Quote
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
squad (skwŏd) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. A small group of people organized in a common endeavor or activity.
2. The smallest tactical unit of military personnel.
3. A small unit of police officers.
4. Sports An athletic team.
Mntman's response which made me laugh and I never forgot :rofl
Well, #4 doesn't apply here. No athletics needed for AH.
And the issue I see with the other three descriptions is the word "small" or "smallest". If we go with that idea, the issue isn't the 2 or 3 man squads. Those meet the definition of squad shown above.
The issue would be all of the squads that don't meet the "small" rule. The squads at fault would be the "moderate" or "large" squads, which aren't even squads at all since they fail to meet the "small" or "smallest" requirement.
So maybe we shouldn't be griping about the squads that have only a few members, since they've obviously got it right. We should be rising up together to vanquish the real problem in AH! Lets remove all squads from the roster that don't pay attention to the definition! Vanquish all moderate or large squads!
I think a reasonable # would be 5 members at the top end. Any squad larger is unnecessary. And don't be thinking it's ok to cheat the system either! Forming several squads with similar but slightly different names is just a way to have a bigger squad while appearing to be several smaller squads. What bunk!
Large groups have an unfair advantage over the smaller squads. How is a two man squad going to compete with a 30 man squad? I wonder why they don't televise sports events showing a two man team versus a 5-10 member team playing football, basketball, volleyball, or even horseshoes?
The large squads are the issue!
(BTW- I am a member of a two man squad. Twice it has temporarily risen to three men, but then come crashing back down to two again! *Sigh...*)
MtnMan
Quote
I think a reasonable # would be 5 members at the top end. Any squad larger is unnecessary. And don't be thinking it's ok to cheat the system either! Forming several squads with similar but slightly different names is just a way to have a bigger squad while appearing to be several smaller squads. What bunk!
Large groups have an unfair advantage over the smaller squads. How is a two man squad going to compete with a 30 man squad? I wonder why they don't televise sports events showing a two man team versus a 5-10 member team playing football, basketball, volleyball, or even horseshoes?
The large squads are the issue!
(BTW- I am a member of a two man squad. Twice it has temporarily risen to three men, but then come crashing back down to two again! *Sigh...*)
MtnMan
You current "squad" is a "flight" not a squad... not a section... not a group!
I disagree with your conclusion. I am a member of the False Prophets. We currently have 18 members but our roster has been down to as few as 11 in the past two tours. Our members are scattered across North America and as a result, it is rare to have more than 4-6 on at any given time. Our members also have their own preferences... Some like to GV, some like to blow stuff up, and some like to furball. We all like to fly (or drive) together and like to have fun.
Someone told me the upper limit on a squad was 24 (I am unsure of the exact number). But there IS an upper limit in place now. I maintain my position that the bottom limit should be set at 3 for squad scores. It is fair to allow 1 and 2 player squads... How the heck else can one get a squad started... but their scores as a squad (as applied to rankings as a squad) should NOT count until their membership reaches a minimum threshold of 3, IMHO.
Also the last time I checked, squads were not going head to head against each other in the MAs except in the larger context of what was happening in that country vs. whomever they are fighting at any given moment.