Posted by Vice Admiral Sarah Hemenway (President) in Proposal: Additional FCOMM Changes

Posted by Commodore Geoff Joosten (FComm, Meridian Fleet / AGMDir) in Proposal: Additional FCOMM Changes

Posted by Fleet Captain Adam W. (EGO) in Proposal: Additional FCOMM Changes
Some background. I’m aware I’ve brought up a few issues recently with this bylaw that others may not see as issues. I believe I’m critiquing bylaw wording more literally than others and at first I didn’t realize why that was. Most days at my job I spend time reviewing internal instructions that need to be used by people who may have no knowledge aside from the instructions what it is they need to make. I’ve been viewing our bylaws the same way, assuming that newer members without as much common knowledge will one day read them and try to understand the structure of STF primarily from them. Not long ago we had a newer member President interpret the phrase “CO experience” in an unexpected and literal way that surprised some who took for granted assumed meaning that wasn’t actually written. The more clearly our bylaws reflect what the majority thinks they mean the less often we’ll need to have avoidable confusion and debates.

I’ve already raised in response to Katy’s proposal amending the definition of Standard Ships suggestions that would incorporate the commonly held view that Standard Ships are to hold to canon more closely than Alt RPG Ships, so I won’t propose anything on that here.

I suggest amending this sentence in the Assistant Fleet Commander paragraph:

“Each Fleet Commander is required to appoint a single Assistant Fleet Commander.”

To:

“Each Fleet Commander is required to appoint an Assistant Fleet Commander.”

Seeing as we just had a Fleet Commander appoint an Assistant Fleet Commander and a Second Assistant Fleet Commander and no one objected to an FComm wanting to train more people, it would be better to avoid wording that implies a Fleet Commander can’t have two assistants with “Assistant Fleet Commander” in their titles. The word “single” adds no value and, at least for me, makes me think it is meant as a limitation.

I agree with this section whole heartily and believe it should be made.

I don’t actually agree with this. In several places, the AFComm is part of the chain of command (e.g. the FComm is the CO of a ship in question) and, therefore, there needs to be a clearcut designation of who THE AFComm is. The key point that was made with the Foremost Fleet situation is that none of the Fleet powers were being delegated to the training position, so it didn’t fall under FCOMM. If we want to explicitly allow training positions, then I would rather see wording like this:

“Each Fleet Commander is required to appoint a single Assistant Fleet Commander. A Fleet Commander may appoint additional training roles within the Fleet; however, he or she may not delegate any official power to these roles.”

I think that’s better than what it says now and adds clarity. I’d be okay with it.

In addition, I suggest amending this sentence in the Commanding Officer Restrictions section:

“That means that no player may hold two DH positions on a single ship at once, or a Command position and a DH position on a single ship at once.”

To either:

“That means that no player may hold two DH positions on a single ship at once, or a Command position (including GM) and a DH position on a single ship at once.”

Or to:

“That means that no player may hold two DH positions on a single ship at once, or a Command position (CO or XO) and a DH position on a single ship at once.”

I imagine some think it is obvious that this means one of these sentences or the other. I’ve seen this one get interpreted by people both ways, though most commonly the first way. I don’t really care which it is, but I would like it more clearly stated who this is talking about, as is done in the AWOL Limit portion of this bylaw.

Do these adjustments only serve to add clarity without a downside? I think that is the question to answer.

Adam W.

This second part I am a little softer on. I think the second sentence is more accurate as we have CO/GM as a specific mission type defined in OGRE. We have, on occasion, also had XO/GM sims. I think the second sentence is the most technically accurate.

Geoff

That’s a good point. It doesn’t make sense for there to be certain situations where someone can be CO / GM, yet no situations where someone can be DH / GM.

I don’t believe GM positions are considered Command positions under FCOMM because OGRE regulates GMs, not FCOMM. I wonder if there is an elegant way to make this clear.

Sarah

While a GM’s posting limit would be a counter-example, generally I agree. Most regulation on GM’s should be in OGRE.

Here’s the wording in the bylaw again, only this time with the whole paragraph:

“Second Player Characters are restricted to JOs and below. That means that no player may hold two DH positions on a single ship at once, or a Command position and a DH position on a single ship at once. Acting DH, Acting XO and Acting CO do not apply to these restrictions.”

My suggestion is just adding “nor do gamemaster positions” to the end of this.

Adam W.