I don't....

[Replies] [Reply] [View by Thread] [Help]
[Back To Communitas]

Gamma Maj pixel

..think we should be using the current model at all, and frankly this isn't about fixing anything, it's more about being more realistic and up to date, and for the sake of structure. If it were up to me (which it isn't), I'd do away with the whole shebang, have scanjack as the admin, a few trusted people doing staff and leader positions, and just have members. None of the fancy schmancy titles. But apparently we need a structure so here it is:

I chose C on that thread because I was halfway between C/D and didn't wanna be awkward.

This is my take on it:

CnC: Architect
VCnC: Administrator
CnC Adv: Senior Advisor

For the following ranks on staff positions:

Marshal/General: Senior Staff
LtKer/Ker: Staff

Brigades:

C/O: Directors
X/O: Deputy Director
Project Leader: Stays as is.
Members: Associates.

Sub Brigades:

C/O Manager
X/O Assistant Manager

Top ranks not assigned to staff:

Marshall/General not assigned to staff/brigade command structure: Aide.

The reason I say that is because long time members who have served here, but are not eligible for staff should probably not be demoted to associates only. Your Aides would be your long serving previously higher ranks.

Unless you're leading a project, you're an associate. And you get to lead a project by being selected for your consistent hard work.

:pixel:
"Madness is born of chaos, and chaos breathes the living."

Replies:

Discussion of the Recent Poll [more] - Beta Lt Icydemon 2008-03-19 02:39:54
- My thoughts on this... [Not necessarily very nice ones] - Alpha Cpt purefreak 2008-03-19 07:55:25
  - Let's see. - Beta Lt Icydemon 2008-03-19 09:09:23
  - Nope... - Gamma Maj pixel 2008-03-19 08:01:03
    - to be read as... - Alpha Cpt purefreak 2008-03-19 08:06:37
      - Nah... - Gamma Maj pixel 2008-03-19 09:00:31
        you're not making sense... - Alpha Cpt purefreak 2008-03-19 09:10:59
        Can we have a constructive conversation please? -nt- - Beta Lt Icydemon 2008-03-19 09:13:27
- >I don't.... - Gamma Maj pixel 2008-03-19 03:07:37 <

Guest:
Subject:
Message:	On 2008-03-19 03:07:37, pixel wrote >..think we should be using the current model at all, and frankly this isn't about fixing anything, it's more about being more realistic and up to date, and for the sake of structure. If it were up to me (which it isn't), I'd do away with the whole shebang, have scanjack as the admin, a few trusted people doing staff and leader positions, and just have members. None of the fancy schmancy titles. But apparently we need a structure so here it is: > >I chose C on that thread because I was halfway between C/D and didn't wanna be awkward. > >This is my take on it: >[list] >[]CnC: Architect >[]VCnC: Administrator >[]CnC Adv: Senior Advisor >[/list] > >For the following ranks on staff positions: >[list][]Marshal/General: Senior Staff >[]LtKer/Ker: Staff >[/list] >Brigades: >[list] >[]C/O: Directors >[]X/O: Deputy Director >[]Project Leader: Stays as is. >[]Members: Associates. >[/list] > >Sub Brigades: >[list] >[]C/O Manager >[]X/O Assistant Manager >[/list] > >Top ranks not assigned to staff: >[list] >[]Marshall/General not assigned to staff/brigade command structure: Aide. [/list] > >The reason I say that is because long time members who have served here, but are not eligible for staff should probably not be demoted to associates only. Your Aides would be your long serving previously higher ranks. > >Unless you're leading a project, you're an associate. And you get to lead a project by being selected for your consistent hard work.
Signature:
Optional Image Link:
http://

CyberArmy::Forum v0.6
Generated In 0.00670 seconds