I wish we had a reply from an admin... :(

I'd like to know what's getting done etc. so I can decide on a "Agreed." or "Disagreed.". I'm neutral right now due to the fact I don't know what's going to happen.

Anyway Sentinel, have you pmed GregK about this thread? I find it strange that there's no response yet.

michaelP4

Haven't seen you for awhile. Anyway, he kind of gave a response around page 9 I think. I don't know if he said anything after that.

This is what I love about our union. Our Leader (datret), has only promoted worthy Officers, officers who post all the time, and help out with the union (moderating, making bullitens). We have an Officer-ship topic, in which people discuss who hasn't been doing much for the union, and which recuits would make good officers, therefore we always have a good team on hand

I like that idea. I would like to do that but there are not enough recruits participating in most unions for something like that. If unions pick up that would be a great thing for unions to do.

But if a leader decides he wants something different and wants to change the union completely there isn't a darn thing you can do about it is there?

The leader can already do that. And if the leader wants to drastically alter a union that is his/her choice and they don't need permission from anyone. Although a good leader would talk to his officers and members first and if it is a huge change, he probably should just leave and start a new union. The leader should always be a person you can trust though, no one should or should join a union with some crazy leader who keeps changing everything or with some lazy guy who never does anything. It's the leaders right to do whatever he wants to with his union as long as he follows gamespots rules. A union in a way is run (forum wise) somewhat like gamespot. Gamespot admin (leaders) choose their moderators and their moderators (officers) are supposed to follow the rules laid out be the admin, the moderators don't get to just do their own thing, make up rules, ban people, demote other mods, if they could do that there would be a much better chance of a bunch of moderators/officers taking over or messing up what the admin/leaders put them in charge of and that never belonged to them in the first place. The admin/leader always needs more power than the mods/officers however it would be nice to allow leaders of unions to give their officers more power if they choose to. 

I'll put it a different way. Let's say we took a country, and gave it a dictator (basically like the system is now), what he says goes. Now that might be very good, might be very bad, might be a combination. But if we make officers equal to leaders or close it would be like making six dictators at the same time. Now they might all just balance each other out and keep the others in check but most likely they might start to fight over things or a few start doing stupid things (in one of my unions, back when I was only a mod, an officer did start messing around and when others got mad at him he deleated everything he could, I was glad he didn't have the power to deleate the union or the bulletins, I told the old leader the day before along with another guy to take away power to do that from him) or one gets mad at all of the other officers and the leader. Now if six different people are all leading the same thing and they all start fighting nothing good will come out of that and I seriously doubt they will all get together in a video chat and play rock-paper-scissors to settle the dispute. Most likely one or more will get mad and try to change or ruin the union alone. Now before that wouldn't matter as much, because that one person couldn't do much. But if you want all officers to have more power over things automatically then he could possibly just change/delete the entire union, which is what would have happened to mine if he could have had that power. 

Getting recruits to be active is one of the biggest problems facing unions, and I think the blame for that falls partly on everyones shoulders.

Gamespot for one really gives no advertisement for the better unions or for unions just starting out and already offering useful content. I would like to see them do things like cutting of people from making so many unions (Star Wars comes to mind, we do NOT need 25 different Star Wars unions, it is stupid, pointless, and splits recruits up), and we really do not need to see three different unions focusing on the same game. They need to have one, see how it is doing every once in awhile, and if it is doing bad gamespot needs to see that the union is deleted or that leadership is changed after speaking to the leader and officers. The AWOL and MIA are not harsh enough, unions should not have 60 days to get their unions out of a position that they should never have been in in the first place, though for now it is probably for the best due to lack of recruit participation.

I would like to see them advertise on the homepage every now and then different unions that are the best in each category (RPGs, 1st Person Shooters, Anime, Bands, Politics, Military, etc) maybe making a news update (one of the five things on the homepage) for it and saying what some of the bests are in each catagory and why, or having people nominate different unions that are good (and having gamespot check each out). Seeing 10 random unions on the bottom-right side of the page when you go to forums means nothing, tells you nothing about the unions, and usually just promotes idiotic topics in unions saying, "Yay we were just on the featured unions list, we are the best."

It would also be nice for people to have to submit an application to gamespot asking to start one and saying what they are going to do, that would make less unions and give gamespot less work checking up on unions or featuring them on the homepage. Members should have to be a higher level before it allows them to start a union.

Some features I would love to have in unions, besides a better way to organize all of their homepage content (bulletins, stories, op-ed, etc).

1. Would be to have the ability for the leader and officers to upload videos and images to the union. Being a leader of a union about the military, the Brothers in Arms games, and WWII it would be a very useful feature. I can also imagine it being great for unions about upcoming games and movies as well as unions about music bands.
2. The union levels need to be taken off. That only makes it even more difficult for new unions to start and promotes needless bulletins and threads celebrating every level up, besides that they serves no purpose. Leveling up does not give you access to new features or options for your unions, and it shouldn't because if it did that would even further discourage the growth of new unions. My unions are now level 11and level 8, but what does that mean? Nothing, it says nothing of the quality of content, leadership, activity, message board, etc and I don't get anything out of it other than a few more recruits who joined not because they want to be a part of something, but because I had more level and members than the other guy.
3. I would love to see personalized union invites. I want to write what I think all invites to my union should say. One reason is because lower level gamespot members don't always know how to access or how to join unions, some don't even know what unions are at all. I would like to explain to them how to join, what the union is about, why I think they should join, what they could do in the union, etc. If not that I would like them accepting the invite automatically link them to a thread in my unions forum explaining everything to them.

Officers for slacking off and not doing anything for their unions. Leaving all the work for their leader or just randomly leaving with no advance warning. Leaders really need to start choosing officers more carefully. A person who posts offen and makes good posts is a good member, however if he is not going to contribute content to the unions homepage, help moderate topics, etc then that person really does not have any reason to be an officer since he would do nothing different.

Leaders for not taking charge of their officers and for not offering quality content. Or for doing stupid **** like under the union description saying something like, "weree the l$%t shooterS uni0n wEre the beest uniin eva!!!!!#Z$~" (those unions should automatically be deleted) And promoting lazy or stupid officers who can't even spell properly. Most have no plans for their unions, don't care if it lives on after the game/movie that it is about is released, leave without even telling anyone.

Recruits are allowed to join far to many unions. One reason recruits don't do much is because so many are apart of 30 different unions, each union probably has nothing to offer, and the recruits each have busy lives outside of gamespot so they can not only do nothing to help the unions they are in but they can't even contribute by making a few posts every now and then.

This poll is going to be botched one way or another, by 360 fanboys or other fanboys. falconclan

True. I bought mine in early Janurary, no problems.

prob cod2 veteran... i havnt got my 360 yet..,. but every1 seems to think its the hardest..Mother-Beef

I just bought my 360 today and rented CoD2. I have played it before though. Beating most of it on Veteran is easy....beating the D-Day campaign is the hardest part.

BumpCydoniamensae

Why in the world would you want to bump this?