RM/433 MA Policy Proposal (MA before pre-slot window opens)

Keeping succinct. Massively agree. Too many times in the leadership community we go to pre-slots only to find that people have been MA'd ahead of the slots even opening without any reason or cause. On balance, leadership should also be affected by fatigue at pre-slot to be truly fair, but I'd rather find I have a fatigue and lose out that way, than turn up with no fatigue and still mis out because someones already been MA'd for seemingly no reason.

Add pre-slot fatigue. I'll happily pay that price to remove MAing.

To build on James's point, I've no issue with using MA's when the slot has been open fairly, to assist somebody not at desk or during lock to fill the slot, but nor do I believe thats anybody's issue. Its pre-slot-open MAing thats the mainstay here.

I think this discussion is good and worthwhile. The proposed solution is hard to enforce, because “mission-critical” is an interpretable criterion that depends heavily on both the submitted concept and approving staff.

After some statistical analysis, we can see that missions with higher pre-planned MA proportions tend to perform better, particularly in the tactics, comms and leadership ratings.

Disclaimer: there are biases in play. However, over all slots and ops, the proportional bias, e.g. from clique ratings, is minimised. This would suggest that the whole ORBAT benefits from co-operation in pre-planning, not just the MA’d persons and their mates.

If this is desirable, I can see two intermediate proposals.
Both proposals can be enforced system-side, eliminating interpretation.

Pre-Conditions
- The IO may set conditions for roleplayers (speaking a certain language or learning a script)
- The IO and FL each choose their MAs unrestricted by the other, for MST and non-MST respectively
- A player may not be MA’d on more than 2 out of their last 4 ops, except when FL/IO.
- A player can only be MA'd provided they have direct role access.
- FL/IO assignments do not count towards any limits.

---

Proposal #1
- The last 4 operations of the same FL must have x% of leadership slots open on pre-slot release (propose 50% less/eq x less/eq 75%)
- The last 4 operations of the same IO must have y% of MST slots open on pre-slot release (propose 50% less/eq y less/eq 75%)

Considerations #1
This treats all leadership slots identically, meaning lower-supply slots like SL can still be consistently MA’d without exceeding the threshold, because there’s nearly always a 2:1 ratio of TL to SL. Instead a per-kind limit can be put in place for fairness or x may be tuned to suit.

---

Proposal #2
- Per FL/IO assignment, receive x MA tokens (propose 1 less/eq x less/eq 3)
- Each MA costs 1 MA token
- The IO and FL collect and spend tokens separately as per the pre-conditions
- TO-DISCUSS: MA may be used on any slot, provided role access

Considerations #2
This effectively allows for IO and FL to collect tokens over time to spend on one ORBAT. Doing so directly implies these slots are mission-critical, but the prior collection period with limited or zero spending provided global slotting opportunities.
The MA proportions over all ORBATs therefore remain balanced, meaning no excluded opportunities over long enough time.
An overall one-time maximum may still be put in place, especially if any slot may be MA’d.
If any slot may be MA’d, mission-critical roles would not be limited to leadership/MST and would be automatically policed and balanced. A radio operator in the MST acting as an air traffic controller would be viable.

Please discuss here instead of editing your earlier comments if you want to: https://discord.com/channels/573494917998051348/143457377...

While I understand Jenkin's reasoning of having hand-picked leadership roles for a deployment (or especially a campaign) as leadership who understands the commander's intent beyond the OPORD from experience in previous missions and/or discussions during the planning phase prior to release, I agree more with the proposal.
The slotting philosophy emphasizes 1) most qualified person for the role; 2) first come, first serve; and 3) fair and transparent.
While the MA for picked leadership may result in the "most qualified" due to the aforementioned reasons, it goes against both of the other points by removing the opportunity for other players who have the qualifications for the role to slot without requiring any formal/structured reasoning - not to mention skipping the fatigue system, as Crossy mentioned.
Furthermore, though the hand-picked leaders may guarantee better cohesion and partnerships with the FL/MST, it also prevents leaders new to the role or the FL/MST from forming those partnerships - which could result in clique-y FL/MST groups rather than the collaborative, inclusive environment we're encouraged to foster.

That said, I agree with Jenkins and James that the MA process needs to have a defined 'approval' process rather than a subjective manual approval. Otherwise, it'd be equally non-transparent and open to bias; however, a hard-coded system may be too strict to cater to specific OP requirements, so some middle point may be the ideal system. Perhaps a hard-coded limit that can have a request for manual approval from J3 if your OP needs to exceed the pre-determined requirements?

I'm on the same page as Dungworth here. The goal isn't to restrict anyone, but rather to restore fairness and consistency. MAs should only be utilised when they're genuinely necessary for the mission, not just because someone wants to work with someone they know.

Building on what James mentioned, it would be helpful if the proposal clarified that we're referring to MAs that are made before the pre-slotting window opens on ORBATs. That's where things can get a bit murky. Getting that language right would make a big difference.

This isn't about hindering teamwork or penalising those who plan ahead; it's about ensuring everyone has a fair chance to step up. The aim is straightforward: eliminate any perception of bias, keep slots available when we can, and ensure that opportunities are distributed fairly.

MAs prior to pre-slots should only be for the campaign team, or mission critical. Good cohesion isn't a good enough reason in my opinion to overrule the Preslots and standard slotting procedure. As it stops the opportunity to slot and circumvents the fatigue system. For a Platoon size op we should not see every SL or above filled, as only a FL and DFL should even have the opportunity. I agree with this proposal to help improve control and avoid ops where the slots are all filled before we see the op...

I concur with this, sadly, I have witnessed people being prioritised over others and getting MA'd for roles:
- They have no experience in (cant recall exact instances so may have been NMQ)
- just cause they are friends with the respective FL.

Bias, sadly, has become a part of some of our ORBATs (at least from what I have seen), so anything we can do to combat and mitigate this will be warmly welcomed by me and likely many of UNITAF.

Supported by me.

While cohesion and familiarity can certainly help leadership teams, UNITAF’s structure is designed to balance those advantages with fairness, inclusivity, and open opportunity. Good teamwork should be built through the mission framework and the pre-slotting process, not through closed or pre-arranged role assignments. This way, new and developing leaders also get the chance to step up, learn alongside experienced members, and contribute to successful missions.

The Slot Allocation Philosophy FM entry makes it clear that slotting should be first come, first served, fair, and transparent. Manual assignments made before pre-slotting bypass that system, reducing visibility and limiting opportunities for everyone else.

Concerns about oversight or bias are understandable, but this proposal doesn’t centralise control, it actually helps keep things consistent. Mission-critical exceptions should still be allowed, but they’ll need to be justified with clear and accountable reasoning rather than personal preference.

Finally, the Requirements of ORGCOC Members Policy highlights that leadership in UNITAF means supporting organisational direction and promoting fairness across the board. Keeping leadership and key slots open through the proper systems maintains transparency, trust, and the integrity of UNITAF as a whole.

I'm assuming this is referring to the use of manual assignment before the pre-slotting window on ORBATs (for example, assignment requests prior to submission of approval), so I'll continue on that basis

I disagree with this change in policy for the following reasons:

1) Field leaders should be permitted to assign leadership positions to individuals they have worked well with in the past, this promotes good cohesion and builds effective partnerships which generally leads to a better a overall outcome/performance of the mission, especially when those individuals have been consulted by the field leader during mission planning and execution. Using this method is also a good way to build up the confidence of individuals looking to undertake higher echelon positions more frequently while already having that experience in junior positions. METT-TC planning is something that is seldom trained in FTXs.

2) Leaving the decision with a single entity (in this proposal, that would be J3) on deciding what is "mission critical" for a narrative without any proper contextual or in-depth review could potentially be misconstrued or lead to bias

While I do understand the point this proposal is trying to make, rather than outlawing the action completely, I'd suggest implementing proper structured ORBAT guidelines with an approach that requires so many positions to remain open to pre-slotting, for example; at least one squad leader position for a platoon-sized ORBAT, a maximum of two fireteam leaders, etc.

I think proposal may need to be re-worded because it's not clear.

There is a difference between:
- MA before deployment release
- MA before slotting, in pre-slotting window
- MA during ORBAT open
- MA after ORBAT lock

These are all different with different rules - which is being referred to?

Additionally, can you propose an alternate solution which can be system enforced, rather than up to someone to decide. For example a limit on the number, type of roles, or so on, to achieve the same result.

I would say only GM team (form a c group) should me able to be MA-ed
And the FL.
let the skill system sort it out