The Issues with the Commander Whitelist Application Process

[Youbar]

It has been just over a week since the whitelist applications have opened for the commander role. During this time, I've noted a few problems with the process. One of these is that the proper requirements for an applicant aren't clarified. Based on the votes, I'm being told that personal opinion, competency, strategical mindset, behaviour on the forums, and community recognition are all factors in whether or not somebody should be allowed to obtain the commander role. This is a huge range of attributes, and has resulted in voters making misinformed decisions on whether to give a player a "yes", or a "no".

From the information provided by Rahlzel, we are lead to believe that those who are accepted are recognised for their leadership abilities.
To be whitelisted is to be trusted that you have authority over the entire marine team and ship crew, and you are intimately educated with said authority. The purpose of the Commander is to instill a sense of purpose, organization, and focus with his or her subordinates. To have a Commander wake from cryo-sleep is to have hope of being freed from chaos or stagnation.

He goes on to state that competency isn't the primary consideration, but rather, their ability to contribute to the round.
However, it has very little to do with how successful they are at winning a round. A Commander might do everything right and still lose the game. Commanders are not robusting round-winners. They do the best they can with what they have by utilizing leadership, tactics, and of course, roleplay.

Being a non-toxic member of the community also helps.
Head Staff reserve the right to deny any application if we feel an applicant has had too many bans, negative notes, or other problems to deserve being whitelisted.

From what I can understand, these requirements can be summarised into three short sentences.

• Display strong leadership potential
• Contribute to the round in a positive manner
• Don't be a shitler

Unfortunately, the messages conveyed in these three sentences is easily up for interpretation. For example, one might find that competency and refusal to powergame are the requirements, while another might believe that maintaining a disciplined crew and producing unique rounds for the players are, too, requirements. They're widely up for speculation, and has resulted in a wide array of reasons for voting either positively or negatively, to the point that applying might as well be a popularity contest, rather than to fulfill the requirements of the application.

There are numerous examples of voter misinformation that I can list off the top of my head. One person, Artouris, has gone through every application, and has voted either "yes" or "no" depending on whether he knows the individual player and their character, or not. From what I understand, this was never the idea behind voting. Another person, Surrealistik, has made numerous individuals support the usage of performance enhancing drugs on the battlefield, and never establishing an FOB in the nexus, as his factors for voting. If they respond positively, he changes his vote away from "no", to a "yes". From what I understand, this was never the idea behind voting. It doesn't end here, either. Renomaki has come to the conclusion that you are only a true commander if you refuse to allow marines to retreat. If you're more of a turtler, he punishes you by giving you a "no" vote, worth 1.5 "yes" votes. From what I understand, this was never the idea behind voting.

Ultimately, these beliefs aren't their fault. They were misinformed. It is rather the failure to clearly state the requirements of being accepted as an applicant. "Yes" and "no" votes should be used by players to decide whether the commander meets those requirements, rather than some arbitrary ones made up on the spot.

There are two solutions to this problem, that if combined, will result in a much more effective whitelist process.

The first is to establish clear requirements. This may take a bit of discussion, but I believe the following will work well:

• The player's first login must have been over two weeks ago
• The player must not negatively contribute to the community - that means a large list of notes and an extensive ban history, not being a NoahKirchner, or a Youbar
• The player must show competence in roleplaying
• The player must show decent leadership abilities or
• the player must positively impact the round

This set of requirements is short and simple: the player must not be new, they must not be toxic, and they must either be semi-competent or better as a leader (Xurphurous Dergens), or capable of creating interesting situations (Bill Carson). Being whitelisted for commander shouldn't be hard, and once somebody has grasped the ropes of Bridge Officer and Executive Officer, and shown decent aptitude in both roles, they should qualify as "semi-competent". Giving a "bad" order, disagreeing with a player in-game, or other petty things, doesn't qualify as incompetent. Being offended once by the individual in question, or feeling that their strategic mindset isn't "proper" is never a good reason to give a "no" vote. Unless a player has actively attempted to lose a round without adequate roleplay, they do not qualify as incompetent.

The next solution is to place an emphasis on quality over quantity votes. Every vote should come with a strong justification in the comments. Voting "no" because the player called you a jackass once isn't a good reason. Voting "no" because the player has repeatedly given jibberish orders in the past, or SSD'd halfway into the round multiple times, is. Likewise, voting "yes" because you like the player isn't a good reason. Voting "yes" because the player has met all the minimum requirements listed is. While the number of votes will be reduced, the reasoning will be much more clear, and it'd still remain fairly simple. For example,

• Yes[, the player's login was more than two weeks ago]
• No[, the player does not negatively contribute to the community]
• Yes[, the player has been a competent roleplayer]
• Yes[, the player shows leadership capability/creates unique rounds]

This quick checklist could be conducted, followed by a brief, but descriptive, explanation.
"Bill Carson, although a controversial commander due to his capability to completely divide the marines into opposing sides, produces unique situations for players to experience. He's always contributed positively to the rounds I've had with him, and is a fairly decent roleplayer."
Alternatively,
"I've only seen John Doe a few times as command staff, but I believe he has the capability to serve as a commander. He has met all the minimum requirements for the whitelist, and I haven't seen any cases of severe incompetence. His leadership is seen by some as average in quality, but I believe he'll become vastly more experienced in the future."
Even if this type of voting is not enforced, it may be beneficial to weight the votes of those who have given their opinion adequately, over those who have simply clicked "yes" or "no" on a whim. I suggest making them worth 3 standard votes.

I'm going to end my mini-essay here. To summarise, add some clear requirements for the commander whitelist applications, and favour quality votes over quantity votes.

[Szunti]

I think it's easy: would you like to play in a round when that player is the commander? It doesn't matter if he roleplays or he always lead the marines to victory if for some reason noone wants to play with him. Or he can be a shitler but you always have a fun time cursing him with your squad and blaming him for everything. Then he deserves your yes.

[doodeeda]

I don't see a huge issue with people developing their own criteria for voting alongside the set guidelines. The majority vote allows for commanders to still get in even if their policies aren't aligned with what some people want. +1/-1 lets people voice what they want to see in a commander which benefits the applicant, and everyone is going to have differing ideas on what a commander should do or be in order to be whitelisted. I think that's natural and fine. In the end, a lot of people are going to be on the whitelist with varying playstyles, but they will all have been deemed okay by a good amount of people. The whitelist does its job by preventing oblivious players from being commander while being flexible enough to keep it an accessible position for those willing to put in the effort necessary.

Also, "petty no votes" will most likely be drowned out in a majority vote.

[Renomaki]

Honestly, I don't think I did something entirely wrong with my votes.

As a person who plays marine a lot, I had a lot of bad experiences with commanders who would retreat to the Sulico for some of the most petty reasons. We abandoned so many perfectly good FoBs, lost so many men due to them exposing their backs to the enemy during a full scale retreat... I can understand falling back to the FoB and regrouping there after a hive attack goes wrong, but abandoning the entire planet? Fuck that shit, the moment you lose the planet, you lose everything.

I have grown tired of commanders that have no confidence in their troops to fight for the planet, who just resort to frowned upon tactics (Fleeing to the Sulico with 40 perfectly good troops and just camping in the hanger and never leaving until staff intervene) just to win. What is the fun in that? Not only is it really unfun and crappy, it also makes marines feel weak. When marines feel weak, they get scared, and when they get scared, they shit their pants and run away the first chance they get.

When I go commander, I do everything in my power to keep the fighting spirit of men strong, holding the line with everything I got. Abandoning the planet is something I hate doing due to the fact that once you lose the planet, you lose all ability to send troops down, and the xenos can repopulate and grow without hindrance. And when the time comes to defend the hanger, that fact really, really sucks..

That is why, when I vote, I vote for people that I believe will have the ability to instill confidence in the marines they lead, who encourages bravery over cowardice when the battle goes bitter, who generally isn't afraid to fight with nothing but a bootknife if they have to... In general, I want a leader that makes me feel strong, who makes me feel that we can hold the line if we just work together.

When the time to vote came, I figured this was my chance to change things, to finally have leaders we could look up to. You may think that I am not voting correctly, but I don't see anything wrong with my style of voting. I don't give my vote to people just because I know who they are, or that they accept my ideal meta-strategy. I vote for people who are brave, who can inspire men to fight, who don't resort to camping the hanger just to get wins, and most of all, WHO CAN LOSE WITH STYLE (because isn't the best moments of CM the epic last stands at the FoB?).

That is why I voted the way I did. I do agree that we shouldn't vote for people for silly reasons, but I feel my reasons to give my vote to someone is fairly understandable.

[Artouris]

Oh cool a place where I can sorta blanket my no responses to most of the people I wrote no to. Not to mention it follows in topic. I do agree we need some better criteria or at least make it clear in that we're making a whitelis so we raise the bar from any random on the seiver to any known rando who makes a forum account.

I was under the impression we should vote for people who were at least semi competent or would actually play that role. So I went with the criteria of;

1. Do I know this character ingame?
2. Is this character at least somewhat competent?
3. Does this person play command often?

Probably the most important one is the last one conside ring if someone just makes a commander app to be a snowflake with a lower bar to enter upon than predator then what's the point? And I do mean snowflake roles, just don't take too much offense to that. If they don't play command but want to be white listed it's pointless since we're not going to have them playing the role. Not to mention watch them get brutalized by the fact command is no where nearly the same job as any squad level marise or anything outside of bridge.

Command is one of those stressful jobs on the server. This extends to SLs as well. If you go all in it is stressful, and if you want to make the round be any sort of good then you have to go all in. I don't want to see people get white listed and then never play the role because it's stressful or because now they're some status figure.

I would have suggested that people put in a white list app and then have a mod or a min watch them play a command role, doesn't have to be commander, a few times. Then report back. Since then they've for sure played it a bit and you can tell if they'll be a good fit for the job.

You'd be surprised how commanders often set the tone which can totally destroy marines before they land. As in the commander is some memester or doing really stupid things, marines will get all rowdy and stop caring about the mission to nearly riot. Thus dooming the mission before it starts. Xur at least commands from experience and a position of player age so to speak. Bill Carson is a massive asshole, but he at least gets shit done. Look at any asshole commansee who didn't get shit done and watch how marines lost before the first boot on the ground.

I don't know this a bit of a ramble post as well. But I did make my point somewhere there. Now I need some food before I die of starvation

[doodeeda]

The commander application is the most casual which is a good thing. You don't even need to justify your vote.

[Youbar]

I don't see a huge issue with people developing their own criteria for voting alongside the set guidelines. The majority vote allows for commanders to still get in even if their policies aren't aligned with what some people want. +1/-1 lets people voice what they want to see in a commander which benefits the applicant, and everyone is going to have differing ideas on what a commander should do or be in order to be whitelisted. I think that's natural and fine. In the end, a lot of people are going to be on the whitelist with varying playstyles, but they will all have been deemed okay by a good amount of people. The whitelist does its job by preventing oblivious players from being commander while being flexible enough to keep it an accessible position for those willing to put in the effort necessary.

Also, "petty no votes" will most likely be drowned out in a majority vote.

The current applications are mostly from experienced players, who already have a reputation in the community. They will be able to be whitelisted quite easily. However, once the initial wave of applicants is sorted through, newer players will begin to appear, and that is when the wide range of reasons for giving a "yes" or a "no" to an application will work against them. Take, for example, TheMusician321's application. His account is just over three months old, and I've seen him frequently enough in-game to confirm that he can fulfill the above criteria, yet he is quite close to dipping below 60% votes in his favour. Of the people who have voted "no" only one person has not disclosed their reasoning for doing so, their argument being that a commander should never lead from the frontlines, and punishing the applicant for his own policies. Another example is poopbutt69's application. Three people have voted against him, with only seven for, and no clear reason for doing so has been provided. On the other hand, the "yes" votes are largely justified. All it takes is for two people to vote him down based on his immature name, or his poor grammar, rather than proper experiences with him, and his application will be denied. These cases will become more and more frequent as more applications appear, and voters stick to their arbitrary guidelines.

The commander application is the most casual which is a good thing. You don't even need to justify your vote.

You should need to justify your vote. A vote based on experience and proper information, is worth far more than an arbitrary "yes" or "no" because "I saw this guy once and he was cool/wasn't very nice".

I think it's easy: would you like to play in a round when that player is the commander?

This is a fairly simple criteria, and I like it, but it leaves room for personal bias against the player rather than an analysis of their competence.

-snip-

Your style of deciding on a vote stuck out in my mind because it feels like you're pushing for a particular policy from the commander, just as Surrealistik was. Yours is certainly less extreme, but there are times when a retreat from the FOB prematurely can be justified, such as when logistics is offline, or all the doctors have fallen asleep, and you need to cut your losses on the ground. Some people do retreat before it'd be reasonable to, but that can easily be justified under the guise of panicking. When the marines eventually return to the planet, they'll be filled with dread knowing that all the way down on the shuttle, the Xenoes have placed resin around the LZ, and are waiting to maul everybody aboard to death. I feel that that's a more interesting experience than holding the FOB to the last man, and I'd have no problems with it as it'd certainly create a lot of conflict and drama, which is the type of thing that's perfect for a round of Colonial Marines. The movie was rife with it.
However, things will develop from these semi-reasonable requests that the commander must comply with to get a vote, to outright stupid ones. It will not surprise me if, at some point in the future, a player gives a "no" vote until the applicant they're voting on gives an apology for a particular action in the past. They might simply give a "no" vote because they assume the applicant is a baldie, without experiencing how they lead and/or act in-game beforehand. Voting will become steadily worse from the state it is currently in, and I have no doubts that by next year, people will be saying that you must do x, or y, or play like z, to get a vote, rather than things simply being based around the original concept of the whitelist, which was to keep baldies out.

[Eenkogneeto]

I consider the mere act of wishing to /apply/ for commander a big part of my vote, Only exceptionally shitty people get a no vote from me. Just how I decide my votes.

[forwardslashN]

The idea is that you vote on whatever criteria that you want. You don't have to justify it. You should vote while considering the facts and the person in question, but you don't have to. I think that's pretty accessible and reasonable of a method.

[Sad_Corn]

CO whitelist is much a Bald filter than a serious whitelist APP, much more casual than a pred app, or a staff app.

I'm fine with the system for now, just slap your vote and GG

[Feweh]

Its a basic screening to filter out baldies and bad players.
Nothing more.


Its very clear and we only expect unknown players to be denied. If we made it more intense and restrictive players like you would never be whitelisted given your two perma bans and multiple other incidents.

Moved to suggestions and locked.