How would you rule as a clan leader?

reply to post by Shystargazer


For the basic survival of the group.

Who is this group of survivors? Is it just a bunch of random people who all fled to the same area? Or, is it a group of people you know and have worked with ahead of time?

Should it be the first instance, a leader would need to emerge. Facts are simple, some people simply arent going to know what to do, how to survive. To say they should play to their strengths for the betterment of the community is fine, but in reality, it is much different. What if their best strength is playing video games or writing tech manuals and they havent been outside in a year? This person is going to need help, only leadership and direction will save them. Otherwise you have neediness and whining that will weaken the group of people that know whats going on.

In the second instance, you know these people. Have worked with them, know their strong points and weak points. This would act more as a machine, with each person knowing what to do without deferring to some "authority", rather asking others to fill needs that they themselves can not do. For instance a 300 lb lumberjack may be great at felling trees and building cabins, but when he breaks his arm, the 120 lb school nurse will be rather valuable to him without him asking.

In the end its going to come down to what you have done ahead of time, where you are, and who is with you. To say you will run off with your family to some cave you dont know exists will be suicide. We need to plan ahead, keep a close circle of like minded people around us, and continue to learn as much as we can. So should a "leader" be needed, someone can step in, regain order, teach and train, and finally step aside.

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by bdswetty
reply to post by berenike

 

trust other people in the time of a real crisis? Yeah right..

I would do what I needed to take care of my family and anyone who I felt needed immediate help. Other than that, I'll keep to myself and find my own way.

Other people slow me down enough as it is.

With a statement like that you dont know what a real crisis is. What if your wife and kids would like to be in a group with other people. Would you force them not to just because you cant trust people.
Fear can be controlled in other and more clever ways then to just run away from it.

What if you and your family get sick or injured in the event. Would you have the same thought then. You and your family might not be in the same shape as your in now. Would you walk away from people that could help.


The funny thing is that a lot of people thinks that if a crisis ac cures they won't get affected or hurt. We seem to think that we will all survive unharmed. And that our greatest fear and concern is that other survivors are evil or just plain idiots.


[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Like I stated, I would take care of my family and anyone that needed immediate help. I've always worked better alone and that's what I would do. I'd be more than happy to lend a helping hand to a group of people but I will not be obligated to any group or leader.

I've just never met anyone that I would trust with such a serious situation.

My point about people playing to their strengths is not only about the benefit to the group as a whole.

If people are doing things they are good at it's good for their morale, which is important in a survival situation. People like to feel useful.

Obviously, people will become better at tasks they are not used to as time goes on, but there are a lot of relatively simple jobs that just need a keen eye or a bit of muscle.

The little guy who is good at video games could be me (except for writing the tech manual) but look at all those soppy platform games he might play. If you're out foraging you'd need someone who was good at locating stuff.

Until I came to the country earlier this year I was completely desk bound and had back problems. Now I go out finding wood for the fire and am getting good at sawing it up.

I can't carry the really heavy pieces yet but my 'talent' is in locating it. And I feel better for being able to contribute to something that ought to have been beyond me.

Also, little video-game guy might be very good at entertaining the kids with stories from his games.

And to the 'yeah, right' brigade (why pick on me? I was just answering the OP same as everybody else) who do you trust in your daily life now?

Your bank? Your grocer? Your doctor? You kids' teachers?

We all trust others to handle our resources and our health, to not deliberately poison us when they sell us food (that's another debate) and to educate children - for the most part we have to.

If you feel you would have the goodwill to help others in a survival situation why doubt that they would help you?

And if you did come across a wrong 'un, clobber him first. I would.

Originally posted by salchanra
To say they should play to their strengths for the betterment of the community is fine, but in reality, it is much different. What if their best strength is playing video games or writing tech manuals and they havent been outside in a year? This person is going to need help, only leadership and direction will save them.

Actually I can see strengths that would be of benefit in both those character-types that you describe above...

The video-gamer: Sharp hand-eye coordination, strategic, and problem-solving skills that can be transferred to other tasks. For example if they play a lot of military FPS strategy games, could be taught how to adapt those abilities into real-life tactical thinking by members of the clan with military service skills to become an able 'militia' member in the communities defence

The tech manual author: Ability to analyse and clearly describe practical proceedures (eg: engineering processes or operation/repair of mechanics) that would be vital in the accurate transfer/documentation of knowledge, that may otherwise become lost if a skilled member dies or distorted over re-telling, to other communities or create a long-term technical skills knowledge archive.

'Survival of the fittest' as Darwin originally described doesn't refer to fitness in the body-physical sense, but 'that which fits best' as in adaptability to a changing environment...surviving is all about adapting, and if you can't adapt your skills your chances are reduced

reply to post by citizen smith


For you and berenike, Ill try to clarify my previous post. Sorry for the confusion.

I do see strengths in most any profession, we all have things we do well, from a gamer, to a nurse, to a CEO. No one will be without merit in sit-x. Everyone can provide something.

The OP was talking about how to lead a group in this instance. The point I was trying to make, and obviously failed, is that some groups will require a more survival leadership than others.

A group of people who do not possess survival skills will need someone to help them and show them the way, I would define that as a leader.

A group of people who have survival training and are prepared probably wont need a "leader" as they will have the basic skillset to move forward on their own direction.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my other post. Everyone will have their place in a dispursed society no matter their job, posistion in life, or hobbies now.

I never wanted to be a to be a leader....

But life seems to have pushed me that way....I am a manager in the construction sector! and you have to make descisions dealing with people!

But my ethos...never tell anyone to do something you would not or cannot do!!

And the leader should always be at the front...and above all take responsability for their positions and descisions!!

In sit ex the reality is people will latch onto people, people that they feel will look after them or afford some safety...(this is what we have bred in society!!)

This is what will happen ..there will be the predators and the prey..

The violent immoral lunatics and the frightened clueless.

frightened clueless will latch on to the frightened clued up!!

I think ..the mantle of leader is a very dodgy job..and in sit X anyone that tries to wants to lead in such an environment..neads to have their heads examined!!lol

reply to post by salchanra


"I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my other post. Everyone will have their place in a dispursed society no matter their job, posistion in life, or hobbies now."

I'm not offended at all and I hope I haven't offended you.

The last part of my post wasn't aimed at you, and honestly was a bit of a mickey-take.

I don't usually post in the Survival forum and I think people here are a lot more serious than me about these issues. Unless whats-his-name takes another swipe at me, I'll bow out now.

reply to post by berenike


My god!!

Don't bow out ...its very interesting point!!

Thing is with this site...you can post anything ( to a degree) and no matter what it is about ...someone is going to have a go...

I never take some opinions on this site seriously!!lol


Thats what make posting something fun!!you see different reactions and opinions....

reply to post by shuck


You and Salchanra are very kind - but honestly I don't think I have anything else much to add.

I wasn't having a hissy fit - I regret it if my post came across that way.

Originally posted by berenike
I don't usually post in the Survival forum and I think people here are a lot more serious than me about these issues. Unless whats-his-name takes another swipe at me, I'll bow out now.

Oh gawd no...no offence taken at your post...it just got me on a train of thought thats all and apologies if it came across any other way, and certainly no swipes intended either (if you were referring to my reply post that is)




[edit on 14-11-2008 by citizen smith]

reply to post by citizen smith


Sorry, I've got myself in a right mess.

It was salchanra who was worried about offending us and my reply was to make a reassurance that I wasn't offended and hadn't meant any offence myself.

No, I didn't mean you were the person taking a swipe at me. I'm just really bad at remembering names and I don't know how to come out of making a post to look them up, hence 'whathisname'.

You and I had similar points to make about how useful a video-gamer could be, so actually back each other up.

I feared that I had strayed into a thread where people take this sort of thing seriously and quite often my posts descend into humour and I didn't want to be too disrespectful.

I haven't anything much more to add, survival isn't really my thing, so unless I needed to defend myself I was going to slink back of to Skunkworks, my natural home.

Sorry OP for going so off-topic.

Some very good thoughts here.

Personally, I think that in any survivor group that contains more than a slack handful of good friends, there will need to be a leader. We cannot assume that the survivors we meet will be ATS'ers or hardened survivalists. Some people will need help, and you may find people coming to you for it. Straight away you're a leader, or looked at as one, whether you realise it or not.

Whether the leader is decided by decision or evolves naturally is not important, what is important is that the group has direction.

Petty politics and power struggles may come, but I think that initially, the struggle to survive will override all of that, and the need to work together and rely on the group will come before anything else.

The petty politics and power struggles may come after, maybe that can be seen as a small victory in a way, that the group has survived the worst and has the stability that people can now question the leader/power organisation.... this is human nature after all.

In a combat situation I would rule with a iron fist. Do what I say when I say or I will shoot you my self. in peaceful day to day business I would not rule at all. that is left to leveler heads like my wife who is very fair and kind but firm.

Its not glamorous but reality seldom is.

I would like to thank each and every one of you for responding to this thread. I believe that your responses were some of the most orderly and intelligent answers that have been posted in many threads! Thank You. Just an hour after this was posted a power surge fried my computer and I am just now able to get back to it. Again....Thank you!

Now I am going to shameless plug a new thread that I have posted.

Are you afraid of what you could become if the SHTF?

The two threads kind of go together.

I am no leader I will not pretend to do what I am not capable of. I take care of me and my wife but should the need arise I will lead myself to the next available leader.

Everyone would be given choices. With me, or not, and it wouldn't matter to me one iota.

Few rules, but firm rules. Very firm rules.

Everyone would do their part, everyone would pull their own freight, and everyone would take their turn at the crappy jobs. I'd always take first turn, and there would be nothing required of others that I myself hadn't taken the lead on.

You want to bitch, fuss, lazy about, or disregard the rules?

You're out. No if's, but's, or what if's.

It's going to be hard enough if everyone is working together, with the best of intentions. But no room for idiots.

If it meant I would be by myself, then that's the way of it. But I'm not getting killed or getting others killed because of one jerk or idiot.

[edit on 22-11-2008 by dooper]

Originally posted by dooper
Few rules, but firm rules. Very firm rules.

You want to bitch, fuss, lazy about, or disregard the rules?

You're out. No if's, but's, or what if's.

For those that break the clan rules or refuse to contribute or other transgression what would be the best way to enforce the group laws?

If they have been part of the clan for sometime they may well have knowledge of provisions/equipment/strategy/defences etc.

Banishing them, for example, could put the clan at risk from the offender defecting to resource-rivals and using that knowledge against you

i would grab a group of my closest friends and we would survive the best because i would have strong, smart and clever in my group. Added to this is the fact that i have a plan made out, so i would know what i was doing as opposed to other groups trying to survive.

Because of these facts people would flock to join us and i would tell them, you want our food, water and protection then you listen to my rules and follow them.

I would work towards the betterment of the community i was taking charge of but i would exert strict order because inner fighting is too dangerous a problem to have in that situation.

Once i had a large enough group i would take over a local mall (im assuming a situation were civil disorder is present around the entire country [Canada for me] after the bombs have fallen, meaning they haven't necessarily destroyed everything) and have it defended. Eventually more and more people would come to us to be safe and to eat. I would keep everyone happy, but if anyone does anything against the community or my rule intentionally they get a beating, second time they are banished, and if its really bad execution.

My 2 cents

Anyone advocating no strong leadership is setting themselves up for disaster.

The military is THE most experienced organization around in dealing with the hardest of hardships. They advocate strong leadership.

If you want to try a social experiment with no real leaders so everyone can feel good about themselves, don't do it during a disaster.

People need leadership in hard times, a good leader is the difference between the groups survival or demise. Why throw thousands of years of proven history away to try a little experiment at the risk of everyone's lives? Even packs of animals have a leader. Nature's law.

Quoting and Plugging my own post: Real World Survivalism for the coming Depression
"
Quick preparation guideline:

1. Develop Family unit teamwork
2. Personal Finances
3. Food stockpiling
4. Sustainable Water supply and storage
5. Securing Home and possessions
6. Preparing Defense of Home and Possessions
7. Increase size of family unit

Develop Family unit teamwork
Some families work well as a team, others do not. Make yours work, give everyone “missions” you want accomplished. Use this to develop your leadership skills. Failure of the team is failure by the leader to create a team strong enough to survive. Let everyone know what needs to be done and why, listen to input but be firm in your leadership position. One person needs to be in charge, if you’re not the best person for the position, accept the position you are best suited for.
"
AND:

"Every new person in the group brings more skills and resources find out what those are and use them to their full potential. Be harsh on slackers, exile betrayers, make no exceptions."

Failure of the Team is Failure of the Leader. No leader? Expect Failure.


I Don't want to be harsh or mean to anyone but, if you think some happy little democratic group will do well, I assure you, they won't. Name one time they did without leadership.

Read my signature.