Primal Weyland
Well-Known Member
Sorry for the new thread but we believe that this is a valid topic for discussion. For those that believe this is just a reiteration of the “Ranking discussion” thread the proposals in that thread were of a forum based system where rank is based around post count. In contrast this thread puts forward a proposal that rewards good work, has no reliance on post count and instead of providing a hierarchical structure provides a method of marking experience within the 405th. Most of the material here was collaborative between SinjinSmiley and Primal Weyland, but other ideas are welcome.
Ranks
We believe we should use the actual UNSC ranks rather than the Halo multiplayer ranks.
According to Halopedia the UNSC Marine ranking system consists of:
Enlisted
<ul>[*]Private[*]Private First Class[*]Lance Corporal[*]Corporal[*]Sergeant[*]Staff Sergeant[*]Gunnery Sergeant[*]First Sergeant/Master Sergeant[*]Sergeant Major/Master Gunnery Sergeant[*]Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps[/list]
Officers
<ul>[*]Second Lieutenant[*]First Lieutenant[*]Captain[*]Major[*]Lieutenant Colonel[*]Colonel[*]Brigadier General[*]Major General[*]Lieutenant General[*]General[/list]
Straight off I think that we can strike off Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps as:
1. This is a unique position a so would not fit in the system defined below
2. No proof exists of the existence of this rank within the Halo universe
3. As a division the 405th is unlikely to contain this officer even if it does exist in the universe
In addition I would advise only using the First Sergeant and Sergeant Major promotional track thus getting rid of the Master Sergeant and Master Gunnery Sergeant ranks because:
1. It is a lot simpler to only have one promotional track rather than a track which splits part way through the enlisted ranks
2. The Sergeant Major track has general command status whilst the Master provides technical leadership
3. Sergeant Major Avery Johnson is better known than the only known Master Gunnery Sergeant who was in charge of the armoury in Cairo Station
We believe that the ranks above Captain should be reserved for Division and Regiment command staff (Major -> Colonel for Regiment and Brigadier General -> General for Division).
Progression
Promotions should occur based upon armour quality, service within the forums, total time in service (TiS) and attendances at events, in the following manner:
<ul>[*]Promotion to Recruit upon registering with the 405th. Promotion to Apprentice and Apprentice Grade 2 at 6-month intervals, capped at Apprentice Grade 2 until armour is completed.[*]Promotion to Private upon completion of armour meeting 405th specifications as defined by the charter.[*]Three months per rank for Enlisted members up to and including First Sergeant (one year, nine months in total), with six months from then on to reach the Sergeant Major rank (making a total of two years and three months to reach the top enlisted rank).[*]Another six months per rank for Officers up to and including Captain (one year, six months to complete Lower Officer ranks).[*]Accessibility to Higher Officer Ranks (Major and above) only available to those appointed to either Regimental or Divisional Command Staffs (Major -> Colonel for Regiment and Brigadier General -> General for Division). Appointment to said Command Staff causes instant promotion to the rank associated with the position. If the member then left the Command Staff they would keep their rank.[*]Event attendance leads to promotions. One event per enlisted rank. Two events per officer rank. [*]Good service may, from time to time, be rewarded with a promotion (the value of which would depend on the level of service).[*]Demotions may occur for poor behaviour. Poor forum conduct may warrant one rank removal - poor behaviour at conventions or more serious offences may warrant further measures.[/list]
This system should prevent the 405th from getting too 'top heavy' with officers, and admittedly it needs tweaking, but it's a basis at least for the SPARTAN and Forum ranks.
To those still worried about the years being thrown around in these proposals we think that instead of just progressing due to the time rules most people would progress due to event attendance and other acts which would warrant promotions. Progression due to time would simply be a backup.
Counter Arguments
We are sure this topic will cause controversy so we have summed up our views on what we see to be the main arguments against ranks and they are posted below. No offense intended to the original posters the quotes used were chosen as they best summed up the general arguments not due to the poster.
No ranks, because they would either be meaningless, or would enable folks to boss each other around.
The point of the ranking system portrayed in this post is not to provide a hierarchical structure where those higher up can boss around those lower down but simply as a method of rewarding those that work hard and as an indication of the experience of members. So whilst you won’t be ordered around by those higher up you might go to them at an event if you need some help as they are more experienced. In other words - rank doesn't necessarily give power. It's a symbol of status, nothing more - although some of the older, higher-ranked members MAY want to take certain responsibilities such as drill or certain command roles at events, if they wish.
It seems the whole point of "ranks" is so that some members can try to make themselves feel important.
This argument is flawed as it sets up a straw man (a misrepresentation of the argument is presented and then refuted making it seem that the original argument has been refuted). However, a counter-argument is still viable.
The ranks are not intended to make members feel more self-important but to reward their hard work. Those members that are promoted for their hard work are likely to already know their value and their place and the promotion simply is the thanks given by the organisation for their work. Again, rank displays experience rather than it displays power.
The idea of folks in positions having the officer ranks sounds ok, except that it means they couldn't be in "normal" marine costumes with that rank. For example, anyone seen Lord Hood in his Pelican Pilot uniform?
This depends on perspective. If you see it as the costume defining the character then indeed your argument is valid. However, if you see it as the character defining the costume a whole new way of thinking can emerge. Let’s take the Pelican Pilot and Admiral as an example. Whilst it is unlikely that an Admiral will be a Pelican it is a whole lot less unlikely that an Admiral will own and on occasion wear a Flight Suit. Now whilst the Pelican Pilot and the Flight Suit costumes are the same their use depends on perspective.
No real reason for ranks, People just Spam to work up to the biggest post count possible.
Spamming is of course a problem which is why post count has no part in the system proposed above. We realise that spammers will abuse the system to 'level up' as it were, and so the method of incorporating a time and experience-based system seems more fair. Basing rank structure purely from forum activities seems a little foolish - the 405th will eventually be a public presence, not just an internet presence, and so real life has to be taken into account.
Ranks
We believe we should use the actual UNSC ranks rather than the Halo multiplayer ranks.
According to Halopedia the UNSC Marine ranking system consists of:
Enlisted
<ul>[*]Private[*]Private First Class[*]Lance Corporal[*]Corporal[*]Sergeant[*]Staff Sergeant[*]Gunnery Sergeant[*]First Sergeant/Master Sergeant[*]Sergeant Major/Master Gunnery Sergeant[*]Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps[/list]
Officers
<ul>[*]Second Lieutenant[*]First Lieutenant[*]Captain[*]Major[*]Lieutenant Colonel[*]Colonel[*]Brigadier General[*]Major General[*]Lieutenant General[*]General[/list]
Straight off I think that we can strike off Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps as:
1. This is a unique position a so would not fit in the system defined below
2. No proof exists of the existence of this rank within the Halo universe
3. As a division the 405th is unlikely to contain this officer even if it does exist in the universe
In addition I would advise only using the First Sergeant and Sergeant Major promotional track thus getting rid of the Master Sergeant and Master Gunnery Sergeant ranks because:
1. It is a lot simpler to only have one promotional track rather than a track which splits part way through the enlisted ranks
2. The Sergeant Major track has general command status whilst the Master provides technical leadership
3. Sergeant Major Avery Johnson is better known than the only known Master Gunnery Sergeant who was in charge of the armoury in Cairo Station
We believe that the ranks above Captain should be reserved for Division and Regiment command staff (Major -> Colonel for Regiment and Brigadier General -> General for Division).
Progression
Promotions should occur based upon armour quality, service within the forums, total time in service (TiS) and attendances at events, in the following manner:
<ul>[*]Promotion to Recruit upon registering with the 405th. Promotion to Apprentice and Apprentice Grade 2 at 6-month intervals, capped at Apprentice Grade 2 until armour is completed.[*]Promotion to Private upon completion of armour meeting 405th specifications as defined by the charter.[*]Three months per rank for Enlisted members up to and including First Sergeant (one year, nine months in total), with six months from then on to reach the Sergeant Major rank (making a total of two years and three months to reach the top enlisted rank).[*]Another six months per rank for Officers up to and including Captain (one year, six months to complete Lower Officer ranks).[*]Accessibility to Higher Officer Ranks (Major and above) only available to those appointed to either Regimental or Divisional Command Staffs (Major -> Colonel for Regiment and Brigadier General -> General for Division). Appointment to said Command Staff causes instant promotion to the rank associated with the position. If the member then left the Command Staff they would keep their rank.[*]Event attendance leads to promotions. One event per enlisted rank. Two events per officer rank. [*]Good service may, from time to time, be rewarded with a promotion (the value of which would depend on the level of service).[*]Demotions may occur for poor behaviour. Poor forum conduct may warrant one rank removal - poor behaviour at conventions or more serious offences may warrant further measures.[/list]
This system should prevent the 405th from getting too 'top heavy' with officers, and admittedly it needs tweaking, but it's a basis at least for the SPARTAN and Forum ranks.
To those still worried about the years being thrown around in these proposals we think that instead of just progressing due to the time rules most people would progress due to event attendance and other acts which would warrant promotions. Progression due to time would simply be a backup.
Counter Arguments
We are sure this topic will cause controversy so we have summed up our views on what we see to be the main arguments against ranks and they are posted below. No offense intended to the original posters the quotes used were chosen as they best summed up the general arguments not due to the poster.
No ranks, because they would either be meaningless, or would enable folks to boss each other around.
The point of the ranking system portrayed in this post is not to provide a hierarchical structure where those higher up can boss around those lower down but simply as a method of rewarding those that work hard and as an indication of the experience of members. So whilst you won’t be ordered around by those higher up you might go to them at an event if you need some help as they are more experienced. In other words - rank doesn't necessarily give power. It's a symbol of status, nothing more - although some of the older, higher-ranked members MAY want to take certain responsibilities such as drill or certain command roles at events, if they wish.
It seems the whole point of "ranks" is so that some members can try to make themselves feel important.
This argument is flawed as it sets up a straw man (a misrepresentation of the argument is presented and then refuted making it seem that the original argument has been refuted). However, a counter-argument is still viable.
The ranks are not intended to make members feel more self-important but to reward their hard work. Those members that are promoted for their hard work are likely to already know their value and their place and the promotion simply is the thanks given by the organisation for their work. Again, rank displays experience rather than it displays power.
The idea of folks in positions having the officer ranks sounds ok, except that it means they couldn't be in "normal" marine costumes with that rank. For example, anyone seen Lord Hood in his Pelican Pilot uniform?
This depends on perspective. If you see it as the costume defining the character then indeed your argument is valid. However, if you see it as the character defining the costume a whole new way of thinking can emerge. Let’s take the Pelican Pilot and Admiral as an example. Whilst it is unlikely that an Admiral will be a Pelican it is a whole lot less unlikely that an Admiral will own and on occasion wear a Flight Suit. Now whilst the Pelican Pilot and the Flight Suit costumes are the same their use depends on perspective.
No real reason for ranks, People just Spam to work up to the biggest post count possible.
Spamming is of course a problem which is why post count has no part in the system proposed above. We realise that spammers will abuse the system to 'level up' as it were, and so the method of incorporating a time and experience-based system seems more fair. Basing rank structure purely from forum activities seems a little foolish - the 405th will eventually be a public presence, not just an internet presence, and so real life has to be taken into account.
Last edited by a moderator:
). If also I don't know anyone's face, if I see a Captain, I know he might be pretty experienced and I can ask all my questions.
