Yep, set a good example by being yourself and people will stay loyal to you. If you have to ensure or enforce it, you're doing something wrong.
"How do you keep getting new recruits?"
- Similar to above: be friendly. Of course, it helps to be active and be good. I would say these traits are most important in that order too: friendliness, activity, and talent. You can have a talented team with a bunch of jerks and it won't last very long.
Don't worry about it. Size doesn't matter nearly as much as quality.
"How many wars?"/"Who can organize them?"
- Play all the time! I think if everyone on the team is organizing meets then it works out best. Makes it clear who is the most enthusiastic.
Just quit calling them wars unless you intend to assemble a war crimes tribunal afterwards.
"Does regular 'training' chat really improve anything?"
Yeah, what is this?
"If you have training, is it mandatory?"
- I would say yes. If the team isn't sharing their experiences and helping each other grow, then why be on a team? Of course, some clans don't care about performance. Those clans probably wouldn't have any training program at all.
I would say that if someone doesn't show up for practices, you boot them. Joining a team/clan is a commitment, or should be, and if you don't meet that commitment, you're gone.
"How do you decide who can play in a tournament and who can't?"
- This is the hardest thing about being part of a team. It's one of the few places where actual leadership helps. Internal ladders are one way (Crazy Tronners) and basing playing privileges on recent activity is another. This is probably the most interesting part of the discussion. We could have a whole thread about it.
Again, it depends on your concept about the clan/team. For teams, the people who play are the people who joined, because that's why they joined and your recruitment/training process should have filtered out people who weren't good enough for your team. Or your team is a social team that plays together for fun, in which case everybody plays in the tournament because it's fun.
For clans, it depends on the size of the clan, the core ideals embodied, etc. Depends. If you're big enough to have a fortress wing, then maybe everybody in it gets to play. Maybe it's a fortress clan with 20 people, and you only field one team so you have your own internal playoffs to determine who's on the team, or the leader picks.
"Should forum activity be mandatory?"
- Maybe. I guess it depends how important that tool is to the team. Some teams do almost all their communication through IRC/IM tools. Others spend so much time chatting in-game there is no need for a forum.
Try to avoid mandatory behavior, but we willing to boot somebody for not meeting their commitment.
"It's obvious that your sanctions are limited and can easily lead to a valuable member's departure. Is there another way aside from trusting your gut feeling?"
- You don't want to get into micro-management. Ultimately, team come together in the friendly spirit of the game. If something disrupts that, your gut feeling is usually enough.
You should all be friends, first. So forgiveness instead of sanctions, and boot when the commitment is obviously not being made.
"Should ladle teams have a 'strategist' in spectator mode who gives everyone tips during the game?"
- The team should do whatever it takes to win, as long as it stays within the bounds of good sportsmanship. Sometimes is is really great to have someone who isn't playing help keep the team focused when things get emotional (like when we start yelling at each other).
My personal style is "no". The coach should be playing. Think of it more like a quarterback who has to call the plays. *I* sure in the hell don't want someone who's not even playing to tell me how to play. However, if someone in spectator mode gets to see things I should know about (like spotting a weakness in how the other team is setting up their defense), I could see some value in it. I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice a player slot for it, however, because I think my team could still spot it.
GoodyWhateverTheFuckHisNameIs wrote:
Yep, totally. You love white-knighting for feminism.
Grudge against one person who happens to be female?
