Alternative to 'MilSim' for describing communities

[fer 21]

So ... this topic came up as a topic in Discord a few days back, and I promised PTFHawkins I'd post my idea someplace; so here it is:

The term 'MilSim' is often used with reference to communities that play Arma as a military simulation (as opposed to 
those that coalesce around game-modes like KOTH, Altis Life etc.), but its simplicity masks a very broad range of 
different experiences for players.

You might have run into the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) for describing the preferences individuals have for 
perceiving the world around them and making decisions. The MBTI considers 4 separate dimensions, each with 2 possible 
options, and expresses each of the possible 16 combinations as a 4-character code. Thus, you know that 'ISTJ' means a 
person with preferences for [I]ntroversion, [S]ensing, [T]hinking, and [J]udgement - factors that are explained more fully
in the detailed definition of that type. 

What if we used a similar, multi-dimensional approach to quickly and sympathetically describe Arma communities?

First of all, this isn't a suggestion for describing ALL communities; specifically, it focuses on those that:

- Have a concept of 'membership'
- Play their own missions, which predominantly explore warfare themes (conventional and irregular)
- Conduct regularly scheduled sessions or operations 
- Provide social spaces for members outside of the game server(s), such as Discord

Out of scope for this suggestion are communities that:

- Focus on a single game-mode (e.g. KOTH) run 24/7 on a public server
- Focus on Altis Life, DayZ (mod) or other major conversion

Additionally, in considering the possible dimensions I've omitted logistical aspects like timezone or mods because
I think those can often be safely assumed or are communicated easily.

The suggested dimensions are:

- In-game STYLE
- Out-of-game CULTURE 
- Ease of attaining MEMBERSHIP 
- Approach to COMPETENCE 
- PARTICIPATION expectations

And here are the suggested values, expressed as answers to 5 questions:

1. What is the in-game STYLE of the community?

[O]RGANISED - In-game co-ordination and hierarchy (and no lone wolves).
[M]ILITARY - Simulation of real-world military tactics, techniques and procedures. 

2. What is the out-of-game CULTURE of the community?

[S]OCIAL - Club-like atmosphere (if hierarchy exists, its focus is administration not role-play).    
[R]OLE-PLAY - Role-play of real-world military structures and conduct (ranks and discipline) .

3. How is MEMBERSHIP attained?

[E]LECTIVE - Membership is effectively self-selecting (though there may be mechanisms for removing members).
[S]ELECTIVE - Memberships is by application, and candidates may need to pass tests.

4. What is the approach to COMPETENCE?

[R]ELAXED - Come as you are (there may be optional training and/or TTP links if you're interested).
[T]RAINED - You're expected to train in and adopt in-game community TTPs.

5. What are the expectations of PARTICIPATION by members?

[C]ASUAL - You're encouraged, but not required, to play in scheduled sessions.
[R]EQUIRED - You're expected to meet a minimum level of participation.

I'd describe my home community - Republic of Folk - as [OSERC], because despite being quite organised in-game we are
otherwise relaxed about almost everything else (except the fact that we are the legitimate government of Folk). 

Perhaps you're part of a community that seeks to simulate being in a military unit both in and out of game, with high
expectations for training and participation, and tests that prospective members must pass. Would you use [MRSTR] to 
describe your unit?

Or perhaps you're part of a community (and I know a few like this) that focus a lot on in-game, realistic military 
approaches and expect their members to participate a lot - but aren't interested in out-of-game role-play. Would 
[MSSTR] descibe that? 

Maybe this - or something like it - is a better approach than trying to agree a single definition for 'MilSim', or 
perhaps you can think of a better alternative? Answers on a postcard please. Or forum post. Or Discord comment.

Wait, do young people even know what a postcard is?

[Col M.Hawkins 16]

I love this - though I'll still poke at the concept with a stick to see if it falls over!

 

By this definition, my group, Paramarine Task Force (which I think embodies the core concept of "milsim"), is MRSTR - Military style play, roleplay style play, selective membership, trained community from IRL Vets, and a minimum required attendance. The "required" qualifier is a good thing to use, but sometimes "required" or "mandatory" scares people off. For example, we have over a dozen organized events each week (some weeks 20+ events if you count ones that occur at the same time), but we really only ask that a person come to a minimum of one, and they can even miss that if they put in proper notice. I worry that the "required" quantifier may be a bit too definitive, without room for something in the middle. Maybe that's just me. 

 

That said, I have two core partial problems that perhaps you could adapt this to fix.

 

Firstly, right now in milsim, there are groups that are considered "realism", which come in accordance with following everything to a realistic tee - this means the often argued "saluting", customs, etc, and then milsim, which is military simulation without the strict adherence. This new system you have devised doesn't really address that difference, and it's the main one that milsims tend to attempt to sort out between themselves.  You'll see in  90% of recruitment posts, "We're a milsim unit that doesn't require saluting teenagers!", and that leads people to believe that a typical milsim would have that sort of behavior, while it's a minority. 

 

Secondly, I see this as being very difficult to get the average gamer to understand. I've seen first hand that when someone first comes to the milsim scene, they act moronic. Not because they're actually morons, but because they're flooded with so much information they don't have time to digest it all! This would add to that problem. If there were a way to make this simpler, so that someone doesn't have to check the definition list you have created, it may have a better chance of catching on. I admit that I don't have a solution for that though.

 

All in all, it looks great as a first draft! I apologize for the rambly-"pre-coffee"-nature of my response!

 

~PTFHawkins

 

[Varis 34]

It may take a while to find the most descriptive dimensions - some may turn out not to be separate but usually go hand in hand etc. Could be best to get a social scientist involved, as it is the ARMA community has already been studied by athropology students and could be an interesting research target.

 

It's best to view every dimension more as a slider between two idealized extremes than a binary opposite with no room to wiggle. On usual Meyers-Briggs you can be 85% introverted, and so, obviously.

 

 Any good model would still need years of promotion before people are familiar and it starts feeling intuitive. The 16x personality type sorting has been promoted for what, 30 years and many people are still new to it.