out intelligence or liaison roles. Command needs to receive intel and give orders. Even if that intel if from his own eyes (his map), or is redundant, his job is to take it and makes good decisions based on it. Limiting his role will help command's sanity and also help command's efficiency. No squad member should be penalized for providing intel to his SL. No squad lead should be penalized for providing intel to his PL. No PL should be penalized for providing intel to a greater command, if there is one, even if it is redundant, because it cannot always be redundant, and in organizing large numbers of men, intel and poise are the two most important things. Command needs to be gathering all that he can of both.

Proper limits can, and probably should, be placed on intelligence communication. However, to tell us simply to keep our mouths shut, because command is on it, is a bad choice, especially if command is in too many channels, at once. We must streamline. We must define roles and expectations. We must not muzzle. Because, if command is trusting only himself to handle intelligence gathering, then command is inherently already behind the ball and operating a lower efficiency than he could be. We are better than that.

That was a ton of text, I'm aware. However, it's an important topic and one that I feel our outfit has landed on the wrong side of. I'm entirely capable of being wrong, and often am That said, I'm not just talking out of my ass. This is something I've discussed and dealt with from both sides of the officer line, many times. This is the voice of experience. Our outfit may choose to go a different way than the one I think we ought to, but it needs to have discussion of the topic. Anything less and we are not doing due diligence.

Have at ye! And at me!