Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FenrirReleased" data-source="post: 734566" data-attributes="member: 17018">Look, Phantom, there are a few things that I think are maybe being missed here, and please don't take this the wrong way. As far as the clan split numbers, it's posted that 30 is a minimum. It's not the new mandatory split number, it's just aimed at counteracting what a few leaders have said in the past like, "Clans must be at 75 members before they can split." That would be one of the unwritten rules that was referred to by Double's initial post. That doesn't mean every clan will now split at thirty members. For almost every case, everything will continue as it's been doing for a while with regards to splits. This only points out that 30 is the minimum number in case someone else is trying to say that 65 or 80 or x members is the minimum number.In fact, very few clans split under 50 members. I still try to get my clans up to a minimum of 50 people before I work on getting them to split. However, I don't tell them, "You aren't going to be splitting until you get to 50 members." Instead, I tell them what I look for in a split if they ask me, "What will it take to split this clan?" I tell them, "Look, it isn't about absolute numbers. However, you need to have most of your captains to the point that they could be a general if they had to be, and the squads need to be active with all lieutenant spots filled before I will consider a split." Whether that happens when a clan is at 30 or 60, the goals are still the same. If a 30 person clan came to me and asked to split, I would look at whether or not the clan met those goals. The only difference would be that all three captains would need to be capable of being a general if anything were to happen. If they did come to me and ask, and I had confidence in the future general to make it with only 10 to start with (and the current general to rebuild after being dropped to 20 members), I would absolutely split that clan.Secondly, you are right: your clans are still here, and you did a good job getting them to that position. But just because you do things your way doesn't mean that other ways are incorrect or verboten. On the flipside of this coin, it doesn't mean what you've been doing is wrong, or wouldn't be considered building "good clans." There are other unwritten rules that I've spent my time in XG trying to get rid of whenever they arise under areas in my command. An example of this would be, "you cannot get captain until you get 100 posts on the website." Well while I agree that trying to get the forums to be more active is a worthwhile cause, I don't think people should be held back just because they don't like to post that often on the website. It's definitely a good idea to say, "Hey, if you can, try to get a few posts in on the forums so they're more active for any new recruits." However, if someone is fulfilling the rank responsibilities for lieutenant, and is active on the box (and isn't a complete douche)...why shouldn't they be promoted?Basically, nothing in this rank structure post is anything new. It's really just things that you've been doing intuitively this whole time. It's just that it's finally being written down and codified in a way that others can see it. I would imagine that if a 30 or 40 person clan came to you and met the conditions that I mentioned earlier that you would at least consider splitting that clan. Just because it's a minimum doesn't mean it's the new paradigm here.Both you and I know of a lot of people that dealt in unwritten rules and nepotism and it's just not good for the community. Don't change what you're doing, because it's working. Just remember that what's written in this post (at least with regards to split numbers) isn't a mandatory number for a split. As far as the 3:1 privates-to-sergeants ratio...well that worked in the old day, but times change. At this point, I think it would be more heinous to hold people at a private just because you already have enough sergeants than it would be to just promote them if they've earned it. Just like with everything else in life: promotions to sergeant are earned, not given out like candy. If the person isn't active, then don't promote them, but if they've been out busting their you-know-whats, why not give them that extra morale boost that comes with being promoted?And as a final P.S. to XGC Layzie C11: we used to have a co-general rank in order to deal with 100 member clans on Halo 2. I will tell you that, though it might be manageable for one person, you will not be doing as good of a job as you would if it were 50 or 60 people in the clan just because of the sheer number of people to keep track of. One of the big things that a general does is they keep an eye out for people that are future leaders. It's hard enough with 50 or 60 (you can't play with everyone, y'know?); I can only imagine how difficult it would be at 80 or 90. That's the main reason clans were reduced in size from 80-100 to 40-60 and eliminated the co-general rank. Finally, I think I don't fit into one of your "two types of people" breakdown. I don't prefer bigger or smaller clans; I just like clans that are at where they want to be at. If they aren't, my job is to help them reach their goal.Sorry for my two cents, but I felt that there was some small amount of misunderstanding about this whole 2014 Clan Structure thingy that was posted.Thanks,-[d/I].</blockquote>

Verification

Top Bottom