KLONDIKE, CPA Headquarters, Coolguy’s Desk – Leaders and legends, the two statuses that have defined armies for as long as they’ve been around but have we been misled this whole time? Are legends actually frauds?! What if leaders are just taking the credit from their hard-working staff members? Continue reading to join the discussion on if legends are actually legendary, or aren’t.
Every week armies are judged on their sizes during events, the types of events they hold, among other things. As well as this, every year leaders are judged on the performance of them and “their” army. These are two things that have been at the head of the army calendar for many years. The Top Tens dictate which is the best army and armies constantly compete to be the best. However, only the leaders seem to be recognised for the work put into the army. Are they over-credited for the work done?
Opinion 1: Leaders Get More Credit Than They Deserve
The suggestion that leaders get more credit than they deserve is one argument for this post. Leaders are responsible for a lot of things. However, different armies do things differently. It’s difficult to say that legends, as a whole, get more credit than they deserve; yet, while armies may be different, legends can’t become successful alone. All legends have troops and staff, these people contribute to the army in different ways. Troops recruit, attend events and even keep the chat active, speaking to new and old troops as well as visitors.
I would like to state that by staff I mean both staff literally and the higher-ranking high command. There are a variety of different levels of staff but staff can do everything troops can: they can be involved in the making of the weekly schedule maybe even war planning; they may also be involved in troop promotions; training troops/other staff and motivating the team. All the things that leaders do staff may be involved in too. Of course, most decisions are made by the leaders – however, who’s to say that one leader is more important than the rest or that one leader is more important than the staff team?
I approached Templars and CP Army Legend, Xing to ask if staff are under-credited and if leaders get more credit than they deserve. His response was as follows:
Yeah 100%. Everything is given to the main leaders too often. A lot of the staff do the work, especially the leaders the main leader has chosen.
Xing brings up a valuable point here, as I mentioned above, staff do a lot of things both in the open and behind the scenes. They can, and often will or have to, do things that leaders can do but the point that Xing mentions is actually one that slipped from my mind. Leaders often give staff tasks to complete, duties to regularly fulfil. These tasks and duties could very well be done by leaders but to help lighten the load, they often aren’t. Examples that come to mind is direct messaging reminders for each troop about upcoming events, recruiting, or even leading individual events or battles.
Another example may be recruiting and this may be a controversial point. While most leaders may recruit, they tend to push staff harder than themselves and some even put quotas on certain ranks. For example; fourth-in-commands may be required to recruit 10 people per day, with lower ranks it may be 7 per week. These may seem like random numbers, but are typically considered average in medium armies.
In some armies, staff may be demoted for not recruiting a certain amount of people into the army. If you think about the amount of staff major armies have you may find over 40 people maybe more, depending on the army. The point is, however, that if each of them were forced to bring in just 5 a day you’d be looking at double-triple figures. Therefore, while the leaders may or may not recruit, the majority is coming from the staff. The recruits may also be introduced to armies and welcomed by staff too. These “little jobs” that staff do actually amount to a lot more than we put on.
So with this in mind, do leaders deserve all the credit? The staff build the army up too and keep it running. They are a part of the armies’ success as much as the leaders.
Opinion 2: Leaders Deserve The Credit They Get
While the staff do a lot of work, leaders have to deal with setting up battles and normal events. With battles come wars and these don’t just happen, they are thought through. Generally, it is the leaders who make the decision to go to war with other armies. The staff may be consulted, however, in most cases they wouldn’t have much of a say in it. In some armies, not even high command may know about an upcoming war plan just in case word got out. With war comes scheduling invasions and even in some cases, negotiating a peace treaty.
Leaders deal with many things on top of what other high command members deal with. I think that this gets forgotten in the first argument because take wars for example; wars can make or break an army so every move is crucial even if it is just negotiating a treaty. Invading and defending land, tactically planning out what the next move will be, keep active outside of the army itself so you know what’s happening in the community itself and the league the war is in. Now, I know this may not be the best explanation but every leader will understand my point here. Remember, this is only one point, there are more.
Leaders have to think about promotions of troops, staff and high command. While some members of the team may do promotions for troops, leaders take promotions of staff members very seriously. In many major armies, you may have to wait a good long while before you even get halfway up the staff ladder. Leaders are always on the lookout for the next leader so their job doesn’t just stop after one big promotion.
I’d actually say that for some it gets harder as some may not be ready when you need them to be and also maybe some deserve promotions that can’t be given. You have to think about the morale of the team and leaders definitely are at the front of that. If leaders are unhappy, it’s likely to seep through to the other ranks below and keep going. The same thing can happen if just 1 or 2 staff members are unhappy.
Leading an army is much more than leading but it’s very much about being social. Making sure everyone is happy and willing to work for the army. Making sure the new troops see an active and welcoming community. Also, it’s about being proactive and making sure you’re involved in the politics of armies as a whole. From making sure your events are posted for the top tens to watching drama emerge in CPAHQ general chat. These small things can actually be crucial to a leaders work. If an army is almost cast away from the rest of the community, they could be looked at in a bad light. They could also restrict themselves from making alliances and even being in tournaments whether they are organised by a league or by a small group of armies.
I know it seems very much like I’m just rambling and straying away from the topic at hand but the amount of work that leaders have to do and the ground they have to cover is massive. These things may seem small but if you think about how many hours are in a day (24), how many of them hours are taken up by responsibilities that leaders have in real life, how long an event takes (30 mins + pre-event hype + reminding troops + getting staff ready and any late planning that needs to be done) as well as all these little things… it’s a lot and they all attribute to an army and its individual success. Therefore while staff may do a lot behind the scenes, the leaders are at the forefront of the army and are organising everything, being proactive, making sure the website is up-to-date and much, much more.
Not only should leaders get the credit for all the hard work they put into making the army a success but they often scapegoated when things go wrong and in a way, it protects the staff from any harm. By this, I mean that if an army was dying, the blame may go on the leaders and the staff may get away without any blood on their hands. Now, by no means am I saying that staff should get called out, nor am I saying that they mess up the army but the leaders are scapegoats. However, I am saying that if there was a problem that the staff could’ve helped with but didn’t then, most of the time, it would affect the leader’s reputation.
What Is a Legend?
Now, before we reach the end of the discussion, we have to think about what a legend is. CPPS legends are arguably a lot different from CP army legends. While both come under the same ‘Army Legend’ title, you could say that the success of many legends in the CP era came from how well that person performed as a leader, how far they came and how they performed as an army both in war and in the top tens.
Wars were definitely more common back then and were a lot more meaningful when they were held. When saying this, I recall many wars in the CPPS era that were declared but had little meaning and did nothing more than grab the attention of people in the community. Half of the time, the war didn’t even go ahead and there are a few instances I’m sure we all can think of. Some examples of Legends that made notable impacts through wars and significant army growth are Commando717, Iceyfeet123 and Boomer20. These are very different legends but their impact on the army was like no other with both Commando and Icey creating and building up future powerhouses and Boomer breaking army size records and impacting not just his army but the army community.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not discrediting CPPS armies or leaders in any way, however, I am saying that the title was a lot more coveted and leaders truly had to fight for it. Blood, sweat and tears were given to their armies to even have a chance the title and even that chance was slim. The award wasn’t just given out. However, saying that, unlike in the CPPS era, there were multiple opportunities during the year for people to earn the title. So while it may not have been given easily, they would’ve had more opportunities to prove their worth than today.
With that in mind, does this make CPPS Army Legends different from original CP Legends? Are CPPS legends any less creditable? Are staff any less creditable?
What Does Being A Legend Mean To You?
I contacted Kingfunks4 and ask him what makes a legend, if he thinks there is a difference between CP and CPPS legends and if he believes staff are any less credible than leaders. His response is as follows:
A legend is someone that has made a considerable impact on our community, either through media or army leadership, and has to have done something above the norm. It could be their overall impact and contribution warrants induction as a legend, but ultimately there will always be differing opinions on what makes a legend as it is just a construct. To me, they can’t just lead their army to the number one spot, because loads of leaders have led a number one army – they have to have done something else on top of this.
I think in terms of standards, at the moment it is maybe harder to get inducted as we have quite high standards of what makes a legend now, but the nominees I would say have the same credentials as old nominees – the system is very much the same as the older days.
I wouldn’t say that staff teams are less credible, of course if you lack a staff team your army isn’t going to perform. However, you need a strong leader to direct the army and ultimately they make more decisions and are the ones who’s decisions impact the army. If you look at armies, if a staff member leaves it is not going to be as big an impact as the leader leaving – they are the ones who motivate, inspire and direct the army. Being a staff member is highly important as well, so you need both, and this is naturally the first step for people to become a leader in the future.
Funks makes some important points here and provides different opinions and angles which helps balance the argument. 1 thing he says is that you need a strong leader to control and lead the army. This is the case in most armies and the point is very valid. You could say the same about the staff team’s importance to the leaders too. You could go back and forth but both are important and leaders are at the forefront of everything.
This quote is actually quite inspiring and can be helpful in describing what a legend is. It’s not all about success, winning wars, becoming the best army. It has more meaning to it. Therefore, while the points I’ve made are definitely valid, they haven’t painted the full picture. Maybe legend nominations and inductions don’t appreciate people for what they come through? A post that talks about the nomination and voting system can be found here. Go have a read and maybe it’ll bring it all together with this post. Maybe those members who have overcome struggles with their army and has got them through the worst should be credited more? These things aren’t really thought about so this should tell us something.
Should Staff Members Be Eligible For The Legend Title?
Now we are getting into the nitty-gritty of legends and legends nominations. There are quite a few questions I wanted to put as the heading but this question seems the most suitable. This is an open-ended question, I’m not going to say a definite answer. However, I think it’s hard to answer this question for every army, for every situation. Every army works differently despite the similarities they may have. Different leaders do different things so it’s hard to discredit all leaders and even staff.
Maybe some staff members who have made notable impacts on the army too should be recognised. What makes them different from us leaders? We’re all people fighting for the same cause! How can someone possibly say different? Maybe leaders should be able to nominate a staff member IF they impacted the army greatly. Maybe staff should be recognised for their impacts on an army. Should be more chances for people to get nominated to truly appreciate the work people put into armies?
Now I know I probably didn’t outright answer the implied question ‘are legends frauds?’ but that wasn’t the question at hand. The questions at hand was ‘do legends/leaders get more credit than they deserve?’ ‘Are staff under-credited for their work?’ ‘Does the current system undermine what a legend is/should be?’ These are just some of the questions I’ve tried to cover here providing both sides of the story. As for my opinion…in these discussion points, my own opinions do correlate with some of the points made. I don’t intend to tell you which of these correlate with my opinions, I want you to form your own.
Leaders can be the core of the army but sometimes the core needs everything around it to function. Leaders can be massively influential to armies and should be recognised for their impacts on the army. Shouldn’t staff be recognised for their work if the work they do is just as influential as leaders? If someone impacts their army or the community as a whole, shouldn’t they be recognised as impactful leaders are? Don’t they deserve something at least?
Now I wouldn’t say let leaders nominate their staff to be nominated willy-nilly because that’s just not right. We know that leaders want the best for the people within their army and would be proud if they were able to grab hold of such title and honestly may even put people’s names in the ring for personal-connection reasoning. The names of those who have had a big impact on their army would have to go through a procedure in which evidence is provided to show their impacts on the army (in terms of staff). Maybe we need more than just 1 set of legend nominations/inductions? Do we need a new title to celebrate people who’ve had great impacts on their army/the community? Could impactful staff members who fell short of the title ‘Legend’ fall under that title?
These are just some food-for-thought questions but who are we to say what/who a legend should be? Legends write their own history and make their own legacy. What are your thoughts on all of this? Have your say in the comments! I’ll be looking forward to reading and reacting to them.