Let's get this BS sorted out RIGHT EFFING NOW!

[Alexander Wu]

An alternate take on transparency -

I enjoy sausage.

I have never made it, but I have a vague idea of how it's made.

I don't want to sit and watch how my sausage is made.

I want to sit back and eat my delicious sausage.

*shrug*

Oh, Gabe, for your enjoyment: Cute Adorable Puppies Frolicking on the Lawn.

[Gabriel Arthur]

Oh, Gabe, for your enjoyment: Cute Adorable Puppies Frolicking on the Lawn.

Starvin'.  Got any puppies back there?

[Alexander Wu]

Starvin'.  Got any puppies back there?

Only the best. Whaddya take?

[John Brown]

I'm not doubting your ability to lead, Richard, I'm just concerned that these discussions of malcontent are becoming almost predictable, and we swing back to them every few months with issues that can be traced back to the top. It's become a cycle. Maybe if these issues were made public sooner, and the decision process could be observed by those with another point of view, these problems can be solved before they rear their ugly heads. Thus, my suggestion about transparency during discussions about important matters. And once again just to clarify, on Fleet issues that the Admiralty decides to make open. That in itself will involve alot of trust from the Fleet placed upon you, Klara, and Chris.

I thank you for your confidence in my ability to lead. You are right, these conversations have become predictable and something needs to change. Looking back, since JK's departure a lot of decisions have been made behind closed doors. Maybe we were over zealous, maybe we simply didn't think of the need to get fleet wide opinions on some things. I cannot promise that we will bring every discussion out into the open for all to see. What I can do is promise to that the admiralty will reevaluate which discussions can be and will benefit from public opinion.

Luke, I apologize for losing my temper. I care very much for this fleet and JK is a sore subject so it's easy for me to get heated in this conversation. I know you didn't mean to lose your temper either and you care about this fleet too so all is forgiven.

To be clear, the Command Level Officers and Admiralty are listening and we are discussing the things you've voiced concerns about. We are going to make an effort to be more transparent where possible and we are addressing other concerns that have been raised as well.

For now, I hope that is enough and that we'll be able to work through this process together.

[Gabriel Arthur]

Well, it's nearly 1 AM my time, and I'm just about ready to crash.  For further comment, I went back to the last dramatic turn of events, nearly half a year ago, now.

For the sake of laziness, I'm going to re-post my sentiment from there.

Now, we've already established that I'm not that qualified to comment on past and current events.  What I can comment on, and am highly qualified to do so, are dramatic upheavals in small, online communities.  My prior background includes about 15 years of text-based gaming on MUDs, which is basically what we do here, only in real-time and not post-based.  Same concept, though.  I turned 30 not that long ago, so that's around half my lifetime writing, playing, collaborating, and administrating those things, from all the way back in the day when you had to log off the modem so your mom could use the phone...

Anyway.

One thing that my old MUD games and a site like this have in common is that they bring together a relatively small community of extremely creative, passionate, and dedicated people, and any time you do have a group like that, you can pretty much plan on one thing:  heads will be butted, and the arguments will be spectacular.  I can recall many that were downright ugly and rather personal, and over the years I've been the cause and instigator of more than one.  Ain't pretty, but hey - I was younger.   

The point is, and I swear to you there is one, that the bonds of friendship and passion for what we do will eventually overcome the arguments.  That doesn't mean that sometimes things don't need a solid shake just to see what they're made of.  Rebuilding often involves tearing away.  And the thing about something like this, and all the other projects I've been involved in, is that eventually those angry start to forget why they were so, and the love of community and sense of place fills the void, and most find their way home again.  Not everyone, but a lot.

So thank you to those who continue to operate and administrate.  I'm not even trying to kiss butt here - I've been in your shoes.  I know how hard it is to please everyone (it can't be done), and I know what it's like to be accused of favoritism and unfairness (again, I don't know details, just speaking in the general sense).

What I do know is that I absolutely adore this place and you people.

The song...remains the same.

Now, I'm going to bed.

[Alexander Wu]

Well, it's nearly 1 AM my time, and I'm just about ready to crash.  For further comment, I went back to the last dramatic turn of events, nearly half a year ago, now.

For the sake of laziness, I'm going to re-post my sentiment from there.

The song...remains the same.

Now, I'm going to bed.

Well, that was nice. I guess it's only a coincidence Fleet Awards are in 7 days...=P

[Archangel Koris]

I knew I shouldn't have gone to bed.  Apparently, as soon as I do, everything seems to go to hell in a handbasket.

Having gone through the walls of text posted and reading several snippy comments to each other that were really not necessary, I'm going to resume what seems to be the main issues that various people have brought up:

- Transparency in decision making and issues concerning the Fleet.
- Number of alternate characters.
- Players with more than one character per ship.
- Crew redistribution/transfers
- New SIMMs and Starbase Horizon
- Committee vs. CLOs
- "My way or the high way"

I'm going to make my suggestions for these issues and let's see if we can't all come to an amicable solution, mkay?

1 - Transparency in decision making and issues concerning the Fleet.

As mentioned before, we have a board for Command Level Officers to discuss various issues.  To clarify, this means that all Captains, First Officers and the Admiralty have access to this board.

The complaint seems to be that players outside of this little circle won't have any idea what's happening.  On the other hand, making all of the discussions public isn't always a good idea.  What happens if someone brings up an idea that is actually pretty bad?  Or if they have to discuss an individual?

Here's my idea.  We keep the discussions private to the CLOs.

BUT

When it comes to discussing issues concerning the Fleet, or individuals, an announcement is made to inform the other players of what is being discussed, why it's being discussed, and possibly how long it might take to reach a decision.  Once that decision is reached, a full report is made, including all of the points made during the discussion, and this report is made public.  This way, everyone knows what's happening and can suggest ideas on how to fix it, but the main discussion part, which could be quite sensitive, is kept hidden.

To use an example, it's like the police force.  When something happens, they tell the public that they're investigating, and what they're investigating.  Once they have the answers, then they make a statement.  Make sense?

On the other hand, things like new elements/boards/SIMMs/general ideas for the Fleet, they'll also be discussed in private.  If the CLOs decide to impliment anything discussed, then an announcement can be made on the news board.  If it's decided to be a crap idea, then no one's any the wiser.  If it's a good idea for some point in the future, it can be archived and brought back out to discuss later.

Number of alternate characters

Some people can handle multiple characters.  Some people can't.  That's simple and obvious.  So, having a blanket rule isn't going to work because someone isn't going to be happy.

Here's my suggestion to try to keep everyone happy.

A player must have been active on the Fleet for 4 months before he or she can create a secondary.  That allows the player to settle in and get a grip on how we work.

After the second character, the player has to wait another month before being allowed to submit another character.  However, the third and any further characters have to be agreed by the player's CO.  It needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

This way, if a player has proved that he or she can handle multiples, then there isn't a problem.  If they can't, then the CO can suggest that they get to grips better with their existing characters.

When it comes to existing characters, those on LoA should count, but not those in reserves or retired.  Sometimes, a player comes up with a character, but then just can't get into it, so they reserve/retire them with a view to maybe bringing them back later on when the player has more ideas for them.

From personal experience, I tend to create only a skeleton of a character and as I play them, they become more fleshed out and evolve.  I can't tell at the beginning whether or not they're going to work.

Players with more than one character per ship

The main issue with multiple characters under one same player on one ship seemed to be that, should be player go on LoA, it leaves a hole in the structure.

Maybe what we can do is allow players to keep a maximum of 2 characters on any one ship, but only one can hold any position of department head or above and, if at all possible, under another player's character

Of course, it is preferable that only one character per person per ship serves, but sometimes there's a hole in a department, or a storyline that requires their presence.

Crew redistribution/transfers

To avoid overcrowding/understaffing, I would suggest that instead of transfers happening, there are trades.  For one character to leave the ship, another one has to take their place, although not necessarily in the same department.  With any luck, that'll keep things balanced.

I'm going to come back to this, since I have to leave soon.

[Malcolm Adeyemi]

1 - Transparency in decision making and issues concerning the Fleet.

Here's my idea.  We keep the discussions private to the CLOs.

BUT

When it comes to discussing issues concerning the Fleet, or individuals, an announcement is made to inform the other players of what is being discussed, why it's being discussed, and possibly how long it might take to reach a decision.  Once that decision is reached, a full report is made, including all of the points made during the discussion, and this report is made public.  This way, everyone knows what's happening and can suggest ideas on how to fix it, but the main discussion part, which could be quite sensitive, is kept hidden.

To use an example, it's like the police force.  When something happens, they tell the public that they're investigating, and what they're investigating.  Once they have the answers, then they make a statement.  Make sense?

Yup. This seems like a fair compromise between the two viewpoints. I have trust that the CLOs and admiralty have our best interests at heart, and I can respect the fact that their discussions must sometime remain private.

But on the other hand, issues that affect the Fleet as whole should be open to debate. Apparently, that's not the case, never has been, and never will be, from the feedback I am getting.

A report on what is being decided would be an adequate way to keep everyone informed on larger issues. They can state their opinions on it. I can only hope that these opinions and feelings will be taken into consideration. I doubt it, however. But I suppose this is the best we can hope for.

On the other hand, things like new elements/boards/SIMMs/general ideas for the Fleet, they'll also be discussed in private.  If the CLOs decide to impliment anything discussed, then an announcement can be made on the news board.  If it's decided to be a crap idea, then no one's any the wiser.  If it's a good idea for some point in the future, it can be archived and brought back out to discuss later.

I completely disagree, for what it's worth. Issues like new elements, boards, SIMMs, changing of rules, and general ideas should not only be discussed publically, but voted upon. This is never going to be the case, from the evidence I've seen here and in the past.

At the very least, we should implement your report idea for these ideas, too. That is something I could get behind.

Number of alternate characters

Some people can handle multiple characters.  Some people can't.  That's simple and obvious.  So, having a blanket rule isn't going to work because someone isn't going to be happy.

Here's my suggestion to try to keep everyone happy.

A player must have been active on the Fleet for 4 months before he or she can create a secondary.  That allows the player to settle in and get a grip on how we work.

After the second character, the player has to wait another month before being allowed to submit another character.  However, the third and any further characters have to be agreed by the player's CO.  It needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

This way, if a player has proved that he or she can handle multiples, then there isn't a problem.  If they can't, then the CO can suggest that they get to grips better with their existing characters.

When it comes to existing characters, those on LoA should count, but not those in reserves or retired.  Sometimes, a player comes up with a character, but then just can't get into it, so they reserve/retire them with a view to maybe bringing them back later on when the player has more ideas for them.

From personal experience, I tend to create only a skeleton of a character and as I play them, they become more fleshed out and evolve.  I can't tell at the beginning whether or not they're going to work.

There's not much I can say here. Having a second character in the past myself, I found it easy to keep track of when my workload was lighter. But there are others that can handle multiple characters with ease. A blanket policy is a mistake.

However, a bigger mistake would be filling out ships and bases with second, third, and fourth characters. Eventually, real life is going to happen or a player's main character will require more time, as happened with me.

You're more addressing if a player can handle more characters, which I can appreciate. However, I believe the larger issue is where exactly these characters go in the Fleet, what positions they hold, etc.

Filling out a new SIMM with alts shouldn't be a thing. Right now, only a few players spring to mind who could keep up with multiple characters. It's certainly not the majority. Plenty of people have trouble with one.

Players with more than one character per ship

The main issue with multiple characters under one same player on one ship seemed to be that, should be player go on LoA, it leaves a hole in the structure.

Maybe what we can do is allow players to keep a maximum of 2 characters on any one ship, but only one can hold any position of department head or above and, if at all possible, under another player's character

Of course, it is preferable that only one character per person per ship serves, but sometimes there's a hole in a department, or a storyline that requires their presence.

I see your point here. But although it makes sense it's not what the rules state. So we need to either change the rules or follow them, not bend them as a policy or on a case by case basis.

Crew redistribution/transfers

To avoid overcrowding/understaffing, I would suggest that instead of transfers happening, there are trades.  For one character to leave the ship, another one has to take their place, although not necessarily in the same department.  With any luck, that'll keep things balanced.

This makes sense, and it's like how the real military works or should work. Or a corporation.

Transfers are a tricky thing. Should we grant all transfers or simply transfer people where they are needed?

There are a handful of us who know where we are needed and stay there, even if we don't like it. I would take a transfer if it was needed, even lose rank to do so. But the majority, especially new players, wouldn't like that. And I can see why.  After all, this is supposed to be a fun game, who wants to lose all the friends they've made on a ship just because another needs a spot?

Conversely, if the entire crew of the Disco uprooted itself and demanded transfer it would cause havoc and the SIMM would have to be closed.

With all that in mind, I think some finesse is required, but the needs of the Fleet should come first. If a player requests to be transferred and it won't work this should be explained to them in a courteous, respectful manner. Same goes for if a player is needed and must be transferred, although my vote there would be to have a veteran player who isn't going to quit over such be tapped for that.

[Archangel Koris]

But on the other hand, issues that affect the Fleet as whole should be open to debate. Apparently, that's not the case, never has been, and never will be, from the feedback I am getting.

[...]

I completely disagree, for what it's worth. Issues like new elements, boards, SIMMs, changing of rules, and general ideas should not only be discussed publically, but voted upon. This is never going to be the case, from the evidence I've seen here and in the past.

I was going to address this in post wall pt. 2 this evening, but since you've brought it up already, I'm going to put the short version up here.

No.

Simple as that.

There are two main reasons:  firstly being that we have a hierarchy here, a chain of command.  As such, the higher up you are, meaning the harder you've worked, the more power over what happens you get.  (badly explained, but I'll expand in my later post).

Secondly, too many players putting in their tuppence means that nothing will be decided on.  That's one reason that Europe doesn't actually work when you look closely at it.  The fewer people making the decisions, the easier it is for them to come to a solution.

Again, this is a short version.  I'll be detailing a lot more later, when I'm not up to my elbows in flour.

[Malcolm Adeyemi]

I was going to address this in post wall pt. 2 this evening, but since you've brought it up already, I'm going to put the short version up here.

No.

Simple as that.

There are two main reasons:  firstly being that we have a hierarchy here, a chain of command.  As such, the higher up you are, meaning the harder you've worked, the more power over what happens you get.  (badly explained, but I'll expand in my later post).

Secondly, too many players putting in their tuppence means that nothing will be decided on.  That's one reason that Europe doesn't actually work when you look closely at it.  The fewer people making the decisions, the easier it is for them to come to a solution.

Again, this is a short version.  I'll be detailing a lot more later, when I'm not up to my elbows in flour.

Allow me to preface this with some affirming words. Last time I spoke my mind it came out in the wrong order.

No matter what happens, I support and will continue to work hard for Shadow Fleet, the officers placed over me, and the officers and crew below me.

And yes, commander, I know. Right or wrong, that is the way it's always been and always will be. I'd be foolish to think it would ever change. I said as much in my post. I was merely raising the issue since you brought it up yourself.

Well, I've said my piece, and considering I am a CLO and will officially be taking up that role in 8 days (as far s I know) I don't have as much to complain about as some others might.

I look forward to reading your full post and thank you for taking the time out of making your baguettes or brioche or whatever it is the French are always baking.

[Gabriel Arthur]

I am not a part of every decision-making process on this site, and I am perfectly fine with that.

If you'll excuse me, I have some sausage to fry.

[Malcolm Adeyemi]

I am not a part of every decision-making process on this site, and I am perfectly fine with that.

If you'll excuse me, I have some sausage to fry.

I'm not either, and I don't want to be. The kinds of issues that should be handled "in house" by the brass should not up to debate. Who takes what position on what vessel, for example. Who gets transferred where. To open up these kinds of topics to the Fleet as a whole would be unwise.

What does need to be discussed as a group are large scale decisions that concern and effect the entire Fleet. New SIMMs, proposed changes to rules and policy, new programs, boards. These can effectively make or break us, and everyone deserves to have their voice be heard.

As far as your sausage analogy. It's cute. I get it. But I disagree with you.

I love sausage, too. Food is the closest thing I have to a religion. As such, I take great care of what I put into my body. I buy sausages because they're tasty, good for me, loaded with all the fat and protein that a growing boy needs. I'm a discerning customer of sausage because it has sustained me and I love it.

But if I had the choice I would certainly want to have a say as to what goes into my sausage. If the pigs or cows eat feed that is loaded with unhealthy additives, hormones, pesticides...that's not a healthy sausage.

If the time and money presented itself I would happily make my own sausage. This would guarantee a quality link that is not only good but good for me.

By the same token, I love the Fleet. Having been here for so long and having invested so much I cannot simply "take the butcher's word for it." If there's any way that I can improve it I will do so. I owe the Fleet that much, not to mention the people in it. This, in my mind, necessitates my finding out exactly what goes into the decisions made around here that effect all of us.

I'm not going to just sit idly by and unquestioningly accept every OOC decision that gets handed down to me. I want to know why. I want to know why because I want to make sure that it's the best possible solution or policy.

To make another analogy, if your paycheck was suddenly lighter by a few hundred dollars you'd certainly want to know why. You'd do research, you'd contact your elected officials to voice your opinion on it. You wouldn't simply throw up your hands, say, "Well, I like this country, so this new tax must be a good idea!"

Or maybe you would. I don't know. But for my money and sausage I'm going to get involved, like it or not.

[Gabriel Arthur]

I'm glad you think my analogy is cute (I strive for nothing less), I think you're inserting too much of a 'poor me' victim attitude into all of this.  I don't think anyone's specifically trying to make your voice not heard.

In fact...all I'm hearing from you right now is what sounds like whining based on the fact that you can't stand decisions being made without you.  It's gonna happen.  It's a fact of life.

By the same token, I love the Fleet. Having been here for so long and having invested so much I cannot simply Á,"œtake the butcher's word for it.Á," If there's any way that I can improve it I will do so. I owe the Fleet that much, not to mention the people in it. This, in my mind, necessitates my finding out exactly what goes into the decisions made around here that effect all of us.

I'm not going to just sit idly by and unquestioningly accept every OOC decision that gets handed down to me. I want to know why. I want to know why because I want to make sure that it's the best possible solution or policy.

I love the fleet, too.  I have invested much, and have been here a year.  You haven't been here that much longer than me.  Are you insinuating that those who might be inclined to take the butcher's word because they trust the butcher somehow don't love the site as much?  I'm confused.

You seem to be confusing 'trusting the admiralty' with 'being a drone'.  If that's the case...well, it's beyond the context of this particular issue.

To make another analogy, if your paycheck was suddenly lighter by a few hundred dollars you'd certainly want to know why. You'd do research, you'd contact your elected officials to voice your opinion on it. You wouldn't simply throw up your hands, say, Á,"œWell, I like this country, so this new tax must be a good idea!Á,"

Or maybe you would. I don't know. But for my money and sausage I'm going to get involved, like it or not.

...I got nothin', dude.  Dunno WTF you're even getting at.

You're not doing your argument any favors.

[Malcolm Adeyemi]

I'm glad you think my analogy is cute (I strive for nothing less), I think you're inserting too much of a 'poor me' victim attitude into all of this.  I don't think anyone's specifically trying to make your voice not heard.

In fact...all I'm hearing from you right now is what sounds like whining based on the fact that you can't stand decisions being made without you.  It's gonna happen.  It's a fact of life.

I was speaking on behalf of all of us, not me. In fact, as a CLO I'd like to think I have a bit more say and insight into what's being handed down. It would be ideal if everyone else does when it counts, too.

I love the fleet, too.  I have invested much, and have been here a year.  You haven't been here that much longer than me.  Are you insinuating that those who might be inclined to take the butcher's word because they trust the butcher somehow don't love the site as much?  I'm confused.

I was saying that some others might be content enough to accept what they're being told on face value. I don't count myself among those ranks, specifically because I like it here so much and have been here for a long time. Whether there's a correlation between those that do and my not...not sure. Those are just my reasons for doing so.

You seem to be confusing 'trusting the admiralty' with 'being a drone'.  If that's the case...well, it's beyond the context of this particular issue.

I don't. I've said before I trust the brass at heart. I just think their methods are flawed.

...I got nothin', dude.  Dunno WTF you're even getting at.

If all the sudden the government decided to take more out of your paycheck: would you ask why? Or just because you like what you do, or where you live, would you not do anything about it? I was drawing a parallel between that and you accepting a new policy from the brass in the Fleet.

You're not doing your argument any favors.

I have the exact opposite of an argument. I waded into this knowing full well nothing would change. This topic pops up every few months on the boards and there's been no discernible progress on it whatsoever. We're told to like it or lump it when it comes to the big plays. This is wrong. But it's also never going to change. Since Archangel brought it up I thought I'd add two cents, that's all.

[Gabriel Arthur]

I have the exact opposite of an argument. I waded into this knowing full well nothing would change. This topic pops up every few months on the boards and there's been no discernible progress on it whatsoever. We're told to like it or lump it when it comes to the big plays. This is wrong. But it's also never going to change. Since Archangel brought it up I thought I'd add two cents, that's all.

Honestly, Mr. Stafford?  I think you're just enjoying playing the victim.

I'm not that interested in discussing it with you anymore.