---- Vote Closed ---- [Results]
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Alpha Maj purefreak
On 2008-05-28 06:30:41
|
A [6]
B [9]
C [3]
D [3]
Void [4]
Total [25]
|
B
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Alpha Tr snox
On 2008-03-27 05:43:30
|
CYBER ARMY IS LIKE REAL ARMY FOR ME, ARMY IS TOUGH AND THATS COOL FOR ME. PROJECT COORDINATORS, ADMINISTRATOR OR ADVISOR THATS NOT ARMY STYLE SO KEEP IT IN ARMY STYLE.
REGARDS...
|
B
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Alpha 2nd Lt Jayalangkara
On 2008-03-27 05:32:02
|
-
|
RE: B
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Alpha 2nd Lt Jayalangkara
On 2008-03-28 14:36:09
|
Since the name is CyberArmy, I'm sure that most of the members are Army oriented, for example is me :) Therefore I think the Ranking System that we've already had is fine. Perhaps we could add more ranks such as Corporal or Sergeant.
On 2008-03-27 05:32:02, Jayalangkara wrote
>-
|
|
RE: CA Rank Names vs Tech/Site Titles
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Alpha Tr SharkFace
On 2008-03-23 17:06:40
|
C.
Reason: Despite of the aggressive type of name of this community, it is slow as if a lazy elephant sitting idle **admit it or not, or at least the resources I can access are**.
With MSN and Yahoo! answers and with many other sites having more updated information, who would care if a rank is Major or Moderator?
I am sure we need changes and we need to open up the access to all members of community, whether senior or not... and yes, changing ranking system or names won't help!
|
A. [nt]
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Tr XaN
On 2008-03-22 06:15:37
|
|
A [nt]
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Alpha 2nd Lt sabretooth
On 2008-03-20 17:31:42
|
|
A -nt-
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Ret. Alpha LtKer R o s e
On 2008-03-19 14:15:47
|
|
A -nt-
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Gen k_phactor
On 2008-03-19 12:08:47
|
|
D
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Delta Lt dopel
On 2008-03-19 00:37:54
|
And these should reflect roles that members actually perform. no more legacy honerary ranks.
Senior Admin (CnC)
Admin (VCnC)
Project Coord
Project manager
members
On 2008-03-17 01:56:24, scanjack wrote
>What would you choose for CA's Rank Structure?
>
>A.) Keep them the way the are>B.) Keep the Ranks and add more>C.) Change to Site & Tech Titles e.g.> CnC = CA Architech; VCnC = CA Administrator;> CnC Advisor = CA Admin Advisors; Marshal = CA Coordinators;> ??? = Project Coordinators; ??? = Project Directors; ... etc.>D.) Change Rank Names to: (Add your list from CnC on)>
>
>A prior Poll has pretty much indicated that this community is to be heading in the b/D direction.
>
>Be Well,
|
D n/t
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Alpha Lt Spudgun
On 2008-03-19 15:14:17
|
|
D -nt-
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Alpha Ker Dutchie99
On 2008-03-19 07:48:26
|
|
RE: D
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Delta Gen int16h
On 2008-03-19 00:54:50
|
I like this scheme, it fits in with current and hopefully future CA migration+focus on projects rather than the traditional "Build-Yet-Another-Exploitable-PHP-Site-then-Idle-with-Rank" stuff :)
On 2008-03-19 00:37:54, dopel wrote
>And these should reflect roles that members actually perform. no more legacy honerary ranks.
>
>Senior Admin (CnC)
>Admin (VCnC)
>Project Coord
>Project manager
>members
>
>
>
>
>On 2008-03-17 01:56:24, scanjack wrote
>>What would you choose for CA's Rank Structure?
>>
>>- A.) Keep them the way the are
>>- B.) Keep the Ranks and add more
>>- C.) Change to Site & Tech Titles e.g.
>> CnC = CA Architech; VCnC = CA Administrator;>> CnC Advisor = CA Admin Advisors; Marshal = CA Coordinators;>> ??? = Project Coordinators; ??? = Project Directors; ... etc.>>- D.) Change Rank Names to: (Add your list from CnC on)
>>
>>
>>A prior Poll has pretty much indicated that this community is to be heading in the b/D direction.
>>
>>Be Well,
|
|
C/D [more]
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Gamma Tr Ploy
On 2008-03-18 21:40:32
|
Not too sure about "CA Architect"... Maybe something more like (from highest, to lowest):
- Executive Director (CinC)
- Director (ViceCinC)
- Advisor (CinC Advisor)
- Project Co-Ordinator (Marshal)
- Project Director (equiv to Brigade Commander)
- Project Assistant (equiv to X/O)
- Member
Possibly have "Teams" & Team Leaders if we have more "centralised" projects
On 2008-03-17 01:56:24, scanjack wrote
>What would you choose for CA's Rank Structure?
>
>A.) Keep them the way the are>B.) Keep the Ranks and add more>C.) Change to Site & Tech Titles e.g.> CnC = CA Architech; VCnC = CA Administrator;> CnC Advisor = CA Admin Advisors; Marshal = CA Coordinators;> ??? = Project Coordinators; ??? = Project Directors; ... etc.>D.) Change Rank Names to: (Add your list from CnC on)>
>
>A prior Poll has pretty much indicated that this community is to be heading in the b/D direction.
>
>Be Well,
|
A
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Lambda ViceCinC Enstyne
On 2008-03-18 18:24:27
|
I think none of the given options for change address any of the key underlying issues of CA.
On 2008-03-17 01:56:24, scanjack wrote
>What would you choose for CA's Rank Structure?
>
>A.) Keep them the way the are>B.) Keep the Ranks and add more>C.) Change to Site & Tech Titles e.g.> CnC = CA Architech; VCnC = CA Administrator;> CnC Advisor = CA Admin Advisors; Marshal = CA Coordinators;> ??? = Project Coordinators; ??? = Project Directors; ... etc.>D.) Change Rank Names to: (Add your list from CnC on)>
>
>A prior Poll has pretty much indicated that this community is to be heading in the b/D direction.
>
>Be Well,
|
A/B [more]
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Delta Ker ion6ix
On 2008-03-18 18:21:11
|
Anything else would imply that I was right some 7-ish years ago with the proposal for UN. No one wants that :P
On 2008-03-17 01:56:24, scanjack wrote
>What would you choose for CA's Rank Structure?
>
>A.) Keep them the way the are>B.) Keep the Ranks and add more>C.) Change to Site & Tech Titles e.g.> CnC = CA Architech; VCnC = CA Administrator;> CnC Advisor = CA Admin Advisors; Marshal = CA Coordinators;> ??? = Project Coordinators; ??? = Project Directors; ... etc.>D.) Change Rank Names to: (Add your list from CnC on)>
>
>A prior Poll has pretty much indicated that this community is to be heading in the b/D direction.
>
>Be Well,
|
B -nt-
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Alpha Lt jgambleii
On 2008-03-17 23:12:37
|
|
A/C [more]
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Alpha 2nd Lt kasi
On 2008-03-17 19:14:26
|
I'd prefer option C, but since the community is refered as an army, it perfectly make sense using real army ranks.
I just don't get, why people would like to see any more ranks? Imho we have enough of them.
|
C/D-ish [more]
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Delta Gen int16h
On 2008-03-17 19:14:16
|
Although (as the name suggests) we are an "Army" - I, as you know don't see the need for the brigade system or brigade ranks in their current forms; In fact, I think they have a negative effect on our very small 'army'. We no longer have enough skilled members to have lots of brigades and sub-brigades, thus converting the brigades system to be project+site administration-only would help, and people would no longer have ranks as such... even staff members would just be part of certain groups....
If people need vanity/status symbols to make themselves look and feel important, rather than let their work (on projects etc) for them - perhaps they (or I! :P) are now in the wrong place.
|
C ~nt~
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Beta Tr FriSp
On 2008-03-17 19:12:59
|
|
B /nt/
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Alpha Maj PrincesSoha
On 2008-03-17 18:47:42
|
|
B -nt-
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Alpha Ker danboy785
On 2008-03-17 13:59:21
|
|
B -ish
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Alpha Cpt purefreak
On 2008-03-17 06:12:55
|
Keep the rank names as they are, perhaps create a more relevant way to utilize them though.
|
B depending on what 'more' is -nt-
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Gamma Ker inspectorgadget
On 2008-03-17 04:21:41
|
|
B -nt-
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Beta Lt Icydemon
On 2008-03-17 03:04:16
|
|
B /nt/
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Ret. Alpha Ker Thrawn
On 2008-03-17 02:20:12
|
|
A [nt]
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Gamma LtKer samako93
On 2008-03-17 02:11:13
|
|
C. [nt]
[View]
[Reply]
[Top]
Posted by Gamma Maj pixel
On 2008-03-17 01:57:19
|
|