Originally posted by Raptor22
have soldiers placements in these requirement tests factored into their pay before?I thought it was based off rank, years of service, time spent deployed etc...
If we're gonna demand more out of people of the same rank for something out of their control..why not compensate them more?
Originally posted by Silent Masterur post is pointless. Since the "queens" in the anology are referring to any of the soldiers that pass the requirements for the prime age group for males.
The best of the best already far exceed the minimum standards, so lowering the standards wouldn't effect them.
Or are u arguing that out of that group, they all far exceed the minimum standards and none just make it by?
Originally posted by Surturi would assume its because the military decided that the factors that do determine their pay are more significant than push up tests.
If we're gonna demand more out of people of the same rank for something out of their control..why not compensate them more?
Do u disagree? If so how much monetarily should the tests factor into their pay in ur op?
Originally posted by Raptor22
i would assume its because the military decided that the factors that do determine their pay are more significant than push up tests.Do u disagree? If so how much monetarily should the tests factor into their pay in ur op?
I never said it should be the only factor, but if we're going to expect more work out of them why shouldn't there be some perks?
Originally posted by Silent Masterexcept thats not what the queen represented in my analogy. It represented what i already explained and the pawns were anyone who didn't meet said standards.
The queen is one of, if not the most powerful piece on the chess board, pawns would be the ones that just barely pass. therefore lowering the standards would get you more pawns and wouldn't effect the other pieces, as they already surpass the minimums.
No amount of ur tap dancing will change that. But feel free to continue, u know i love a good show.
Originally posted by Surturi never said u said it should be the only factor. Im asking u how much it should.
I never said it should be the only factor, but if we're going to expect more work out of them why shouldn't there be some perks?
And to answer ur question again
i would assume its because the military decided that the factors that do determine their pay are more significant than push up tests.
Originally posted by Silent Master
The best of the best already far exceed the minimum standards, so lowering the standards wouldn't effect them.
It's effectively penalizing someone to be the best in the first place.
Why put in the effort, when you're seeing people far inferior to you make similar achievements?
Originally posted by Silent Masterwow.
People that don't meet the minimums wouldn't be in the military as the failed the tests. if they aren't in the military, they can't be military pawns.
The queen in the analogy was any soldier the met the requirements for the prime age group for males.
The pawns were those that dont meet those requirements but do meet the lesser requirements for their age/sex group.
Anyone above or beyond those standards or whatever u meant by "best of the best" were never part of surts and my discussion so they didnt factor into the analogy.
Im honestly confused as to what ur so confused about.
Originally posted by Silent Master
They either pass the standards for their group or they fail. there are no lower standards for them to pass after failing the main test.
Sliding scale standards, are no standards at all.
If you're lowering the bar to get more representative groups checked off, then you absolutely are affecting those who passed on a higher standard. It's unfair to them, and erades morale among the rank and file.
Originally posted by Silent Master
They either pass the standards for their group or they fail. there are no lower standards for them to pass after failing the main test.
Originally posted by cdtm
Sliding scale standards, are no standards at all.If you're lowering the bar to get more representative groups checked off, then you absolutely are affecting those who passed on a higher standard. It's unfair to them, and erades morale among the rank and file.
Originally posted by cdtm
Sliding scale standards, are no standards at all.If you're lowering the bar to get more representative groups checked off, then you absolutely are affecting those who passed on a higher standard. It's unfair to them, and erades morale among the rank and file.
Which I think is Surtur's point. if they lower standards to get more people, the elite. IE those that easily surpass the standards should be rewarded for putting in the extra work.