When people leave their roles in armies, they opt to take roles elsewhere, such as leagues, media, organisations or army advisories but should they not just leave it all behind?
Designed by Master DS
WARNING, if you are going to get triggered by an administrator writing about why people who are currently not in armies are out of touch then I suggest you step away now.
Over the years, armies, organisations and leagues have witnessed a multitude of people take power. No matter who has been in power, drama has followed. But one questionable thing is why people who have no idea about the current landscape of the community are allowed to roam free and take control over it.
For many high positions within the army community, outside of individual armies, the general rule has been to become unaffiliated for a period of at least 3 months before assuming a role. During that period, a person can stay in the know about the community but they slowly start to become less so. Yet this does not mean they are unable to perform in a high ranking position. Furthermore, a person can start to look beyond their former army and more at the wider community. This greatly helps the person to become more aware about what is happening in the community.
However, while they may expand their knowledge about the wider community, the community will continue to evolve. In armies, you could spend a week away and miss six months worth of drama/action. You can imagine that more than three months outside of an individual army can see people miss out on things that are not always seen. A few of these things are internal drama/conflicts, ally tensions, army plans and also the army grapevine. By “army grapevine”, I mean that when you are in an army, you will hear a lot about not only the ongoings within your army but also about others.
Whether they be allies or enemies, information that may not be available to those outside of armies drifts in and out of private chats. When I was leading, I would often hear about drama within other armies, for example, if staff members were becoming unsettled. One example of a private matter that went public was information regarding a problem within the Elite Guardians. The negatives were soon published in expose’s, released for everyone to see. But, army leaders had time to process this information and find out everything they needed to before deciding what needed to be done and what they could do before and after.
All of this, while it may seem irrelevant is important. Even though this is an example of drama/controversy which went public, there is a lot of information that does not go public or goes under the radar. This information, can help individuals to stay in the know about armies but without it then those outside of individual armies are restricted to public knowledge or anything they may hear. This alone restricts an individual and their knowledge of the community. Yet, that is not all.
While on the inside, people can witness for themselves how an army functions, what the maxes are like, how shaky these maxes are/ how long it takes to even get them maxes, if armies can successfully host a traditional 30 minute training event or even how armies react in war and who truly leads the charge within the army. These are not the only things insiders can witness but these alone showcase an aspect of the community which often goes missed by those on the outside.
Often, you will hear debates about if a leader truly did legendary things within an army or if they were carried by other leaders/vets. This is something that which will always be debated but never truly seen unless you are on the inside of said army. Most of the time, people view success by presence outside of an army but does being more “present” outside make a leader more successful or does it just make them that much more of an A-hole. All jokes aside, the point still applies. A person does not have to be the most outspoken to be successful yet the external side will only show so much so if there is someone more outspoken, looking like the head of a beast, they will become the head of the beast.
Outside of the ins and outs of individual armies, it is important to mention that sometimes the structure/atmosphere of the community can only been seen from the inside. What I mean by this is that while those on the outside can use figures and facts to back up their claims about the community, only those on the inside can truly say how the army community is doing internally. For example, on the outside a war which goes on for 60+ battles with maxes of 40+ may seem like both armies are doing well, these figures do not include fatigue, maxes from battle to battle, ally/troop counts, leadership progression or even the inner atmosphere of the army/Staff/HCOM etc. Outsiders may not regularly experience battles, armies slowing down or the mood within both camps.
All of the above things can be crucial when talking about being in the know about the community and whether or not armies can survive a 30 day tournament or a new initiative within armies. One thing that has also been rejected in this has been the relationships of armies, not just allies but armies in general. More often than not, relationships will slowly start to break down with armies finding dirt on each other or finding out information they did not know before. To the public, armies can seem close yet behind closed doors, tensions could be extremely high. This can also be crucial information to figure if the community is truly stagnant or if it is about to boil over.
While individuals who are unaffiliated may have their sources of information, they will not be quite like those which are affiliated. Thus, who is to say that unaffiliated heads truly know what is best for the community. If someone had to be unaffiliated for three months and started to become out of touch with the ongoings within the community and individual armies (outside of idle news) then who is to say that in six months time they will not be completely out of touch and forcing an agenda on the community which it physically cannot uphold? Perhaps what may be best from a statistical stand point may not be not best practically.
However, this is not to say that unaffiliated individuals are uneducated or ill-equipped to handle a specific amount of power. Yet it does reveal that what may be for “the best” may also be based on an old ideal. This is not to say that affiliated people are any better either. With bias running through people’s veins whether intentional or not, individuals will want to help their affiliated army or they may end up doing the opposite to avoid signs of bias, making a decision based off their bias and the opinions of others about them.
Ultimately, there is no perfect guideline or script that people can follow when considering people in positions of power. Yet, one thing is clear, even the most knowledgeable person can lean on their knowledge of the past instead of their knowledge of the present to help them navigate the current climate of the community – which they may be unaware of themselves.
I hear people asking, what is the point of this post? Why are you basically calling yourself and your co-workers out along with other people in the community for not being aware of the current climate of the community when you are trying to lead it and make sure it continues to succeed. My answer to that is whether I am an Administrator or a Reporter, the questions provided in the post will continue to be asked either by myself or by others.
These are not new questions and they certainly are not problems which have just appeared within the community. It is a significant sign which shows that sometimes what may seem stable and steady may need to evolve in order to allow the community to flourish in the present day. A big example would be creators. If a creator kept leading an army/organisation throughout its existence and was the main figurehead for it, they may start to slow down, become less reliable, less knowledgeable and less driven. With them as the main figurehead, there may also be a distaste for new ideas, creativity or anything that is not to their own liking. They may become power driven, enforcing their ideals based on personal opinion on others.
Therefore, even if they are active, their presence in that figurehead role can start to weigh on an army/organisation heavily. The same can be said about any organisation or group. Sometimes change may not seem needed and it may be scary but sometimes it is for the best, whether we know and acknowledge it or not. Do you think unaffiliated people need to have a timer on their stay in power? Or perhaps there should be a way to check their knowledge of the community? Should the community be able to remove a person who has been in power for years?
Coolguy
Chief Executive Producer