Forum:Aegis/Platoons

Forums: A Company Headquarters >

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Before the Command reshuffle, a member of A Company suggested that A Company should have platoons, similar to B Company. What is everyone's opinion of this? Should we have them or not?


 * Well, We do have enough People for about 2 Platoons... So, I say: Why not?.AJ 22:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking, the lack of active members would probably make platoons a bad idea. There are only a handful of members that actually do work for A Company, so it might be a bad idea to split them up. However, I am open to suggestions. [[Image:Marine Corp SSGT.JPG|30px]] SSgt. simon  rj  h [[Image:rjh.jpg|30px]] 09:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please remember to sign your posts
 * Anyways: I opposed Platoons in Dingo, I'll oppose them here. Blackrock formed Platoons to compensate for a weak Command Staff that was on vacation but a strong group of upper level Sergeants, giving them the power to run the Company.  Aegis (as with Dingo) has a strong Command Staff but a weaker group of upper Sergeants.  As such, I oppose --forgottenlord 16:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The commander has spoken... so i guess no platoons. even though this has nothing to do with this forum... i cleaned up ONI.AJ 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * First, my word isn't final and a good counter argument may change my mind. Second, I saw your message on my talk page and I will deal with it in due course.  However, when it comes to Improvement Articles, your first contact should be Ghost, not me.  I deal with Promotions and organization of the Company, Ghost deals with what the Company is doing (ie: what the company's focus is and what articles it's working on - hence the term "Operations Officer").  If you want me to consider you for a promotion, check out the thread "Want a Promotion?" --forgottenlord 00:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the only argument against platoons is a lack of active members. Right now, unless you have a command, you have little authority.  By organizing platoons or even squads, junior officers and NCOs are given responsibility.  Rank would have meaning.  Plus, the incentive of command would encourage inactive members to seek promotion, thus editing more.  Platoons would increase the company's overall effectiveness.

Big Bad Wolf 15:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Wolf's Den


 * Today is September 3, the matter was discussed on August 14. Explain to me why I would want to put the authority in the hands of individuals, such as yourself, who are mostly inactive.  You say it is to encourage activity, from authority, but the problem is that your authority would be minimal at best.  Furthermore, Platoon leaders in B company have a single responsibility: determining if someone had earned a promotion - only for it to be reviewed by the CO before the promotion was granted.  The point was to reduce workload for the Commanding Officers.  It would give you more responsibility without any benefit in power.  Why would you want that?


 * I think you completely missed my reason for not having Platoons: we don't need them. They served a specific purpose in B Company but we've already overcome that weakness here. --forgottenlord 17:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * True, platoons might not be necessary, but I can't see how it would actually hurt the Company to have them.

Big Bad Wolf 15:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Wolf's Den


 * Who would be platoon leaders? There aren't enough active members. 1stSgt [[Image:Marine Corp 1stSgt.jpg|20px]]simon  rj  h  16:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely it would hurt the Company. Creating Platoons begs the question "What are the Platoons going to be used for?"  Answer: nothing.  "So give us some point" - and yes, this fight WILL happen.  So what do I do?


 * Do I assign each Platoon an Article to work on? That would be foolish of me - right now we have a couple dozen articles for people to work on so that they can choose the area they are most familiar with.  If I divide our focus further and make it so that each Platoon had its focus narrowed, we lose the flexibility for the membership.
 * Do I assign the Platoon leaders the power to recommend promotions? My potential Platoon Leaders don't have the level of activity needed for this to work effectively.  Heck, I picked a staff Sergeant to be our Executive Operations Officer - the FOURTH rank and with 4 or 5 individuals who were, at the time, his superiors.  It would hinder the ability for the Company to determine promotions.


 * No, it would hinder this company, it would hurt, and it would serve absolutely no purpose. If you disagree with anything I've said thus far, then perhaps we should back up and you can explain to me why you want Platoons, if for any other reason that further rank wanking rights that you couldn't get from simply being a Sergeant. --forgottenlord 17:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I assure you, my arguments for platoons existing have little to do with my personal ambitions. In fact I plan to stop seeking promotion as soon as I reach SSGT.  While I do believe that there should be some more incentive for inactive members to seek promotion, members should also not be given much authority based on rank-except for senior officers- and NCOs should be content with editing, minor duties, and acting as possible mentors for those less experienced.


 * With your reasons in mind, it is true that platoons aren't a good idea. The only way it would work was if we were organized as such, but rank still did not come with authority or resonsibility that could be misused.  The only purpose platoons would serve in this case would be that it made the company's HQ page look more official-which would be cool, but would also complicate matters.


 * So unless circumstances change: no platoons.

Big Bad Wolf 20:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Wolf's Den