Clan/House Policy Discussion [MAA Continued]

Hello Everyone,

Let’s start using this thread for the great conversation attached to the last MAA Report. I think Discourse is way easier to utilize and keep track of than news page comments. I’ll start by posting Muz’s editorial.

Long comment coming through. sorry, all.

The point behind the declanning was the fact (yes, facts, as defined by every metric we had, from number of active members to site hits to number of new joins) that the DB was in a pretty major slump. When we did the declanning, we debated the idea of having houseless clans versus indy houses. The houseless clans idea was one that made everyone feel better, but had no real ‘carrot’ as someone earlier in this thread said. The potential to reclan (and earn the rights and perks associated with it) has driven Arcona and several other units to where they are today. The downside of that is that it made everyone feel like we were being punished. We had to acknowledge that where we were simply wasn’t sustainable. I don’t like that. You don’t like that. Nobody likes seeing that what we were doing wasn’t working. You have to acknowledge it, and move forward. But you can not solve a problem with the same thinking that caused it.

It wasn’t a popular decision. It’s not one that I wanted to have to make. And here, several years later, people are still complaining about it. But, comparing where we were to where we are, and recognizing how bad things could have gotten/were getting, I would absolutely make the same exact choice again. The fact that we are here to have this discussion, with new voices and old pitching in, is proof that it worked.

The Brotherhood is all about fun. Members have fun, they game/write/chat with old friends, make new ones, and get to play in this really fun sandbox. But there do have to be some rules to keep order…to keep things together, to keep them from falling apart. Rules aren’t fun, and enforcing them is substantially less so…but that’s the deal when you step up into leadership. You sacrifice a fair bit of the fun that you personally have so that you can make fun things for the rest of the members, to keep things fair, to keep our doors open, to keep the club growing. It’s a sacrifice, the dues we pay forward for the fun we had as members. It’s often thankless, obnoxious work. You get yelled at a lot. (Just look at the thread here) But it is necessary.

Most people here have seen little rules and complained about the bureaucracy of it all. I can appreciate it. I really really hate having to play rules lawyer all the bloody time. I really really hate having to tell people no. But sometimes it does need to be said. Sometimes the old rules need to change, because people are abusing them, or people are abusing other people, or whatever. We just recently saw rules having to be changed in the middle of the war because of people doing scammy sorts of things in gaming. I really hate that, and if we could, we’d rather bust people out for breaking the spirit of the rules instead of having to constantly rewrite them because people are seeking loopholes or whatnot. That’s not how it works, unfortunately.

And to those who are spinning the whole ‘slapped down’ thing like I don’t even consider other options… well. You’re not my fans, and that’s fine. That is what happens when you have to get told no enough times. But the truth of the matter is that I have explained my reasons in depth for why policies were set the way that they were. People often took that as a ‘slapping down’, but it really isn’t, as I have explained to each of you during those times. I invited people to find other ways to solve the problems. I have yet to see a solution submitted that even addresses the problem…or even acknowledges that there was a problem aside from wanting perks back. Rather than do the hard work, and try to fix things, it is far easier to grandstand on comments sections or on IRC and complain about things. Step up, recognize what is wrong, and work with us to try to fix it, instead. But realize that you can’t solve problems with the same thinking that caused them.

TL;DR I’ll take the brotherhood thriving over personal popularity every day of the week. That is the job.

Thanks for reading. Enjoy what’s left of the holiday weekend.

–Muz

I’m adding in my comments. Let me preface by saying- none of us are pitching a tantrum. What we are saying, is that some -many- of us are very concerned about punitive policies. I don’t think anyone is seeking loopholes, rather pointing out that we can do things in a positive, non-punitive way that will get better results.

When I hear words like probation and declanning, they serve to remind me that none of us come to this club for punitive measures. We all come here for fun. That should be our club’s focus.

It’s easy enough for folks not facing punitive measures to agree that they are fine, no offense. Quite frankly de-clanning is demoralizing for the unit in question. It is the exact opposite of what should be done with a struggling unit- they should be supported, not punished. This is a volunteer club and real-life models of negative reinforcement do not work nor do they encourage anyone in my mind. If a unit is struggling, then offer them support. Do something concrete to help them, like allow them to trim their leadership, liaison with other successful groups to develop good strategies, offer them a mentor. Those are positive solutions. In my personal opinion we should return to the scenario where all the Clouses become Clans again, including Odan-Urr. Some positive reinforcement works wonders and it should be tried. Leaders are tired of the constant struggle to stay above 40 in my opinion- it takes away from the real business of leadership, which is helping your charges enjoy the club. Also, no offense, there is no need to sacrifice anything to be fair. It can be done in a positive manner that brings us together as comrades, instead of dividing us. Let’s all also remember that this is a club, not Real Life. People take things way too seriously when they dip into the punitive model. We should remember why we are all here, to have fun and move forward in that manner accordingly.

And additionally:

Ask yourselves this. If the problem is still happening- then the punitive solution did not fully work.

It’s that simple.

Granted, it may have been okay as a one-time policy. It did help in some cases, although it also caused, in my opinion, people to lose morale and some to leave. It’s not a matter of perks. It’s a matter of looking for sincere, helpful solutions. It’s easy enough to admit we have some issues, but harder for people to actually work to help instead of punish. As well group punishment is unfair to those in a Clan or House who do work hard for the betterment of this club for everyone. Group punishment only works in certain situations and always causes resentment. It does not work in a volunteer club.

As well what works for one Clan or House may not for another. It’s also important to consider RL has effects on people. Sometimes, people turn their attention elsewhere. Neither they, nor their unit should be punished for that. That’s life, you know?

If the old rules need to change sometimes, then let’s change this one for the better.

May i suggest that you look at the current rules of de clanning again more so the rule of how many members and rewrite it. Ie; look at everyones numbers. Find a average then find a certian percentage and use that number. Like so average is 40 times say 75% gives you 30 members to stay clanned.

Also how do clans get new members, cause face it, a lot of old ones leave for months at a time. My suggestion is to try and make a code that if x clan is less then x number then the new x member is added to that clan.

If thats possible or are members add manually? Just wondering.

I believe new member assignment is a round robin of some sort based on houses. e.g. a new member joins, they go to House A. House A then goes to the end of the list and House B gets the next new member.

Hence why people mention Clans getting twice the number of new joins, compared to independent houses, as they all currently have two houses. (i.e. Clan Acrona has two houses in the round robin, where as House Tarentum only has one house in the round robin.)

The whole declanning experiment has failed miserably. For the most part, it has created one or two superclans at a time while the other houses have been hampered by the silly double number of new joins go to clans. Honestly, I would be for a return to the more strict maxes of 3 houses per clan with a maximum # of 20 per house for a max total of 60. Dead weight would be cut more easily, and there wouldn’t be the transfers for guaranteed shineys and promos that we’ve all seen over the past four years as people clan/house hop. Those high end clans would still retain their quality people while it would make it easier for those with lower numbers to see new blood.

Or we could be sensible and allow Houseless Clans, that way a Clan could decide itself when it has enough leaders to field houses or not, it would require a minor change so that random joins are assigned to clans instead of houses.

It would remove the ridiculous threat of a unit losing half of all the stuff they have worked hard for just because they drop below some arbitrary number, and losing the ability to grant clan titles, something you could argue that the GM stole from the clans and then told them, “Now go see if you can earn back what I just took from you for stupid reasons”.

I’m sure there are people in Scholae Palatinae and Tarentum who are more than deserving of the respective units titles but have been unable to actually get them because of this supposedly super effective restructuring… if it was that effective in saving the Brotherhood wouldn’t all the units have reclanned now four years down the line?

Why not do what we did in 2005? Take two of the stuggling houses and merge them into a Super-Clan? Both Satal Keto and Exar Kun had 30+ members when they became Clan Plagueis enough so that they needed 3 houses.

Maybe this has been discussed before and shot down but the membership at large wasn’t consulted before CSK and CEK were smushed together so just pick two and smush them. Everyone will be all “boo hoo our history!” What does the history matter if your club falls apart?

I know that might not be the prettiest option but it’s better than what we are doing now.

You have a good point there, how ever, those that are named Sadow would not be able to name another Son or Daughter. The same goes with the other house that you would merge with. I’m not discerning your idea at all, I like the sound of it. But with that being said, would the two units that merge be able to still name Sons and Daughters of their respective linage?

Same as it is for those that received the name of DE Satal and whatever the honorific was for CEK. Those that have it keep it and that is that. They would have to embrace their new clan honorific like Plaguies has done.

[quote=“Malik, post:6, topic:685, full:true”]
Or we could be sensible and allow Houseless Clans, that way a Clan could decide itself when it has enough leaders to field houses or not, it would require a minor change so that random joins are assigned to clans instead of houses.[/quote]
That was always what I wanted to see, even as far back as 2010 or so- before anyone even got de-clanned the first time. The problem back then, however, was the old website couldn’t support it, and the fear was it’d basically break the site and makes James suffer a coronary.

It puts the decision in the hands of the Independent Unit’s leadership- something that’s currently unavailable, and would have prevented a lot of problems over the years whenever a unit has, for example, suffered a leadership meltdown. In that respect, not much has actually changed sadly, as albeit back in 2010 people had no options at all, today they still cannot do anything until after they fall beneath 40 members- which sometimes risks treading water and floundering, rather than having the tools to fix things more promptly.

For example, take CNS currently, yes it’s now on probation, but it’s STILL a Clan, and STILL has to field the leadership for two Houses, which, personally, I consider counterproductive, and believe that drastically cutting down the leadership staffing would actually do the unit more benefit, whereas for the past 12 months it’s been struggling to maintain a Clan, as a result of having only been on the borderline of 40 members or so, but never having fallen completely off the cliff.

Despite my pushing “streamlining” (key word, not downsizing, that word sounds negative, so I prefer not to use it) for the last 12 months tho, nobody has ever wanted to go along with it, as, understandably, they don’t want to lose all the perks of being a Clan, and, again I can understand, they cling to the hope and optimism that things will improve… but, personally, I take the view that sometimes you’ve gotta swallow the pill and just accept that visiting the dentist might hurt, but that the pain is worth it- but the way the situation is currently, it actively discourages units’ members from making that step, and that in turn is then a self-defeating circle, and becomes itself counterproductive.

Which is in the end, is why I feel either Indy Houses need to be seen as purely an administrative streamlining to make members of a Clan more willing to make that step so they make it earlier, or else if we want Clans to still have “perks”, then Houseless Clans would enable the same administrative streamlining until such time as a Clan can fully field two management teams again.

I guess, in the end, ever since the new website launched, I’ve felt that we’ve not been taking advantage of all the new opportunities that never existed before. Take Arcona, for example, trying out an Independent Battleteam even after they were reclanned. I loved that. It showed forward thinking, trying new things, etc, etc, and that’s something that I love- tailoring a unit to its members, rather than always trying to fit everything into the same sized shoe box. Funnily enough, I actually remember playing with an Independent Battleteam many, many years ago back in the EH- albeit it was “unofficial” and unable to exist on the roster back then, but I remember the “Elite Battleteam” idea was rather popular back in 2002.

…now I’m getting all nostalgic for Ruby Squadron… how I miss you, my old rubies.

There could be other arrangements with the new database too, of course- and that’s why I love the new website, as it’s given us all these new possibilities: we just need to make use of them.

TL;dr Make Independent Units more independent. Take advantage of the new websites’ possibilities to offer even more options than just Indy Houses and Clans, but Houseless Clans, Indy Battleteams, probably others, and let communities use the website to build the best structure that works for them.

Honestly I hated what was done to CEK/CSK.

CEK basically failed once Khan left - the correct move would have been to shut CEK and put their members in CSK.

As for this point, the issue I have is that probation takes only the last day into account - why not take an average of the membership of the whole period? If that’s way below 40, you’re a House (or Houseless Clan) again.

Alternatively, we could just re-clan HSP and Tar, let HOU be a Clan and leave internal organisation to their CONs.

Yes. This.

If given the opportunity to streamline leadership as Xanos and I mentioned, this would be the best option in my opinion.

As Goat pointed out, the new website allows everything needed for houseless Clans, including fielding battleteams.

In your hypothetical arrangement, would member assignment round robin still be house based? I.E. would a two-house clan receive double the recruits that a one/no house clan does?

I’m admittedly uncertain quite how flexible the member assignment code it, but in an ideal world, it presumably would depend on the reasons the Clan went Houseless. If they’d gone into a probationary period or had suffered a leadership blowout and were still at 50 members+, and were trying to rebuild their management team, then I suspect only having half the reassignments might actually be better, until they have a stronger team to properly introduce the new influxes.

I’ve noticed in the past that’s been one of the problems in the past, when you’ve had a Clan that’s had a meltdown, then ends up with two junior House teams, but is still getting twice the new intake than an Indy House, even when it’s trying to get its new team trained up to deal with it.

Vice versa, though, if they were doing well, and just preferred the idea of being Houseless, and had just voluntarily done it to cut back on the framework, etc, then in that circumstance maybe a larger unit would still want twice as many… although, I must admit, even with that it could be argued it still wouldn’t, as it wouldn’t be needing to keep two Houses at optimal capacity, as a Houseless Clan has more flexibility in terms of its working numbers, so I imagine wouldn’t be needing twice the new member assignments?

The round robin would be Clan based so every unit (bar Odan Urr) gets the same number of random joins.

That was my thought, that makes it more fair. The idea that Houses don’t get as many new members currently as Clans just doesn’t sit well with me. And Odan Urr should be a Clan if this happens in my opinion.

I think what Malik was getting at when he said “bar Odan-Urr” referred to how they get new recruits. As the only (current) light path unit they get all the light path recruits. Dark Fury (how recruits are distributed) could be easily adjusted to one per independent unit with the Rollmaster assigning recruits to sub houses as needed.

The question I have is under the hypothetical where all independent units are clans (with organizational structure up to them) how would that affect new unit proposals? Would it be harder to form a new unit since they jump straight to clan?

Also the guidelines would have to be adjusted as to when clans could form sub-houses and how many much such houses they could form etc etc.

From HOU’s perspective this situations as a bit more complex. Since I am the Rollmaster I have a somewhat unique perspective on new recruits and such so I’ll lay down my own opinions. Repeat: My opinions.

We have to take into account that HOU has a very unique position in the DB. We are the only light side House so we receive all the light side newcomers. This is a double edged sword, at best. On one hand we get a lot of members (our roster has 61 members currently active, more or less, and is the second largest), on the other we will get so bloated at one point that we cannot pay as much attention as we want to each member.

We have 28 Journeymen (not counting DJK/JK). By comparison Tarentum has 7, Taldryan 12, CSP 19, CP 18, CNS 9 and Arcona 16. That’s nine more than CPS who have more leadership positions to handle them. You can argue “Well why don’t the get promoted?” but that doesn’t get rid of the problem, and you have to take into account the personal life of each Journeyman, as well as the Summit. A lot of them are busy with school, exams, new jobs, family issues, etc. Not everyone sets away time for the DB equally.

With only three Summit members, it can get pretty chaotic and hard to follow everyone all the time, especially Journeymen. As a result, some of them “fall off” the roster due to AWOLs, or simply change their House/Clan.

A solution which would allow us to modify the rigid system of positions, even slightly, would be beneficial. Another Rollmaster-like-position in the House would be useful in this regard since the QUA, AED and BTLs already have their hands full. Some would say “BTLs are there to help out with that.” True, but BTLs are supplementary leaders. They lack the authorization to do anything beyond their respective BT and that, in and of itself, hits the breaks on some important interactions and some communication gets lost in the cracks when someone doesn’t CC the RM, or forgets to report a certain activity. It is hard to cover all our bases sometimes.

We are managing to coordinate between myself and the three BTLs we have - and, mind you, it is manageable so far. We don’t have any major issues at this point, but pretty soon we will. Big rosters=a lot of attention needed=more leaders needed to handle them.

I’m not complaining, nor am I ranting. Honestly if you ask me, I’d have HOU develop beyond my expectations and earn that Clan title like no Clan has done before - and we will - but right now the system is hardly sustainable in the long run.

Another solution would be opening a new House but then you have entirely new problems like splitting the Equites and Journeymen, and dividing the activity. One of those Houses will pull the short straw (they always do) and we’re back at the beginning, only this time we’re closing one House due to lack of activity, or merging them again into one big House. In either case, we’re back to square one.

My two cents.

Not to be a stickler, but Scholae Palatinae is still a House so we have the same amount of leadership positions. I mean we are shooting to get reclanned but aren’t yet.

We’ve already seen the close of House Revan. Closing more would be tragic. Merging units also ends up chasing off just as many members as it would help.

I disagree Xen. I think that Revan closing was a good thing. Granted I hated loosing Revan as I put a lot of personal effort into it but I think it really served it’s purpose as an experiment. That independent units can work and it paved the way for HOU and to un-clan. Of course that is what has caused this whole issue.

The one thing that I think Revan did that we all need to remember, especially about the hallowed clans like Arcona, and Tally is that it shook things up, gave people opportunities to make their mark and that draws the best people. The two newest units in the Club, PLA and HOU, are still doing that and that’s why they see growth and progress while the older clans/houses don’t. At least from the outside that’s how it seems. I could be wrong and I hope I am.

We may not come up with the perfect solution today but we need to come up with something soon because believe it or not we are going to have a surge of interest soon and we need to look put together.

Also we need to brand ourselves better as a Star Wars club but that is for another conversation.

If Revan proved independent Houses could work, it would still be around.

Every unit throws things out to shake things up. If you think only PLA and HOU are the only two units growing and progressing you really arent paying attention. Neither or they “new” units. PLA turns 10 this year. HOU is turning 4.

That surge of new interest is GOOD. It will help every single unit of the club. As when the prequel movies come out, you are going to see all the units grow in size. Closing or merging should be seen as literally the last option. If CNS feels the need to restructure, by all means it shouldn’t be penalized for wanting to strengthen up. If HOU shows the signs of being able to become COU then by all means, let it grow. My point about revan closing wasn’t that revan didn’t have good things for it. It had a lot of good things going for it. It was the product of lots of effort and lots of love, and seeing it have to close is sad because of it. Is the club better off for it being closed? yeah probably. Does it mean it wasn’t sad to see happen? no not at all.

We won a [RoS][1]. Seems like we proved something there.
[1]: https://wiki.darkjedibrotherhood.com/view/Spoils_of_War

Thats my point. Revan DID do amazing stuff. Which is why its ultimate failure and closing is something that shouldn’t be taken lightly. We should all be looking for improving units, not tearing them down. That is all I was trying to say.

While I will agree that Declanning has failed miserably… only Arcona is something I would call a “superclan” in regards to size, and that is more due to the prodigious active recruiting efforts of some of their own members. Taldryan and Plagueis have only had Clan status for a year. Naga Sadow has had it for much longer. To date, only Arcona and Taldryan have managed to stay consistently above the Probation marker.

In Plagueis’ case, I know that the then Consul was encouraged by the Grand Master to artificially inflate his unit’s numbers in order to get past the 40 members needed for Clanning, which left them at an early disadvantage they have since managed to overcome. Naga Sadow has struggled with maintaining its roster size for the entire time. Arcona as I stated has had a large roster for a long time, largely due to their own internal recruiting. For Taldryan I can assure you has only stayed above due to a prodigious amount of effort from every level of our summit to be constantly vigilant and keeping people logged into the site.

I can pretty confidently speak for every leader of the day back then, when I say that the joining of CSK and CEK together was one of the biggest mistakes that we ever made in this club. It created a trainwreck of a unit that took 5-6 years, two GMs, and at least one interrim DC appointed Consuls to finally start to settle down. Plagueis has become a success story recently but until then, it was very much a cautionary tale. We should not be looking to inflict this folly upon our membership again at any cost.

This is quite honestly the only solution to the problem that declanning has become. It has been proposed, with limitless opposition for years. The only solid explanation those of us who have pressed for this previously have gotten is that holding back awarding rights for medals (since given), and titles, and creation of Houses gives people more of an incentive to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and prove they’re worthy of it.

The problem with the theory of letting people “prove their worth” is that the IH’s operate from uneven ground. It’s been an unfair fight the whole time. At one point when the idea of correcting the member assignments to one per IU, it was relayed that the logic behind keeping the IH’s down was “why would you give more resources to the managers who are failing to do their jobs.” The counter argument that they should be at least be given a fair shot was misunderstood or completely ignored.

In the end, if we want to give people every unit a fair shot at survival? We need to give them the same opportunities to survive, and we need to give them the same tools to work with. Reclanning everyone, allowing people the dignity to reward their own members with their own title as they see fit, and an equal chance to make something of themselves in regards to assigned recruits.

So, when Scholae becomes a clan, that will leave only Tarentum as the only “house” sized unit left as HOU should become a clan as well. Doesn’t seem like we’re in any better boat than we were a few years ago when this whole experiment began other than alot of pissed off members.

Just reclan everyone and stop with this silly double secret probation stuff.

Everyone is making valid, fair, and respectful points. For my part, as MAA, I want to bring this up in the coming weeks and try to smooth over some irritations. As an example, while the greater clan-house divide is a much larger issue, I definitely want to resolve the outdated probation rules in our post-auto AWOL world.

I will also look into the member assignment matter. I know that with new films on the horizon we are sure to see a recruitment boost. I joined directly because of Episode 3 internet Googling and hope to see more like that this fall and winter.

Concerning probation, the rules could have been updated at the same time that new rules were introduced in regards to Clan Titles and so forth. I believe it was the sudden introduction of these rules that caused this entire discussion in the first place, and that would have been the perfect opportunity to update things rather than just add onto them.

As for member assignment, as already mentioned, it is done on a House-basis. So Clans, which were technically healthy enough to become a Clan, have a larger opportunity to continue to be healthy as they receive more members than a House. There will be a large influx of members come the release of the new movies, but the club must be prepared for it. Now is the time to ensure that everyone is on a level playing field and focused on their members.