Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FenrirReleased" data-source="post: 734568" data-attributes="member: 17018">Edit from Deadeye: I cut out a lot of this message and moved it instead to a private message because I don't think that this forum is neither the place to call people out nor the best manner with which to answer these questions. I just left in the bottom part so that it's here for anyone that wants to read it:--Finally, I didn't read all the posts prior to this (just a few previous ones) because the black-on-white hurts my eyes after a bit. However, I would say that 40 is not yet at the "unmanageable" stage. In that, I would definitely agree with you. I would still continue to disagree with Layzie's point, though. Also keep in mind what Double had said to an earlier person: don't change what you're doing if it's working. If Double's opinion is that 40 people is too many people for one general to handle...well that's his opinion. You have already demonstrated (successfully) that more than 40 can be handled by a general. That is Double's opinion, and it would shape any clans that he would be personally building. That doesn't mean that you have to suddenly change everything that you're doing just because he thinks something else. I routinely disagree with the people above me and my colleagues, but we work it out in the end. Organizations are like that, and will always continue to be. After all, you are your own man and if what you're doing works, then do it.As I said, no offense was to be taken from my prior post. I'm honestly just trying to point out things that people misunderstood. Most of it isn't really even directed at you but more for other people that may read this later on.</blockquote>

Verification

Top Bottom