Removing and suspending squads in FSO

[grizz441]

It is a commitment level that has to last 3 weeks, with a little fore thought it can be quite accurate especially with the +/- 2 be adequate wiggle room.  Commit to a level you are certain you will reach each week, the squaddies that are uncertain due to real-life considerations should be understanding of only be allowed to participate( with you squadron) on a first come first served basis till you max commitment level is reached.

How can any CO be certain of who will be there EVERY friday for the entire month?  Perhaps CO's should send binding contracts to their squaddies to sign before each FSO event to ensure the ranges will be met.

Obviously there are rules in place for a reason, but there should be a little more effort put forth to communicate and work with squads instead of just suspending squads for being over committed to the event.  Oh the irony, suspended because four too many guys showed up and wanted to fly with their friends.   

If I didn't know any better, I'd think there was a cash prize on the line for the winner of FSO based off this nonsense.

[ghostdancer]

First rules are set. You are given wiggle room on the commitment levels. A 16-21 squad has a range of 14-23 pilots attending. That allows the squad to swing by 9 pilots in attendance. A range must be set so that both the designing CM and the CiC knows the numbers (range) that he is to work with. After each FSO, usually, the admin CM goes over the logs and looks for min and max violations and then fires out a note or requests that the FSO team lead fire out a note to the squad(s) that go under or over.

I personally prefer that this is done for each frame (which of course increases the work load) but some tend to do after the FSO is complete. Again if you look at real life laws. If you speed and get caught the defense of well I always speed, or it doesn't really matter, or whatever is not a valid defense.

In the case of the LCA they went over by a significant margin 3 times.

In the case you sighted of a side being under by 100, does it affect the fun factor? That depends. It might not .. but it definitely affects the capability of that side to accomplish its goals. We do what we can to minimize that but sometimes it happens where multiple squads on one side have very low but legal turnouts while the other side has very high and legal turnouts. It is why I personally send out reminders in my objectives that a good turnout is key.

It is also why in several pass FSOs where it turns out to be a consistent problem that squads have been switched from one side to another to attempt to get a more even balance of forces. The system is not perfect because there are two many factors that can't be controlled exactly. A squad turnout depends on that squad. A side turnout depends on 20+ squads, etc. This is why I say the system is decentralized and hinges on the command staff of each squad.

[ghostdancer]

To use a real life example take a look at sports. you must field a certain amount of players. If you don't you forfeit the match. Each squad is given a range to fulfill not an exact number. If you can't maintain your numbers in that range then their are consequences. However, as stated if a squad is under the CMs understand that and usually issue a warning and suggest that a squad might consider changing their commitment level for the next FSO since as stated you can't magically produce people to participate in a frame if they don't show up. You do however, have a week to try to resolve the problem or if your squad just can't (people are not interested in participating) then to inform the CMs of that so they can make adjustments and warn the CiC that a squad that say has a 7-10 commitment is actually a 4-6 and should be assigned roles based on that more accurate range. Also a CM might have to now switch a squad to another side to try to balance the numbers more.

The command staff of a squad though can absolutely control going over their max. I have flow for a long time in this even .. since 2001 I think and have seen many squads go .. we have are over by 2 is there any squad willing to take our 2 extras.

[kansas2]

These rules/penalties are an absolute joke. 

So you would rather have anarchy? Oh wait, we do have that. LW

[SkyRock]

I have no problem with the rules, I do however, have a problem with being falsly accused, and expect an apology from the involved.

 
SkyRock
CO/ Army of Muppets

[ghostdancer]

In regards to the AoM's numbers and Daddog and SkyRock's correspondence.

A warning was issued about your frame 2 numbers ... FR1 attendance of 7, FR2 attendance of 2, FR3 attendance 9. Also in the previous FSO a similar issue occurred with a FR1 attendance of 2, FR2 attendance of 8, and FR3 attendance of 18.

Both low number frames warranted a warning. From what you have posted Daddog issued a warning and wondered if the results of your FR2 low attendance was do the fact of being assigned Vals. You definitely have the right to dispute that and bring it up with both Skuzzy and Brooke as I believe was indicated in email correspondence.

However, separate, from that fact is that you had a low attendance in FR2 Marianas (under by 3 .. commitment level 7-10 so low of 5). In Husky your commitment level was 11-15 so min of 9 and in frame 1 you were under by 7. Your squad rectified that by dropping it's commitment level for Marianas.

So as you state there are two issues:

1) A warning about low attendance (which I believe is warranted)
2) A discussion about whether the low attendance was do to being assigned Vals.

On issue 2 I would say this is between the command staff of AoM, Daddog, Brooke and possibly skuzzy.

[ghostdancer]

In addition your situation and other similiar ones recently is why the CMs increased the requirement for all squads to have 3 contact people / 3 members in their command staff.

Each squad should have 3 members that receive orders now from CiCs (or objectives if they are the selected CiC) so that if one person's computer goes down you have a 2nd person to rally the squad, tell them the objectives, and lead them in battle. Now if the 2nd person also has an issue each squad should now have a 3rd person to rally the squad, tell them the objectives, and lead them in battle.

[Bannor]

In response to Glens post, the rules are the rules for a reason. If you don't like em, deal with it or leave. I don't mean to sound mean, but I support the staff on this because they are the ones setting this up for ALL of us to enjoy. It takes a lot of time out of their lives to do it. That means they have to walk the walk when they talk the talk. If your CO knows what your numbers are supposed to be then he/she should be able to have someone sit or look for a ride. At least there are options. If we have room next week we will be happy to take on some of your squad. Suck it up!

[grizz441]

To use a real life example take a look at sports. you must field a certain amount of players. If you don't you forfeit the match. Each squad is given a range to fulfill not an exact number. If you can't maintain your numbers in that range then their are consequences. However, as stated if a squad is under the CMs understand that and usually issue a warning and suggest that a squad might consider changing their commitment level for the next FSO since as stated you can't magically produce people to participate in a frame if they don't show up. You do however, have a week to try to resolve the problem or if your squad just can't (people are not interested in participating) then to inform the CMs of that so they can make adjustments and warn the CiC that a squad that say has a 7-10 commitment is actually a 4-6 and should be assigned roles based on that more accurate range. Also a CM might have to now switch a squad to another side to try to balance the numbers more.

I find it hard to compare a real life commitment to a sport and FSO commitment hehe.  But like you said, the numbers are always off even when every squad is within their tolerable ranges.  I just feel like suspension should be the absolutely last resort and only when a squad displays habitual, negligent abuse of the rules.  I would hardly call +4,+1,+4 in simply ONE frame habitual and negligent abuse.

And

In the case of the LCA they went over by a significant margin 3 times.

I would hardly call that a 'significant' margin in terms of their high commitment levels of 16-21 as is. 

The command staff of a squad though can absolutely control going over their max. I have flow for a long time in this even .. since 2001 I think and have seen many squads go .. we have are over by 2 is there any squad willing to take our 2 extras.

So say you have a couple guys that rarely ever fly, log on for FSO.  Everyone is excited and you told the two guys "Hey nice to see you fellas but you can't fly with us because we'll be +2 and the integrity of FSO will be compromised"?

Soap box over.   

[SkyRock]

We have no problem with being issued a warning, at all.....we even expect it if we do not meet the requirements, but we do not expect to be falsly accused....

In frame 2, the Muppets FSO leadership dropped the ball due to some RL problems....that is our fault... we deserve a warning....we did not deserve to be accused of intentionally skipping out on the frame because we didn't like the ride....that is out of line and we simply will not take lightly, being treated that way.

<S>

SkyRock
CO / Army of Muppets

[APDrone]

...
So say you have a couple guys that rarely ever fly, log on for FSO.  Everyone is excited and you told the two guys "Hey nice to see you fellas but you can't fly with us because we'll be +2 and the integrity of FSO will be compromised"?

...

Consider it the snowflake effect.  A single snowflake is harmless. 
A bunch of snowflakes makes an avalanche.

So, suppose you let your 2 extra buddies fly.  What about the other squad who does follow the rules and 2 of their guys ( that are over their max ) change squads to abide by the rules and end up in something they'd rather not be flying?  Or what about the other extras that logged off because all the squads were maxed and there were no places to put them.

Point is, you HAVE to draw the line somewhere and stick to it.  It has worked very well for years and will continue to do so.

If you have a problem with having too many, do what we do.  First come get the slots.  Then bump up your commitment next series.

[ghostdancer]

Skyrock agreed on the warning and agreed on your bring up the issue of it resulting from ride assignment. I was not actually involved in this situation so I really can't say more.

[ImADot]

Easy fix for staying within commitment levels...

Post squad mission to allow max numbers allowed for your commitment.  Once it fills up, tell anyone else they have to gun/observe or temp with another squad.

Oh, and grow up a little.

[ghostdancer]

Grizz a range was set with a buffer. You had a buffer of +2. You still went over it 3 times in a row. Frame 2 was not by much. But yes, I would say frame 1 and 3 were significant considering it was 4 pilots which is basically the size of the smallest squad commitment level in FSO (4-6).

Command staff can control or make sure they don't go over there max. They can contact other squads for their overage to fly with them.

In the case of football what happens when there is 12 players on the field instead of 11?

As for your case of turning away two pilots who have not flown FSO, yes that has happened in the squad I fly with. We do first come first serve with our CO keeping track of our numbers. Even then at times we have gone over because one person got knocked off somewhere in the T+15 window and another players comes in at say T+5 and then the knocked off player comes back and the CO has lost track of the numbers. We have gotten warnings in the past when that happens and have accepted them and our command staff strives to make sure it doesn't happen again (I remember several cases where a pilot was told no or that after discovering that he launched was instructed to land immediately and then later an explanatory email was sent to the CMs).

But we have also turned pilots away or asked other squads to take them. Or more often than not we have veteran consistent pilots volunteer to step down and not fly so the newbies can or have the veterans even volunteer to go to other squads so the newbies can fly. There are still several options that you can do to handle an overage. If next times +6 show up that have never flow is it then okay that you have 29 pilots flying instead of 23?  Or lets say 7 or 8 or 9? You need to draw a line .. we drew it at +2. If plus +3 or +6 over your max range was okay then it would be in the rules. +2 was decided on and has been used for years. Also if you consistently push that number over 3 frames then you just up your commitment level for the next FSO.

For a 16-21 squad you have a possible variance of 14 - 23 .. 9 pilots. If we went with say +6 and -6 is okay then for a 16-21 squad has a possible variance of 10-27, 17 pilots.

As I said the same hold trues in sports .. football only 11 players on the field. If you are driving the car the speed limit is the speed limit. If you speed and get caught you were speeding. Doesn't matter if you were going over the speed limit by say 2 miles or 10 miles. And a one frame overage gets a warning. You have a case here of a 3 frame overage.

LCA is a valued and respected squad from the point of the community and the CMs. But you had a 3 frame overage and the squad is not new to the game and your command staff should know about the +2 rule (23 max pilots for your squad). One time losing track is one thing but three frames in a row is another. If your pulled over three times within 3 weeks for speeding by the police do you really expect to only get three warnings? Or expect them to go sure no problem you were only over the speed limit by 5 miles 3 times in 3 weeks.

For whatever reason you were over when the command staff for every squad has the capability of dealing with overage. I do hope your command staff did not make an active decision to ignore the +2 rule in the three frames as your argument would seem to suggest (ie that we had new guys that never show up so we decided it was fine to ignore the +2 max rule in each 3 frames) and that it was more of an inadvertent over site. Which would be why it was just a 1 month suspension. If the CMs thought a squad consciously decided to ignore a rule the penalty has been much harsher in the past (usually 3 months).

 For instance a small squad in the last FSO had 2 or 3 pilots (they were a 4-6) squad up repeatedly when the fields were open to allow GV players a s second life. They didn't end up shooting any enemy down when they up repeatedly but it is still a violation and can't be justified by saying .. well they did not shoot anybody down. Their side was penalized for their actions (point penalty) and the squad who had participated for a while was suspend for a multi month violation.

[SkyRock]

Skyrock agreed on the warning and agreed on your bring up the issue of it resulting from ride assignment. I was not actually involved in this situation so I really can't say more.

I understand, thank you very much for responding.

<S>
SkyRock
CO / Army of Muppets